Topic: Were there ever any USA federal or state laws that specifically legislated against black rights?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #447
I have been unable to find any. This surprises me as I have always been told that there were such laws. Could anyone provide examples of laws of this nature if they know any?
Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #8,348
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #8,360
Poll taxes, grandfather clauses. Not explicit, but that was the purpose.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #8,374
Interesting run-down here, but you have to do the sources yourself. A lot of southern states had laws expelling free blacks and preventing their migration into the state during the 1820-40s. Numerous laws limiting the choice of occupation, assembly rights, voting rights, and marriage rights of blacks as well as the teaching of blacks in the early US.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,538
@8,348 (Nexus !jNexusRe/.)
I already know about those laws. However, these laws discriminated against White exactly as much as they did Black people.
It was very interesting to read through that list of Laws. Many of the segregation laws also merely enabled separate schools to be founded, not mandate their foundation.
The laws stating that literacy was a requirement for voting did not specifically legislate aagainst Black people and it is racist to suggest they did, as it would imply Black people can neither read nor write.
The laws stating that untaxed Indians could not vote is not racist, as taxed Indians could vote.
The only specific legislation against a particular race on that list you provided was against the Chinese in California. Very interesting. EDIT: and the sale of liquor to Indians.
I already know about those laws. However, these laws discriminated against White exactly as much as they did Black people.
It was very interesting to read through that list of Laws. Many of the segregation laws also merely enabled separate schools to be founded, not mandate their foundation.
The laws stating that literacy was a requirement for voting did not specifically legislate aagainst Black people and it is racist to suggest they did, as it would imply Black people can neither read nor write.
The laws stating that untaxed Indians could not vote is not racist, as taxed Indians could vote.
The only specific legislation against a particular race on that list you provided was against the Chinese in California. Very interesting. EDIT: and the sale of liquor to Indians.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,544
@8,360 (C)
I'm looking for specific laws. Many laws can be applied unjustly without being inherently unjust.
Creating laws and enforcing them are two different areas of responsibility.
I'm looking for specific laws. Many laws can be applied unjustly without being inherently unjust.
Creating laws and enforcing them are two different areas of responsibility.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,549
In the 1950s and 1960s, blacks were legally prevented, in the South, from using the same bathrooms or water fountains as whites, from entering white businesses, etc.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,576
@8,374 (D)
> U.S.A LAWS AGAINST BLACKS...ALL OF THEM SINCE THE START OF THE USA
That list is very incomplete. I would be interested in looking into them further if sources etc could be provided. I am also mainly interested in Post-Civil War legislation.
Do you have any of the actual laws of these Pre-Civil War Southern states instead of just summaries? I believe we may be able to find specific racist laws amongst them.
> U.S.A LAWS AGAINST BLACKS...ALL OF THEM SINCE THE START OF THE USA
That list is very incomplete. I would be interested in looking into them further if sources etc could be provided. I am also mainly interested in Post-Civil War legislation.
Do you have any of the actual laws of these Pre-Civil War Southern states instead of just summaries? I believe we may be able to find specific racist laws amongst them.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,582
@8,549 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Much as Whites were legally prevented from using the same water fountains as blacks, from entering black businesses, etc.
Please provide the texts of actual laws for this discussion.
Much as Whites were legally prevented from using the same water fountains as blacks, from entering black businesses, etc.
Please provide the texts of actual laws for this discussion.
The Truth !!vSp31CfSr joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,588
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,589
@8,582 (A)
> Much as Whites were legally prevented from using the same water fountains as blacks, from entering black businesses, etc.
[citation needed]
> Much as Whites were legally prevented from using the same water fountains as blacks, from entering black businesses, etc.
[citation needed]
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,591
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,592
@8,544 (A)
I doubt you'll find many post-civil war laws that meet that criteria--this is no accident.
I doubt you'll find many post-civil war laws that meet that criteria--this is no accident.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,595
@8,589 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Man, that is just common knowledge of American history. That is why Rosa Parks was so important: blacks could not sit in the front of the bus.
Man, that is just common knowledge of American history. That is why Rosa Parks was so important: blacks could not sit in the front of the bus.
