Talk:Black Codes (United States)

" the U.S. constitution originally discriminated against blacks"

This is in the beginning of the first paragraph, and the rest of the sentence makes it sound as if the constitution explicitly mentions blacks. It doesn't, the text separates the 'numbers' of each state into three groups:

1. free Persons (counted)
2. Indians not taxed (not counted)
3. other Persons (counted as 3/5)

Those few free blacks that were around at the time (mostly in the north) would have been counted fully. The constitution didn't mention blacks implicitly (though the intent is obvious). I think the sentence should read 'enslaved blacks' instead of just 'blacks'.

Andymadigan (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What are "Unofficial Laws"?

Re: "The Black Codes were unofficial laws put in place in the United States to limit the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks."

If a law is passed by a state, which a later section states, how can it be "unofficial"? If the idea is that it wasn't made legislation at the Federal level, than we better say that most legislation is "unofficial". Alternately, if we say it would not pass muster in a supreme court, then we should say that as well, citing some reference concerning the issue. I'm unsure of how to better word it, so I didn't change it or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.184.113 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Midwest/Southern?

There seems to be a misunderstanding. The Midwest Black codes were designed to exclude blacks from the states The Southern black codes were designed to keep them in the South. The overlap is pretty small. The result is this is a POV article that is not very good history. Rjensen 18:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC) also plenty other things were in vovlved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.114.199 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Northern/Southern?

The German article on Black Codes mentions only the Southern, Reconstruction-Era Black Codes. It seems strange that that should link to an article titled "Black Codes in Northern USA". Should the bit about Southern Black Codes be moved into a separate article and the interwiki links adjusted, or should the article's title be changed to reflect that both Northern and Southern Black Codes are dealt with in this article?--Bhuck 10:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See the above comment. The article is skewed by its focus on a set of laws (those in the North before the Civil War) which are not normally those that are meant by "Black Codes" (laws in the South after the Civil War). Your solution seems worthwhile. -Will Beback 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Bhuck offers an either/or choice. One article, Black Codes in USA, should cover it, with sections for regional emphasis. That would also allow documentation of instances where state laws clashed. skywriter 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that it'd be better to split it into two articles. The pre-war material is a different topic than the post-war material. -Will Beback 23:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The topics are related, so there is an argument for keeping both topics in one article together. Skywriter's expansion of the article was helpful. On the assumption that the Black Codes will continue to be dealt with in one article, I will move the article to "Black Codes in the USA". However, I think Will Beback is correct to point out that the emphasis of this article remains on the Northern Codes, even though it is the Southern Codes which are normally referred to by this term, so it would be a further improvement to the article if the section on the Southern Codes would be expanded and presented more prominently, and not as the third of three sections of history and the smallest of them all. Perhaps someone can explain how legislative control shifted from Southern interests to Reconstruction agendas, how the courts came to overturn the laws based on the new Constitutional Amendments, how the theoretically enfranchised freedmen participated or failed to participate in the legislative process leading to these laws, etc. --Bhuck 08:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Accurate wording

Words like " negrophobia " are inaccurate, political words that have no place in an encyclopedia. A phobia is a particular psychological problem, which has no connection to the motives for racists, or even those who merely feel "uncomfortable" around black people. It's an easy, political word. Tragic romance 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Segregation - POV and Confusion

This article is circular, going from arguing the Republicans ensured Black Codes weren't enacted, to using isolated quotes from an historian which seem chosen to provide an apologetic or rationale for segregation as ordinary. It may be, but I don't think these quotes tell much about the state of the South after the Civil War, or about the Black Codes or later segregation.--Parkwells 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional Articles/Links

I deleted some of these, as they weren't referenced in this article and seemed to range far from it.--Parkwells 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion 1840-1860

This section has too many generalities, for instance "several states had constitutions including or requiring Black Codes". Which and when? Is it really useful to call these Black Codes, or was there different intent at the time?--Parkwells 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

These signs read "if black, stay back!"

