But as you'll see, the American colonial leaders didn't sit idly by and let intermarriage happen. Oh no! At first they must have been astounded when it happened. There were no "savages" or "negroes" back in the "Old" country! Not knowing what to do, they punished those who were found in violation of God's law. That not being enough, soon civil laws were passed forbidding the union of the races.
Racial Laws in the New World
1523 - Spanish Law - Indians were to live separate from the Spaniard, Negroes and others.
1527 - Due to a slave revolt in Puerto Rico in1527, Spanish Royal Decree recommends that male slaves ought to marry female slaves as much as possible: "with marriage and their love for wives and children and orderly married life they will become more calm and much sin and trouble will be avoided."
1541 - Spanish Royal Decree for the colonies recommends that black men be married to black women since reportedly Negro slaves kept 'great numbers of Indian women, some of them voluntarily, others against their wishes."
All three of these Spanish laws protected Indians, Blacks and Spaniards from interracial marriage
The last law specifically protected Indians
1630 - Jamestown, Virginia - Hugh Davis was ordered to be "soundly whipt before an assembly of negroes for abusing himself to the dishonor of God and the shame of Christianity by defiling his body in lying with a negro." Some speculate that since the word Negress was not used his offense was that of homosexuality. We contend that even if this is true, his offense was two-fold, Hhe crossed the color line and he committed an act of sodomy.
1638 - New Netherlands - Ordinance of the Director and Council of New Netherlands - "each and every one must refrain from Fighting, Adulterous intercourse with heathens, Blacks, or other persons, Mutiny, Theft, False Swearing, Calumny (slander) and other Immoralities..." if they committed any of these acts they were to be corrected and punished as an example to the others.
1640 - Jamestown, Virginia - Robert Sweat was ordered to "do penance in church according to the laws of England" for impregnating an African female. The woman was ordered whipped.
1649 - Jamestown, Virginia - William Watts and Mary (Mr. Cornelius Lloyd's negro woman) were both ordered "to doe penance by standing in a white sheete with a white Rodd in their hands in the Chapell of Elizabeth River in the face of the congregation on the next sabbath day that the minister shall make penince service and the said Watts to pay the court charges." Some say this was not a racial issue since both had to do the penance.
1662 - Virginia - "Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or free, be it therefore enacted and declared by the present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother, And that if any Christian shall committ ffornication with a negro man or woman, hee or shee soe offending shall pay double the ffines imposed by the former act (the fine was 500 pounds of tobacco)" This law did not legalize fornication between anyone, it just made the penalty more severe if the parties were of different races. The law making the child free or bond according to the status of the mother brought the Virginia law into line with Iberian laws that had been in effect since 1265. Over the next few decades, identical laws would be adopted throughout the British colonies.
1664 - Maryland - Law condemns free-born English women who intermarry with negro slaves:: "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 issues of such freeborne woemen so marryed, shall be Slaves as their fathers were." The statute noted that "divers freeborne English women forgettful of their free Condicon and to the disgrace of our Nation doe intermarry with negro Slaves." (Archives of Maryland, 1:533-34) Mothers condemned 78 children to 30-year slavery. Twenty years later the law was amended to promise freedom to women and children if the owner permitted. Notice that the intent of this law was to discourage the European women from marrying the negro slave by not only forcing her into slavery but her children as well
1677 - Pennsylvania - suggested a law that race mixing should be prohibited.
Conflict between the 1662 Virginia and 1664 Maryland Laws
We would like to believe that all people knew and understood the specialness of all races. But such was not the case. Because of the two laws, European men who wanted to marry African women fled to Maryland. and European women who wanted to marry African men fled to Virginia.
Not only that, some Maryland planters exploited the law by deliberately purchasing White women as slaves or indentured servants and forcing them to marry African men in order to breed more slaves. So the fix was...
1681 - Maryland - Legislature revoked the 1664 law and adopted Virginia's system instead. The law also punished any master who "instigated or merely allowed marriage between his white female servants and black male slaves."
1691 - Virginia - "An act for suppressing outlying Slaves and for prevention of that abominable mixture and SPURIOUS ISSUE which hereafter may encrease in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawfull accompanying with one another, be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that for the time to come, whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a negroe, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever..." Another section of the law states that free white mothers of an illegitimate child by a Negro or Mulatto have to pay 15 pounds sterling and the child becomes a servant until age 30. If she cannot pay she would become an indentured servant for five years. Regardless, the child is a servant for 30 years.
1692 - Maryland - Maryland outlaws intermarriage, virtually copying the 1691 Virginia law.
1692 - Maryland - White women who had children by slaves were sold as servants for seven years and, if they married the slave, their children were to serve until they were the age of twenty-one. If the woman was not married to the slave the child had to serve until they were thirty-one. Again, this law was to discourage White women from producing "spurious" offspring.
At least 256 white women were prosecuted in Maryland for the offense of interracial marriage during the colonial period.
1696 - Virginia - Made the 1691 laws harsher by punishing ministers 10,000 pounds of tobacco (an amount far beyond the reach of even some landed gentry and meant the defrocking of the minister). Ministers were also ordered to preach against intermarriage. Priests who refused to comply were defrocked and replaced.
