Embedded Files
What is Miscegenation?
Miscegenation is a term that is defined as “the mixing of different racial groups through marriage, cohabitation, sexual relations, or procreation, particularly mixing that is perceived to negatively impact the purity of a particular race or culture.” Anti-miscegenation laws were put in place to forbid the union between different races.[1] Although attacks on marriage may not appear to be the most outright way to uphold white supremacy in her book What Happens Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America historian Peggy Pascoe argues that “the very inattention interracial marriage is a indication of how thoroughly and effectively the concept of miscegenation was woven into the fabric of American law and society.”[2] There were vast amounts of laws passed pertaining to interracial marriage in the United States before the twentieth century. Laws that attempted to prevent interracial relationships and marriages would later become known as anti-miscegenation laws.
[1] “Miscegenation.” Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/miscegenation.[2] Peggy Pascoe. What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2010. Introduction.Introduction and Thesis:
The prevalence of interracial relationships is clear throughout history, however in the late nineteenth and twentieth century anti-miscegenation laws were put in to practice to forbid the “mixing of races”. Interracial relationships were characterized as unnatural and repulsive. From the colonial period to the mid-twentieth century anti-miscegenation laws were put in to place around the world in places like Europe, the American South and the Jackson Purchase Area. The globe seemingly set out to uphold the belief that white people were racially superior to people of color. One of the goals of my research is to advocate for educators to talk honestly about anti-miscegenation laws in schools. This is especially important now because there has been a growing share of children who are identified by the Census Bureau as multiracial and multiethnic in the past forty years. In the 2015 Census 14% of children were identified as multiracial.[1] The growing statistic of multiracial children in the United States calls for more information on the history of interracial relationships. It is now more important than ever to have open, honest conversations about racism, intolerance and continued prejudice that multiracial children may face. My paper and research seek to examine the world wide phenomenon of anti-miscegenation laws that peaked in the twentieth century and argue the idea that anti-miscegenation laws are based off of the belief that white people were inherently superior to people of color.
[1] U.S. Census Bureau. “2015 National Content Test Race and Ethnicity Analysis Report”, prepared by Kelly Mathews, Jessica Phelan, Nicholas A. Jones, Sarah Konya, Rachel Marks, Beverly M. Pratt, Julia Coombs, Michael Bentley, February 28, 2017. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/final-analysis-reports/2015nct-race-ethnicity-analysis.pdfAnti-Miscegenation during Spanish Colonization
The presence of interracial relationships in historical writing is not something that is new. The earliest interracial relationship that is recorded is the relationship between Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés and one of his multiple Cuban mistresses, doña Marina also known as La Malinche. The relationship between the two produced a son, Martin Cortés who is regarded as the first mestizo. A mestizo is, “a person of combined European and Indigenous American descent, regardless of where the person was born.”[1] During the colonization of the United States and Mexico many Amerindian women were forced in to relationships with Spanish conquistadors. The product of these relationships were other mestizos. The large amount of mestizos that were born as a result of these relationships forced the Spanish to employ a racial hierarchy known as the sistema de castas or the sociedad de castas. The sociedad de castas translates to the Society of Castes, it was a “hierarchal ordering of racial groups according to their proportion of Spanish blood.” The most desirable racial classification was Spaniard and the least desirable was African. According to the system, “Race, color, physical features, occupation, and wealth in this society mattered as Spanish officials attempted to control every aspect of a person’s life.”[2] Those who were at the bottom of the social hierarchy were subjected to systematic oppression. Systems like the Society of Castes enforced the idea that those of European descent were superior to people of color. The racial classification system that was employed by the Spanish during colonialism would leave lasting effects on the United States and some of the terminology would carry on until the twentieth century. One specific term that was employed during the Society of Castes was “mulatto”. The term “mulatto” refers to “a historical racial classification of people who are born of one white parent and one black parent”.[3]
[1] Joanne Rappaport. The Disappearing Mestizo: Configuring Difference in the Colonial Kingdom of Granada. Durham: Duke University Press, 2014.[2] II, Herbert G. Ruffin. “Sistema De Castas (1500s-Ca. 1829). October 17, 2019. https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/sistema-de-castas-1500s-ca-1829/.[3] "mulatto, n. and adj". OED Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2019.Anti-Miscegenation in the United States
The earliest ban on interracial relationships in the United Stated of America happened in the colony of Maryland in 1664. From 1664-1750 laws against interracial relationships were put in to place in eight states. These bans included punishments for those who acted against the legislation in place. These bans included punishments for those who acted against the legislation in place. In Virginia white women who had children with any “negro or mulatto” were subject to a fine of fifteen pounds. If the fine was not paid the punishment was five years of service. In 1750, Georgia passed the first law to make marriages between whites and blacks “null and void”. . By 1861, twenty other states passed laws banning interracial marriage including Kentucky who passed a law banning interracial marriage in 1792.
