Restrictions on Blacks


 


Introduction


            The Whites were once prompted by this idea of “racial superiority”, derived from ’s evolutionary perspective.  They thought that the white skin color is the highest form or the superior human being while those of black or brown ones are inferior (‘’ 2005).  Thus, it justified social inequality, which was embedded in the social structures of society.  And this paved the way to what is known as racism, the belief that a certain racial classification is inherently superior or inferior to another ( 2005, p. 360).  This issue constituted the core of this essay.  Specifically, it sought to provide answers to key questions in understanding this within the context of American society in the 19th century.  The first query was – what economic, political, and social restrictions were imposed on free Blacks in the North and South during the 19th Century?  The second problem was – how did these restrictions contribute to some Blacks’ emigration from America?  The succeeding section is about to resolve the first objective at hand. 


 


Restrictions on (free) Blacks North and South during the 1800′s


Political Restrictions


            Perhaps the most significant political restriction among the Blacks concerned their suffrage.  According to (1997), during the 18th to the 19th century in most states, the Blacks were restricted from voting as the significant mechanism for political participation by the citizens of the state.  This was part of their struggle for equality then.  Under the rubric of Radical Reconstruction, the “radical” solution on Black inferiority was to enable the Blacks to acquire “the rights of the citizen” in order to instigate economic and educational equality ( 1963, p. 20).  Nevertheless, this proved to be a long walk for this marginalized group in American society during the 1800s.  It took years of debate and generation of sound raison d’ etre behind the Blacks’ political participation in American politics. 


 


            According to  (1998), free Blacks’ status remained to be indefinite, as much as they realized their part in American nation-building.  For one, they were ruled out from the federal armed force.  Subsequently and apart from that, the Constitution overtly limited naturalization to white immigrants (p. 170).  These accounts showed the ways in which the Blacks were prevented to act as Americans, as inhabitants of the American land regardless of race.  The political sphere served as the essential area in order for public resources to be distributed evenly to the people of the land. 


 


            This essay believed that the political sphere per se defines the functioning of other domains of human activities, i.e. economic and/or social activities.  Politics was liable for the governing and allocation at the same time of public goods, in the form of laws or statutes or acts.  By being politically disenfranchised, the Blacks cannot put forward their interests.  In the 19th century reality, they faced obstructions in realizing their human capacities in every aspect of living.  The political was pretty tantamount to the domains of the economic and social. 


 


Economic Restrictions


            The Black Codes served as the formal document that identifies the rights of the Blacks during the 19th Century.   (1963) cited some benefits behind the Black Codes.  The Blacks were given the right to acquire property.  They were allowed to file a suit, at the same time be sued.  They were permitted to enter contracts and marry.  However, it was not uniformly implemented in most American states.   In other states, the bestowal of these rights was taken along with “apprenticeship and vagrancy laws”.  This further implied that they were still regarded as “a subordinate caste assigned to labour” (p. 36).  Its implementation was therefore still subject to the jurisdiction of every federal state. 


 


            Still with the line of thought that the Black Codes are inconsistently put into practice, they were taxed if they aspire for nonagricultural lines of work.  They were prohibited from renting lands.  They were not supposed to carry guns.  Worst, those young Blacks or Black kids of “unfit” parents were permitted to be trained to be slaves of old slave masters ( 1998;  2004, p. 5836).  Why would they be prevented through taxation from venturing nonagricultural lines of work?  Consider the factor of the growing Industrialization at that time.  They were restricted to enter the world of the capitalists, who gain profit and thereby raising one’s economic class.  Why would they by prohibited to carry guns?  Because guns are instruments of power, it only meant that the Blacks were denied of the position to threaten their counterparts – the Whites.  Unfortunately, Black kids borne out of “unfit parents” were automatically regarded as slaves. 


 


            Examining closely these statements, the conclusion that the Blacks are economically marginalized at that time and place was accurate.  The Black Code formally institutionalized hindrances from social mobility.  They were denied of the access to improve themselves economically.  Not only race but class as well were the issues behind the social inequality that they were suffering.   The succeeding paragraphs provide more details of economic restrictions in various states at that time. 


