Northern Black Laws
|
In past articles I have written adamantly against the portrayal of the Confederates as the bad guys and the Unionists as the good guys. Both sides had their evils. Both had their necessary causes. But to view the Southern soldier as one who was willing to defend the institution of slavery at all costs, thus representing an evil within himself is erroneous. Likewise, to place the Northern soldier in the light of abolition and civil rights, fighting for the freedom and equality of all subjugated black people is highly inaccurate. Contrarily, much of the North, though not adhering to the principles of slavery (a mindset greatly influenced by economics), was as racist as much of the South. During the Reconstruction and Civil Right Eras, where the southern states had a prescribed set of laws designed to limit the rights of blacks, the northern states, too, had modes of segregation and racism within its policy and politics; these modes were simply more covert and in the form of de facto Jim Crow laws. But yet it is the South that is so often portrayed as being the only oppressor during these time periods. Well, prior to the Civil War, the North did not maintain the oppressive institution of slavery, of course. But many of the states did pass legislation to suppress the natural rights of free blacks. I am referring to what were called the "black laws." In the 1850's several Northern states were passing personal liberty laws that guaranteed the freedom of fugitive slaves. Additionally, many of the upper Northern states ensured by law all the rights and privileges promised by the Constitution to free blacks (including the man's right to vote). But other Northern states were passing "black laws" that "imposed degrading restrictions on free blacks" (MacPherson, 1992, p. 84). Indiana adopted a resolution at its 1851 constitutional convention that prohibited black migration into the state. Prior to that resolution were laws already in place denying blacks their right to serve on juries, join the militia, voting, and laws that segregated them in schools and marriage. Iowa and Illinois, which had similar laws, followed suit by denying black immigration by 1853 (MacPherson, 1992). California was quick to adopt dozens of laws discriminating against blacks even prior to statehood in 1849. The only thing that prevented the territory from excluding black migration was fear of not being admitted into the Union on that basis. Also, upon admission as a state in 1859, Oregon also took part in the suppression of black rights, including an exclusion provision. The black man's right to vote was a hot issue in the lower North, but despite the efforts of many Free Soilers and Republicans, the initiative failed miserably. Northern democrats referred to their opponents as the "nigger party" or "amalgamation party." "So pervasive was racism in many parts of the North that no party could win if it endorsed full racial equality" (MacPherson, 1992, p. 85). And it should be noted that many of those in favor of abolition and support for fugitives were not motivated necessarily by high moral character or an intense love and sympathy for blacks. Many took great stands against the injustice of slavery while intent on preserving the "whiteness" of America by sending all freed slaves back to Africa through the colonization effort in Liberia. This article was not written for the sole purpose of bashing
Northerners during the Civil War era. There truly were good folks on
both sides who ultimately won the fight in abolishing slavery and
granting voting rights. The entire point of this piece is to allow for
the recognition that when it came to racial equality and social justice,
the North was not much more advanced or "moral" than the
South. The Northern army as a whole did not fight to abolish slavery.
The Southern army as a whole did not fight to preserve it. And
politically, most Northern states had no intention of granting Negroes
the rights for which they so arduously fought for another century.
Martin Luther King JR's statement that segregation and racism was worse
in Chicago than he had ever seen in the deep south is a compelling
statement. What he witnessed in Chicago in the 1960's has its roots in
the 1850 North. |