Posted: Tue 16 Oct 2007 14:53 Post subject: H-South thread with James W. Loewen
A recent thread on the H-South discussion network may be of interest to members of this discussion group.
James W. Loewen is the author of several outstanding books that examine the U.S. color line. He is among the few professional historians writing today who respects verifiable, factual reality more than he does the official "party line." Among his most important works are: The Mississippi Chinese: Between Black and White (Cambridge MA: Harvard University, 1971); Lies my Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong (New York: The New Press, 1999); and Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism (New York: W.W. Norton, 2005).
On 11 October 2007, Dr. Loewen posted:
Jim Loewen wrote:
From: Jim Loewen [mailto:jloewen@uvm.edu]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: Little Rock 1957 and beyond
Author's Subject: Re: Little Rock 1957 and beyond
Date Written: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:48:25 -0400
Date Posted: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:48:25 -0400
Thanks to Hugh Lawson for providing links to two articles about blacks in Canada. As someone who has done a lot of research about the exclusion of blacks from towns and counties across the U.S. (SUNDOWN TOWNS came out two years ago), I have to say his claim that Canada kept out blacks is not quite proven. I suspect it cannot be.
The first link says nothing about exclusion. It merely shows that Canada's black population remained low -- indeed, suspiciously low, sometimes even declining -- for decade after decade. This is parallel to what I have found in county after county across the North (and the "nontraditional" South) between 1890 and 1940. Initially I had thought this was due to chance. Why should blacks go everywhere? But the astounding evidence of intentional exclusion that I have found in hundreds, even thousands of communities even in out-of-the-way places like the UP of Michigan and the panhandle of Idaho convinced me that these places were probably not white by accident.
Nevertheless, we have to have evidence of exclusion, not just evidence of whiteness. Lawson's second link, "How they kept Canada almost lily white," almost gets to that point. It notes that Canada came close to passing an exclusion "bill" (not the right term for this then-colony of Great Britain) in 1911, but did not quite do so. In SUNDOWN TOWNS I reproduce this key document (Portfolio #17) and discuss the matter. The article goes on to show that immigration officials clearly discriminated against black applicants, but the discrimination did not rise to the level of complete prohibition. Some trickled through, and the country never claimed to keep them out.
It's important information, nevertheless. Thanks again for providing it, Hugh. It shows the the "Nadir of race relations," emphasized by historians Rayford Logan and C. Vann Woodward, not only was a Southern phenomenon, but also a Northern, even Canadian one.
By the way, if any readers know of communities in the US (or Canada, for that matter) that had official or unofficial policy to keep out black residents (or Jews, Chinese Americans, etc.), do let me know. I'm trying to develop a complete list (a Sisyphus task!) at my website, www.uvm.edu/~jloewen. Thank you.
--
James W. Loewen, best email address: jloewen@uvm.edu
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 16 Oct 2007 16:56; edited 1 time in total
From: Frank W Sweet [mailto:fwsweet@backintyme.com]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: Little Rock 1957 and beyond
Author's Subject: Re: Little Rock 1957 and beyond
Date Written: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:30:28 -0400
Date Posted: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:30:28 -0400
Jim Loewen wrote: It merely shows that Canada's black population remained low -- indeed, suspiciously low, sometimes even declining -- for decade after decade. This is parallel to what I have found in county after county across the North (and the "nontraditional" South) between 1890 and 1940. Initially I had thought this was due to chance. Why should blacks go everywhere?
It may be impolitic to point this out, but people do intermarry. And kids with one "Black" grandparent and three "White" ones are "White" in any objective sense. There have been several cases in this hemisphere (the most famous being George Reid Andrews's Afro-Argentines of Buenos Aires) where an African-looking population was genetically absorbed. Judging by DNA admixture mapping of White Americans, the U.S. has not been exempt from this process.
From: Jim Loewen [mailto:jloewen@uvm.edu]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: Understanding Race - new thread from Little Rock 1957 and beyond
Author's Subject: Re: Little Rock 1957 and beyond
Date Written: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:00:26 -0400
Date Posted: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:00:26 -0400
Frank Sweet wrote, "...people do intermarry. And kids with one "Black" grandparent and three "White" ones are "White" in any objective sense."
There is no meaning to the word "objective" in the former sentence. Race, as well as such racial classifications as "black," "Negro," "mulatto" (a term that should be retired), etc., are socially defined and legally defined; the latter is by state law in the US, as well as Census Bureau practice. I know of no state that defined folks who "were" 1/4 black as "white." Some states did do this for people 1/8 black; others, most notoriously VA, said ANY known black ancestor ("one drop" rule) made one "black." Of course, there is always the further question, if a grandparent were socially and legally defined as "black," does that mean they were "all" black for the purpose of the legal (and social) question in later generations? It is of course a quagmire, especially "objectively."
One of the best known legal cases came from Jones County, MS, involving descendants of the famous Unionist Newt Knight; this case has been widely written about and forms a core element in at least one novel.
Of course, many blacks passed, avoiding challenge, usually by moving to another region. Sometimes they stayed put and yet got redefined. I have learned of cases where towns with black populations went "white" not only through driving out their black populations but also through redefining the remnant that remained. The evidence isn't quite solid enough (yet) for me to print it or know it for sure. This would be around the 1890s, when it was no longer as acceptable to be black, as the Nadir of race relations set in.
--
James W. Loewen, best email address: jloewen@uvm.edu
From: Frank W Sweet [mailto:fwsweet@backintyme.com]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: Understanding Race - new thread from Little Rock 1957 and beyond
Author's Subject: Re: Understanding Race - new thread from Little Rock 1957 and
Date Written: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:46:44 -0400
Date Posted: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:46:44 -0400
Jim Loewen wrote: There is no meaning to the word "objective" in the sentence [Kids with one "Black" grandparent and three "White" ones are "White" in any objective sense."].
