Annotated Bibliography
Primary Sources
"Amount of Negro and Other Colored Blood Illegal in Various States for Marriage to Whites 1929." Eugenics Archive. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/view_image.pl?id=1442>.
This was a table created in 1929 of the prohibited interracial marriages, chiefly between “people of color” and whites. The chart categorizes the states by the fraction of “colored” ancestry that state anti-miscegenation statue defined a person to be un-marriable to whites: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, “Negro descent,” or none permissible. The vagueness of language and discrepancies between the definitions of each state statue demonstrates the subjectiveness of such legislation and the controversy of race and marriage in different regions of the United States. We included this picture in our page “Introduction to Miscegenation” because of its value in exhibiting this aspect of anti-miscegenation legislation.
"Anti-miscegenation Chart ." Facing History. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www2.facinghistory.org/Campus/rm.nsf/61A7F88FF16FBD9585256E8E00117 AC/F19627AB379FAF818525707B000CF890?OpenDocument>.
This 19th century newspaper picture depicts a three generation genealogy chart that illustrates a child of African American descent could “pass for white,” and disproves “the popular notion that a “pass-for-white” person married to a pure white may have a negro child.” Advocates of anti-miscegenation legislation often justified separating the races, claiming the fear of “pass-for-whites” permeating white society. This picture was used as anti-miscegenation propaganda, and helped us understand the motivation and extent of racism behind such laws. We included this picture in our page on “Introduction to Miscegenation” because of its value in helping the audience understand the fear propelling such legislation.
Baez, Joan. “We Shall Overcome.” Music by Charles Albert Tinsley, revised by Zilphia Horton, Frank Hamilton, Guy Carawan, Pete Seeger. Woodstock Music and Art Fair. Woodstock, 15 August 1969.
“We Shall Overcome” is the quintessential song of the Civil Rights movement; listening to a live version of the song sung in 1969, we were able to grasp the mood of the movement of struggle and hope that Loving v. Virginia was a part of. We felt it was very appropriate for the Loving v. Virginia case as the last landmark Supreme Court ruling of the Civil Rights movement; and we felt this particular recording was especially appropriate because the singer of the song, Joan Baez, is a product of an interracial marriage herself—Hispanic and white. We chose to include the song on the homepage of our website to convey this mood to our audience.
"Black Laws and Miscegenation." Cleveland Gazette 01/30/1886, Vol. 03, Num. 24: 02. Ohio Historical Center Archives Library. Web. 9 January 2010.
This 1886 article was written in rebuttal to a comment from the “Southern Leader” newspaper that stated Ohio black codes were being revived due to a marriage between a “colored” barber and white woman and that the state of Georgia should follow suit. The article’s author, an African American man from Cleveland, states that this is most certainly not true and furthermore there have been “hundreds of mixed marriages in this city in the past twenty years.” This article first off, allowed us to perceive the stigma of interracial marriages, especially in the South, to the extent a reporter suggests reviving the stringent black codes as punishment. We were also able to see that, in comparison, interracial marriages were not uncommon in the Northern cities such as Cleveland.
Booker, Simon. "Couples that Rocked the Courts." Ebony. Sep. 1967: 78-80. Google Books. Web. 28 Oct 2009.
This in-depth reporting of the Loving case was the cover page story of Ebony magazine in September 1967, four months after the case ruling. It contains rare interviews with Richard and Mildred Loving, statements from Central Point locals, and pictures of the Loving family. The article explains that Central Point was considered “the passing capital of America,” a town where African Americans and whites regularly intermixed and produced “pass-for-whites.” The article allowed us to understand the circumstances of the Lovings’ marriage, the Loving’s perspective on the case and their marriage, as well as the community the couple grew up in.
McBride, James. The Color of Water. Riverhead Brooks, NY: Riverhead Trade, 2002.
In Dr. Peter Wallenstein’s Tell the Court I Love my Wife—Race, Marriage, and Law—an American History, he comments that following the Loving case, “a notable genre of late-twentieth century writing has produced a collection of striking memoirs, autobiographies, and commentaries that address the experiences of mixed-race Americans,” (Wallenstein 250). The Color of Water— a black man’s tribute to his white mother—falls under this category. James McBride describes the circumstances under which he grew up as the product of an interracial marriage. McBride’s mother also shares her stories of the racism she experienced dating and marrying African American men as a white woman in the mid 1900s. We found this account to be helpful in understanding the culture and experiences of biracial Americans following the overturning of anti-miscegenation legislation.
“GOV. IRELAND TO BE ARRESTED.” New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.:Aug 16, 1884. p. 1 (1 pp.)
This article was the reporting of the arrest of Gov. Ireland for marrying a woman with “colored blood in her veins.” This report allowed us to better understand the procedure and enforcement of anti-miscegenation statues.
Gregory, J. M. "Washington: Great Example of Miscegenation." Cleveland Gazette 2 February 1884 , Vol. 01, Num. 24 : 02. Ohio Historical Center Archives Library. Web. 9 January 2010.
This 1884 article, written by an African American, celebrates the marriage of Frederick Douglass to a white woman. The reporter praises Douglass and the marriage as “progress!” –one that will reduce the racial divide. This was important in the breadth of our research because the majority of primary sources in this time period regard miscegenation as an evil, while this article advocates miscegenation. We also found it interesting that the author suggests that miscegenation will reduce prejudice amongst the races. This influenced our title, “The Road to Conquering Prejudice—Loving v. Virginia.”
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Dir. Stanley Kramer. Columbia Pictures, 1967.
This acclaimed hit movie was one the few Hollywood blockbusters that contained miscegenation as the central theme—Joanna Drayton, a young white woman, brings her fiancé Dr. Prentice, an African American man, to meet her parents. The question of the movie is whether or not Drayton’s parents will endorse the marriage despite, Dr. Prentice’s race. Released in 1967, a few months after the Loving case, this movie was accurate in helping us understand the social climate of interracial marriages during the Lovings’ court case. Through this movie, we were able to view the dilemma a mixed-race marriage imposed and the difficulty Drayton’s parents have coming to terms with the possibility, even to an idealistic African American suitor. In addition, Drayton’s parents faced this dilemma as self-proclaimed “liberals,” indicating the racism of the time period. The tagline of the movie is aptly titled, “A love story of today,” signifying the controversy of interracial marriages.
Krock, Arthur. “In The Nation: A Direct High Court Test of Miscegenation Laws The 'Discrete' Question Common-Law Marriages” New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.:Nov 1, 1963. p. 30 (1 pp.)
This article was the reporting of the beginning of McLaughlin v. Florida, a court precedent for Loving v. Virginia. The article describes the Florida interracial couple’s prosecution for cohabitation and their attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court. This provided us with a further example of the efforts made by interracial couples to overturn anti-miscegenation laws.
Krock, Arthur. “In The Nation: The Governors' Committee at the White House All This and Fabulous Too.” New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 1, 1957. p. 31 (1 pp.)