1705 - Massachusetts - "Act for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue" bans interracial fornication and marriage by statute. Section 1 prohibits fornication of "any negro or molatto man" "with an English woman, or a woman of any other Christian nation within this province," punishable by whipping of both partners, the selling of the man out of the province within six months (after continuous imprisonment), and pressing the woman into servitude if she is unable to maintain a child. Section 2 bans fornication of 'any Englishman, or man of another Christian nation within this province," "with a negro, or molatto woman," punishable by whipping of only the man, who also shall pay a fine of five pounds and, if applicable, child support, and by the selling of the woman out of the province. Section 4 prohibits the contracting of matrimony between one of "her majesty's English or Scottish subjects, [or] of any other Christian nation within this province" and "any negro or molatto," threatening persons authorized who solemnize such a marriage with a fine of 50 pounds.
1715 - Maryland - Chapter 44, section 25 made the mixed-race descendants of white women who had children by slaves subject to the same punishments as white women. They were sold as servants for seven-year terms, and their children were bound until the age of 31.
1715 - North Carolina - Outlaws interracial marriage.
1717 - South Carolina - The Statutes at Large of South Carolina article XXI - "Any white woman, free or servant, that shall suffer herself to begot with child by a negro or other slave or free negro" if she is a a free white woman she is to become a servant for seven years; if she is a servant she is to finish her time and then become bonded for another seven years. If the "begetter of such child be a free negro" he is to be a servant for seven years "and the issues or children of such unnatural and inordinate copulation shall be servants" until 21 years of age if male, 18 years of age if female from their birth. "And any white man that shall beget any negro woman with child, whether free or servant" shall have the same penalties as a white woman.
1721 - Delaware - Outlaws interracial marriage
1724 - French Edict by Louix XV - Bans intermarriages between whites and blacks in Louisiana. "We forbid our white subjects or either sex to contract marriage with blacks, under threat of punishment and fines; and forbid all clerics, priests, or missionaries, lay or ordained, and even ships' chaplains, to marry them." Also prohibits whites "or freeborn or freed blacks" to live in concubinage with slaves.
1725 - Pennsylvania - Outlaws interracial marriageand cohabitation.
1728 - Maryland - Extends law to prohibit intermarriage and cohabitation between free mulatto women and black slaves; and subjects Negro women who have mixed race children by white men to the same penalties as white women and Negro men.
1750 - Georgia - Outlaws interracial marriage between Whites and any other race.
After the Revolutionary War
1786 - Virginia - Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, revises colonial marriage law, omits reference to preachers, "A marriage between a person of free condition and a slave, or between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a mulatto, shall be null."
1786 - Massachusetts - Reenacts the colonial law, "That no person by this Act authorized to marry, shall join in marriage any white person with any Negro, Indian or Mulatto, on penalty of the sum of fifty pounds...and such marriages shall be null and void."
1798 - Rhode Island - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks and Indians (repealed in 1881)
1808 - Louisiana Civil Code - page 24, article 8: "Free persons and slaves are incapable of contracting marriage together; the celebration of such marriages is forbidden, and the marriage is void; it is the same with respect to the marriages contracted by free white persons with free people of color."
1818 - Indiana - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks
1821 - Maine - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks and Indians
1829 - Illinois - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks
1835 - Missouri - Outlaws interracial marriage (blacks, Asians)
1837 - Texas - "It shall not be lawful for any person of Caucasian blood or their descendants to intermarry with Africans or the descendants of Africans."
1838 - Michigan - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks1839 - Iowa - Outlaws interracial marriagebetween whites and blacks1849 - Virginia - Ch. 109, Section 1, Article 471, makes "any marriage between a white person and a Negro absolutely void without further legal process." (this would automatically make the children illegitimate.)
1850 - California - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Asians and Filipinos.
1852 - Utah - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Asians and Filipinos
1855 - Kansas - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks (repeals law in 1859 before reaching statehood)
1855 - Nebraska - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks and Asians
1855 - Washington - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks and Indians (repealed before reaching statehood (1868?)
1857 - New Mexico - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks (repeals law in 1866 before reaching statehood)
1861 - Ohio - forbids intermarriage between a person of pure white blood and one having a visible admixture of African blood
1861 - Nevada - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Indians, Asians and Filipinos
1862 - Oregon - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Indians, Asians and Native Hawaiians1864 - Colorado - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks
1864 - Idaho - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Indians and Asians1865 - Arizona - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks and Asians (Filipinos (Malays) and Indians (Hindus) added in 1931)
Reconstruction in the South
Most people don't understand the devastation that the South endured both during after the Civil War
Their land was laid waste
Their government was being run by the victors in Washington D.C.
Don't judge someone unless you've walked in their shoes...or lived in their homes
These states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws during reconstruction and then later reinstated them
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina
1871 - Indiana - State v. Gibson, "The natural law which forbids their (black and white) intermarriage and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to them different natures."