Sorry to be unclear. I was merely pointing out that any attempt to impose a genetic definition of the color line fails, no matter what criterion is applied. DNA mapping shows that millions of so-called U.S. "Whites" have more sub-Saharan admixture than tens of thousands of so-called "Blacks." Phenotype (skin tone, hair texture, facial features) also fails. Thousands of Puerto Rican and other biracial families have siblings who, to U.S. eyes, fall on opposite sides of the color line. See http://onedroprule.org/about1567.html for dozens of photos of Americans who are utterly "White-looking," but are proud to have "Black" parents.
Jim Loewen wrote: I know of no state that defined folks who "were" 1/4 black as "white." Some states did do this for people 1/8 black; others, most notoriously VA, said ANY known black ancestor ("one drop" rule) made one "black." Of course, there is always the further question, if a grandparent were socially and legally defined as "black," does that mean they were "all" black for the purpose of the legal (and social) question in later generations?
Since I have enormous respect for Jim's work, it gives me great (and humbling) pleasure to point him in the direction of some court cases that may resolve his uncertainty.
Regarding one-fourth in Virginia, we should note that Eston Hemings was recorded as "White" in the 1830 Charlottesville census and living with his "Colored" mother. Also, the Supreme Court of Virginia in McPherson v. Commonwealth, 1877 (69 Va. 939) ruled that since Rowena McPherson's Black grandmother had a trace of White blood (Rowena's other three grandparents were White), then Rowena was White as well.
The decision enforced the Virginia statute in effect since 1785, and it was followed as precedent until Walter Plecker's notorious one-drop law of 1924. The Supreme Court ruled that Rowena was White because, "Less than one-fourth of her blood is Negro blood. If it be but one drop less, she is not a negro." (Incidentally, Ohio had a one-half law at the time--you were White if you were more White than Black.)
The question of recursion (if an ancestor was over-the-line Black, did this count as "Black" for blood-fraction statutes) was addressed many times by state supreme courts over the past two centuries. The notion was usually ridiculed by courts since it made a mockery of statutory blood-fraction definitions. The most famous reductio ad absurdum of this argument was by the Alabama Supreme Court in Thurman v. State, 1850 (18 Ala. 276): "If the statute against mulattoes is by construction to include quadroons, then where are we to stop? If we take the first step by construction, are we not bound to pursue the line of descendants, so long as there is a drop of Negro blood remaining?" This was the first recorded instance of the term "one drop" in a supreme court ruling. It considered the notion nonsensical. Of course, as we all know, with the approach of the twentieth century and Jim Crow, courts and legislators began to adopt the one-drop rule
Jim Loewen wrote: Sometimes they stayed put and yet got redefined.
Jim makes an important point. It is a long-standing U.S. tradition that someone who has sub-Saharan ancestry and "Black-looking" relatives, but who neither "looks Black," nor was raised as Black, nor considers himself Black, is somehow deceiving society. It is time that this notion was retired.
Posted: Tue 16 Oct 2007 15:26 Post subject: Jim Loewen
fwsweet wrote:
On 15 October 2007, Loewen replied:
Jim Loewen wrote:
From: Jim Loewen [mailto:jloewen@uvm.edu]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: Understanding Race - new thread from Little Rock 1957 and beyond
Author's Subject: Re: Little Rock 1957 and beyond
Date Written: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:00:26 -0400
Date Posted: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:00:26 -0400
Frank Sweet wrote, "...people do intermarry. And kids with one "Black" grandparent and three "White" ones are "White" in any objective sense."
There is no meaning to the word "objective" in the former sentence. Race, as well as such racial classifications as "black," "Negro," "mulatto" (a term that should be retired), etc., are socially defined and legally defined; the latter is by state law in the US, as well as Census Bureau practice. I know of no state that defined folks who "were" 1/4 black as "white." Some states did do this for people 1/8 black; others, most notoriously VA, said ANY known black ancestor ("one drop" rule) made one "black." Of course, there is always the further question, if a grandparent were socially and legally defined as "black," does that mean they were "all" black for the purpose of the legal (and social) question in later generations? It is of course a quagmire, especially "objectively."
One of the best known legal cases came from Jones County, MS, involving descendants of the famous Unionist Newt Knight; this case has been widely written about and forms a core element in at least one novel.
Of course, many blacks passed, avoiding challenge, usually by moving to another region. Sometimes they stayed put and yet got redefined. I have learned of cases where towns with black populations went "white" not only through driving out their black populations but also through redefining the remnant that remained. The evidence isn't quite solid enough (yet) for me to print it or know it for sure. This would be around the 1890s, when it was no longer as acceptable to be black, as the Nadir of race relations set in.
--
James W. Loewen, best email address: jloewen@uvm.edu
Loewen seems to be upset at the thought of whites having black ancestry and writes with the assumption that such people are always "blacks" merely "passing for white." Loewen's obsession with the letter of the blood fraction laws (some did allow 1/4 "black blood") ignores the importance of "performing whiteness." Race classification trials often depended on evidence of one's "white" behavior and the behavior of one's immediate family. This means, of course, that individuals and families did have some control over whether they could claim whiteness (as opposed to the popular fictional melodrama of being "doomed" by "one drop of blood.").
Loewen also gives the impression that he considers knowingly absorbing whiter members of the "Mulatto Elite" (described as "blacks" without qualification) into the white population as being evidence of racism similar if not equal to banning blacks from town. I think this is because so many white liberal scholars have been thoroughly schooled in the "one drop" and anti-"passing" bias of their black-identified colleagues.
Some references Loewen should have known:
The Free State of Jones: Mississippi's Longest Civil War by Victoria E. Bynum. Descendants of "white" Newt Knight and "light mulatto" ex-slave Rachel Knight are "white" in Mississippi.