This article was the reporting of Georgia’s governor’s opposition against towards the enforcing of the 1954 Brown v. Board case ruling because of his fear of miscegenation if integration was to occur, an example of “massive resistance.” This helped us understand the contraversy of racial-integration during this time and the fear involved with miscegenation in its use as a justification for segregation.
"The Law: Anti-Miscegenation Statutes: Repugnant Indeed." Time 23 Jun 1967. Time Archive. Web. 28 Oct 2009.
This 1967 Time magazine article reported Loving v. Virginia entering the Supreme Court. The reporter declared that although the Supreme Court attempted to avoid the question of miscegenation on several accounts, this case would definitively determine the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws. This article helped us understand how the public perceived the Loving case and it helped us trace the case from its start.
"Law: Reply." Time 18 January 1926. Time Archive. Web. 27 October 2009.
This 1926 article in Time magazine reported a white man that attempted to divorce his wife under the pretense that she had “colored” ancestry and therefore their marriage was not valid under anti-miscegenation legislation. This article showed us that anti-miscegenation laws were manipulated in court for purposes other than preventing interracial marriages.
Lemire, Elise, Ph.D. Phone interview. 13 May 2010.
Dr. Elise Lemire is an Associate Professor of Literature at Purchase College who specializes in whiteness studies and 19th century culture. She authored “Miscegenation:” Making Race in America, one of the few books of the subject that concentrated on miscegenation in early American history. Dr. Lemire gave us much insight into the controversy of mixed-race marriages and the stigma it carries even today as she has experienced first-hand herself in an interracial marriage—she is white and her husband is African American. She also discussed the implications her son faces as a biracial child in today’s society— “he calls himself brown.” We were further stimulated by her speculations on whiteness and people’s desire to preserve race.
Lewis, Anthony. “COURT TO REVIEW RACIAL SEX CURB: Supreme Bench Gets Appeal Against Florida Statute” Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857 Current file). New York, N.Y.:Apr 28, 1964. p. 1 (2 pp.)
This article reported the Supreme Court’s announcement to review the McLaughlin v. Florida case on a Florida interracial couple’s prosecution for cohabitation, a key precedent to Loving v. Virginia.
"Loving v. Virginia- Oral Argument." The Oyez Project. Web. 9 March 2010. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395>.
This three hour recording was the original oral argument of the case containing arguments from the Lovings’ lawyers, Phil Hirschkop and Bernie Cohen, William Marutani of the Japanese American-Citizens League that provided a brief for the Loving’s side, and Virginia’s lawyer Robert McIlwaine. We found this source to be especially interesting because we were able to listen first-hand to the quotes we had read about. It also greatly contributed to our understanding of the case because we were able to listen to the entirety of lawyers’ arguments and that enabled the Lovings win their case and the specific questions from the Supreme Court justices. We selected portions of the recording and included on the “Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court Case” page to allow the audience to listen first-hand to some of the case’s more famous quotes.
“Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1- Supreme Court 1967” Google Scholar. Web. 9 March 2010. <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597 &hl=en&as_sdt=000000002&as_vis=1>
This document was the Lovings’ appeal to the Supreme Court, after Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia withheld the decision of Caroline County’s Judge Leon Bazile to annul the Lovings’ marriage. It described in-depth the two clauses Cohen and Hirschkop wanted to use to support the Lovings’ case—equal rights and due process of law— citing a plethora of precedents including several we had researched on. This document enabled us to view the precedents in the context of the Lovings’ lawyers’ arguments.
"Maryland: Colorless Conjugality." Time 25 Feb 1967: n. pag. Web. 28 Oct 2009.
This article was a reporting of a Maryland interracial couple’s marriage rejection. This was only a few months prior to the Loving case; therefore it helped us better understand the proceedings of anti-miscegenation legislation at the time of Loving v. Virginia.
"McLaughlin v. Florida." The Multiracial Activist. The Multiracial Activist, Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.multiracial.com/government/mclaughlin.html>.
This document was the court proceedings for the McLaughlin v. Florida case. It helped us better understand the case as a precedent for Loving v. Virginia. We included the document on the “Mclaughlin v. Florida” subpage under “Court Precedents” because of its value in demonstrating this.
"Mildred and Richard Loving at a Press Conference." NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=1180>.
This was a picture of the Loving couple with Richard speaking to reporters, taken on June 12, 1967 in a press conference at their lawyer’s office in Alexandria, Virginia. It provided us a visual of the Loving couple which we included in the header of our website.
"Mildred and Richard Loving in 1967." Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indians.Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.americanindian.si.edu/exhibitions/indivisible/by_law.html>.
This was a picture of the Loving couple taken on June 12, 1967 in a press conference at their lawyer’s office in Alexandria, Virginia. It provided us a visual of the smiling Loving couple which we included in the header of our website.
"Miscegenation ." Cleveland Gazette 26 September 1885, Vol. 03, Num. 06: 02. Ohio Historical Center Archives Library. Web. 9 January 2010.
This 1885 article was a report of a mixed-race marriage between an African American man and a white woman in Cincinnati. The African American man had tricked the Probate Court for a marriage license by going to the court with an African American female friend and making the customary oath that his intended wife was a “colored” woman. The female friend later discovered the man’s wife was white and reported the news to the police. From this article, we were able to view an example where a mixed-race couple attempted to marry and the magnitude of the crime— it was a friend that reported the couple and upon discovery, the couple was arrested.
"Miscegenation in the South." Cleveland Gazette 3 October 1885, Vol. 03, Num. 07: 01. Ohio Historical Center Archives Library. Web. 9 January 2010.
This 1885 article states “miscegenation and the way out of it is the chief topic at present in the South.” It goes on to declare that many whites want to enact a national law prohibiting miscegenation to protect their women; the author, an African American, agrees, but states that he wants such a law to protect African American women as well. The article showed us both African Americans and whites were opposed to miscegenation and how miscegenation was an extremely controversial issue in the South in this time period.
Newbeck, Phyl. Phone interview. 4 May 2010.
Phyl Newbeck is director of the Vermont Teacher Diversity Scholarship program and a freelance writer. She authored Virginia Hasn’t Always Been for Lovers: Interracial Marriage Bans and the Case of Richard and Mildred Loving, one of the primary books we had read and used in our research on the court precedents of Loving v. Virginia and the Loving v. Virginia case. Newbeck was one of the few researchers that had met Mildred Loving in person. We enjoyed her input on the Lovings on a personal level and it helped in our understanding of the couple in a more humanized aspect. Her speculation of why the Loving case in particular was able to succeed and her knowledge of the time period especially aided us in answering questions we could not determine from our research.
Nihal. "Trying to Solve the World's Problems of Race. " African Methodist Episcopal Church Review October 1911, Vol. 28, Num. 2: 552. Ohio Historical Center Archives Library. Web. 9 January 2010.