1871 - Tennessee - Doc. Lonas v. State, "The laws of civilization demand that the races be kept apart in this country. The progress of either does not depend upon an admixture of blood. A sound philanthropy, looking to the public peace and the happiness of both races, would regard any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."
1877 - Alabama - Supreme Court, in Green v. State, asserts state's right to enforce intermarriage bans: "Manifestly, it is for the peace and happiness of the black race, as well as of the white, that such laws should exist. And surely there can not be any tyranny or injustice in requiring both alike, to form this union with those of their own race only, whom God hath joined together by indelible peculiarities, which declare that He has made the two races distinct."
1877 - Colorado - "All marriages between Negroes and mulattoes of either sex and white persons are declared absolutely void."
1878 - Virginia - "The Purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of our cherished southern civilization, under which two distinct races are to work out and accomplish the destiny to which the Almighty has assigned them on this continent...all require that they should be kept distinct and separate, and that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion."
1880 - Mississippi - Bans intermarriage
1881 - Florida - Provides twelve months' imprisonment and a maximum fine of $500 for a Negro and a white person of opposite sex who occupy the same room habitually. Penalty for violation of intermarriage prohibition is prison up to ten years and a maximum fine of $500; for clergy men, priests, or public officials who solemnize such a union, it is prison up to one year and a fine up to $1000.
1889 - Georgia - "The marriage relation between white persons and persons of African descent is forever prohibited, and such marriage shall be null and void."
1890 - Georgia - Federal District Court of Southern Georgia determines, in State v. Tutty, 41 Fed. 753, that Georgia laws forever prohibiting marriage between whites and persons of African descent cannot be circumvented by contracting a marriage in another state.
1891- Colorado - Mill's Annotated Statutes, secs. 1320-2989: "All marriages between Negroes or Mulattoes, of either sex, and white persons are declared to be absolutely void."
1893 - Kentucky - Statutes, sec. 2097, prohibits and declares void marriage "between a white person and a negro or mulatto"; intermarriages from other states are not recognized; no property rights come from such a marriage.
1898 - Utah - Revised Statutes, sec. 1184: "Marriage is prohibited and declared void: between a negro and a white person" and "between a Mongolian and a white person."
1901 - Arizona - Revised Statutes, sec. 3092: "All Marriages of persons of Caucasian blood, or their descendants, with Negroes, Mongolians or Indians, and their descendants, shall be null and void"
1902 - Oregon - Bellinger and Cotton Code, sec. 5217: "What marriages are void. 3. When either of the parties is a white person and the other negro, or Mongolian or a person of one-fourth or more of negro or Mongolian blood." Sec. 1999: "Hereafter it shall not be lawful within this state for any white person, male or female, to intermarry with any negro, Chinese, or any person having one- fourth or more negro, Chinese or Kanaka blood, or any person having more than one-half Indian blood, . . . . and all such marriages, or attempted marriages, shall be absolutely null and void."
1904 - Arkansas - Kerby's Statues, sec. 5174: "All marriages of white persons with Negroes or Mulattoes are declared to be illegal and void."
1906 - California - Kerr's Code, vol. 2, part 3, paragraph 60: "All marriages of white persons with negroes, mongolians, or mulattoes are illegal and void."
1906 - Missouri - Statutes, ch. 50, see. 4312: "All marriages between white persons and mongolians, are prohibited and declared absolutely void, and this prohibition shall apply to illegitimate as well as legitimate children and relatives." Sec. 2174: "No person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood shall be permitted to marry any white person, nor shall any white person be permitted to marry any negro or person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood; and every person who shall knowingly marry in violation of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years, or by fine of not less than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and the jury trying any such case may determine the proportion of negro blood in any party to such marriage from the appearance of such person."
1906 - Texas - Criminal Statutes, art. 346: "If any white person and negro shall knowingly intermarry with each other within this state, or, having so intermarried, in or out of the state, shall continue to live together as man and wife within this state, they shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for a term not less than two or more than five years."
1906 - West Virginia - Code, sec. 2917: "Void marriages: 1. All marriages between a white person and a negro."
1908 - Indiana - Statutes make void marriage between a white person and one of one-eighth or more of Negro blood.
1908 - Louisiana - Act 87 makes "concubinage between a person of the Caucasian race and a person of the negro race a felony, fixing the punishment therefore and defining what shall constitute the concubinage"; penalty imprisonment of one month to one year with or without hard labor. In the same year the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Tread away (126 La. 1908) acquits Treadaway of miscegenation charge "because his companion was an octoroon, and an octoroon was not 'a person of the negro blood or black race.'" This, the court argues, is because " [t] here are no negroes who are not persons of color; but there are persons of color who are not negroes" (see 1910 for Louisiana's legislative response). Louisiana Civil Code, art. 94, prohibits and voids marriage between white persons and persons of color.
1909 - Montana - Statutes passed declaring marriages between whites and persons of whole or part Negro blood or Chinese or Japanese null and void.
1909 - North Dakota - makes marriage of white state residents with persons of one-eighth or more Negro blood unlawful and void, punishable by prison of up to ten years and/or a fine of up to two thousand dollars.