             


            The code of Mississippi stated that all civil officers shall detain and return


“any freedman, free negro or mulatto” to her or his legal service provider, in a case wherein he or she shall leave the service of her or his legal provider before the termination of contract ‘without good cause’… All difficulties arising between the employers and laborers…shall be settled by the former; if not satisfactory to the laborers, an appeal may be had to the nearest Justice of the Peace and two freeholders, citizens one of the said citizens to be selected by the employers and the other by the laborer” (cited in  1963, p. 36-37). 


 


Louisiana’s code of labor was even worst.  It said,


“Bad work shall not be allowed.  Failing to obey reasonable orders, neglect of duty, and leaving home without permission will be deemed disobedience; impudence, swearing, or indecent language to or in the presence of the employer, his family or agent, or quarreling and fighting with one another will be deemed disobedience” (cited in 1963, p. 36). 


That the Whites are still the ones who determine what is what (e.g. “without good cause” and “bad work”) constituted the conclusion behind these illustrations.  In reality, either a Black is from the Northern or Southern part of America, he or she was notwithstanding disallowed the access to opportunities that could improve her or his economic wealth being.  This was the norm during that time, that the Blacks are inferior to the Whites.  As such, the guideline for behavior was supposed to be in accordance with this domineering norm. 


 


Social Restrictions


            Were the Blacks free indeed during the 1800s?  This essay firmly believed they were absolutely not.  They were not totally autonomous.  They did not enjoy what the Whites enjoy.  In ‘ (Part 1)’ (2002), it said that free Blacks from the South remained under slavery.  Second, they cannot voyage like those in the North.  Third, it was likewise not easy for them to gather around as a social group to practice social activities in the church, schools, or even fraternal orders like Masonry.  These illustrations then implied that the Blacks were restricted to act themselves out as social beings.  They were restricted to play their roles, and express their identities. 


 


            There existed a structural fence, i.e. segregation, or the physical and social division of classifications of people ( 2005, p. 364).  Segregation was indeed an American reality centuries ago.  Worst, it was the heart of the American Constitution then. 


 


            Who will forget the landmark case of Plessy versus Ferguson?  Homer Plessy, who is only one-eight black and seven-eights white, was incarcerated in Louisiana for occupying a seat for the whites.  One of the laws at that time was the “Separate Car Act”, which sets apart the white from the black with regard to car seats (1998).  The said act was a clear example of segregation.  Likewise, it was a restriction on a simple social activity, i.e. traveling.  According to  (1998), traveling for the Blacks used to be “a humiliating and sometimes dangerous experience”, for neither class nor gender saved them from mistreatment (p. 171).  What could have saved them then from all these things?  Perhaps, one would think of education.  The following paragraphs will answer this problem. 


 


            Education was never a public resource for the Blacks back then, before the advent of 1860s.  It was largely the efforts of the Blacks themselves in their struggle to be educated.  Eventually, the combined efforts of the northern missionary organizations, the Freedman’s Bureau, and a few southern whites provided the means for the children of freed men and women to be educated ( 1988, p. 5-6).  What could be the reason(s) behind this event that the Blacks were denied of education?  Simply because being educated or knowledgeable spoke for dominance, and the Whites could have feared that making the Blacks equipped with knowledge will eventually enable them to successfully struggle for social justice.  Given the prevailing racist ideology at that time, for the Blacks to be educated was truly impossible, if not difficult. 


 


            It was found out that roughly every rural community and over half of major cities in the south fell short in granting public high schools for the young Blacks.  White southerners ran contrary to the idea of educating them.  Between the years 1880 and 1935, the Blacks in the rural South were kept out of the revolution in public high schools ( 1988, p. 186).  Thus, Blacks in the southern region were truly the ones who are suffering from the clout of the racist ideology.  They were not only segregated but also, and worst, restricted from enjoying the rights of a citizen of the American land. 