This article was written in 1911 by an African American social critic and a proponent of miscegenation of the illogicality of racism. He presents that scientific theories do not support the theory that race is an indication of superiority or inferiority, but rather, a result of environment, and furthermore miscegenation produces children of healthier minds and bodies. This was important in the breadth of our research because the majority of primary sources regarding miscegenation tends to suggest the opposite opinion—that miscegenation produces weak children. We also found it interesting that the author suggests that perhaps miscegenation will reduce prejudice amongst the races. This influenced our title, “The Road to Conquering Prejudice—Loving v. Virginia.”
"Pace v. State of Alabama." The Multiracial Activist. The Multiracial Activist, Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.multiracial.com/government/pace.html>.
This document was the court proceedings for the Pace v. Alabama case. It helped us better understand the case as a precedent for Loving v. Virginia. We included the document on the “Pace v. Alabama” subpage under “Court Precedents” because of its value in demonstrating this.
"Perez v. Sharp." The Multiracial Activist. The Multiracial Activist, Web. 27 Dec 2009. http://www.multiracial.com/government/perez-v-sharp.html
This document was the court proceedings for the Perez v. Sharp case. It helped us better understand the case as a precedent for Loving v. Virginia. We included the document on the “Perez v. Sharp” subpage under “Court Precedents” because of its value in demonstrating this.
"Races: A Marriage of Enlightenment." Time 29 September 1967. Time Archive. Web. 27 October 2009.
Four months after the ruling of Loving v. Virginia, Time magazine published a cover story on the interracial marriage between Margaret Rusk, a white woman and daughter of Secretary of State, and Guy Smith, an African American man. The article briefly mentions the Loving case before discussing much of the public’s fear of such a marriage to the extent the Secretary of State offered his resignation if necessary due to the outrage his daughter’s wedding caused. Despite the controversy, the article praises the marriage as one that will better race relations—“a marriage of enlightenment.” In Virginia Hasn’t Always Been for Lovers, Phyl Newbeck states that high publicity of interracial couples helped ease the acceptance of interracial marriages following the ruling of the Loving case. This article was a prime example of this.
"1924 Racial Integrity Act." Melungeon Heritage Association. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.melungeon.org/node/87>.
This document was Virginia’s 1924 Racial Integrity Act, Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute.
The Integrity Act was the basis of the Naim v. Naim case, a precedent for Loving v. Virginia, and we included the document on the “Naim v. Naim” subpage under “Court Precedents” because of its value in demonstrating the case as a precedent. Furthermore, this was the same law that the Lovings were arrested for breaking; it additionally helped us better understand the circumstances under which the Lovings were sentenced in 1958 soon after their marriage.
"Report on Loving Case 1967." Web. 31 Jan 2010. <abcnews.com>.
This video was the original ABC television news broadcasting of the Loving case after its ruling in 1967. The reporting included rare filming of the Loving couple at their home in Central Point, Virginia, speaking in reflection about their case; it also included footage of the three Loving children playing. This allowed us to see the Lovings’ perspective on their own case as well as how the Loving case was reported by news media at the time. We were also able to see the personalities of the couple—shy and unassuming, as indicated by their quiet and modest responses and their simple abode.
"Richard and Mildred Loving in 1965." The Boston Globe. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/obituaries/articles/2008/05/06/mildred_loving_case_led_to_end_of_interracial_marriage
This was a picture of the Loving couple taken in 1965 by the Boston Globe at the start of the case. It provided us a visual of the Loving couple which we included in the banner of our website.
"Richard and Mildred Loving in 1967." The Washington Post. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/photo/2008/05/05/PH200805050262.jpg>.
This was a picture of the Loving couple taken by the Washington Post in 1967, following the ruling of the Loving case. It provided us a visual of the smiling Loving couple which we included in the home page of our website.
"The Supreme Court: Marriage by Choice." Time 8 May 1964. Time Archive. Web. 27 October 2009.
This article was the reporting of McLaughlin v. Florida entering the Supreme Court in Time magazine, questioning the constitutionality of Florida’s cohabitation ban against interracial couples. The article begins with the statement, “Racial intermarriage is potentially the most combustible of all civil rights issues.” The reporter goes on to make the interesting comment that 21% of white Americans are descendants of persons of African ancestors and 72% of African Americans have white ancestors. From the first line, the article describes the immense amount of social stigma surrounding the topic of miscegenation; from the statistics within the article we were able to realize that miscegenation in the U.S. was far from uncommon. The article also makes the note that last time the Supreme Court agreed to take a miscegenation related case was in 1883 Pace v. Alabama, further indicating the taboo of interracial marriage.
"The Supreme Court: Strict Caution on Miscegenation." Time 18 December 1964. Time Archive. Web. 27 October 2009.
This article was the reporting in Time magazine of the 1964 Supreme Court case McLaughlin v. Florida, a precedent of Loving v. Virginia, where the cohabitation clause of Florida’s anti-miscegenation statute was overturned. The reporter commented that McLaughlin case overturned the previous Pace v. Alabama decision that equal punishments on both sides would constitute not violating the equal rights amendment; but at the same time the ruling postpones the larger issue—the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation legislation. This article indicated the controversy of miscegenation was so great that although the Supreme Court had the opportunity to decide the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation legislation, the Court decided to avoid the issue. It also helped us understand McLaughlin v. Florida as a precedent to Loving v. Virginia.
Tanabe, Ken. Phone interview. 11 May 2010.
Ken Tanabe is the founder of the Loving Day Project, a social movement to celebrate June 12, the anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia ruling. We’ve heard him speak on NPR and the BBC documentary on the Loving case, and we had read his statements in many of the sources we used in our research. We contacted him particularly because we were interested in the social implications that Loving v. Virginia has in our modern-day society. Similar to our own observations, Mr. Tanabe, a product of an interracial marriage himself, saw that most of the younger generation had no knowledge about the Loving case. We enjoyed learning about the process in which he created the Loving Day holiday in an attempt to change this and the responses he received from the public in his project. The interview also helped us understand the importance of remembering the Loving case and Loving v. Virginia not only as a legislative innovation, but a social one.
Wallenstein, Peter, Ph.D. Phone interview. 12 May 2010.
Dr. Peter Wallenstein is a Professor of History at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University who specializes in Civil Rights and the U.S. South. He authored, Tell the Court I Love my Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law—an American History, one of the primary books we had read and used in our research on the history of miscegenation, the court precedents of Loving v. Virginia, and the legacy of the Loving case. We found his insight on the case to be particularly helpful in our understanding of the changes in society in the aftermath of the case. Dr. Wallenstein made an interesting note that prior to the Loving case there were only two categories involving race—white and “colored;” with the passing of Loving v. Virginia, the categories expanded into the different ethnicities—African American, Asian American, multi-racial, etc. We also enjoyed the many speculations he shared about race and marriage with us which stimulated our own thoughts about the subject. Lastly, our interview with Dr. Wallenstein, helped us to realize that with each question, particularly our “whys,” there are numerous approaches that can be taken, and different ideas that can be explored—analyzing history is not easy.