1909 - South Dakota - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Asians and Filipinos
1910 - Louisiana -Legislature, in act 206, House bill no. 220, amends interracial concubinage prohibition to extend to any "person of the colored or black race."
1910 - North Carolina - case of Ferrall v. Ferrall turns down a husband's request to evade a property settlement and alimony on the grounds that his wife was "negro within the prohibited degree": "Years ago the plaintiff married a wife who, if she had any strain of negro blood whatever, was so white he did not suspect it until recently. . . . Now. . . he seeks to get rid of her . . . in a method that will not only deprive her of any support while he lives by alimony, or by dower after his death, but which would consign her to the association of the colored race which he so affects to despise. . . . The law may not permit him thus to bastardize his own children."
1910 - Oklahoma - Revised Laws, sec. 3894: "The marriage of any person of African descent, as defined by the constitution of this State to any person not of African descent to any person of African descent, shall be unlawful and is hereby prohibited within this State." The state constitution, art. 23, sec. 11, defines races as follows: "Wherever in this Constitution and laws of the State the word or words 'colored' or 'colored race,' 'negro' or 'negro race' are used the same shall be construed to mean or apply to all persons of African descent. The term 'white race' shall include all other persons."
1911 - Nebraska - Compiled Statutes, ch. 25, sec. 31, Consanguinity or Miscegenation: "Upon the dissolution by decree or sentence of nullity of any marriage that is prohibited on account of consanguinity between the parties, or of any marriage between a white person and a negro, the issue of the marriage shall be deemed to be illegitimate."
1912 - Nevada - Revised Laws, sec. 6517: "If any white person with any person shall live and cohabit with any black person, mulatto, Indian, or any person of the Malay or brown race or of the Mongolian or yellow race, in a state of fornication, such person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, and not less than one hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than six months or more than one year, or both."
1913 - Nebraska - Laws, ch. 72, sec. 5302. Void marriages: "First -- when one party is a white person and the other is possessed of one-eighth or more negro, Japanese or Chinese blood."
1913 - South Dakota - Compiled Laws, ch. 166, sec. 1: "The intermarriage or illicit cohabitation of any persons belonging to the African, Corean, Malayan or Mongolian race, with any person of the opposite sex, belonging to the Caucasian or white race, is hereby prohibited, and any person who shall hereafter enter into any such marriage, or who shall indulge in any such illicit cohabitation shall be deemed guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding ten years or both such fine and imprisonment."
1913 - Wyoming - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Asians and Filipinos
1915 - Michigan - Compiled Laws, sections 5700-5703 makes intermarriages expressly valid.
1919 - Idaho - law (amended 1921) declares marriage between whites and Mongolians, Negroes, or Mulattoes to be illegal and void; penalty for cohabitation is imprisonment up to six months and a maximum fine of $300.
1920 - Louisiana - Statutes of Louisiana, act 220, prohibits marriage between persons of Indian race and of colored or black race; act 230 forbids cohabitation between Negroes and Indians.
1920 - Wyoming - Compiled Statutes prohibit marriage of a white and a Negro, Mulatto, Mongolian, or Malay.
1921 - Georgia - Act makes felonious and void the intermarriage of whites and persons with an ascertainable trace of African, West Indian, Asiatic Indian, or Mongolian blood. Provisions for detecting such blood could not be enforced for lack of appropriations.
1921 - Montana - Revised Codes, sec. 5700, declares null and void the marriage between a white person and a Negro or a person with some part of Negro blood.
1923 - Michigan - Acts of Michigan, no. 7, declares intermarriages legal.
1923 - Oklahoma - Supreme Court, in Blake v. Sessions, declares void the marriage between a man of 3/4 Indian and 1/4 Negro blood and a woman with 3/4 Indian and 1/4 white blood (reason: 1910 Oklahoma Laws, sec. 1677, prohibits marriages between persons of African descent and persons of non-African descent).
1924 - Virginia - 27 February: Virginia Senate passes 23 to 4 the "Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," requiring racial ancestry certificate for all citizens born before 14 June 1912 and sharpening previous intermarriage bans: "It shall 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" (previously persons of less than one-quarter Negro blood did not count as Negroes).
California leads the way
1948 - California - California supreme court case of Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198P. 2d 17, declares state miscegenation laws unconstitutional.
BY 1950 30 out of 48 states prohibited
Interracial marriage
Most were between Whites and blacks, Asians, Indians and other races
A handful protected Indians from intermarriage
Only nine states never enacted laws
Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska and Hawaii
Washington DC also never enacted laws
1955 - Virginia - In Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S.E. 2d 749, Virginia supreme court sustains miscegenation statute; state's legislative purpose was "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens" and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "the obliteration of racial pride," and the ereation of "a mongrel breed of citizens."