 


            Social restrictions were indeed as worst as political or economic ones.  In essence, the Blacks suffered from huge and formalized inferiority treatment by their counterparts.  The Whites defined their ways of living at large.  If one lives in an environment like this, what would he or she think of a way to end this extensive inequality?  Was it not to seek other lands? 


 


Restrictions’ Contribution(s) to Black Emigration from America


            It was  a Black ship possessor, who successfully moved 38 African Americans to Freetown, Sierra Leone.  In 1820, the American Colonization Society, a group of White people who are generous donors and slave owners at the same time, shipped 86 Blacks to Africa, 1,162 in 1830, and 10,000 in 1850 (1996, p. 43-48).  These significant figures reflected massive emigration from America to other lands.  Note however that in the end, they went back to their motherland, i.e. Africa, the home of the Blacks or the “Negroes”. 


 


            What could account for the emigration of the Blacks from America during in the course of 18th to 19th Century?  A major explanation goes that African Americans wanted to seek lands whereby their freedom could be realized.  America did not provide them with the chance to acquire a true equal status with all of its inhabitants.  The flourishing of restrictions, especially in the South, became the impetus for their emigration from America (‘’ n.d.). 


 


            A lot of Blacks believed that their obligation and chance were interrelated.  They struggled to preserve their freedom, to resuscitate their nation.  They dreamt of subsisting and toiling the soil hand in hand for the prize of liberty (1998, p. xii).  As much as the Blacks sought to be contributors for national development, they cannot do so.  They were prevented from actualizing their selves.  What else but these political, economic, and social restrictions as mentioned in the aforementioned paragraphs delimited their chances in the fulfillment of their obligations!   , who once supervised a meeting at Bethel Church, hesitated Blacks’ progress in America that he suggested, “they come out from amongst the white people” (cited in  1998, p. 188).  They had no choice but to get away from the American shell that impede them from social progress. 


 


            Furthermore, , a Black who was once a slave and eventually was able to be “free”, was motivated to emigrate from America partly by Christian evangelism.  The other part was because, “I am an African”, and emigration only could enable him to search for opportunities based on his ability (cited in 1998, p. 189).  Interestingly, this account offered a different explanation to Black emigration from America.  Thus, it was also in part a matter of religious beliefs.  An African’s ability to evangelize can only be realized in a land without strict societal constraints. 


 


            , a black editor, conveyed his resistance among the free blacks’ emigration from America to Africa during the later years of 1850s.  He said, “our work in the United States would remain to be done…our work here is to purify the [nation], and purify Christianity from the foul blot which here rests upon them” (cited in  1998, p. xii).  On the other hand, there were also some who stood on the ground that Africans have a goal in America – emancipation for their own good and the good of America as well.  African emancipation was deemed necessary in order to completely call America a land that thrives in liberty. 


 


            There was an intense emigration in the 1850s due to the Fugitive Slave Act in Southern America, but this crashed down upon the commencement of the Civil War.  Again, in 1877, African American emigration heightened because of the downfall of the Radical Reconstruction as well as the extraction of federal pack from the South (1996, p. 43-48).  This showed that the Whites themselves supported the Blacks to flee America.  Upon the failure of their campaign for suffrage, the more were they become convinced that they is no hope for them indeed in the American soil.  They were denied of the rights of an American citizen. 


 


Conclusion


            Racism was the domineering ideology during the 1800s.  The Blacks were completely marginalized and/or excluded from the American soil.  They suffered from political, economic, and social restrictions.  They were not allowed to politically participate – to vote and to advance in the military.  Naturalization was only limited to the Whites.  Laws existed to further legitimize inequality.  The Black Codes prevented them from economic advancement.  The Separate Car Act institutionalized segregation.  They were prohibited from gathering as one social group.  Still, they were lived in slavery.  Worst, they were denied of the right to be educated.  All of these paved the way for their emigration from America to another land, which is only a logical act given that they suffered from a limited freedom.  Hamilton added religious obligations as one factor.  Whatever the reason behind their emigration, all of it boiled down to seeking a civilization that would cradle them as human beings, devoid of race. 


 


 


Bibliography


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top