Showing posts with label Race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Race. Show all posts

Monday, April 26, 2021

Edwards, "Hiding in Plain Sight: Black Women, the Law, and the Making of a White Argentine Republic"

No pun intended, I'm not sure how we overlooked the publication of Hiding in Plain Sight: Black Women, the Law, and the Making of a White Argentine Republic (University of Alabama Press, 2020), by Erika Denise Edwards (University of North Carolina, Charlotte). It has now won at least two significant awards: the Association of Black Women Historians 2020 Letitia Woods-Brown Award for the best book in African American Women’s History and Western Association of Women Historians Barbara “Penny” Kanner Award, which honors scholarship that "illustrates the use of a specific set of primary sources (diaries, letters, interviews etc.)" (h/t @ABWHTruth). A description from the Press: 

Argentina promotes itself as a country of European immigrants. This makes it an exception to other Latin American countries, which embrace a more mixed—African, Indian, European—heritage. Hiding in Plain Sight: Black Women, the Law, and the Making of a White Argentine Republic traces the origins of what some white Argentines mischaracterize as a “black disappearance” by delving into the intimate lives of black women and explaining how they contributed to the making of a “white” Argentina. Erika Denise Edwards has produced the first comprehensive study in English of the history of African descendants outside of Buenos Aires in the late colonial and early republican periods, with a focus on how these women sought whiteness to better their lives and that of their children.

Edwards argues that attempts by black women to escape the stigma of blackness by recategorizing themselves and their descendants as white began as early as the late eighteenth century, challenging scholars who assert that the black population drastically declined at the end of the nineteenth century because of the whitening or modernization process. She further contends that in Córdoba, Argentina, women of African descent (such as wives, mothers, daughters, and concubines) were instrumental in shaping their own racial reclassifications and destinies.

This volume makes use of a wealth of sources to relate these women’s choices. The sources consulted include city censuses and notarial and probate records that deal with free and enslaved African descendants; criminal, ecclesiastical, and civil court cases; marriages and baptisms records and newsletters. These varied sources provide information about the day-to-day activities of cordobés society and how women of African descent lived, formed relationships, thrived, and partook in the transformation of racial identities in Argentina.

Praise from reviewers:

“Powerfully, this book reinterprets the interrelated constructs of whiteness and nation in Argentina from the perspective of African-descended women. In so doing, Hiding in Plain Sight illuminates the gendered languages and initiatives that made possible black women’s (and their children’s) assertions for legal and social belonging—even as these choices entailed a discursive downplaying of blackness in favor of performing Spanish and indigenous identities. A noteworthy contribution to African diaspora as well as women’s and gender studies, Edwards’s book makes the study of both households and the interior city of Córdoba indispensable to thinking about modern Argentina.” —Celso Thomas Castilho,
 
“Edwards boldly argues that African-descended women in Córdoba employed their clothing choices, motherly responsibilities, and positions as concubines to transform black identities into white privilege. By exploring intimate struggles, Edwards effectively revises Argentina’s national story of black invisibility to a narrative of black agency of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.” —Rachel Sarah O’Toole

More information is available here.

-- Karen Tani

Friday, April 16, 2021

Federal History 2021

Federal History: Journal of the Society for History in the Federal Government 13: 2021 is available online.  Here’s the TOC:

Editor’s Note
Benjamin Guterman

Roger R. Trask Lecture
Bill Williams

The Case for John Jay’s Nomination as First Chief Justice
Benjamin Lyons

“This disease . . . knows no State boundaries”: The 1918 Spanish Influenza Epidemic and Federal Public Health
Jonathan Chilcote

“America must remain American”: The Liberal Contribution to Race Restrictions in the 1924 Immigration Act
Kevin Yuill

The Combined Chiefs of Staff and the Public Health Building, 1942–1946
Christopher Holmes

Federalism and the Limits on Regulating Products Liability Law, 1977–1981
Ian J. Drake

Gerald Ford’s Clemency Board Reconsidered
Alan Jaroslovsky

Interview An Interview with Chandra Manning
Benjamin Guterman

--Dan Ernst

Thursday, April 15, 2021

Jones to Deliver Fulton Lecture

 Tomorrow (Friday, April 16, 2021) from 12:15pm-1:20pm Central Time, Martha S. Jones, Society of Black Alumni Presidential Professor, Professor of History, and a Professor at the SNF Agora Institute at The Johns Hopkins University, will deliver the 2021 Maurice and Muriel Fulton Lecture in Legal History at the University of Chicago Law School–or rather virtually.  Register here.  Her topic is Vanguard: Leading on Voting Rights, Leading the Nation:

When Vice President Kamala Harris invoked six women from the past in August 2020, she explained it was on their shoulders that she stood: Mary Church Terrell, Ida B. Wells, Mary McLeod Bethune, Diane Nash, Fannie Lous Hamer, and Constance Baker Motley. Harris is the inheritor of these women of the Vanguard. For them, the 19th Amendment was a milestone but not a victory. When we appreciate what an open secret Black women’s disenfranchisement was in 1920, the facts of the 19th Amendment fit awkwardly with events that feature light shows, period costumes, and marching bands. Members of Congress who promulgated the 19th Amendment, state lawmakers who ratified it, and suffragists themselves all understood that nothing in its terms prohibited states from strategically using poll taxes, literacy tests, and understanding tests to keep Black women from registering to vote. Nothing in the new amendment promised to curb the intimidation and violence that threatened Black women who came out to polling places. Voting rights and voter suppression went hand in hand in 1920. Out of the ashes of these scenes, Black women built a new movement for voting rights, one that took them 45 years, until 1965, when they won passage of the Voting Rights Act.

--Dan Ernst.  H/t:JG

Wednesday, April 14, 2021

Berger on Race and Property

Bethany Berger, University of Connecticut School of Law, has posted Property to Race/Race to Property:

In the United States, property and race shape each other. This has been true since colonization and is equally true today.

First, property relationships shaped the distinct forms racism took for different racialized groups. Racism exists to explain and justify power and privilege of one group over another. But the goals of power and privilege vary across different groups, resulting in different stereotypes, legal and social barriers, and modes of control. This Article examines the racialization of African Americans, Indigenous peoples, ethnic Chinese, and racialized “off-White” ethnic groups to reveal the crucial role that a group’s relationship to valued resources plays in its distinct trajectory of racism.

Second, racial relationships shaped property law for everyone in the United States. The power to foreclose for debts, the power of local governments to zone, the public goods attached to residence, the scope of the welfare state’s “new property”—in these areas and many more, efforts to control, exclude, and take from racialized groups changed what property means today. This Article reveals the hidden histories of racially neutral rules and shows how they have undermined the security and equitable distribution of property for all.

Today, property law and rhetoric are often used to undermine measures that would increase the security, affordability, and autonomy that justify property in the first place. Revealing the racial roots of modern property rules, I hope, will create space for reform to achieve the liberatory and egalitarian norms that undergird our commitment to property.
–Dan Ernst

Monday, April 12, 2021

ICS Seminar on Affirmative Action

[We have the following announcement.  DRE]

The Institute for Constitutional Studies is pleased to announce another seminar for advanced graduate students and junior faculty, Affirmative Action.

Prior to the pandemic and the economic downturn, affirmative action was one of the most divisive issues in public policy. While it is closely tied to issues of racism (past and present), it also has strong ties to the women’s movement, Hispanic rights, and disability programs. Normally we start looking at affirmative action in the Kennedy-Johnson years, but in fact its roots go back to Reconstruction after the Civil War. There are two types of affirmative action programs, which I label “hard” and “soft,” and the distinction will be at the heart of the discussion. There is a story of an administrative agency run wild, and of course, there are court cases. One must bear in mind that this is not a simple liberal vs. conservative debate, for some of the fiercest critics have been liberals. We will end the course with a look at the most recent case that involved Harvard and Asian-American students.
Instructor.  Melvin I. Urofsky is professor emeritus of history at Virginia Commonwealth University. He is the longtime editor of the Journal of Supreme Court History and has written widely on American constitutional development. His most recent books are the prize-winning Louis D. Brandeis: A Life (2009), Dissent and the Supreme Court (2015), and The Affirmative Action Puzzle (2020).

Logistics.  Thursday afternoons, 3:50–5:50 p.m., October 7, 14, 21, 28, November 11, and 18, 2021. The seminar will meet at The George Washington University Law School, 2000 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20052.

Application Process.  The seminar is designed for graduate students and junior faculty in history, political science, law, and related disciplines. All participants will be expected to complete the assigned readings and participate in seminar discussions. Although the Institute cannot offer academic credit directly for the seminar, students may be able to earn graduate credit through their home departments by completing an independent research project in conjunction with the seminar. Please consult with your advisor and/or director of graduate studies about these possibilities. Space is limited, so applicants should send a copy of their c.v. and a short statement on how this seminar will be useful to them in their research, teaching, or professional development. Materials will be accepted only by email at MMarcus@law.gwu.edu until September 1, 2021. Successful applicants will be notified soon thereafter. For further information, please contact Maeva Marcus at Mmarcus@law.gwu.edu.