1959 - Louisiana - Louisiana supreme court upholds the state's miscegenation law, arguing that the state could protect the children from such marriages from "a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone"
1951 Oregon repeals their law
1953 Montana repeals their law
1955 North Dakota laws repealed
1957 South Dakota and Colorado repeal laws.
1959 California, Idaho, and Nevada repeal laws
1962 Arizona law repealed.
1963 Nebraska and Utah repeal their laws
1964 - United States Supreme Court - Florida - In McLaughlin et al. v. Florida, U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Florida criminal statute 798.05, which prohibits an "unmarried interracial couple from habitually living in and occupying the same room in the nighttime" with a penalty of jail up to one year and a fine up to $500; ruling explicitly overturns Pace v. Alabama (1882). Court avoids the intermarriage issue as it rejects Florida's argument in support of the interracial cohabitation ban "without reaching the question of the validity of the State's prohibition against interracial marriage. . . . For even if we posit the constitutionality of the ban against the marriage of a Negro and a white, it does not follow that the cohabitation law is not to be subjected to independent examination under the Fourteenth Amendment."
1965 Wyoming laws repealed
Loving vs. Virginia would be the turning point in American law
1967 - United States Supreme Court - Virginia - 12 June: Loving v. Virginia. U.S. Supreme Court rules (9 to 0) that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional within the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Warren: "There can be no question that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. . . .Marriage is one of 'the basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." The case was that of the white construction worker Richard Loving and his Negro wife Mildred Jeter, who had married in the District of Columbia and then returned to Virginia.
360 years after the first permanent European settlement in the New World and activist judges made God's law null and void in the United States of America
When the United States Supreme Court made their decision, the following states had their laws automatically overturned:
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Maryland had already initiated a repeal of their law.
1977 - Tennessee - Limited Constitutional Convention eliminates prohibition of interracial marriages from Tennessee Constitution by resolving unanimously that "Article XI, of the Constitution is hereby amended by deleting there from in its entirety Section 14 prohibiting interracial marriages."
1978 - Tennessee - 31 March: Tennessee proclaims repeal of the 1896 constitution's art. 11, sec. 14, prohibiting racial intermarriage after narrow approval of electorate with 199,742 against 191,745 votes.
1987 - Mississippi - 4 December: Mississippi Secretary of State proclaims that section 263 of 1890 constitution, prohibiting interracial marriage, is deleted based upon House Concurrent Resolution #13 (Laws 1987, ch.672) and ratification by the electorate on November 3.
States with Constitutional Amendments
1883 - North Carolina State Constitution - All marriages between a White person and a Negro, or between a White person and a person of Negro descent to the third generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited. (Article 14, Section 8)
1890 - Mississippi State Constitution - The marriage of a White person with a Negro or mulatto, or person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood, shall be unlawful and void. (Article 14, Section 263)
1892 - Florida State Constitution - All marriages between a White person and a Negro, or between a White person and a person of Negro descent to the fourth generation, inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited. (Article 16, Section 24)
1895 - South Carolina State Constitution - The marriage of a White person with a Negro or mulatto, or person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood, shall be unlawful and void. (Article 3, Section 33)
1896 - Tennessee State Constitution - The intermarriage of White persons with negroes, mulattoes, or persons of mixed blood, descended from a Negro to the third generation, inclusive, or their living together as man and wife in this state is prohibited. The legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate legislation. (Article 11, Section 14)
1901 - Alabama State Constitution (amended) - The legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any White person and a Negro, or a descendant of a Negro. (Section 102)
Other important rulings and events that have led to the acceptance of interracial marriage and mixing in our society:
1932 - Powell v. Alabama - The United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant in a capital case must be given access to an attorney as part of due process. This seems reasonable, on the surface. But when you read about the case, nine black male defendants were accused of raping two white women. Seven were given the death penalty. They were only given access to they lawyers just before the trial. The appeal was based on inadequate legal counsel and the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the trial was fair. The case then went to the United States Supreme Court.
The majority opinion reversed and remanded the decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court, holding that due process under the 14th amendment had been violated. The ruling was based on three main arguments: "(1) They were not given a fair, impartial and deliberate trial; (2) They were denied the right of counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consultation and opportunity for trial; and (3) They were tried before juries from which qualified members of their own race were systematically excluded.The opinion noted that the atmosphere around the case was quite hostile; the prisoners were always escorted by the military and the trial took place in the presence of a "hostile and excited public".
The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. It has been used to force Roe vs. Wade on the American public, among others
White people today are rarely tried before juries that are qualified members of their own race
Ernse Zundel, and others who are considered bigots who have been tried for "hatred and bigotry" have trials in the presence of a "hostile and excited public."
Discrimination against Whites is alive and strong
1945 - Shelley v. Kraemer - The United States Supreme Court ruled that The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from enforcing restrictive covenants which would prohibit a person from owning or occupying property on the basis of race or color. The Shelley's, a black family, purchased property that had restrictive covenants in place which barred "people of the black or Mongolian race" from owning the property. The U.S. Supreme Court joined this case with a similar one from Detroit, Michigan and ruled that no state could uphold private land covenants that are racially-based.
White people who want to separate themselves from other races are considered hateful and racist and are not allowed to live in peace
By 1946 the United States Military was being integrated
1954 - Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, United States Supreme Court said that separate but equal in public schools was not equal.