This was a table created in 1929 of the prohibited interracial marriages, chiefly between “people of color” and whites. The chart categorizes the states by the fraction of “colored” ancestry that state anti-miscegenation statue defined a person to be un-marriable to whites: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, “Negro descent,” or none permissible. The vagueness of language and discrepancies between the definitions of each state statue demonstrates the subjectiveness of such legislation and the controversy of race and marriage in different regions of the United States. We included this picture in our page “Introduction to Miscegenation” because of its value in exhibiting this aspect of anti-miscegenation legislation.
"Anti-miscegenation Chart ." Facing History. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www2.facinghistory.org/Campus/rm.nsf/61A7F88FF16FBD9585256E8E00117 AC/F19627AB379FAF818525707B000CF890?OpenDocument>.
This 19th century newspaper picture depicts a three generation genealogy chart that illustrates a child of African American descent could “pass for white,” and disproves “the popular notion that a “pass-for-white” person married to a pure white may have a negro child.” Advocates of anti-miscegenation legislation often justified separating the races, claiming the fear of “pass-for-whites” permeating white society. This picture was used as anti-miscegenation propaganda, and helped us understand the motivation and extent of racism behind such laws. We included this picture in our page on “Introduction to Miscegenation” because of its value in helping the audience understand the fear propelling such legislation.
Baez, Joan. “We Shall Overcome.” Music by Charles Albert Tinsley, revised by Zilphia Horton, Frank Hamilton, Guy Carawan, Pete Seeger. Woodstock Music and Art Fair. Woodstock, 15 August 1969.
“We Shall Overcome” is the quintessential song of the Civil Rights movement; listening to a live version of the song sung in 1969, we were able to grasp the mood of the movement of struggle and hope that Loving v. Virginia was a part of. We felt it was very appropriate for the Loving v. Virginia case as the last landmark Supreme Court ruling of the Civil Rights movement; and we felt this particular recording was especially appropriate because the singer of the song, Joan Baez, is a product of an interracial marriage herself—Hispanic and white. We chose to include the song on the homepage of our website to convey this mood to our audience.
"Black Laws and Miscegenation." Cleveland Gazette 01/30/1886, Vol. 03, Num. 24: 02. Ohio Historical Center Archives Library. Web. 9 January 2010.
This 1886 article was written in rebuttal to a comment from the “Southern Leader” newspaper that stated Ohio black codes were being revived due to a marriage between a “colored” barber and white woman and that the state of Georgia should follow suit. The article’s author, an African American man from Cleveland, states that this is most certainly not true and furthermore there have been “hundreds of mixed marriages in this city in the past twenty years.” This article first off, allowed us to perceive the stigma of interracial marriages, especially in the South, to the extent a reporter suggests reviving the stringent black codes as punishment. We were also able to see that, in comparison, interracial marriages were not uncommon in the Northern cities such as Cleveland.
Booker, Simon. "Couples that Rocked the Courts." Ebony. Sep. 1967: 78-80. Google Books. Web. 28 Oct 2009.
This in-depth reporting of the Loving case was the cover page story of Ebony magazine in September 1967, four months after the case ruling. It contains rare interviews with Richard and Mildred Loving, statements from Central Point locals, and pictures of the Loving family. The article explains that Central Point was considered “the passing capital of America,” a town where African Americans and whites regularly intermixed and produced “pass-for-whites.” The article allowed us to understand the circumstances of the Lovings’ marriage, the Loving’s perspective on the case and their marriage, as well as the community the couple grew up in.
McBride, James. The Color of Water. Riverhead Brooks, NY: Riverhead Trade, 2002.
In Dr. Peter Wallenstein’s Tell the Court I Love my Wife—Race, Marriage, and Law—an American History, he comments that following the Loving case, “a notable genre of late-twentieth century writing has produced a collection of striking memoirs, autobiographies, and commentaries that address the experiences of mixed-race Americans,” (Wallenstein 250). The Color of Water— a black man’s tribute to his white mother—falls under this category. James McBride describes the circumstances under which he grew up as the product of an interracial marriage. McBride’s mother also shares her stories of the racism she experienced dating and marrying African American men as a white woman in the mid 1900s. We found this account to be helpful in understanding the culture and experiences of biracial Americans following the overturning of anti-miscegenation legislation.
“GOV. IRELAND TO BE ARRESTED.” New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.:Aug 16, 1884. p. 1 (1 pp.)
This article was the reporting of the arrest of Gov. Ireland for marrying a woman with “colored blood in her veins.” This report allowed us to better understand the procedure and enforcement of anti-miscegenation statues.
Gregory, J. M. "Washington: Great Example of Miscegenation." Cleveland Gazette 2 February 1884 , Vol. 01, Num. 24 : 02. Ohio Historical Center Archives Library. Web. 9 January 2010.
This 1884 article, written by an African American, celebrates the marriage of Frederick Douglass to a white woman. The reporter praises Douglass and the marriage as “progress!” –one that will reduce the racial divide. This was important in the breadth of our research because the majority of primary sources in this time period regard miscegenation as an evil, while this article advocates miscegenation. We also found it interesting that the author suggests that miscegenation will reduce prejudice amongst the races. This influenced our title, “The Road to Conquering Prejudice—Loving v. Virginia.”
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Dir. Stanley Kramer. Columbia Pictures, 1967.
This acclaimed hit movie was one the few Hollywood blockbusters that contained miscegenation as the central theme—Joanna Drayton, a young white woman, brings her fiancé Dr. Prentice, an African American man, to meet her parents. The question of the movie is whether or not Drayton’s parents will endorse the marriage despite, Dr. Prentice’s race. Released in 1967, a few months after the Loving case, this movie was accurate in helping us understand the social climate of interracial marriages during the Lovings’ court case. Through this movie, we were able to view the dilemma a mixed-race marriage imposed and the difficulty Drayton’s parents have coming to terms with the possibility, even to an idealistic African American suitor. In addition, Drayton’s parents faced this dilemma as self-proclaimed “liberals,” indicating the racism of the time period. The tagline of the movie is aptly titled, “A love story of today,” signifying the controversy of interracial marriages.
Krock, Arthur. “In The Nation: A Direct High Court Test of Miscegenation Laws The 'Discrete' Question Common-Law Marriages” New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.:Nov 1, 1963. p. 30 (1 pp.)
This article was the reporting of the beginning of McLaughlin v. Florida, a court precedent for Loving v. Virginia. The article describes the Florida interracial couple’s prosecution for cohabitation and their attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court. This provided us with a further example of the efforts made by interracial couples to overturn anti-miscegenation laws.
Krock, Arthur. “In The Nation: The Governors' Committee at the White House All This and Fabulous Too.” New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 1, 1957. p. 31 (1 pp.)