"Miscegenation and the Free Negro (sic) in Antebellum 'Anglo' Alabama: A Reexamination of Southern Race Relations" by Gary B. Mills in The Journal of American History, Vol. 6, No. 1, June 1981. Pp. 16-34.
Check pages 27 through 31 of this long article and you will see where Mills shows that families of known racially mixed ancestry moved from "colored" to "white" status within a generation or two with the knowledge and consent of the white community. This information totally contradicts the myth of "passing" in secret and fear.
"Race and Kinship in a Midwestern Town: The Black (sic) Experience in Monroe, Michigan, 1900-1915" by James E. DeVries -- University of Illinois Press.
DeVries plainly states that the white community of Monroe, Michigan accepted the mobility of part-black whites into the white community. This again contradicts the "passing" myth. DeVries, however, is too much of a "liberal" racist to admit that and offend black elites. He even goes so far as to suggest that the white community of Monroe was "racist" for accepting part- black whites into the white community. Damned if you do and damned if you don't!
A quote from the book: "Crossing over was not the silent mechanism that some historians have indicated. It involved not only racial heritage but, ironically, family and personal identity. Could an individual known to have an African ancestry be regarded and defined as white? Yes, the interracial backgrounds and unions off the Fosters and Duncansons were matters of public knowledge. Each of the families had a long, continuous heritage in Monroe, and descendants residing in the community today beat no stigma of race and are generally viewed as Caucasian." (P. 150)
Posted: Tue 16 Oct 2007 15:37 Post subject: Loewen and Racial Integrity Law
By the way, Virginia's infamous "one drop" law said that ANY "non-Caucasic blood" (nonwhite ancestry) except for American Indian blood was banned from the "white race." Funny how the fact that "one drop" could apply to nonblack "blood" is somehow forgotten.
1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the State Registrar of Vital Statistics may as soon as practicable after the taking effect of this act, prepare a form whereon the racial composition of any individual, as Caucasian, negro, Mongolian, American Indian, Asiatic Indian, Malay, or any mixture thereof, or any other non-Caucasic strains, and if there be any mixture, then the racial composition of the parents and other ancestors, in so far as ascertainable, so as to show in what generation such mixture occurred, may be certified by such individual, which form shall be known as a registration certificate. The State Registrar may supply to each local registrar a sufficient number of such forms for the purpose of this act; each local registrar may personally or by deputy, as soon as possible after receiving said forms, have made thereon in duplicate a certificate of the racial composition as aforesaid, of each person resident in his district, who so desires, born before June fourteenth, nineteen hundred and twelve, which certificate shall be made over the signature of said person, or in the case of children under fourteen years of age, over the signature of a parent, guardian, or other person standing in loco parentis. One of said certificates for each person thus registering in every district shall be forwarded to the State Registrar for his files; the other shall be kept on file by the local registrar.
Every local registrar may, as soon as practicable, have such registration certificate made by or for each person in his district who so desires, born before June fourteen, nineteen hundred and twelve, for whom he has not on file a registration certificate, or a birth certificate.
2. It shall be a felony for any person wilfully or knowingly to make a registration certificate false as to color or race. The wilful making of a false registration or birth certificate shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
3. For each registration certificate properly made and returned to the State Registrar, the local registrar returning the same shall be entitled to a fee of twenty-five cents, to be paid by the registrant. Application for registration and for transcript may be made direct to the State Registrar, who may retain the fee for expenses of his office.
4. No marriage license shall be granted until the clerk or deputy clerk has reasonable assurance that the statements as to color of both man and woman are correct.
If there is reasonable cause to disbelieve that applicants are of pure white race, when that fact is stated, the clerk or deputy clerk shall withhold the granting of the license until satisfactory proof is produced that both applicants are "white persons" as provided for in this act.
The clerk or deputy clerk shall use the same care to assure himself that both applicants are colored, when that fact is claimed.
5. It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term "white person" shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this act.
6. For carrying out the purposes of this act and to provide the necessary clerical assistance, postage and other expenses of the State Registrar of Vital Statistics, twenty per cent of the fees received by local registrars under this act shall be paid to the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, which may be expended by the said bureau for the purposes of this act.
7. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act are, to the extent of such inconsistency, hereby repealed.
Appendix (excerpt)
Alexander Francis Chamberlain, A.M., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Clark University...says: "In some regions considerable intermixture between negroes and Indians (Science, New York, Vol. XVII, 1891 pp. 85-90), has occurred, e.g., among the Pamunkeys, Mattoponies, and some other small Virginia and Carolinian tribes." "It is also thought probable that many of the negroes of the whole lower Atlantic coast and Gulf region may have strains of Indian blood." This probably accounts for the increasing number of negroes who are now writing to our Bureau demanding that the color on their birth certificates and marriage licenses be given as "Indian."
The Amherst-Rockbridge group is the most notable example.
Posted: Tue 16 Oct 2007 16:42 Post subject: Re: Jim Loewen
Powell wrote:
Loewen seems to be upset at the thought of whites having black ancestry and writes with the assumption that such people are always "blacks" merely "passing for white." ... etc.
To give Loewen credit, I get the impression that he is more open to factual reality than most professional historians today. To my knowledge he is the only one who shows that in many ways Jim Crow was as bad (or worse in some ways) in the North as in the South. And he is a far cry from the worst of the lot, who lack even the ability to reason logically (see, for instance, the appeals-to-authority based on Risch's bizarre conclusions in the same H-South thread).
As you say, several researchers have pointed out the ubiquity of acceptance into Whiteness of families with known Black ancestry, across the nation and throughout its history. (By the way, I was suprised that you did not also name Ariela Gross, although you mentioned her work.) But those few are shouting to deaf ears.