The fourteenth amendment was the basis of this ruling
1941 - President Franklin D. Roosevelt - signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph
1961 President John F. Kennedy - Executive Order 10925 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
1965 - President Lyndon B. Johnson - Executive order 11246 and 11375 - The order, as amended, aims "to correct the effects of past and present discrimination". It prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin. The order requires that contractors take affirmative action to ensure that "protected class, underutilized applicants" are employed when available, and that employees are treated without negative discriminatory regard to their protected-class status.
The order specifically requires certain organizations accepting federal funds to take affirmative action to increase employment of members of preferred racial or ethnic groups and women. Any organization with fifty or more employees and an aggregate revenue exceeding $50,000 from a single federal contract during a twelve month period must have a written affirmative action plan. This plan must include goals and timetables for achieving full utilization of women and members of racial minorities, in quotas based on an analysis of the current workforce compared to the availability in the general labor pool of women and members of racial minorities.. The order is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Employment Standards Administration of the U. S. Department of Labor and by the Office of Civil Rights of the Justice Department. In his commencement address at Howard University, a black school, given this same year, Johnson said:
Nothing is more freighted with meaning for our own destiny than the revolution of the Negro American...In far too many ways American Negroes have been another nation: deprived of freedom, crippled by hatred, the doors of opportunity closed to hope...But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair...This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result...To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough.
The falsehoods told to blacks and Whites alike about American History has led to the condition we are in today
While discrimination of any type is wrong, attempting to legislate hiring practices leads to discrimination for the race not protected by legislation
the White race
College Acceptance Rates (2005)
Harvard - 10% overall - 16.7% Black - +67.0% difference
MIT - 15.9% overall - 31.6% Black - +98.7% difference
Brown - 16.6% overall - 26.3% Black - +58.4% difference
PENN - 21.2% overall - 30.1% Black - +42.0% difference
Georgetown - 22.0% overall - 30.7% Black - +39.5% difference
Being black makes a difference in being accepted to college
At MIT being black made all the difference
Blacks make up 12% of the population
You tell us -- who is being discriminated against?
1962 - Engel v. Vitale - The United States Supreme Court restricts prayer in public schools
1963 - Abington v. Schempp - The United States Supreme Court removes the Bible from public Schools
1964 - Congress passed the Civil Rights Act which forced the full integration of American society and actually discriminates against Whites
1965 - Congress passes the Immigration and Nationality Act which abolished the racial quota system for immigration
previously only 20% came from non-White countries, after only 20% would come from White countries
1973 - Roe v. Wade - The United States Supreme Court allows the murder of unborn children. The Fourteenth Amendment was the basis of this ruling
1980 - Stone v. Grahm the United States Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky statute requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools
2003 - Lawrence v. Texas - The United States Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting sodomy saying that it's a "victimless" crime. The Fourteenth Amendment was the basis of this ruling
2003 - Federal judges in New York and California issue restraining orders blocking enforcement of the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act
2003 - Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health - Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples can marry under the laws of the state
The progression has been slow
But when you look at how far we've come from our roots
The Pilgrims would be appalled
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Race Laws in Other Countries
1678 - Cape Colony (South Africa) - Political Council of Cape Colony - prohibits marriages between Dutch burghers and freed slaves; reaffirmed by edict in 1685
1685 - Cape Colony (South Africa) - Prohibits marriage between white men and slave women; some legal unions of white men with free women of color continued to take place, but with decreasing frequency
1685 - Article 9 of Code Noir of Louis XIV (French Territories) - Threatens those men who live in concubinage with a Nebro slave woman with the high fine of 2000 livres (pounds of sugar). Penalty could be avoided if the man so charged was unmarried and married the slave woman, which also legitimated any earlier offspring.
1771 - Brazil - Viceroy of Portuguese Brazil - orders degredation of an AmerIndian Chief, who "disregarding the signal honours which he had received from the Crown, had sunk so low as to marry a Negress, staining his blood with this alliance."
1778 - France - Order of the Council of State forbidding all marriages between whites and blacks, on penalty of being expelled at once to the colonies.
1778 - Spanish marriage regulation, requiring parental consent for couples under 25 (in order to prevent unequal alliances), is extended to overseas possessions with proviso that it is not to be applied to "Mulattoes, negroes, Coyotes and other Castas and similar races."
1805 - Spanish Royal Decree - requires that persons of pure blood obtain permission of the viceroy or the audiencia in order to marry elements of Negro and Mulatto origin.
1897 - Transvaal (South Africa) - Law no. 2 -- "Wet tot tegengaan van deontucht," immorality legislation against extramarital intercourse between consenting white women and black men (defined to include all members of indigenous and colored races of South Africa as well as Coolies, Arabs, and Malays). Penalties for the white woman (in cases other than rape) were up to five years'
imprisonment or expulsion from the republic; for black men, six years of hard labor and up to 50 lashes. This law and its amendments (no. 46 -- 1903, "Immorality Ordinance," and no. 16 -- 1908, "Criminal Law Amendment Act") provided the models for other South African laws, including the 1927 "Immorality Act."