This article was the reporting of Georgia’s governor’s opposition against towards the enforcing of the 1954 Brown v. Board case ruling because of his fear of miscegenation if integration was to occur, an example of “massive resistance.” This helped us understand the contraversy of racial-integration during this time and the fear involved with miscegenation in its use as a justification for segregation.
"The Law: Anti-Miscegenation Statutes: Repugnant Indeed." Time 23 Jun 1967. Time Archive. Web. 28 Oct 2009.
This 1967 Time magazine article reported Loving v. Virginia entering the Supreme Court. The reporter declared that although the Supreme Court attempted to avoid the question of miscegenation on several accounts, this case would definitively determine the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws. This article helped us understand how the public perceived the Loving case and it helped us trace the case from its start.
"Law: Reply." Time 18 January 1926. Time Archive. Web. 27 October 2009.
This 1926 article in Time magazine reported a white man that attempted to divorce his wife under the pretense that she had “colored” ancestry and therefore their marriage was not valid under anti-miscegenation legislation. This article showed us that anti-miscegenation laws were manipulated in court for purposes other than preventing interracial marriages.
Lemire, Elise, Ph.D. Phone interview. 13 May 2010.
Dr. Elise Lemire is an Associate Professor of Literature at Purchase College who specializes in whiteness studies and 19th century culture. She authored “Miscegenation:” Making Race in America, one of the few books of the subject that concentrated on miscegenation in early American history. Dr. Lemire gave us much insight into the controversy of mixed-race marriages and the stigma it carries even today as she has experienced first-hand herself in an interracial marriage—she is white and her husband is African American. She also discussed the implications her son faces as a biracial child in today’s society— “he calls himself brown.” We were further stimulated by her speculations on whiteness and people’s desire to preserve race.
Lewis, Anthony. “COURT TO REVIEW RACIAL SEX CURB: Supreme Bench Gets Appeal Against Florida Statute” Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857 Current file). New York, N.Y.:Apr 28, 1964. p. 1 (2 pp.)
This article reported the Supreme Court’s announcement to review the McLaughlin v. Florida case on a Florida interracial couple’s prosecution for cohabitation, a key precedent to Loving v. Virginia.
"Loving v. Virginia- Oral Argument." The Oyez Project. Web. 9 March 2010. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395>.
This three hour recording was the original oral argument of the case containing arguments from the Lovings’ lawyers, Phil Hirschkop and Bernie Cohen, William Marutani of the Japanese American-Citizens League that provided a brief for the Loving’s side, and Virginia’s lawyer Robert McIlwaine. We found this source to be especially interesting because we were able to listen first-hand to the quotes we had read about. It also greatly contributed to our understanding of the case because we were able to listen to the entirety of lawyers’ arguments and that enabled the Lovings win their case and the specific questions from the Supreme Court justices. We selected portions of the recording and included on the “Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court Case” page to allow the audience to listen first-hand to some of the case’s more famous quotes.
“Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1- Supreme Court 1967” Google Scholar. Web. 9 March 2010. <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5103666188878568597 &hl=en&as_sdt=000000002&as_vis=1>
This document was the Lovings’ appeal to the Supreme Court, after Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia withheld the decision of Caroline County’s Judge Leon Bazile to annul the Lovings’ marriage. It described in-depth the two clauses Cohen and Hirschkop wanted to use to support the Lovings’ case—equal rights and due process of law— citing a plethora of precedents including several we had researched on. This document enabled us to view the precedents in the context of the Lovings’ lawyers’ arguments.
"Maryland: Colorless Conjugality." Time 25 Feb 1967: n. pag. Web. 28 Oct 2009.
This article was a reporting of a Maryland interracial couple’s marriage rejection. This was only a few months prior to the Loving case; therefore it helped us better understand the proceedings of anti-miscegenation legislation at the time of Loving v. Virginia.
"McLaughlin v. Florida." The Multiracial Activist. The Multiracial Activist, Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.multiracial.com/government/mclaughlin.html>.
This document was the court proceedings for the McLaughlin v. Florida case. It helped us better understand the case as a precedent for Loving v. Virginia. We included the document on the “Mclaughlin v. Florida” subpage under “Court Precedents” because of its value in demonstrating this.
"Mildred and Richard Loving at a Press Conference." NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=1180>.
This was a picture of the Loving couple with Richard speaking to reporters, taken on June 12, 1967 in a press conference at their lawyer’s office in Alexandria, Virginia. It provided us a visual of the Loving couple which we included in the header of our website.
"Mildred and Richard Loving in 1967." Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indians.Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.americanindian.si.edu/exhibitions/indivisible/by_law.html>.
This was a picture of the Loving couple taken on June 12, 1967 in a press conference at their lawyer’s office in Alexandria, Virginia. It provided us a visual of the smiling Loving couple which we included in the header of our website.
"Miscegenation ." Cleveland Gazette 26 September 1885, Vol. 03, Num. 06: 02. Ohio Historical Center Archives Library. Web. 9 January 2010.
This 1885 article was a report of a mixed-race marriage between an African American man and a white woman in Cincinnati. The African American man had tricked the Probate Court for a marriage license by going to the court with an African American female friend and making the customary oath that his intended wife was a “colored” woman. The female friend later discovered the man’s wife was white and reported the news to the police. From this article, we were able to view an example where a mixed-race couple attempted to marry and the magnitude of the crime— it was a friend that reported the couple and upon discovery, the couple was arrested.
"Miscegenation in the South." Cleveland Gazette 3 October 1885, Vol. 03, Num. 07: 01. Ohio Historical Center Archives Library. Web. 9 January 2010.
This 1885 article states “miscegenation and the way out of it is the chief topic at present in the South.” It goes on to declare that many whites want to enact a national law prohibiting miscegenation to protect their women; the author, an African American, agrees, but states that he wants such a law to protect African American women as well. The article showed us both African Americans and whites were opposed to miscegenation and how miscegenation was an extremely controversial issue in the South in this time period.
Newbeck, Phyl. Phone interview. 4 May 2010.
Phyl Newbeck is director of the Vermont Teacher Diversity Scholarship program and a freelance writer. She authored Virginia Hasn’t Always Been for Lovers: Interracial Marriage Bans and the Case of Richard and Mildred Loving, one of the primary books we had read and used in our research on the court precedents of Loving v. Virginia and the Loving v. Virginia case. Newbeck was one of the few researchers that had met Mildred Loving in person. We enjoyed her input on the Lovings on a personal level and it helped in our understanding of the couple in a more humanized aspect. Her speculation of why the Loving case in particular was able to succeed and her knowledge of the time period especially aided us in answering questions we could not determine from our research.
Nihal. "Trying to Solve the World's Problems of Race. " African Methodist Episcopal Church Review October 1911, Vol. 28, Num. 2: 552. Ohio Historical Center Archives Library. Web. 9 January 2010.