The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 ended slavery, but the fight for equality was far from over. Racism had been deeply woven into American society. Jim Crow Laws were passed through out the American South to enforce racial segregation and the oppression of people of color. Jim Crow Laws prevented African Americans from being able to vote, own businesses or have a decent education. These laws were enforced roughly for one hundred years, from the end of the Civil War in 1865 to 1965. If these laws were broken people faced jail time, fines and violence. In addition to the Jim Crow Laws Southern white supremacists called for new, stricter anti-miscegenation laws. The passing of stricter anti-miscegenation laws hoped to end sexual relationships between different races. In the twentieth century it was socially accepted that sex should not be happening outside of marriage, therefore banning the marriages between people of different races also banned sexual relations in hopes to preserve the purity of the white race. These supremacists also called for criminal punishment for those who were involved in interracial relationships or participated in interracial sexual relationships.
The American South employed a racial hierarchy that was used to represent degrees of “blackness”. A similar system was employed by the Spanish Empire in the Americas. "Anyone who was 1/8 African American was deemed to be “black” by law after the passing of the “one drop rule”. “In 1911, Arkansas passed Act 320 (House Bill 79), also known as the “one-drop rule.” This law had two goals: it made interracial “cohabitation” a felony, and it defined as “Negro” thus relegating to second-class citizenship anyone accused of having any African ancestry.” The “one drop rule” would spread throughout the United States and become a large tool in deciding who was identified as “white” and “black”. The “one drop rule” was associated with the principle of "invisible blackness" that developed after the long history of racial interaction in the South.[1]
[1] “One Drop Rule.” Encyclopedia of Arkansas. Accessed March 12, 2020. https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/one-drop-rule-5365/
“Apr. 18, 1946: Davis Knight Weds White Woman; Later Indicted for Interracial Marriage.” Home. Accessed April 11, 2020. https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/apr/18.
Davis Knight v. Mississippi
The case of Davis Knight v. Mississippi shows clear use of the one drop rule and the prevelance of “invisible blackness” in the American South. Davis Knight was a white passing man that had identified as white. However, since one of Knight’s great-grandparents was African American, Knight was considered African American. “In June 1948, the state indicted Mr. Knight for violating a law that prohibited “marriage or cohabitation between white persons and those with one-eighth or more Negro or Mongolian blood.”[1] At trial, Mr. Knight insisted that he was white: his Navy service records listed him as white. The court had determined that because of his great-grandmother’s race, Mr. Knight was in fact African American. The conviction of Davis Knight is both interesting and perplexing due to the fact that Mr. Knight had always identified as white. But how Mr. Knight identified himself was of little consequence because the law mandated that since one of his great grandparents was black, so was he. Identification during the early twentieth century had nothing to do with personal identification and everything to do with what the court and society mandated. The ruling in Davis Knight v. Mississippi was later appealed by the Supreme Court.