The one-drop rule, and its corollary--that "passing" is somehow reprehensible or treasonous--has an unbelievably tenacious strangle-hold on the minds of U.S. humanities scholars. Almost all believe what they learned in childhood (at the end of the Jim Crow period). And they simply cannot shake it. First-hand evidence, logic, scientific findings, even personal introduction to people with African ancestry and Black-looking relatives, but who could never be considered Black in a million years (like me, say) cannot change their prejudices no matter how hard they try. Those who focus on phenotype say that such individuals are not "really Black" and those who focus on ancestry say that they are not "really White." It is hopeless to reason with such people. One can only pity them and hope that U.S. scholarship eventually recovers from the damage that they inflicted, after they have passed away.
In my view, Jim Loewen has more intellectual integrity that most. He is blinded somewhat by the U.S. "race" notion, and his work suffers accordingly. But he seems to trust primary raw data (most turn their backs on it), and he seems willing to consider the possibility that White "racial" purity is a bad joke (most follow Barbara Fields's lead and simply accuse you of "racism" if you challenge this prejudice). His integrity in this regard is the reason I respond only to his messages. I hold in contempt the others who have opined on "race" in that H-South thread. I would rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick than dignify their irrationality by answering them.
Continuing the thread, here is a peculiarly ignorant fragment of a long message by a Black Studies teacher at the University of Delaware.
Arica L. Coleman wrote:
From: makeda4@aol.com [mailto:makeda4@aol.com]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: "race" in VA
Author's Subject: Re: "race" in VA
Date Written: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:34:13 -0400
Date Posted: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:34:13 -0400
Loewen stated: ... Some slave states never passed a law prohibiting such
marriages ...
Regarding slave states that did not pass anti-miscegenation laws, I would really like to know which ones as I cannot think of a single slave state that did not pass anti-miscegenation laws which forbade blacks from marrying whites.
Arica L. Coleman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Black American Studies University of Delaware
acoleman@udel,edu
And here is my reply.
fwsweet wrote:
From: Frank W Sweet [mailto:fwsweet@backintyme.com]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: "race" in VA
Author's Subject: Re: "race" in VA
Date Written: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:52:27 -0400
Date Posted: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:52:27 -0400
Arica L. Coleman wrote: Regarding slave states that did not pass anti-miscegenation laws, I would really like to know which ones. I cannot think of a single slave state that did not pass anti-miscegenation laws which forbade blacks from marrying whites.
I would be deeply grateful if Dr. Coleman could suggest a source (preferably a primary source) showing any South Carolina statute prohibiting intermarriage before the 1895 constitution. I believe that the first statutory prohibition of intermarriage in South Carolina was in 1895, thirty years after slavery ended.
Indeed, I believe that the first statutory definition of who was Black or White in South Carolina was also in 1895. There was earlier South Carolina caselaw (as opposed to statutes) regarding who was White or Black. The applicable caselaw was set by Supreme Court Justice William Harper in State v. Cantey, 1835 (2 Hill 614) who ruled that social status, not ancestry, was the determining factor. But regarding intermarriage, I have been unable to find any primary source showing such a prohibition in either statute or caselaw in South Carolina before 1895.
Frank W. Sweet
Backintyme Publishing
Arica L. Coleman wrote:
My area of expertise is Virginia, so please feel free to jump in and correct me where I have erred. Here is what I know or at least think I know.
As you are aware South Carolina, and you are no doubt thinking of Charleston, is an interesting case for while they openly flaunted interracial liaisons (this mostly involved white men with women of color) which gave the appearance that their views were far more liberal regarding miscegenation, South Carolina legislators sought to pull in the reins on what it deemed illicit sex relations. The first anti-miscegenation law passed in South Carolina was the 1717 statute "An Act for the Better Governing and Regulating White Servants." This law did not involve the slave population as South Carolina officials for some reason didn't think the issue had anything to do with slaves. Nonetheless, the penalty for a white woman having a child with a black man was seven years of servitude. If she was already a servant her term was extended and she had to pay damages. If her black male partner was free he had to serve a term of seven years as well. If the male were white and the woman black his penalty was similar to that of his white female counterpart. Even if the woman was free, the children were subject to servitude due to their parents' violation. Male children were sentenced to 20 years servitude while the term of servitude for females was 18. As Judge Higginbothom states, "this process repudiated the current colonial doctrine of partus sequitur ventrem, where the status of the child followed was determined by the status of the mother," See A. Leon Higginbotham "In the Matter of Color: Race and the American Legal Process: The Colonial Period, Oxford University Press, 1978, 158 - 159.
While the legislation, not surprisingly, failed to curb interracial liaisons, a South Carolina grand jury issued a statement condemning white - black interracial liaisons in a March 28, 1743 notice in the South Carolina Gazette calling it "THE TOO COMMON PRACTICE OF CRIMINAL CONVERSATION WITH NEGRO and the other SLAVE WENCHES IN THIS PROVINCE, as an Enormity and Evil of general Ill-Consequences." See Winthrop Jordon, White Over Black: American Attitudes Towards the Negro, University of North Carolina Press, 138-139. It seems that South Carolina officials finally figured out that cross racial liaisons occurred among the slave population as well. Much of the flaunting in Charleston and perhaps other parts of South Carolina pertained to the advantage white men took in having open access to the black female body. Black male and white female liaisons, as in most cases, was perhaps another matter.
Hence of the colonies, two northern and all plantation colonies forbade interracial liaisons between whites and blacks. It appears that South Carolina's anti-miscegenation law, while openly disregarded, remained on the books until the Reconstruction period. The law was reinforced in 1865 under South Carolina's Black codes, reenacted in 1866, repealed in 1868, reinstated in 1879, enacted in its Constitution in 1895 reenacted to include Asians, Indians, and other people of color in 1932 and 1952 (penalties were increased with each reenactment), overturned in 1968 (Loving v Virginia), officially taken off the books in 1998.