1897 - Transvaal (South Africa) - Law no. 3 -- regulating marriages of coloured people, "Wet regelnde de huwelijken van kleurlingen," which specified only the possibility that colored people marry other colored people, whereas the previous marriage law of 1871 was only for whites; colored marriages contracted before 1897 were legalized with ordinance no. 29 -- 1903. 1902 - Cape Colony (South Africa) - Law no. 36- 1902, "Betting Houses, Gaming Houses, and Brothels Suppression Act," prohibits voluntary sexual relations for the purpose of gain between white women and Africans ("aboriginal natives"); the maximum punishment for women is two years' imprisonment at hard labor (sec. 24), for procuring up to five years at hard labor, and for male procurers additionally up to 25 beatings (secs. 35 and 36). In the House of Assembly debates of 1902 (pp.438 and 486ff) the law was advocated by Mr. Graham as a protection of women, and by Mr. Merriman as a device in the interest of white and black in order to prevent riots of the kind that were familiar from the southern United States.
1903 - British Colonies (South Africa) - Enacted laws similar to but going beyond that of the Cape Colony. Natal: No. 31-1903, "Criminal Law Amendment Act," prohibits indecent relations between white women and colored persons (sec. 16); colored were defined in the "Vagrancy Law" 15-1869 as "Hot tentots, coolies, bushmen, Lascars, and members of the so-called kaffer population." 1903 - Orange Free State (South Africa) - Law No. 11, "Suppression of Brothels and Immorality Act," sec. 14-16. Transvaal: No. 46, "Immorality Ordinance," similar to Natal, but with harsher punishment and with a very broad definition of "native" as including natives of the indigenous or colored races of Africa, Asia, or St. Helena; in addition Transvaal had no provisions for (though also no direct ban of) intermarriages since 1897.
1903 - Rhodesia (Africa) - "Immorality and Indecency Suppression Act" (by Cecil Rhodes's British South African Company) makes illegal and punishable sexual relations between a white woman and a black man (but not those between a white man and a black woman).
1910 - Natal (South Africa) - Case of Biscombe and Bissesseur v. Rex: The white woman Biscombe was acquitted of miscegenation charges for her relation with the Indian man Bissesseur because the court determined that "coolies" was not a racial term but included class features: for example, a barrister of Indian parentage was not a "coolie" and Bissesseur was a "free" Indian and hence not a "coolie."
1912 - German Samoa - 17 January: Ban of racial intermarriages
1912 - German Colonies - 8 May: German Reichstag defeats proposal to ban intermarriage in colonies and resolves (202 to 133 votes) that Bundesrat enact legislation securing the validity of marriages between whites and natives in German colonies and regulating the rights of illegitimate children; sponsors: Zentrum, supported by Social Democrats. (NOTE: The Social Democrats were mainly Jewish communists. Jews and communists are great supporters of race mixing, when it messes up the White race.)
1913 - South Africa - South African Assaults on Women Committee, p. 36, criticizes 1902 "Brothels Suppression Act" for not including sexual relations between white men and native women.
1927 - South Africa - South African Union House of Assembly (under Hertzog government) passes "Immorality Act," no. 5 -- 1927, which bans all extramarital interracial sexual relations between Europeans and Africans. "Illicit carnal intercourse" is defined as an "offence" punishable with prison up to five years for men and up to four years for women. In the House of Assembly Debates 1926, p. 36, and 1927, pp.37ff., the minister of justice Tielman Roos defended the proposed act as protecting the native women of South Africa, and, second, in order to teach the populace that intercourse between Europeans and natives was not a thing to be taken lightly. From 1928 to 1938 about 550 Europeans (among them 75 women) and 600 natives (among them 510 women) were punished.
1949 - South Africa - South African Union passes "Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act" which makes intermarriage between Europeans and all non-Europeans illegal.
1950 - South Africa - South African Union amends 1927 "Immorality Act" to extend it to "Coloureds"; sexual intercourse or even "immoral or indecent acts" between whites and all nonwhite groups prohibited; maximum punishment of seven years of hard labor, corporal punishment for men; only exceptions are couples legally married before 1949 Act. "Sexual relations between persons of African, Coloured, and Asiatic origin are not forbidden by law."
1961 - Rhodesia - Rhodesian "Immorality and Indecency Suppression Act" of 1903 abrogated.
1968 - South Africa - South African parliament votes to consider null and void any interracial marriage, solemnized abroad, between white South Africans and nonwhites.
1985 - South Africa - 15 April: Home Affairs Minister Frederik W. de Klerk announces that South African government accepts recommendation from three-chamber parliamentary committee to overturn the 1949 "Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act," the "Immorality Act," and other legislation prohibiting interracial sex or marriage. In the five preceding years, 918 people had been prosecuted for violations of these laws.
