In 1967, 17 Southern states (all former slave states plus Oklahoma) still had laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. Maryland struck down its law in response to the start of the Supreme Court trial. After the Supreme Court`s decision, the remaining laws were no longer enforceable. However, it was not until Mississippi until 1987, South Carolina until 1998 and Alabama until 2000 to amend the constitutions of their states to remove the language that prohibits miscegenation. In the respective referendums, 52 percent of Mississippi voters, 62 percent of South Carolina voters and 59 percent of Alabama voters voted for the changes. In Alabama, nearly 526,000 people voted against the change, including a majority of voters in some rural counties. [32] [33] [34] [35] Despite Henry`s proposal, interracial unions were not well accepted in the colonies and, in many cases, declared illegal. The idea that Africans and their descendants were not only distinct from, but inferior to the English was widespread in Shakespeare`s time and, therefore, emigrated to America with the early colonialists.4 With the introduction of slaves into the colonies, laws were developed to keep the races separate. On July 28, 1916, the chief of police in Louisville, Kentucky, announced the arrest of at least three people for miscegenation or miscegenation. He also announced his intention to launch an investigation into the practice, which would „spare no effort“ to prevent people from forming or maintaining interracial romantic relationships in Louisville.

Earlier in the day, Louisville police made at least three arrests on allegations of interracial romance. Authorities first arrested Harry Jenkins, a 34-year-old black man, and Alice Shumaker, a 30-year-old woman who identified as black, but police believed she was white. Louisville law enforcement arrested Jenkins and Shumaker for misconduct, though they were accused of being found together under the same roof at the same time. Refusing to accept Ms. Shumaker`s racial self-identification, the local prison guard forced her to undergo a blood test „to determine whether she was black or not.“ The same white Louisville police officers who arrested Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Shumaker also arrested George Eaton, a 16-year-old black boy. After searching George, officers found photos of three white teenage girls in his bag. George said the white girls gave him the photos and refused to identify them. Police arrested George, while the police chief ordered other high-ranking officers in his department to do „a photo gallery tour“ in the city of Louisville to discover the identities of the white girls. Kentucky criminalized interracial marriages beginning the year it was admitted to the Union in 1792.

At the time Jenkins, Shumaker and George were arrested, state law prohibited a black person — defined by the Kentucky Supreme Court as a person with „a quarter or more black blood“ — from marrying or living with a white person. Those who break the law face a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to one year. Black people accused of miscegenation were treated in a dehumanizing manner by law enforcement, and investigations and trials were often humiliating and intrusive. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court struck down all laws criminalizing interracial marriage in 1967, Kentucky did not repeal its anti-miscegenation law until 1974. In Jim Crow`s time, one of the racial boundaries that most fiercely protected whites was the prohibition of romantic contact between black men and white women. The fear of intimate contact between black men and white women has been fueled by the widespread myth that black men are violent, sexually aggressive, and always looking for white femininity. In Kentucky and other states, these fears have led to the aggressive enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws, the humiliation of interracial couples, and the destruction of multiracial families. To learn more about anti-miscegenation laws and other policies adopted to maintain white supremacy, read the EJI Segregation in America report. Laws prohibiting miscegenation in the United States date back to 1661 and were common in many states until 1967.

That year, the Supreme Court ruled on the issue in Loving v. Virginia concluded that Virginia`s miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. In this article, we examine the history of miscegenation in the United States, some motivations for anti-miscegenation policies, the historic decision of Loving v. Virginie and some applications of the subject to social studies courses. As part of the Race Manifesto in Fascist Italy, laws were passed in Italy and its foreign colonies prohibiting marriage between Aryans (Italians) and non-Aryans (Africans and Jews). [54] As of 1967, 16 states had yet to repeal anti-miscegenation laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Mildred and Richard Loving were residents of one of these states, Virginia. They had fallen in love and wanted to get married. After the fall, anti-miscegenation laws were repealed or repealed state after state in the 1950s, except in the South. Nevertheless, in the 1950s, the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in the United States was still a contentious issue, even among proponents of racial integration.

Arendt`s analysis of the centrality of laws against interracial marriage to white supremacy mirrored Gunnar Myrdal`s conclusions. In his essay Social Trends in America and Strategic Approaches to the Negro Problem (1948), Myrdal classified the social domains in which the freedom of African Americans was restricted by racial segregation by racial segregation from lowest to largest: workplaces, courts and police, politics, basic public institutions, „social equality,“ including dancing and shaking hands, and most importantly, marriage.