Arica L. Coleman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Black American Studies University of Delaware
fwsweet wrote:
I thank Dr. Coleman for responding to thoroughly and promptly. Unfortunately, I was unclear as to what I was seeking. It is entirely my fault.
I apparently conveyed that I sought examples of laws against fornication, adultery, incest, or other sins of the flesh. Instead, what I meant to convey was my search for laws against _marriage_ (def: The union of a couple of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by society).
Laws against extramarital sex and procreation, of which Dr. Coleman has provided excellent examples, were ubiquitous throughout Christendom since the Reformation. Indeed, in Florida today it is still technically a crime for an unmarried couple of opposite sex to spend the night under the same roof. I may also have been unclear that I do not seek examples of laws nullifying marriage between chattel, since such laws were also found throughout British North America.
Perhaps I should explain that I am a student of the U.S. color line itself--the endogamous barrier that has preserved two distinct genetic populations in North America for three centuries now. It is a unique phenomenon. Many others before me have also recognized the importance of the forbidding _marriage_ (as opposed to mere sex).
Gunnar Myrdal wrote: The ban on intermarriage has the highest place in the white man's rank order of social segregation and discrimination. Sexual segregation is the most pervasive form of segregation, and the concern about "race purity" is, in a sense, basic. No other way of crossing the color line is so attended by the emotion commonly associated with violating a social taboo as intermarriage and extra-marital relations between a Negro man and a white woman. No excuse for other forms of social segregation and discrimination is so potent as the one that sociable relations on an equal basis between members of the two races may possibly lead to intermarriage.
Dinnerstein and Reimers wrote: The importance of [marriage] cannot be overstated. The family is the primary social unit in society, and as families mix, so do other institutions. In other words, intermarriage is the ultimate form of ethnic assimilation.
Milton M. Gordon wrote: Recent studies have pointed to the role of intimate equal-status contact between members of majority and minority groups in reducing prejudice. Structural separation, by definition, denotes a situation in which primary group contacts between members of various ethnic groups are held to a minimum, even though secondary contacts on the job, on the civic scene, and in other areas of impersonal contact may abound. In view of the tendency of human beings to categorize in their psychic perceptions and reactions and to form in-groups and, frequently, out-groups on the basis of familiar experiences and contacts, it may plausibly be argued that just as intimate primary group relations tend to reduce prejudice, a lack of such contacts tends to produce hostile ethnic attitudes.
Indeed, it is hard to think of any scholar of the color line who has not remarked on the disconnect between U.S. society's approval (or not) of interracial _sex_ and its disapproval (or not) or interracial _marriage_. In colonial times, interracial _sex_ was punished. But during Jim Crow it was either winked at or given as the excuse for ritualized public human sacrifice. Interracial _marriage_, on the other hand, was outlawed after about 1700 in most British North American colonies, became legal again in 1967, but even today Black/White _marriage_ (as opposed to mere sex) is harshly discouraged by social pressure.
Again, I thank Dr. Coleman for the information, and I accept full blame for being unclear.
Frank W. Sweet
Backintyme Publishing
Last edited by fwsweet on Sat 20 Oct 2007 12:53; edited 2 times in total
Here is an odd message from the official Virginia state library.
Brent Tarter wrote:
From: Tarter, Brent (LVA) [mailto:Brent.Tarter@lva.virginia.gov]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: "race" in VA
Author's Subject: RE: "race" in VA
Date Written: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:54:44 -0400
Date Posted: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:54:44 -0400
I do not have resouces at hand to check for earlier dates, but I am quite certain that the 1705 revision of the laws of Virginia made interracial marriage illegal, but it is possible that an earlier law had already done that. Check Peter Walenstein's "Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law, An American History" (2002).
From: Frank W Sweet [mailto:fwsweet@backintyme.com]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: "race" in VA
Author's Subject: Re: "race" in VA]
Date Written: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:29:52 -0400
Date Posted: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:29:52 -0400
Brent Tarter wrote: I am quite certain that the 1705 revision of the laws of Virginia made interracial marriage illegal, but it is possible that an earlier law had already done that.
Actually, the Virginia statute that first outlawed intermarriage was passed in 1691. See William Waller Hening, _The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619_, Richmond [Va.]: Printed by and for Samuel Pleasants Junior printer to the Commonwealth, 1809, pages 86-87. The 1705 law that Brent Tarter refers to was passed 14 years later and merely clarified who fell on which side of the color line. Since intermarriage had been legal until 1691, many Virginia colonists at the turn of the 18th century had both African and European ancestry. The 1705 law established a 1/8 blood fraction law (having a single 100-percent-African great-grandparent made you Black). This was superseded in 1785 by the 1/4 blood-fraction law described in an earlier message.
Here is an interesting message from someone who, in other posts, has argued in favor of the biological reality of "race."
Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
From: Clayton E. Cramer [mailto:clayton@claytoncramer.com]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: "race" in VA
Author's Subject: Re: "race" in VA
Date Written: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:28:23 -0400
Date Posted: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:28:23 -0400
One aspect to Maryland's interracial marriage laws that has always fascinated me, because it suggests that the Maryland legislature recognized the radical transformation that they were engaged in, is how at first they only punished interracial marriage, but still recognized its validity. The 1664 statute at Archives of Maryland 1:533-4 specifies that "freeborne English women forgetfull of their free Condicon" would be slaves for the lives of their husbands, and the children would be slaves as well. The 1692 statute at Archives of Maryland 13:546-9 has a more complex punishment scheme, and clarified that slaves and their children were slaves for life. But they still recognized interracial marriages. It does not seem that interracial marriage was actually prohibited until 1717, at Archives of Maryland 33:112--and this one applies to both slaves and free blacks.
My first guess (in the absence of any evidence one way or the other) is that Maryland knew that they were engaged in a very radical transformation, by imposing racial restrictions on a Christian sacrament--something, to my knowledge, that no Christian nation had ever done before.