After years of economic sanctions and hate filled rhetoric from the world South Africa capitulated -- and now they're o longer a great nation -- nor a safe nation
Click here for more information about this tragic story
You might wonder why there are no dates for Germany, other then German Samoa, listed above
We believe that you can't get a true understanding of what took place in Germany during World War II just by looking at a date
Please take the time to understand
Just in case you have the idea that
Only White People desire to remain Separate
or that only the United States has racial problems
Here's some information on racial issues in other nations and the laws or measures they have attempted in order to
Protect their Heritage
Our Brothers in Great Britain
The genetic makeup of today's White Briton is much the same as it was thousands of years ago. The ethnic populations that have inhabited the British islands include the Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Norman peoples. All White.
Intermarriage with non-European populations began in the late 15th century, with the arrival of the Romani people, who have Indian origins. We know them as "gypsies." They remained a small, contained population.
Intermarriage didn't become more "common" until the 17th century, when the British East India Company began bringing over thousands of Indian scholars, called lascars, and other Indian workers (often Bengali and/or Muslim) to Britain. A large numbers of these married or cohabitated with local White British females since Indian women were not brought along with the workers. In 1817, a magistrate expressed disgust at how many local English women and girls were marrying or cohabitating with foreign South Asian lascars.
Yet the British didn't make legal restrictions against these foreign marriages. Bet they're kicking themselves now!
Following World War I, which left 885,000 British soldiers dead, there was a large surplus of females in Britain and no men for them to marry. Increasing numbers of seamen arrived from the Indian subcontinent, Arab World, Far East and Caribbean. Intermarriage and cohabitation with local White females increased to the point that race riots broke out. By World War II, any form of race mixing was considered offensive.
Today, in Great Britain, inter-racial relationships have become more and more accepted. So accepted in fact that as of 2009, one in ten children living in the United Kingdom, 10%, lives in a mixed-race family.
Not to mention the massive non-White immigration that our brothers in Great Britain are experiencing. At least one in seven in their schools speak English as their second language.
Over half a million school children in multicultural Britain with English as a 2nd Language
What is the inevitable outcome of race mixing?
Genocide
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, political, cultural or national group.
Miscegenation destroys both races involved
Miscegenation destroys both cultures involved
Miscegenation destroys both nations involved
Miscegenation destroys what God has created
[Q
so i really dontwant to hear the religious crap, its HATE
MARILYN MANSONS WORM BOY SONG an video......then i thought about exotic dancers XD and XDerterestrial an about pinkfloys song the wall an Walmart with Walmart like twalmar twarmer like a warmer degress to kill worms an dewormer for dogs cats and pink Floyd color of worm that curls like a cinnamon roll an the o in back of my head and ROSE like the shape it goes in , my life has been no bed of roses the meaning of the rubberband an tape worms an an the worm looking like a rubberband an the worm which looks like a rose a cinnamon roll curledup an the colorpink it was when i found it on myblanket an ithought about the penis an how the sperm looks kinda like worms an how the pussy representing meat feeling like meat with entrance of a dick an thermometor an the temp an the tep ofburnng KKK crosess
marilyn mansons cross at recent concerts which e hasnt sent me one single dime or tiket to concert or showed me love ..... the prices women charge forservices an time being 250$ an up being adecree that kills worms an germs an i thought about how uch providers medical an hospitalsharge for ther services i thought about the call center of esortservice called call girls i thought about the cocacola call center anthought about the bird whostares an calls kawws kaws an starves like the actress starving an why i should have to starve to because of being discrimated against an the the laws of god that our body is temple og holyspirit an what we put in it should be pure an i thought about temps an cookng an how much things gives us temps like goldenshowers in the mouth piss an shit an scat can give u a temp so can eating old bolona an lunch meat an spoiled meat an milk i have a lactose intolence to milk an get hot if i drink milk so i thought about a alternative to milk an i thought about MLK the initals similar to milk and how we had separate drinking fountains an thought about the kissing disease when it came out an researched it i thought about when the milk man use to deliver milk in jugs, an was it put on ICE back when grandma mom or great grandma had her milk delivered to the door just like the paper man ... a quarter for a paper and why we don't have milk machines just like pop machines instaed of pop machines an why milk dosent come in cans an why water dosnet come in cans i wisg i could think more yet with ahole in head an being disabled an handicap its hard to think handicapped by discrimination an hatred an jelousy an nonlovers who didn't want to bless me my whole life taken to paradise or even amish on a farm to eat fresh i thought of subway an eat fresh an speaking of the hole in the hhead i thought of Courtney love the singer hole and nirvana rape me song an how i was raped of living of a queen an princess of gods an how i should be a diamond and like the hole ...in back like name barack Obama hey that's our president an how the hole is size of face on a dollar bill or million dollar bill i thought of the million dollar baby an MLK martin luther king and thought about the movies again an how life is just based on service we can starve ourselves to act an to sexual some woman many women do to have anal and how the government uses our minds to service movies an foods but what about living forever an how do we get that not by sex or am i wrong?
i thought about marilynmanson an on his CD theres a pic of LIGHT BULB an American portrait of family 
Segregation Ruled Illegal in U.S. (1954): In 1896, the 
song sings aboutflys will lay there eggs an other papers sating such.. like leeches summer of he leeches virgifeeling cheated ...