This article was written in 1911 by an African American social critic and a proponent of miscegenation of the illogicality of racism. He presents that scientific theories do not support the theory that race is an indication of superiority or inferiority, but rather, a result of environment, and furthermore miscegenation produces children of healthier minds and bodies. This was important in the breadth of our research because the majority of primary sources regarding miscegenation tends to suggest the opposite opinion—that miscegenation produces weak children. We also found it interesting that the author suggests that perhaps miscegenation will reduce prejudice amongst the races. This influenced our title, “The Road to Conquering Prejudice—Loving v. Virginia.”
"Pace v. State of Alabama." The Multiracial Activist. The Multiracial Activist, Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.multiracial.com/government/pace.html>.
This document was the court proceedings for the Pace v. Alabama case. It helped us better understand the case as a precedent for Loving v. Virginia. We included the document on the “Pace v. Alabama” subpage under “Court Precedents” because of its value in demonstrating this.
"Perez v. Sharp." The Multiracial Activist. The Multiracial Activist, Web. 27 Dec 2009. http://www.multiracial.com/government/perez-v-sharp.html
This document was the court proceedings for the Perez v. Sharp case. It helped us better understand the case as a precedent for Loving v. Virginia. We included the document on the “Perez v. Sharp” subpage under “Court Precedents” because of its value in demonstrating this.
"Races: A Marriage of Enlightenment." Time 29 September 1967. Time Archive. Web. 27 October 2009.
Four months after the ruling of Loving v. Virginia, Time magazine published a cover story on the interracial marriage between Margaret Rusk, a white woman and daughter of Secretary of State, and Guy Smith, an African American man. The article briefly mentions the Loving case before discussing much of the public’s fear of such a marriage to the extent the Secretary of State offered his resignation if necessary due to the outrage his daughter’s wedding caused. Despite the controversy, the article praises the marriage as one that will better race relations—“a marriage of enlightenment.” In Virginia Hasn’t Always Been for Lovers, Phyl Newbeck states that high publicity of interracial couples helped ease the acceptance of interracial marriages following the ruling of the Loving case. This article was a prime example of this.
"1924 Racial Integrity Act." Melungeon Heritage Association. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.melungeon.org/node/87>.
This document was Virginia’s 1924 Racial Integrity Act, Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute.
The Integrity Act was the basis of the Naim v. Naim case, a precedent for Loving v. Virginia, and we included the document on the “Naim v. Naim” subpage under “Court Precedents” because of its value in demonstrating the case as a precedent. Furthermore, this was the same law that the Lovings were arrested for breaking; it additionally helped us better understand the circumstances under which the Lovings were sentenced in 1958 soon after their marriage.
"Report on Loving Case 1967." Web. 31 Jan 2010. <abcnews.com>.
This video was the original ABC television news broadcasting of the Loving case after its ruling in 1967. The reporting included rare filming of the Loving couple at their home in Central Point, Virginia, speaking in reflection about their case; it also included footage of the three Loving children playing. This allowed us to see the Lovings’ perspective on their own case as well as how the Loving case was reported by news media at the time. We were also able to see the personalities of the couple—shy and unassuming, as indicated by their quiet and modest responses and their simple abode.
"Richard and Mildred Loving in 1965." The Boston Globe. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/obituaries/articles/2008/05/06/mildred_loving_case_led_to_end_of_interracial_marriage
This was a picture of the Loving couple taken in 1965 by the Boston Globe at the start of the case. It provided us a visual of the Loving couple which we included in the banner of our website.
"Richard and Mildred Loving in 1967." The Washington Post. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/photo/2008/05/05/PH200805050262.jpg>.
This was a picture of the Loving couple taken by the Washington Post in 1967, following the ruling of the Loving case. It provided us a visual of the smiling Loving couple which we included in the home page of our website.
"The Supreme Court: Marriage by Choice." Time 8 May 1964. Time Archive. Web. 27 October 2009.
This article was the reporting of McLaughlin v. Florida entering the Supreme Court in Time magazine, questioning the constitutionality of Florida’s cohabitation ban against interracial couples. The article begins with the statement, “Racial intermarriage is potentially the most combustible of all civil rights issues.” The reporter goes on to make the interesting comment that 21% of white Americans are descendants of persons of African ancestors and 72% of African Americans have white ancestors. From the first line, the article describes the immense amount of social stigma surrounding the topic of miscegenation; from the statistics within the article we were able to realize that miscegenation in the U.S. was far from uncommon. The article also makes the note that last time the Supreme Court agreed to take a miscegenation related case was in 1883 Pace v. Alabama, further indicating the taboo of interracial marriage.
"The Supreme Court: Strict Caution on Miscegenation." Time 18 December 1964. Time Archive. Web. 27 October 2009.
This article was the reporting in Time magazine of the 1964 Supreme Court case McLaughlin v. Florida, a precedent of Loving v. Virginia, where the cohabitation clause of Florida’s anti-miscegenation statute was overturned. The reporter commented that McLaughlin case overturned the previous Pace v. Alabama decision that equal punishments on both sides would constitute not violating the equal rights amendment; but at the same time the ruling postpones the larger issue—the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation legislation. This article indicated the controversy of miscegenation was so great that although the Supreme Court had the opportunity to decide the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation legislation, the Court decided to avoid the issue. It also helped us understand McLaughlin v. Florida as a precedent to Loving v. Virginia.
Tanabe, Ken. Phone interview. 11 May 2010.
Ken Tanabe is the founder of the Loving Day Project, a social movement to celebrate June 12, the anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia ruling. We’ve heard him speak on NPR and the BBC documentary on the Loving case, and we had read his statements in many of the sources we used in our research. We contacted him particularly because we were interested in the social implications that Loving v. Virginia has in our modern-day society. Similar to our own observations, Mr. Tanabe, a product of an interracial marriage himself, saw that most of the younger generation had no knowledge about the Loving case. We enjoyed learning about the process in which he created the Loving Day holiday in an attempt to change this and the responses he received from the public in his project. The interview also helped us understand the importance of remembering the Loving case and Loving v. Virginia not only as a legislative innovation, but a social one.
Wallenstein, Peter, Ph.D. Phone interview. 12 May 2010.
Dr. Peter Wallenstein is a Professor of History at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University who specializes in Civil Rights and the U.S. South. He authored, Tell the Court I Love my Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law—an American History, one of the primary books we had read and used in our research on the history of miscegenation, the court precedents of Loving v. Virginia, and the legacy of the Loving case. We found his insight on the case to be particularly helpful in our understanding of the changes in society in the aftermath of the case. Dr. Wallenstein made an interesting note that prior to the Loving case there were only two categories involving race—white and “colored;” with the passing of Loving v. Virginia, the categories expanded into the different ethnicities—African American, Asian American, multi-racial, etc. We also enjoyed the many speculations he shared about race and marriage with us which stimulated our own thoughts about the subject. Lastly, our interview with Dr. Wallenstein, helped us to realize that with each question, particularly our “whys,” there are numerous approaches that can be taken, and different ideas that can be explored—analyzing history is not easy.