Clayton E. Cramer wrote: My first guess (in the absence of any evidence one way or the other) is that Maryland knew that they were engaged in a very radical transformation, by imposing racial restrictions on a Christian sacrament--something, to my knowledge, that no Christian nation had ever done before.
Although there were other things going on in their minds (more about this later) I agree that they did not want to just jump in and outlaw a sacrament. You see the same tentative approach in Jamestown in the interracial fornication trials of Robert Sweat (European) in 1640 and nine years later of William Watts (European) and Mary (African).
As Mr. Cramer implies, the Chesapeake was a small cog in a large colonial machine. The idea of interfering with the matrimonial bond between individuals would have been rejected in Florida (Spanish under the laws of Alfonso X until 1821) or in the Francophone Gulf coast (under the Code Noir). Such a ban was never even contemplated in South Carolina. In other British colonies where a law forbade ministers from administering a sacrament to Africans (baptism in Barbados), the law was surreptitiously ignored.
Virginia was able to move ahead with outlawing intermarriage faster than Maryland because its church had come under the thumb of the gentry. The unique chain of events (starting with Cromwell) that handed clerical power to the landed gentry only in Virginia is described in Herbert S. Klein, "Anglicanism, Catholicism, and the Negro Slave," in _Slavery in the New World: A Reader in Comparative History_, ed. Laura Foner and Eugene D. Genovese (Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1969), 138-66.
The other thing on the legislators' minds was that they were trying to hammer out a notion of "race" as separate from "class" or "religion," something that had never been done before. To us, the difference between slavery and indentured servitude is straightforward: the former form of involuntary labor is life-long and hereditary; the latter is not. But this is obvious to us only because we are heirs to their thinking. For example, look closely at the 1664 Maryland law:
===blockquote starts===
For deterring such free borne women from such shamefull Matches... whatsoever free borne woman shall inter marry with any slave... shall Serve the master of such slave dureing the life of her husband And that all the issue of such freeborne woemen soe marryed shall be Slaves as their fathers were.
===blockquote ends===
Almost everyone today reads this law as punishing interracial marriages. But read it again. It makes no mention of "race," color, nor continent of ancestry. A careful reading shows something quite different. It punished inter-class marriages. It did not punish free Europeans who married free Africans, nor did it punish forced-laborer Europeans who married forced-laborer Africans. It forbade only marriages between free women (of any ancestry) and slaves (of any ancestry). Of course, I do not suggest that the legislators wanted to condone interracial marriage. I merely point out that what they actually wrote down punished only inter-class marriage. I agree that they were not comfortable outlawing a sacrament. But I also suggest that some of their hesitation was because they were still trying to work out the concept of "race" as different from "class" or religion, a difference that seems obvious to us only because we are their heirs.
From: Jim Loewen [mailto:jloewen@uvm.edu]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: Discussion continued, polemically, at another site
Author's Subject: Discussion continued, polemically, at another site
Date Written: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:35:26 -0400
Date Posted: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:35:26 -0400
Members of this need to know that another member of this list, Frank W.
Sweet, has taken our discussion of intermarriage in the Southern states
and posted excerpts, including entire posts with names attached, at
another website, OneDropRule.org. There he characterizes and, in my
view, mischaracterizes some of these postings. However, it does not
seem possible to take issue with him there, at OneDropRule.org. I tried
-- registered and everything. There is an entire thread with my name
upon it: H-South thread with James W. Loewen
<http>.
But when I tried to post on this thread, the site gave me this message:
"Sorry, but only *users granted special access* can reply to posts in
this forum."
Sweet writes, for example,
> Loewen seems to be upset at the thought of whites having black
> ancestry and writes with the assumption that such people are always
> "blacks" merely "passing for white."
I would like to know where in my published or unpublished writings or
talks Sweet has ever heard or read that I am "upset at the thought of
whites having black ancestry." I am fine with it, not that *how* I am
with it has any interest to anyone in the first place. Where do I write
with the assumption stated above? Nowhere! But I cannot correct these
misstatements where Sweet made them, because I have not been "*granted
special access."*
Sweet goes on to write:
> Some references Loewen should have known:
> The Free State of Jones: Mississippi's Longest Civil War by Victoria
> E. Bynum....
It happens that long ago Ms. Bynum sent me a copy of her book, which I
read. I have cited it. I have read fairly extensively on the Free
State of Jones for 30 years. In my post to H-South I referred to a
novel on the topic. It's always nice to get bibliographic suggestions,
but less so for items one already has read, and still less so with the
insulting phrase "should have known."
Perhaps I should not complain. Many other members of this group get
much more abuse than I do. Sweet keeps saying that I'm more credible
than most of the other folks in the discussion. Go over there and see
what has been said about you!
Mr. Sweet, would you care to explain to H-South why you reprint our
conversations off-line with your own characterizations of them? Doesn't
seem right to me.
Jim Loewen wrote: Mr. Sweet, would you care to explain to H-South why
you reprint our conversations off-line with your own characterizations
of them?
Certainly. With pleasure. As I stated, I posted selected messages from
H-List because they were of interest to members of the onedroprule.org
discussion group, who do not have access to H-List.
Loewen wrote: However, it does not seem possible to take issue with
him there, at OneDropRule.org. I tried registered and everything. ...
As is explained in site's welcome message http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?t=2,
it takes a few hours for a
new member to get full posting privileges. Dr. Loewen has had such
privileges since Wednesday morning, although he has not attempted to
post since then. I think that I speak for all discussion group members
in saying that we would be honored by Dr,. Loewen's participation.
Loewen claims that Frank W. Sweet wrote the following: "Loewen seems
to be upset at the thought of whites having black ancestry and writes
with the assumption that such people are alway "blacks" merely
"passing for white."
