Anti-Miscegenation Laws in the United States: History & Impact

Introduction to Miscegenation and Anti-Miscegenation Laws

In order to understand what an anti-miscegenation law is, it is important to examine the definition of the term miscegenation. This term is derived from two Latin words — miscere, meaning "to mix," and genus, referring to "type," "family," or "descent" (Frederickson, 1971). The term has therefore been used to describe the mixing of racial groups, ethnicities, and in rare circumstances different religions, most commonly referring to cohabitation or intermarriage between such groups. It has also been used to describe situations in which two persons of different racial backgrounds produce offspring without necessarily cohabiting or marrying. In the United States, the term was mostly used in the context of white racist attitudes and the alleged attraction of Black men toward white women (Jordan, 1968).

The very earliest cases of racial mixing were witnessed with the emergence of slavery in the United States. These initial cases commonly occurred under the threat of violence, through physical domination and rape (Frederickson, 1971). These interracial relationships produced children of mixed race and eventually became a way in which power relationships between whites and Blacks in America were manifested.

The existence of such relationships prompted several states, even before the formal establishment of the United States, to enact anti-miscegenation laws. This body of law remained part of American legal culture until the late 1960s (Jordan, 1968). Anti-miscegenation laws were passed by states individually, illegalizing miscegenation — or interracial marriage, as it is more commonly known today — as well as interracial sex. These laws treated miscegenation as a felony, and the officiating of weddings between individuals of different races was also prohibited, including related ceremonies. However, there was a lack of uniformity in the felony charges that could be applied, since individuals could not always be charged directly with miscegenation. The felony charges brought against such individuals instead included adultery or fornication.

Specifically, anti-miscegenation laws banned whites and non-white groups from marrying. These prohibitions mainly targeted Black people, but in some cases also included Native Americans and Asians. Beyond criminalizing marriage, anti-miscegenation laws in a number of states also criminalized sex and cohabitation between the groups concerned.

Variation Among State Laws

It is clear that these laws were not only numerous but also varied considerably. The first area of difference concerned how individuals were defined as falling within a prohibited class, which varied from one state to another. What appeared unanimous was the prohibition of Black–white marriages, which all affected states practiced. In other states, marriage between whites and persons of Mongoloid descent was forbidden, while in still others marriage between Black people and Native Americans was prohibited. A few states also forbade marriages between Native Americans and whites.

The emphasis placed on prohibiting racial intermarriage also differed. In some states the prohibition was considered so important that it was enshrined as a constitutional provision. This difference in emphasis also affected how such laws were applied to children of interracial marriages — some statutes were not intended to govern this group, while others lacked a clear interpretation (Jordan, 1968).

Impact on Racial Hierarchy and Social Structure

Several myths surrounding racial segregation in America have assumed that different racial groups have always lived apart, as though dictated by nature. However, in the early period of American colonial settlement, Black slaves and white indentured servants worked side by side. This proximity made interracial attraction common. With these two groups living and working closely together, the social boundary between Blacks and whites became blurred, since there was little practical difference in their circumstances — both engaged in hard labor, even though Blacks were enslaved and whites were free persons who had chosen temporary contracts. Anti-miscegenation laws were enacted, in part, to enforce a clearer distinction between these groups (Freeman, 2005).

It was argued that racial mixing undermined the sanctity of free white labor and the legitimacy of Black people's status as property, and that this had to be corrected. Beyond this, anti-miscegenation laws also codified a racial hierarchy in which whites were considered free and Blacks were not. These laws created a widening gap between the two groups, with Black people receiving increasingly inferior treatment. White male slaveholders in particular demanded sex from their Black female slaves despite the formal ban on interracial sex. White men could violate these rules without consequence, while Black people faced severe punishment. When Black women attempted to resist, they were punished, raped, or sold at auction.

Conclusion

Even though anti-miscegenation laws were still present in some states as late as the 1960s, most states had done away with them by then. Repeal came as a result of a number of court cases that ruled in favor of complainants, as well as the sustained advocacy of civil rights proponents who argued — correctly — that these laws violated constitutional provisions protecting individual rights. The landmark Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967) was pivotal in striking down the remaining state anti-miscegenation statutes. Although these laws have been abolished, their social, cultural, and economic effects continue to be felt in the United States to this day.

References

Davis, F. James. 1991. Who is Black? One Nation's Definition. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Frederickson, George M. 1971. The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817–1914. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Freeman, Victoria. 2005. "Attitudes Toward 'Miscegenation' in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia, 1860–1914." Native Studies Review 16(1): 39–66.

Jordan, Winthrop. 1968. White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550–1812. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.