Although I'm willing to believe that it describes the basic sentiment, were there really signs that said "if black, stay back!"? It seems odd to me for a couple of reasons. The wording doesn't sound official enough for government signage. (which is more likely to say 'no loitering after dusk' than 'stay out of the park at night.') even local city and town posted notices. Also, the use of the term "black" seems odd for the era under discussion. Finally, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the reference links included in the article. 96.252.96.65 (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. The text There were signs posted in towns to keep blacks from integrating with the whites. These signs read "if black, stay back!" added 9/27/08 as sole anonymous contribution is inconsistent with the style of the article. Speak up if you want to keep it. JoJo (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Codes vs Jim Crow

"Distinction from Jim Crow laws" blatantly contradicts "History" with respect to when "Black Codes" began - will an authority please fix this fundamental contradiction? 68.144.97.207 21:15, 16 September 2006

This comment has been at the top of this page for over 2 years and no one appears to have addressed it. Which is it? Do Black Codes subsume Jim Crow laws or not?? JoJo (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia:

black codes, in U.S. history, series of statutes passed by the ex-Confederate states, 1865–66, dealing with the status of the newly freed slaves. They varied greatly from state to state as to their harshness and restrictiveness. Although the codes granted certain basic civil rights to blacks (the right to marry, to own personal property, and to sue in court), they also provided for the segregation of public facilities and placed severe restrictions on the freedman's status as a free laborer, his right to own real estate, and his right to testify in court. Although some Northern states had black codes before the Civil War, this did not prevent many northerners from interpreting the codes as an attempt by the South to reenslave blacks. The Freedmen's Bureau prevented enforcement of the codes, which were later repealed by the radical Republican state governments.

JoJo (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

As I understand Wikipedia style, the article title should be "Black codes" (lower case c) and usage in the article should be "black codes" (no caps). Unless someone can show where in the MOS it specifies a different system of capitalization, I will make this change (and the associated redirection change) to keep this article consistent with the rest of the project. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

"the term Black Codes is most commonly associated with legislation passed by Southern states after the Civil War". By whom? Not by me. Can we clean the wording up on this? 138.162.128.52 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is weasely, but I think it is because it is attempting to thread a path through the mire of multiple definitions. I think it would be better to face the mess and explain it rather then skirt it like this. However, as I understand it, "most commonly" means by most people with an opinion on the matter. The statement allows for dissent and does not address how Black Codes are viewed by any single person. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Folks, though it is true that the term "Black Codes" is more commonly associated with the South, the term is used to refer to the laws in the North as well (see [1]). I would say that trying to restrict this article to the laws in the South is severely POV and really misses a lot of important aspects of the history (i.e. by avoiding talking about the North you are deliberately distorting the history). The scope needs to be re-adjusted for NPOV.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Jojalozzo (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Segregation?

The Segregation section does not make sense to me. What is its purpose and what is the quote trying to say? What does this contribute to the article? If we're going to keep this it needs to be expanded and explained and it needs a grammar fix. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Black codes in the pre-Civil War South

In early 19th century Virginia laws were passed requiring freed slaves to leave the state. One rationale given for that at the time was to prevent slave owners from freeing slaves who were unable to work (and therefore no longer of any economic use to them) and thereby making the free slaves the responsibility of the general public. Annette Gordon-Reed discusses this in The Hemminges of Monticello. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.47.232 (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Intent

I'm editing some of this to limit the unsubstantiated, unreferenced statements regarding legislators' intent. For example, the first sentence currently reads, "The Black Codes were unofficial laws put in place in the United States to limit the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks." I reasonably doubt whether anyone got together, banged the gavel, and went, "What's on the agenda tonight, gentlemen? Ah, yes: we're going to limit the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks. Suggestions? Suggestions? Anyone?" They might very well have been motivated by antipathy toward that population and their actions might very well have had that effect, but that doesn't constitute intent.

Statements of others' intent are tricky. If you're driving your car, you decide, "Today's the day: I'm going to kill my uncle Bob!" you take your eyes off the road to rifle through the back seat looking for your machete and hockey mask, and BAHBUMP-BAHBUMP, you run someone over, then lo and behold it's your uncle Bob and he's dead, you didn't just murder someone with previous intent; you didn't commit first-degree murder. When you put your brakes on in your car, an amount of heat is generated by the parts of the brakes rubbing together sufficient to warm your house, but you don't put your brakes on intending to heat the air--you put your brakes on intending to stop your car, and for that matter, you don't start driving intending to put your brakes on--you start driving in order to reach a destination; putting your brakes on and heating the air are only incidental.

Thankfully, we live in a relatively egalitarian time and place, so it's easy to look at other, less egalitarian times or places, see only the effects of the behavior happening there that's so unlike ours, and forget that the people behaving that way didn't have our same knowledge and beliefs, so they might've had wildly different intents than we'd have to in order to behave the same way. You get what I mean? --Dan (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Black Codes weren't "unofficial laws", but were official laws. They didn't last long, but they were full laws whilst they were in force.