I never wrote any such thing. As anyone can see at
http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?p=31337#31337,
the above was
written by A.D. Powell. Ms. Powell is the author of _Passing for Who
You Really Are_. She is the recipient of a proclamation by the
governor of Arkansas
http://backintyme.com/ad222_files/proclamation.pdf
dated August 24, 2005, naming her an "unsung heroine" of American history. She was also
a member of the editorial board of the magazine _Interracial Voice_ .
I publicly disagreed with her statement as soon as she wrote it.
Loewen wrote:I would like to know where in my published or unpublished
writings or talks Sweet has ever heard or read that I am "upset at the
thought of whites having black ancestry."
I have never heard or read any such thing, and I have said so
publicly.
As I have stated repeatedly, I have the highest respect for Dr.
Loewen's work, and it is unfortunate that he failed to read the
welcome message at http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?t=2,
explaining that it takes a few hours to get full membership in the
discussion group. It is also unfortunate that he failed to read the
instructions at the same place on how to accellerate the process to
get instant access, if a new member is impatient. It is especially
unfortunate that he attributes to me statements clearly made by
someone with whom I publicly disagreed. Again, I have not critized
Loewen, and I have the highest regard for his work.
I admit that I do not have a similar high regard for everyone.
Regarding my opinions of others' commitment to the bizarre U.S.
dichotomous "race" notion, I would be happy to discuss my opinions in
H-List or in any other venue, although I doubt that such a discussion
would seem productive to its moderators.
Last edited by fwsweet on Fri 02 Nov 2007 13:09; edited 3 times in total
Posted: Fri 02 Nov 2007 02:25 Post subject: H-South
fwsweet wrote:
loewen wrote:
From: Jim Loewen [mailto:jloewen@uvm.edu]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: Discussion continued, polemically, at another site
Author's Subject: Discussion continued, polemically, at another site
Date Written: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:35:26 -0400
Date Posted: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:35:26 -0400
Members of this need to know that another member of this list, Frank W.
Sweet, has taken our discussion of intermarriage in the Southern states
and posted excerpts, including entire posts with names attached, at
another website, OneDropRule.org. There he characterizes and, in my
view, mischaracterizes some of these postings. However, it does not
seem possible to take issue with him there, at OneDropRule.org. I tried
-- registered and everything. There is an entire thread with my name
upon it: H-South thread with James W. Loewen
<http>.
But when I tried to post on this thread, the site gave me this message:
"Sorry, but only *users granted special access* can reply to posts in
this forum."
Sweet writes, for example,
> Loewen seems to be upset at the thought of whites having black
> ancestry and writes with the assumption that such people are always
> "blacks" merely "passing for white."
I would like to know where in my published or unpublished writings or
talks Sweet has ever heard or read that I am "upset at the thought of
whites having black ancestry." I am fine with it, not that *how* I am
with it has any interest to anyone in the first place. Where do I write
with the assumption stated above? Nowhere! But I cannot correct these
misstatements where Sweet made them, because I have not been "*granted
special access."*
Sweet goes on to write:
> Some references Loewen should have known:
> The Free State of Jones: Mississippi's Longest Civil War by Victoria
> E. Bynum....
It happens that long ago Ms. Bynum sent me a copy of her book, which I
read. I have cited it. I have read fairly extensively on the Free
State of Jones for 30 years. In my post to H-South I referred to a
novel on the topic. It's always nice to get bibliographic suggestions,
but less so for items one already has read, and still less so with the
insulting phrase "should have known."
Perhaps I should not complain. Many other members of this group get
much more abuse than I do. Sweet keeps saying that I'm more credible
than most of the other folks in the discussion. Go over there and see
what has been said about you!
Mr. Sweet, would you care to explain to H-South why you reprint our
conversations off-line with your own characterizations of them? Doesn't
seem right to me.
Jim Loewen wrote: Mr. Sweet, would you care to explain to H-South why
you reprint our conversations off-line with your own characterizations
of them?
Certainly. With pleasure. As I stated, I posted selected messages from
H-List because they were of interest to members of the onedroprule.org
discussion group, who do not have access to H-List.
Loewen wrote: However, it does not seem possible to take issue with
him there, at OneDropRule.org. I tried registered and everything. ...
As is explained in site's welcome message
<http>, it take a few hours for a
new member to get full posting privileges. Dr. Loewen has had such
privileges since Wednesday morning, although he has not attempted to
post since then. I think that I speak for all discussion group members
in saying that we would be honored by Dr,. Loewen's participation.
Loewen claims that Frank W. Sweet wrote the following: "Loewen seems
to be upset at the thought of whites having black ancestry and writes
with the assumption that such people are alway "blacks" merely
"passing for white."
I never wrote any such thing. As anyone can see at
<http>, the above was
written by A.D. Powell. Ms. Powell is the author of _Passing for Who
You Really Are_. She is the recipient of a proclamation by the
governor of Arkansas
<http> dated August 24,
2005, naming her an "unsung heroine" of American history. She was also
a member of the editorial board of the magazine _Interracial Voice_ .
I publicly disagreed with her statement as soon as she wrote it.
Loewen wrote:I would like to know where in my published or unpublished
writings or talks Sweet has ever heard or read that I am "upset at the
thought of whites having black ancestry."
I have never heard or read any such thing, and I have said so
publicly.
As I have stated repeatedly, I have the highest respect for Dr.
Loewen's work, and it is unfortunate that he failed to read the
welcome message at <http>,
explaining that it takes a few hours to get full membership in the
discussion group. It is also unfortunate that he failed to read the
instructions at the same place on how to accellerate the process to
get instant access, if a new member is impatient. It is especially
unfortunate that he attributes to me statements clearly made by
someone with whom I publicly disagreed. Again, I have not critized
Loewen, and I have the highest regard for his work.
I admit that I do not have a similar high regard for everyone.
