[In my post for this week, I seek to bring light to the
questions about the ambiguity of the color-line that Charles Chestnutt
highlights in his essay “What is a White Man?” To do so, I thought it would be
interesting to write a letter from Chestnutt to the Supreme Court of the United
States and ask similar questions that he inquires in his article. I hope to
exemplify the ambiguities between the legality and societal implementation of
the question of the racial color-line, emphasizing the importance placed on
bloodline, complexion, race, and even reputation, and societal reception and
acknowledgement that appears prevalent in post-War, Reconstruction culture.]
To the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States of America,
Greetings to you all and I do hope
that you are all pleasantly well! I chose to write to you today to settle and
gain clarity on an important subject that has, as you all may know quite well,
been quite unclear since the end of the War. I present the issue of the
color-line. What, in your opinions, defines being of the Negro, mulato, and of
course White races? I have recently written an article in the Independent that tries to identify these
questions, particularly those of being White, but alas I find myself even more
confused than before!
From my research I have found some
similar, but many different answers to this question and it appears to be
dictated by state preference. Though I am not at all questioning your decisions
and wise knowledge on the subject, is this provision the wisest? As you all
know, our country has been grappling with the question of racial category for
decades now, particularly because our laws and citizenship rights depend on its
outcome. For instance, we know that the White man is granted certain privileges
and rights, such as citizenship, voting, marriage, and other freedoms that he
so chosen. On the contrary, the Negro and mulato races are not so advantaged.
Particularly for mulatos, what they can actually call themselves, whether they
are mulatos at all, becomes a large and quite vague question from state to
state, even district to district.
For instance, for some states like
Missouri, the color-line drawn at 1/4th Negro blood, meaning that
persons with 1/8th Negro blood are considered White. Whereas states
like Louisiana, the color-line is drawn at 1/8th Negro blood. As you
all know, only Arkansas separates those states, so what would happen if a mulato
decide to move from Louisiana to Missouri and he has 1/4th Negro
blood? As we can see, this might be a complication. Furthermore, my research
tells me that the Supreme Court of South Carolina decided that the race of the
person is at the discretion of the jury; only ruling that that person must have
features and complexion of a White person. And I quote: “The definition of the term mulatto, as
understood in this state, seems to be vague, signifying generally a person of
mixed white or European and Negro parentage…The question whether persons are
colored or white, where color or feature are doubtful, is for the jury to
decide by reputation, by reception into society, and by their exercise of the
privileges of the white man, as well as by admixture of blood." Here the
complication becomes even more evident. If the race of a mulato, according to
South Carolina, is to be determined by a jury of said person’s peers, based on
complexion, yes, but even such affordance as their reputation and stance within
the community, then what makes these color-lines so justifiable of a person, so
telling of their intellect, their capability, as so many argue for the
existence of these color-lines in the first place? What makes it so that you
can be a mulato, having Negro blood, in one state, and then the next day you
are not so in another state? These complexities I do fair make it hard to
believe in the natural purity, virtue, and grand intellect of the white race
that Southerners use to justify such “policies” and “privileges” to one color
over another, now doesn’t it?
Alas, I am just a humble writer of our day, and may be interpreting
these distinctions wrongly. I seek you clarification and quite possibly bring
this to your attention if only for an instance.
Yours truly,
Charles May,
1889
No comments:
Post a Comment