The Truth !!vSp31CfSr replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,602
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,603
@8,595 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
No, I know Rosa Parks could not sit in the front of the bus, but he seems to be saying that it was illegal for whites to sit in the back, which seems a bit odd.
No, I know Rosa Parks could not sit in the front of the bus, but he seems to be saying that it was illegal for whites to sit in the back, which seems a bit odd.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,605
@8,589 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Do you not understand the meaning of the word "segregation"? Whites were segregated from blacks and blacks were segregated from whites.
Do you not understand the meaning of the word "segregation"? Whites were segregated from blacks and blacks were segregated from whites.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,606
@8,603 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It was not. It was only illegal for blacks to sit in the front. My mother grew up in that era and has told me many eyewitness accounts of how it was.
It was not. It was only illegal for blacks to sit in the front. My mother grew up in that era and has told me many eyewitness accounts of how it was.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,607
@8,602 (The Truth !!vSp31CfSr)
The distinction between de facto and de jure is meaningless from a practical standpoint.
The distinction between de facto and de jure is meaningless from a practical standpoint.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,609
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,614
@8,592 (C)
I appreciate that and that is my point. I did not know this. I thought Black were specifically legislated against, but it seems as though they weren't. Perhaps some will be found amongst Pre-Civil War legislation.
I appreciate that and that is my point. I did not know this. I thought Black were specifically legislated against, but it seems as though they weren't. Perhaps some will be found amongst Pre-Civil War legislation.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,617
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,618
@8,614 (A)
They were in the 1950s and 1960s. It was illegal for them to eat lunch at a white lunch counter, for example.
They were in the 1950s and 1960s. It was illegal for them to eat lunch at a white lunch counter, for example.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,620
@8,603 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Miscegenation laws discriminated against all races. There were fines for teachers in multiracial schools in some states. This affects all races. There were fines against restaurant owners who served both races. This affected both races.
Miscegenation laws discriminated against all races. There were fines for teachers in multiracial schools in some states. This affects all races. There were fines against restaurant owners who served both races. This affected both races.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,621
minimum_trolling.jpgAnonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,623
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,624
@8,605 (A)
No. Read. It was illegal for a black person to sit in the front of a bus. Nowhere in the law is it illegal for a white person to sit in the back. Stop making things up.
No. Read. It was illegal for a black person to sit in the front of a bus. Nowhere in the law is it illegal for a white person to sit in the back. Stop making things up.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,629
@8,618 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Please note that Jim Crow Laws have already been posted. These laws affected all races.
Please note that Jim Crow Laws have already been posted. These laws affected all races.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,636
@8,624 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Why did you link me to a Dr Martin Luther King, Jr website? It did not even state the relevant legislation. It doesn't back up what you said at all.
I don't think you even understand what the law was at all.
Why did you link me to a Dr Martin Luther King, Jr website? It did not even state the relevant legislation. It doesn't back up what you said at all.
I don't think you even understand what the law was at all.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,642
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,647
@previous (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Which laws were they? Can you please provide an example of them, as requested in the OP?
Which laws were they? Can you please provide an example of them, as requested in the OP?
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,653
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,663
@8,636 (A)
> Why did you link me to a Dr Martin Luther King, Jr website?
Check the URL dude. It's stanford.edu, not "mlk wuz great.com".
If you have a problem with the site, find its sources and see if they're flawed.
> Why did you link me to a Dr Martin Luther King, Jr website?
Check the URL dude. It's stanford.edu, not "mlk wuz great.com".
If you have a problem with the site, find its sources and see if they're flawed.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,667
@8,653 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]
lolno
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]
lolno
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,672
@previous (A)
The words "slave" or "slavery" do not exist in the Constitution. However, slavery is referred to in a couple of places. For one thing, there was the 3/5 Compromise where every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives. Further, the government was given the power to restrict the slave trade. Finally, there was a section where it says that if people held to service or labor (slavery) in one state escape them must not be freed by the laws of another state.
