Jasmine Annotated Bibliography and Primary Source

Assignment 2:

Wish List:

1. Amicus curiae briefs from the case - as many as possible
2. Anything written by the Lovings themselves
3. Text of initial 1959 case when the Lovings were initially convicted and then forced to leave Virginia

Realistic List:

Online Newspaper Articles

1. Va. mixed marriage case seen heading for supreme court. (1965, Feb 06). Afro-American (1893-1988) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/532131649?accountid=14026
1. This 1965 article predicts the rise of the Loving case to the Supreme Court and provides a summary of the basic facts of the case up to that point. It shows that the case was on the radar (for some people at least) as early as 1965.
2. "Mixed Marriages Not Harmful--Survey." Afro-American (1893-1988), Dec 01, 1956. http://search.proquest.com/docview/531899017?accountid=14026.
1. This 1956 article discusses a recent study that alleged that interracial marriage might actually create genetically superior offspring. It gives some background on public sentiment about interracial marriage, with a clear bias toward tolerance of interracial marriage. It will be useful in setting the tone for the events of 1967.
3. "Church Group Raps Mixed Marriage Bar." Afro-American (1893-1988), Mar 21, 1964. http://search.proquest.com/docview/532152770?accountid=14026.
1. This article is interesting in that it brings religion into the picture It’s only a couple sentences long, so it definitely will require further research to learn more about the topic it brings up, but it’s intriguing to know that at least one Catholic group was strongly against anti-miscegenation laws.
4. Lewis, A. "Growing Alike (Letter)." New Society 13, (Jan 02, 1969): 342. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1307082353?accountid=14026.
1. In the “Growing Alike” letter, the writer feels it necessary to announce that interracial marriage is legal everywhere, implying that this is not a commonly known fact. It would be interesting to explore which demographics knew about the case as it was going on, and whether the people most likely to be influenced by it (aka individuals in interracial relationships) were among those aware of it.
5. By Joshna Lederberg 1966, The Washington,Post Co. "Virginia 'Biology' Based on Delusion." The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973), Oct 02, 1966. http://search.proquest.com/docview/142724595?accountid=14026.
1. Lederburg points out the lack of scientific basis for theories of race. His article focuses mainly on this aspect of the case, although he does refer to the "odious theory of genetic contamination that must underly" the statute.
6. http://www.ohiomemory.org/cdm/ref/collection/p267401coll36/id/14167
1. King announces his opinion that interracial marriage should be legal. He adds, however, that "the basic aim of the Negro is not to become the white man's brother-in-law, but his brother."
7. Oliver, R. V. (1965, Jan 03). Honeymooners' case strikes at mixed marriage bans.The Atlanta Journal and the Atlanta Constitution (1950-1968) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1639198692?accountid=14026
1. This article seems leans pro-Lovings, and it explains that the actors involved in the case knew about the potential significance of the case even before it was appealed to the Supreme Court. It also mentions that the Supreme Court almost struck down a similar anti-miscegenation law in Florida not too long before the Loving case, which is some interesting historical context.

Audio

1. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395
1. This is the oral arguments from the case (along with a transcript), so it will be immensely useful in comparing the opinions about interracial relationships of those arguing to those of the general public. It's more than 2 hours long and the transcript is not perfect, unfortunately. From approximately 00:10:00 to 00:15:00, Philip J. Hirschkop makes an argument about the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws being to uphold white supremacy, so that's one of the statements that I'll want to see if others agree with.

Online copy of the decision

1. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
1. This is the text of the decision of the case. It has some overlaps with the audio, but it will be a useful reference point.

Poll

1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx
1. Most of the polls on this page are irrelevant, but the one I'm interested in is the one that asks "do you approve or disapprove of marriage between blacks and whites?" The 1958 results were 4% approval, 94% disapproval, while the 1968 results were 20% approval, 73% disapproval. This indicates a mismatch between the sentiments of the general public and those of the Supreme Court justices who decided the case.

Assignment 3:
The source I've chosen is an excerpt from the oral arguments during the case.
You can listen to the selection here. The relevant section is from 10:51 to 15:05.
I've also put the transcript below if you prefer to read it - there are some mistakes, but it should be intelligible.

"But the present bill, as it is on the books is that law from 1924 and it was entitled "A Bill to Preserve the Integrity of the White Race" when it was initially issued.

It was passed as a bill for racial integrity -- to preserve racial integrity.

Now, we would advance the argument very strongly to the Court, they're not concerned with racial integrity of the Negro race, only with the white race.

In fact in Virginia, it's only a crime for white and Negro to intermarry and the lowest couch in such terms that they say, "White may only marry white" in Section 20-54 of our law, but it goes on from there to make it a crime only for whites and Negroes to intermarry.

There's no crime for Malaysian to marry a Negro and it's a -- it's a valid marriage in Virginia but it would be a void marriage for Malaysian or any other race aside from Negro to marry a white person.

A void marriage but there'd be no criminal penalty against anyone but the white person.

They were not concerned with the racial integrity but racial supremacy of the white race.

In 1930, they finally, as I said before, went on, say any person with traceable Negro blood with a Negro.

Now, these laws, Your Honors, are ludicrous in their inception and equally ludicrous in their application.

It's not possible to look at just the Virginia laws alone.

You have to look at what happened in the whole south we feel and the classifications in the south.

It's impossible to say.

I won't go to again, the exact illustration of Negroes but South Carolina, North Carolina make certain Indians white people...

North Carolina, Cherokee and Robeson County is a white person, all of the Cherokee Indians, and Negroes.

In South Carolina is the Kato Indians and these laws came to invent to these other very hateful laws.

In Mississippi advocate of social equality under the mis -- miscegenation body of law.

It's a criminal penalty.

I think it carries one to five years.

If Your Honor please, there are several decisions handed out by States which again point out the racial feeling concerning these laws.

The Missouri laws bottomed on States versus Jackson which basically held that if the progeny of a mixed marriage, married the progeny of a mixed marriage, there'd be no further progeny and fundamentally ridiculous statement.

Maybe it wasn't for those men in that day and age but it certainly is now and Georgia has an equally ridiculous basis for the laws.

In Scott versus Georgia where they held that from the daily observances, they see that the offspring of such marriages are feminine.

And in this case, and I will refer to the appellant's brief here at page 35, the Loving case comes to you based on the case of Name versus Name.

Now, what were they talking about in Name versus Name?

Again, they wanted to preserve the racial integrity of their citizens.

They want not to have a mongrel breed of citizens.

We find there no requirement that the State shall not legislate to prevent the obliteration of racial pride but must permit the corruption of blood even though it weakens or destroy the quality of the citizenship.

These are racial and equal protection thoroughly proscribes these.

In the case before you, the opinion of the lower court, Judge Bazile, and we have the footnote in page 37 of our brief, which says, "Almighty God created the right races, white, black, yellow, malay, and red and he placed them on separate continents," and I didn't read the whole quote, but it's a fundamentally ludicrous quote and again, that's what they're talking about.

We feel the very basic wrong of these statutes is they rob the Negro race of their dignity and fundamental in the concept of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is the dignity of the individual, because without that, there is no ordered liberty."