Secondary Sources
Henriques, Fernando. Children of Conflict: A Study of Interracial Sex and Marriage. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1974.
This book was written less than a decade after Loving v. Virginia on the history of miscegenation in the United States. It provided in-depth accounts of miscegenation and its punishments as early as colonial Jamestown. We found the book helpful in viewing the discrepancies of anti-miscegenation legislation in different regions of the United States from the beginning of settlement. The book also gave a brief overview of court precedents leading up to the Loving case.
"Interracial Marriage." MSNBC Media. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/USNEWS/070413/AP_INTERACIAL_MARRIAGE.gif>.
This is a graph of interracial marriages from 1970 to 2005 from data released by the U.S. Census. According to the graph there are currently 2.3 million interracial couples living in the United States (approximately 3.8% of all married couples). In comparison, there were only 0.3 million interracial couples in 1970 (approximately 0.7% of all married couples), a 667% increase in the past 40 years. This graph showed us the tremendous growth of interracial marriages following the Loving case. We included the picture in our “Innovation and Legacy” page to demonstrate this to the audience.
"Loving Map." Freedom to Marry. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.freedomtomarry.org/maps/loving_map.pdf>.
This map of the United States provided a visual of the 16 states (colored in red) that still had anti-miscegenation statues by the time of the 1967 Loving case. It allowed us to visually see that a significant portion of the United States upheld anti-miscegenation legislation. We were also able to see, geographically, most of these states were in the South. We included the picture on our “Court Precedents” page because of its value in showing these aspects of anti-miscegenation laws.
"Mildred and Richard Loving Documentary." Web. 17 October 2009. <bbcnews.bbc.co.uk/>.
This BBC documentary on Loving v. Virginia told the story of the Loving case in parallel the reporter’s search for his own mixed-race heritage. The documentary contained interviews from the Bernie Cohen and Philip Hirschkop, the lawyers who represented the Lovings, and Phyl Newbeck, the author of Virginia Hasn’t Always Been for Lovers, one of the primary book sources in our research. These interviews gave us insight into the circumstances of the Loving case, and the how the lawyers perceived the case in reflection. This was the first source in our research, and we found it to be a good introduction to the Loving v. Virginia case as well as a valuable source for videos pertaining to the case. In addition, we included footage of Cohen reading Mildred Loving’s plea for help in 1967 from the documentary on the “The Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia” webpage to enable the audience to hear the contents of Mildred’s letter that began Loving v. Virginia.
Lemire, Elise. “Miscegenation:” Making Race in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.
“Miscegenation” was one of the few books of the subject that concentrated on miscegenation in early American history. It contained a plethora of primary sources—anti-miscegenation propaganda pictures, poems, and essays— each analyzed in great detail. We became so engrossed/interested/shocked by the racist sentiment in these primary sources, we included a photo gallery of many of these sources on our “Introduction to Miscegenation” page for our audience. We found the book to be insightful in examining the origins of anti-miscegenation legislation and aided in our understanding of the influence of prejudice in American society.
Moran, Rachel F. Interracial Intimacy: the Regulation of Race and Romance. University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Moran discusses in detail “the new multiculturalism” that emerged following Loving v. Virginia and the implications of biracial children and heritage in modern day society. Interracial Intimacy also explores many of the social aspects of interracial families and marriages—how even after the ruling of the Loving case most choose to marry within their own race. We found this book especially helpful in exploring the immediate outcomes of the Loving case and increase our speculation of the future implications of the case.
Nash, Gary B. Forbidden Love: The Secret History of Mixed-Race America. New York City: Harper Holt and Company, 1999. Print.
Forbidden Love provided a large range of detailed miscegenation accounts between a variety of different races in colonial America; it helped us gain insight to the wide span of miscegenation in the United States.
Newbeck, Phyl. Virginia Hasn’t Always Been For Lovers: Interracial Marriage Bans and the Case of Richard and Mildred Loving. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004.
Virginia Hasn’t Always Been For Lovers was the most comprehensive book on the Loving v. Virginia case and was one of the main books we used in our research. In addition to an in-depth narrative of the Loving case beginning from the couple’s marriage in 1958, Newbeck explains the history of Central Point, the town Lovings came from—known as the “passing” capital. Also included were key precedents and an overview of the history of anti-miscegenation legislation. The book contained many primary sources which we found relevant and included on our website including Mildred Loving’s letter to Robert Kennedy and the 1864 pamphlet that coined “miscegenation.” This book aided us in learning about the case, the environment the Lovings came from, and overall scope of anti-miscegenation legislation in the United States.
Pascoe, Peggy. What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America. Oxford University Press, USA, 2009.
What Comes Naturally was especially helpful in learning about the precedents of Loving v. Virginia and the history of anti-miscegenation from the legislative perspective. Pascoe provides in-depth analysis of miscegenation between whites and African Americans, but also whites and Asians, whites and Native Americans, and other minority groups— a portion of miscegenation that is often ignored, but we felt was very significant in the breadth of our research. Her interpretation of the Loving’s case legacy was influential in creating our thesis that Loving v. Virginia was a social innovation as well as legislative one, describing the Multicultural Movement and the movement to make the ruling of the Loving case a holiday. Furthermore, her interview with Ken Tanabe, founder of the Loving Day Project, inspired us to contact him for an interview as well. Lastly, the book contained many primary sources which we found relevant and included on our website including political cartoon of a Chinese man paired with a white woman after the Pacific Railroad was completed—a piece of anti-miscegenation propaganda.
Walker, Clarence E. Mongrel Nation: The America Begotten by Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.
Mongrel Nation described Jefferson’s illicit relationship with his slave concubine Sally Hemings, perhaps one of the most famous incidences of miscegenation in American history. Walker brings to light Jefferson’s hypocritical nature— Jefferson was a proponent of anti-miscegenation legislation between whites and African Americans— and the mindset of particular founding fathers when creating anti-miscegenation laws. This book aided in our understanding of the origins of such legislation.
Wallenstein, Peter. Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law—an American History. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Tell the Court I Love My Wife provided a plethora of in-detail accounts of interracial couples struggling with anti-miscegenation legislation and the justifications that perpetuated such laws, leading to the ruling of Loving v. Virginia. We found it helpful in our understanding of the richness of miscegenation history prior to the Loving case, and that although largely unknown today, miscegenation was in fact a controversy the permeated the core of American society. We were also interested in Wallenstein’s comparison of the movement for the legalization of interracial marriage to the struggle of the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community to gain their own marriage rights. He also states that following the Loving case, “multi-racial,” as a racial identity emerged in America. His interpretation was influential in creating our thesis that Loving v. Virginia was a social innovation as well as legislative one. Lastly, the book contained many primary sources which we found relevant and included on our website including an 1865 pamphlet discrediting President Lincoln named “What Miscegenation Is!—What We are To Expect Now that Mr. Lincoln is Re-elected.”