[1] Davis Knight v. State, 207 Mississippi. 564, 42 So. 2d 747 (Mississippi, 1949).Anti-Miscegenation in Germany under the Nazi Regime
Under the Nazi regime German law prohibited marriages and extramarital sex between German citizens and the German Jewish population. The ideals of racial purity that Hitler was so engrossed with are similar to the ideals surrounding the superiority of white men in the United States, particularly the American South. Despite the fact that Americans have been reluctant to acknowledge any similarities between the Nuremberg Laws and the Jim Crow Laws in James Q. Whitman’s book, Hitler’s American Model, Whitman argues that the Nazis took a real interest in American race policies, this is specifically clear in Hitler’s Mein Kampf where Hitler praises America for “excluding certain races from naturalization.”[1]
[1] James Q. Whitman. Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, 2017.Anti-Miscegenation in the Jackson Purchase
In Kentucky as of 1964, it was illegal for a white person to marry anyone who was legally classified as "black" or "mulatto". Despite the fact that any kind of interracial relationship was prohibited by law and frowned upon socially there is a clear indication of interracial pairings in the Calloway County 1910 Census. According to the Census Bureau “for census purposes, the term ‘‘black’’ (B) includes all persons who are evidently full-blooded Negroes, while the term ‘‘mulatto’’ (Mu) includes all other persons having some proportion or perceptible trace of Negro blood.” Anti-Miscegenation laws passed in Kentucky considered illegal to marry anyone that was ¼ African American.[1]
The data below was taken from the 1910 Kentucky Census proves that despite the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were put in place to stop interracial couplings from happening in the Jackson Purchase Area, interracial relationships were still very clearly taking place.[2]
Calloway County: White: 94.4% Mulatto: .3% Black: 5.1%
Graves County: White: 90.3% Mulatto: .9% Black: 8.5%
Fulton County: White: 74.2% Mulatto: 1.3% Black: 23.1%
Hickman County: White: 84.6% Mulatto: 2.2% Black: 12.6%
Carlisle County: White: 93.6% Mulatto: 1.4% Black: 4.8%
Marshall County: White: 98.2% Mulatto: .8% Black: .8%
McCracken County: White: 67.4% Mulatto: 6.8% Black: 23.4%
[1] Kentucky 1910 Census.” 1910 Abstract- Supplement for Kentucky, 10, 1995. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1910/abstract/supplement-ky.pdf.[2] Elizabeth Brown. Calloway County, Kentucky Census of 1910, Melber, KY: Simmons Historical Publications, 1995.
Newbeck, Phyl, and Brendan Wolfe. Loving v. Virginia (1967). Accessed April 11, 2020. https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/loving_v_virginia_1967.
Loving V. Virginia and the end of Anti-Miscegenation Laws in the United States
In 1958, Richard Loving and his wife Mildred were arrested because their marriage was considered illegal in Virginia. The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 in Virginia solidified that anyone who was “white” could not marry someone who identified as a “non white” person. Mildred Loving was an African American woman and therefore could not legally be married to Richard Loving, a white man. The Lovings decided to appeal their convictions to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which upheld their convictions. However, the Loving’s decided to go continue fighting and appealed to the Supreme Court. On June 12, 1967 the United States Supreme Court ruled on the case of Loving v. Virginia.[1] The Court issued that bans on interracial marriage violated the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore anti-miscegenation laws. Despite the ruling in Loving v. Virginia, anti-miscegenation laws stayed in state constitutions for years to come.[2]
[1] Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[2] Phyl Newbeck, Virginia Hasn't Always Been for Lovers: Interracial Marriage Bans and the Case of Richard and Mildred Loving, SIU Press, 2005.
About the Author:
Madison "Maddie" Brasher-Evans is a senior at Murray State University. She is a double major in History and Theatre. Her interests include Shakespearean acting and The War of the Roses. In her time at Murray State University she has been a part of twelve productions that were produced by the Department of Global Languages and Theatre Arts. She hopes to become a middle school history teacher.
For Further Reading
For Further Reading
Knight v. State, 207 Miss. 564, 42 So. 2d 747 (Miss. 1949)
“One Drop Rule.” Encyclopedia of Arkansas. Accessed March 12, 2020. https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/one-drop-rule-5365/
Lee, Robert E. NC Prohibits Any Marriage Between Races, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, Telegram, November 10, 1963.
Locke, Alan, Knollenberg, Fred & Kennedy, Clifford. “The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Long Struggle for Freedom the Segregation Era (1900–1939).” The Segregation Era (1900–1939) - The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Long Struggle for Freedom | Exhibitions - Library of Congress, October 10, 2014.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Pascoe, Peggy. What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Ruffin, Herbert G. “Sistema De Castas (1500s-Ca. 1829). October 17, 2019. https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/sistema-de-castas-1500s-ca-1829/.
Sollors, Werner. Interracialism: Black-White Intermarriage in American History, Literature, and Law, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Wallenstein, Peter. Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law-An American History, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2015.
Whitman, James Q. Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, Princeton University Press, 2017.
Page updated
Report abuse