Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T23:36:31.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Loving in Indian Territory

Tribal Miscegenation Law in Historical Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2012

Kevin Noble Maillard
Affiliation:
Syracuse University, School of Law
Rose Cuison Villazor
Affiliation:
Hofstra University, School of Law
Get access

Summary

State antimiscegenation laws aimed to regulate white desire for black bodies in an effort to preserve white racial purity and ultimately white supremacy. Facially, these laws did not regulate intimate relations when such relations involved only people of color. For example, state statutes typically did not preclude a Native-American person from marrying an African-American person. But a careful examination of the social and legal atmosphere that was created by state antimiscegenation laws reveals that these state laws did impact the desire of nonwhite people of color to marry black persons.

State miscegenation laws that ultimately permitted whites to marry Indians aided the assimilation of Indians into mainstream white America by operating as a form of racial rehabilitation. Indian assimilation, however, required more than Indians intermarrying with whites; it required the total indoctrination of Indians into the system of white supremacy. This meant that Indians needed to adopt white sexual mores, including the aversion to race mixing with blacks.

During the antebellum period, four of the tribes referred to by the federal government as the “Five Civilized Tribes” adopted miscegenation laws that attempted to preclude Indians from marrying or having sexual relations with blacks. Through the regulation of Indian-black sexual relations, the tribes sought to avoid mixed-race offspring and thereby protect Indian identity from “corruption.” Indians viewed themselves as a free and self-governing people, which was the basis for claiming tribal sovereignty. This view of self was in contradistinction to blacks who generally were not free, but bonded and without rights that the white man was bound to respect.

Type
Chapter
Information
Loving v. Virginia in a Post-Racial World
Rethinking Race, Sex, and Marriage
, pp. 46 - 58
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Pratt, Carla D.Tribes and Tribulations: Beyond Sovereign Immunity and Toward Reparation and Reconciliation for the Estelusti 11 Wash. & Lee Race & Ethnic Anc. L.J.61 2005Google Scholar
Kennedy, Randall 2003
Onwuachi-Willig, AngelaUndercover Other 94 Cal. L.Rev873 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon-Reed, Annette 1997
Purdue, Theda 2005
Mauro, Hayes Peter 2006
Prucha, Francis Paul 1995
Guinier, LaniTorres, Gerald 2002
Harris, Cheryl I.Whiteness as Property 106 Harv. L. Rev1707 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildman, Stephanie M.The Persistence of White Privilege 18 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y245 2005Google Scholar
McIntosh, Peggy 1988
1995
Adams, David Wallace 1995
Saunt, ClaudioA Conversation with Dr. Claudio Saunt 1 Voices of Indian Territory58 2005Google Scholar
Patterson, OrlandoThe Nexus Between Race and Policy: Interview with Orlando Patterson, Professor of Sociology at Harvard University 4 Geo. Public Pol’y Pev107 1999Google Scholar
Omi, MichaelWinant, Howard 1994
1847
Purdue, Theda 2005
Higginbotham, A. LeonHigginbotham, F. Michael“Yearning to Breathe Free”: Legal Barriers Against and Options in Favor of Liberty in Antebellum Virginia 68 N.Y.U. L. Rev.1213 1993Google Scholar
Waring, Antonio J. 1960
2004
2002
1996
Yarbrough, Fay A.Power, Perception, and Interracial Sex: Former Slaves Recall a Multiracial South 71 H. S. Hist559 2005Google Scholar
Miles, Tiya 2005
Spruhan, PaulA Legal History of Blood Quantum in Federal Indian Law to 1935 51 S.D. L. Rev5 2006Google Scholar
Maillard, Kevin NobleThe Pocahontas Exception: American Indians and Exceptionalism in Antimiscegenation Law 12 Mich. J. Race & L.107 2007Google Scholar
Cook, Samuel R.The Monacan Indian Nation: Asserting Tribal Sovereignty in the Absence of Federal Recognition 17 Wicazo Sa Rev91 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovett, Laura L.“African and Cherokee by Choice”: Race and Resistance Under Legalized Segregation 22 Am. Indian Q.203 1998Google Scholar
McMullen, Ann 2002

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×