This book was written less than a decade after Loving v. Virginia on the history of miscegenation in the United States. It provided in-depth accounts of miscegenation and its punishments as early as colonial Jamestown. We found the book helpful in viewing the discrepancies of anti-miscegenation legislation in different regions of the United States from the beginning of settlement. The book also gave a brief overview of court precedents leading up to the Loving case.
"Interracial Marriage." MSNBC Media. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/USNEWS/070413/AP_INTERACIAL_MARRIAGE.gif>.
This is a graph of interracial marriages from 1970 to 2005 from data released by the U.S. Census. According to the graph there are currently 2.3 million interracial couples living in the United States (approximately 3.8% of all married couples). In comparison, there were only 0.3 million interracial couples in 1970 (approximately 0.7% of all married couples), a 667% increase in the past 40 years. This graph showed us the tremendous growth of interracial marriages following the Loving case. We included the picture in our “Innovation and Legacy” page to demonstrate this to the audience.
"Loving Map." Freedom to Marry. Web. 27 Dec 2009. <http://www.freedomtomarry.org/maps/loving_map.pdf>.
This map of the United States provided a visual of the 16 states (colored in red) that still had anti-miscegenation statues by the time of the 1967 Loving case. It allowed us to visually see that a significant portion of the United States upheld anti-miscegenation legislation. We were also able to see, geographically, most of these states were in the South. We included the picture on our “Court Precedents” page because of its value in showing these aspects of anti-miscegenation laws.
"Mildred and Richard Loving Documentary." Web. 17 October 2009. <bbcnews.bbc.co.uk/>.
This BBC documentary on Loving v. Virginia told the story of the Loving case in parallel the reporter’s search for his own mixed-race heritage. The documentary contained interviews from the Bernie Cohen and Philip Hirschkop, the lawyers who represented the Lovings, and Phyl Newbeck, the author of Virginia Hasn’t Always Been for Lovers, one of the primary book sources in our research. These interviews gave us insight into the circumstances of the Loving case, and the how the lawyers perceived the case in reflection. This was the first source in our research, and we found it to be a good introduction to the Loving v. Virginia case as well as a valuable source for videos pertaining to the case. In addition, we included footage of Cohen reading Mildred Loving’s plea for help in 1967 from the documentary on the “The Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia” webpage to enable the audience to hear the contents of Mildred’s letter that began Loving v. Virginia.
Lemire, Elise. “Miscegenation:” Making Race in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.
“Miscegenation” was one of the few books of the subject that concentrated on miscegenation in early American history. It contained a plethora of primary sources—anti-miscegenation propaganda pictures, poems, and essays— each analyzed in great detail. We became so engrossed/interested/shocked by the racist sentiment in these primary sources, we included a photo gallery of many of these sources on our “Introduction to Miscegenation” page for our audience. We found the book to be insightful in examining the origins of anti-miscegenation legislation and aided in our understanding of the influence of prejudice in American society.
Moran, Rachel F. Interracial Intimacy: the Regulation of Race and Romance. University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Moran discusses in detail “the new multiculturalism” that emerged following Loving v. Virginia and the implications of biracial children and heritage in modern day society. Interracial Intimacy also explores many of the social aspects of interracial families and marriages—how even after the ruling of the Loving case most choose to marry within their own race. We found this book especially helpful in exploring the immediate outcomes of the Loving case and increase our speculation of the future implications of the case.
Nash, Gary B. Forbidden Love: The Secret History of Mixed-Race America. New York City: Harper Holt and Company, 1999. Print.
Forbidden Love provided a large range of detailed miscegenation accounts between a variety of different races in colonial America; it helped us gain insight to the wide span of miscegenation in the United States.
Newbeck, Phyl. Virginia Hasn’t Always Been For Lovers: Interracial Marriage Bans and the Case of Richard and Mildred Loving. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004.
Virginia Hasn’t Always Been For Lovers was the most comprehensive book on the Loving v. Virginia case and was one of the main books we used in our research. In addition to an in-depth narrative of the Loving case beginning from the couple’s marriage in 1958, Newbeck explains the history of Central Point, the town Lovings came from—known as the “passing” capital. Also included were key precedents and an overview of the history of anti-miscegenation legislation. The book contained many primary sources which we found relevant and included on our website including Mildred Loving’s letter to Robert Kennedy and the 1864 pamphlet that coined “miscegenation.” This book aided us in learning about the case, the environment the Lovings came from, and overall scope of anti-miscegenation legislation in the United States.
Pascoe, Peggy. What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America. Oxford University Press, USA, 2009.
What Comes Naturally was especially helpful in learning about the precedents of Loving v. Virginia and the history of anti-miscegenation from the legislative perspective. Pascoe provides in-depth analysis of miscegenation between whites and African Americans, but also whites and Asians, whites and Native Americans, and other minority groups— a portion of miscegenation that is often ignored, but we felt was very significant in the breadth of our research. Her interpretation of the Loving’s case legacy was influential in creating our thesis that Loving v. Virginia was a social innovation as well as legislative one, describing the Multicultural Movement and the movement to make the ruling of the Loving case a holiday. Furthermore, her interview with Ken Tanabe, founder of the Loving Day Project, inspired us to contact him for an interview as well. Lastly, the book contained many primary sources which we found relevant and included on our website including political cartoon of a Chinese man paired with a white woman after the Pacific Railroad was completed—a piece of anti-miscegenation propaganda.
Walker, Clarence E. Mongrel Nation: The America Begotten by Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.
Mongrel Nation described Jefferson’s illicit relationship with his slave concubine Sally Hemings, perhaps one of the most famous incidences of miscegenation in American history. Walker brings to light Jefferson’s hypocritical nature— Jefferson was a proponent of anti-miscegenation legislation between whites and African Americans— and the mindset of particular founding fathers when creating anti-miscegenation laws. This book aided in our understanding of the origins of such legislation.
Wallenstein, Peter. Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law—an American History. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Tell the Court I Love My Wife provided a plethora of in-detail accounts of interracial couples struggling with anti-miscegenation legislation and the justifications that perpetuated such laws, leading to the ruling of Loving v. Virginia. We found it helpful in our understanding of the richness of miscegenation history prior to the Loving case, and that although largely unknown today, miscegenation was in fact a controversy the permeated the core of American society. We were also interested in Wallenstein’s comparison of the movement for the legalization of interracial marriage to the struggle of the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community to gain their own marriage rights. He also states that following the Loving case, “multi-racial,” as a racial identity emerged in America. His interpretation was influential in creating our thesis that Loving v. Virginia was a social innovation as well as legislative one. Lastly, the book contained many primary sources which we found relevant and included on our website including an 1865 pamphlet discrediting President Lincoln named “What Miscegenation Is!—What We are To Expect Now that Mr. Lincoln is Re-elected.”