Regarding my opinions of others' commitment to the bizarre U.S.
dichotomous "race" notion, I would be happy to discuss my opinions in
H-List or in any other venue, although I doubt that such a discussion
would seem productive to its moderators.
"H-South" can be accessed by anyone via the web. You don't need to subscribe. Nothing sent to it can be considered part of a private correspondence. Loewen surely knows that.
Well, I certainly know how it feels to be constantly misquoted and misunderstood, even by people with whom you are trying to establish a meeting of the minds.
Posted: Wed 14 Nov 2007 01:00 Post subject: James Loewen
H-South won't post my reply, so here is is:
Quote:
On 15 October 2007, Loewen replied: Jim Loewen wrote:
From: Jim Loewen [mailto:jloewen@uvm.edu]
List Editor: "Herr, David" <herrdf>
Editor's Subject: Understanding Race - new thread from Little Rock 1957 and beyond
Author's Subject: Re: Little Rock 1957 and beyond
Date Written: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:00:26 -0400
Date Posted: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:00:26 -0400
Frank Sweet wrote, "...people do intermarry. And kids with one "Black" grandparent and three "White" ones are "White" in any objective sense."
There is no meaning to the word "objective" in the former sentence. Race, as well as such racial classifications as "black," "Negro," "mulatto" (a term that should be retired), etc., are socially defined and legally defined; the latter is by state law in the US, as well as Census Bureau practice. I know of no state that defined folks who "were" 1/4 black as "white." Some states did do this for people 1/8 black; others, most notoriously VA, said ANY known black ancestor ("one drop" rule) made one "black." Of course, there is always the further question, if a grandparent were socially and legally defined as "black," does that mean they were "all" black for the purpose of the legal (and social) question in later generations? It is of course a quagmire, especially "objectively."
One of the best known legal cases came from Jones County, MS, involving descendants of the famous Unionist Newt Knight; this case has been widely written about and forms a core element in at least one novel.
Of course, many blacks passed, avoiding challenge, usually by moving to another region. Sometimes they stayed put and yet got redefined. I have learned of cases where towns with black populations went "white" not only through driving out their black populations but also through redefining the remnant that remained. The evidence isn't quite solid enough (yet) for me to print it or know it for sure. This would be around the 1890s, when it was no longer as acceptable to be black, as the Nadir of race relations set in.
--
James W. Loewen, best email address: jloewen@uvm.edu
Quote:
Loewen seems to be upset at the thought of whites having black ancestry and writes with the assumption that such people are always "blacks" merely "passing for white." Loewen's obsession with the letter of the blood fraction laws (some did allow 1/4 "black blood") ignores the importance of "performing whiteness." Race classification trials often depended on evidence of one's "white" behavior and the behavior of one's immediate family. This means, of course, that individuals and families did have some control over whether they could claim whiteness (as opposed to the popular fictional melodrama of being "doomed" by "one drop of blood.").
Loewen also gives the impression that he considers knowingly absorbing whiter members of the "Mulatto Elite" (described as "blacks" without qualification) into the white population as being evidence of racism similar if not equal to banning blacks from town. I think this is because so many white liberal scholars have been thoroughly schooled in the "one drop" and anti-"passing" bias of their black-identified colleagues.
Some references Loewen should have known:
The Free State of Jones: Mississippi's Longest Civil War by Victoria E. Bynum. Descendants of "white" Newt Knight and "light mulatto" ex-slave Rachel Knight are "white" in Mississippi.
"Miscegenation and the Free Negro (sic) in Antebellum 'Anglo' Alabama: A Reexamination of Southern Race Relations" by Gary B. Mills in The Journal of American History, Vol. 6, No. 1, June 1981. Pp. 16-34.
Check pages 27 through 31 of this long article and you will see where Mills shows that families of known racially mixed ancestry moved from "colored" to "white" status within a generation or two with the knowledge and consent of the white community. This information totally contradicts the myth of "passing" in secret and fear.
"Race and Kinship in a Midwestern Town: The Black (sic) Experience in Monroe, Michigan, 1900-1915" by James E. DeVries -- University of Illinois Press.
DeVries plainly states that the white community of Monroe, Michigan accepted the mobility of part-black whites into the white community. This again contradicts the "passing" myth. He even goes so far as to suggest that the white community of Monroe was "racist" for accepting part- black whites into the white community. Damned if you do and damned if you don't!
A quote from the book: "Crossing over was not the silent mechanism that some historians have indicated. It involved not only racial heritage but, ironically, family and personal identity. Could an individual known to have an African ancestry be regarded and defined as white? Yes, the interracial backgrounds and unions off the Fosters and Duncansons were matters of public knowledge. Each of the families had a long, continuous heritage in Monroe, and descendants residing in the community today beat no stigma of race and are generally viewed as Caucasian." (P. 150)
[end of quote from the "One Drop" forum]
Quote:
This is the quote from Loewen that I find very offensive and insulting. (I'm amazed that Loewen thinks that HE has been insulted).
Of course, many blacks passed, avoiding challenge, usually by moving to another region. Sometimes they stayed put and yet got redefined. I have learned of cases where towns with black populations went "white" not only through driving out their black populations but also through redefining the remnant that remained.
How can one "pass" for white without actually BEING white? Loewen is effectively saying that white people with some black ancestry are forever "black" no matter how physically white they are or how much they are accepted as white by other whites. He is advocating the legal myth of "invisible blackness" (a racist idea based on the assumption that "black" genes are both super-inferior and super-dominant). Since no one here claims to believe in black genetic inferiority, why present as normal and natural a racial classification system based on it? You wouldn't advocate retaining the Aryan/non-Aryan racial classification system of the Nazis and trying to put a "positive" spin on it!
A.D. Powell
Author
"Passing" for Who You Really Are: Essays in Support of Multiracial Whiteness
former editorial writer for the web site "Interracial Voice"
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