The words "slave" or "slavery" do not exist in the Constitution. However, slavery is referred to in a couple of places. For one thing, there was the 3/5 Compromise where every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives. Further, the government was given the power to restrict the slave trade. Finally, there was a section where it says that if people held to service or labor (slavery) in one state escape them must not be freed by the laws of another state.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,678
@8,663 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I didn't claim. Please give me the amount I respect I am giving to you. You used that site to reference a claim you made. The site does not even mention what you were talking about. It most certainly did not mention specific legislation, which is what this thread is about.
I didn't claim. Please give me the amount I respect I am giving to you. You used that site to reference a claim you made. The site does not even mention what you were talking about. It most certainly did not mention specific legislation, which is what this thread is about.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,683
@previous (A)
Do you not agree that the Constitution, saying negros were not full humans, or passing laws governing slavery, were laws that were indeed against black people? Whom else would they be about, if not blacks? Were they about all of the white slaves, or the white negros?
Do you not agree that the Constitution, saying negros were not full humans, or passing laws governing slavery, were laws that were indeed against black people? Whom else would they be about, if not blacks? Were they about all of the white slaves, or the white negros?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,704
@8,672 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
That is the text of the 13th amendment. Far from approving slavery, as you claimed, it abolishes slavery.
The 3/5ths compromise does not restrict black rights. It states that:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The States were restricting Black rights. I would like to see the legislative mechanisms by which they accomplished this.
That is the text of the 13th amendment. Far from approving slavery, as you claimed, it abolishes slavery.
The 3/5ths compromise does not restrict black rights. It states that:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The States were restricting Black rights. I would like to see the legislative mechanisms by which they accomplished this.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,706
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,710
@8,683 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
The Constitution did NOT say that Negroes were not full humans. Please provide examples of laws governing slavery.
The Constitution did NOT say that Negroes were not full humans. Please provide examples of laws governing slavery.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #8,711
@8,704 (A)
No, the Constitution regulates slavery by saying that a runaway slave had to be returned to its masters if he made it to certain states.
No, the Constitution regulates slavery by saying that a runaway slave had to be returned to its masters if he made it to certain states.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #8,717
@previous (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
I have stated this in the OP and many times ITT:
Please provide the actual name, clause number or text of the law.
I have stated this in the OP and many times ITT:
Please provide the actual name, clause number or text of the law.
jump !VIfloDyEYo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #8,733
@8,538 (A)
> The laws stating that literacy was a requirement for voting did not specifically legislate aagainst Black people and it is racist to suggest they did, as it would imply Black people can neither read nor write.
Judging by an episode of Quantum Leap, I believe these laws were only enforced upon the blacks.
> The laws stating that literacy was a requirement for voting did not specifically legislate aagainst Black people and it is racist to suggest they did, as it would imply Black people can neither read nor write.
Judging by an episode of Quantum Leap, I believe these laws were only enforced upon the blacks.
The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #8,736
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #8,746
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #8,757
@8,736 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Then I must ask you respectfully to stop posting unsourced opinions ITT. This is a thread about specific legislation not "what you think they meant" or "everyone knows there were racist laws".
Then I must ask you respectfully to stop posting unsourced opinions ITT. This is a thread about specific legislation not "what you think they meant" or "everyone knows there were racist laws".
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #8,764
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #8,766
@8,711 (The Magogo„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
That's incorrect. The Constitution only states that fugitives have to be surrendered to the law.
That's incorrect. The Constitution only states that fugitives have to be surrendered to the law.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #8,772
I hereby retract the statement made in this post.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #8,797
@previous (I)
Thank you. I think this thread illustrates the need to be aware of our history, and of our laws. Many people have a completed distorted view of history. While at the same time, Black people in America have undoubtedly had it very hard and we must look to other places than legislation for the answer as to why this was. We cannot simply blame the laws (which as we have seen, seem largely not to have existed). Why did voters put up with the Jim Crow Laws though? They seem so repulsive to me (as one who admires Black music and fashion throughout the modern era). These issues are deeper than the laws and blaming (non-existant) laws gets us nowhere. In the same way, I think that racism can not be abolished through laws. A very interesting topic that deserves much deeper thought than many give it.
Thank you. I think this thread illustrates the need to be aware of our history, and of our laws. Many people have a completed distorted view of history. While at the same time, Black people in America have undoubtedly had it very hard and we must look to other places than legislation for the answer as to why this was. We cannot simply blame the laws (which as we have seen, seem largely not to have existed). Why did voters put up with the Jim Crow Laws though? They seem so repulsive to me (as one who admires Black music and fashion throughout the modern era). These issues are deeper than the laws and blaming (non-existant) laws gets us nowhere. In the same way, I think that racism can not be abolished through laws. A very interesting topic that deserves much deeper thought than many give it.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #9,038
@previous (A)
Well, what I really meant is you were trolling everybody pretty hard. I still think you're full of shit.
Well, what I really meant is you were trolling everybody pretty hard. I still think you're full of shit.
jump !VIfloDyEYo replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #9,047
If black people just went away, we wouldn't need these laws to protect fat white girls from making terrible mistakes.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #9,162
@8,576 (A)
> I would be interested in looking into them further if sources etc could be provided.
You may need access to a historical legal database on a per-state basis for most of these. You can find passing references to them in some places, but it's not exactly the kind of thing states publicize these days.
> I am also mainly interested in Post-Civil War legislation.
Following the civil war, making laws targeting black, but none the less free, citizens was not as acceptable, so you may have a harder time with post civil-war law. There are numerous examples before the civil war though.
Louisiana's grandfather clause (1897) was already mentioned, but that only indirectly targeted blacks and others who couldn't vote under older laws. Again, post-civil war law tended away from explicit laws based solely on race. The Dred Scott decision sounds like it might have been what DM was fumbling around trying to explain earlier, but that too is pre-war.
> Do you have any of the actual laws of these Pre-Civil War Southern states instead of just summaries? I believe we may be able to find specific racist laws amongst them.
The first link in this post gives a summary of one such law with better sources, but, again, you will probably need to go into state by state legal history for the text of each particular law.
> I would be interested in looking into them further if sources etc could be provided.
You may need access to a historical legal database on a per-state basis for most of these. You can find passing references to them in some places, but it's not exactly the kind of thing states publicize these days.
> I am also mainly interested in Post-Civil War legislation.
Following the civil war, making laws targeting black, but none the less free, citizens was not as acceptable, so you may have a harder time with post civil-war law. There are numerous examples before the civil war though.
Louisiana's grandfather clause (1897) was already mentioned, but that only indirectly targeted blacks and others who couldn't vote under older laws. Again, post-civil war law tended away from explicit laws based solely on race. The Dred Scott decision sounds like it might have been what DM was fumbling around trying to explain earlier, but that too is pre-war.
> Do you have any of the actual laws of these Pre-Civil War Southern states instead of just summaries? I believe we may be able to find specific racist laws amongst them.
The first link in this post gives a summary of one such law with better sources, but, again, you will probably need to go into state by state legal history for the text of each particular law.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 58 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #9,214
@previous (D)
There's a difference between publicizing and hiding. There must be a site where someone has assembled racist laws. I just can't find it yet.
I think it is becoming less likely that racist Post-Civil War laws will be found so I am widening it somewhat to include Pre-Civil War laws. Please post any laws you can find.
The Dred Scott decision is not legislation per se but appears very disturbing! I will read more to try and understand it. it seems so obviously wrong! How could they think that?
Thanks for the link, I will look into that more as well.
There's a difference between publicizing and hiding. There must be a site where someone has assembled racist laws. I just can't find it yet.
I think it is becoming less likely that racist Post-Civil War laws will be found so I am widening it somewhat to include Pre-Civil War laws. Please post any laws you can find.
The Dred Scott decision is not legislation per se but appears very disturbing! I will read more to try and understand it. it seems so obviously wrong! How could they think that?
Thanks for the link, I will look into that more as well.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #9,217
@previous (M)
> There must be a site where someone has assembled racist laws.
Yeah, I'm a little surprised that a more complete list isn't easy to find on the net.
> There must be a site where someone has assembled racist laws.
Yeah, I'm a little surprised that a more complete list isn't easy to find on the net.