Additional information.  There is no tuition or other charge for this seminar, though participants will be expected to acquire the assigned books on their own.

About ICS.  The Institute for Constitutional Studies (ICS) is the nation’s premier institute dedicated to ensuring that future generations of Americans understand the substance and historical development of the U.S. Constitution. Located at the George Washington University Law School, the Institute is co-sponsored by the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, and the American Political Science Association. The Association of American Law Schools is a cooperating entity. ICS prepares junior scholars and college instructors to convey to their readers and students the important role the Constitution has played in shaping American society. ICS also provides a national forum for the preparation and dissemination of humanistic, interdisciplinary scholarship on American constitutional history.

Friday, April 9, 2021

Houser's "Bureaucrats of Liberation"

Myra Ann Houser, Associate Professor of History, Ouachita Baptist University, has published Bureaucrats of Liberation: Southern African and American Lawyers During the Apartheid Era (Leiden University Press, distributed by the University of Chicago Press, 2021):

Bureaucrats of Liberation
narrates the history of the Southern Africa Project of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Right under law, a civil rights organization founded in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy. Between 1963 and 1994, the Southern Africa Project connected lawyers from Namibia, South Africa, and the United States. Within the Project’s network, activist lawyers exchanged funding resources, provided logistical support for political trials, and mediated new voting and governmental systems.

The Project’s history provides a lens into twentieth century geopolitics tied to anti-apartheid, decolonization, Cold War, and movements agitating against white supremacy. In doing so, it pays careful attention to the Project’s different eras, beginning with US Executive Branch officials helming the effort and evolving into a space where more activist-oriented attorneys on both sides of the Atlantic drove its mission and politics.

--Dan Ernst

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Sawyer on Originalism, the South, and the New Right

We recently noted Calvin Terbeek’s article on the racial politics of originalism and now note another work on the same topic, Originalism from the Soft Southern Strategy to the New Right: The Constitutional Politics of Sam Ervin Jr, by Logan Sawyer, III, University of Georgia School of Law, in the Journal of Policy History 33:1 (January 2021): 32-59 :

Sam Ervin (LC)
Although originalism’s emergence as an important theory of constitutional interpretation is usually attributed to efforts by the Reagan administration, the role the theory played in the South’s determined resistance to civil rights legislation in the 1960s actually helped create the Reagan coalition in the first place. North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin Jr., the constitutional theorist of the Southern Caucus, developed and deployed originalism because he saw its potential to stymie civil rights legislation and stabilize a Democratic coalition under significant stress. Ervin failed in those efforts, but his turn to originalism had lasting effects. The theory helped Ervin and other conservative southerners explain to outsiders and to themselves why they shifted from support for an interventionist state powerful enough to enforce segregation to an ideology founded on individual rights and liberty. It thus eased the South’s integration with the emerging New Right.

--Dan Ernst

Thursday, March 25, 2021

TerBeek on Brown & originalism's racial origins

Calvin TerBeek (University of Chicago) has published the following article: " 'Clocks Must Always Be Turned Back': Brown v. Board of Education and the Racial Origins of Constitutional Originalism," American Political Science Review (published online on 16 March 2021). Here's the abstract:

The Republican Party has adopted constitutional “originalism” as its touchstone. Existing accounts of this development tell either a teleological story, with legal academics as the progenitors, or deracialized accounts of conservatives arguing first principles. Exploiting untapped archival data, this paper argues otherwise. Empirically, the paper shows that the realigning GOP’s originalism grew directly out of political resistance to Brown v. Board of Education by conservative governing elites, intellectuals, and activists in the 1950s and 1960s. Building on this updated empirical understanding, the theoretical claim is that ideologically charged elite legal academics and attorneys in Departments of Justice serve more of a legitimating rather than an originating role for American constitutional politics upon a long coalition’s electoral success. Finally, by showing the importance of race to constitutional conservatism’s development, this article posits that the received understanding of a “three-corner stool” of social, economic, and foreign policy conservatism needs revision.

Further information is available here.  Eric Segall has commented on Professor Terbeek's article over at Dorf on Law.  H/t JQB.

--Mitra Sharafi 

Saturday, March 6, 2021

Weekend Roundup

  • Brandon R. Byrd, assistant professor of history, will deliver the next lecture in Vanderbilt Law School’s Dean’s Lecture Series on Race and Discrimination on Thursday, March 18, beginning at noon CT.  More.
  • ICYMI:  Ann Williams’s freedom suit (Hyattsville Wire).  How a 1946 dispute over a broken radio in Tennessee helped spark the civil rights movement (USA Today).  Scott Simon, Will Smith, and Larry Wilmore on "Amend" (NPR).

 Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Balkin on Race and Constitutional Time

Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School, has posted Race and The Cycles of Constitutional Time, which is forthcoming in the Missouri Law Review:

My 2020 book, The Cycles of Constitutional Time, argues that we can understand American constitutional development in terms of three different kinds of cycles. The first is the rise and fall of political regimes featuring dominant political parties. The second is a very long cycle of polarization and depolarization that stretches from the Civil War through the present. The third cycle is a series of episodes of constitutional rot and constitutional renewal.

This essay shows how each of these cycles has deep connections to successive political struggles over race and racial equality in the United States.

Each regime’s winning coalition is shaped by the politics of slavery (in the antebellum period) or race (after the Thirteenth Amendment). In several cases, the dominant coalition eventually breaks down because of disputes about slavery or race. The cycle of polarization is also highly correlated with attempts by politicians to make race, and more generally, identity, the central questions that divide the two major political parties. Finally, polarization over race and identity-- along with increasing income inequality--has been an important factor in each period of constitutional rot in the country's history.

I do not claim that race is either the sole or the dominant explanation for the cycles of constitutional time in the United States. Nevertheless, race is a powerful factor, and the politics of race are an important driver of the cycles of regimes, polarization, and rot described in the book. My purpose in this Article is to highlight the role that racial politics plays in the transformations described in The Cycles of Constitutional Time, and to show how questions of race are important at each stage of the story.

--Dan Ernst

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

Dhir Workshop on "Black Star Line, Inc.: Race in the Historical Life of the Corporation"

The University of Connecticut Business & Human Rights Workshop is hosting a virtual workshop tomorrow (Thursday, February 18) with Aaron Dhir (Osgoode Hall Law School/Yale Law School). He'll be discussing "Black Star Line, Inc.: Race in the Historical Life of the Corporation":

From approximately 1916 to 1922, Marcus Garvey established himself as one of the most influential — and controversial — leaders in Black America. This seminar will examine Garvey’s ill-fated effort to use the Black Star Line, a Delaware-incorporated shipping firm, as an organizing vehicle for Black economic, social, and political independence. It will explore a complex set of socio-legal questions, including: How is race present in the historical life of the American business corporation? Who is traditionally thought of as an insider and an outsider in American capital markets? How have racially-inflected power asymmetries appeared in the fabric of the market? And how has the politically-motivated use of business regulation thwarted the entrepreneurial efforts and political goals of racial minority groups?

Registration info is available here.

-- Karen Tani

Sunday, February 7, 2021

Nunley's "At the Threshold of Liberty"

Tamika Y. Nunley, Oberlin College, has published At the Threshold of Liberty: Women, Slavery, and Shifting Identities in Washington, D.C. (University of North Carolina Press, 2021):

The capital city of a nation founded on the premise of liberty, nineteenth-century Washington, D.C., was both an entrepôt of urban slavery and the target of abolitionist ferment. The growing slave trade and the enactment of Black codes placed the city’s Black women within the rigid confines of a social hierarchy ordered by race and gender. At the Threshold of Liberty reveals how these women--enslaved, fugitive, and free--imagined new identities and lives beyond the oppressive restrictions intended to prevent them from ever experiencing liberty, self-respect, and power.

Consulting newspapers, government documents, letters, abolitionist records, legislation, and memoirs, Tamika Y. Nunley traces how Black women navigated social and legal proscriptions to develop their own ideas about liberty as they escaped from slavery, initiated freedom suits, created entrepreneurial economies, pursued education, and participated in political work. In telling these stories, Nunley places Black women at the vanguard of the history of Washington, D.C., and the momentous transformations of nineteenth-century America.
Here is an endorsement:
"Tamika Y. Nunley has written a nuanced, humane, and powerful history of Black women's freedom-making in Washington, D.C. At the Threshold of Liberty is a major contribution."--William G. Thomas III, author of A Question of Freedom: The Families Who Challenged Slavery from the Nation’s Founding to the Civil War
–Dan Ernst

Wednesday, January 20, 2021

Chin, "A Nation of White Immigrants: State and Federal Racial Preferences for White Noncitizens"

The Boston University Law Review has published "A Nation of White Immigrants: State and Federal Racial Preferences for White Noncitizens," by Gabriel Jackson Chin (University of California, Davis). The abstract:

U.S. law, of course, drew many lines based on race from the earliest days of slavery and colonialism. It is also well known that the government discriminated against noncitizens in favor of citizens in areas such as licensing and land ownership. This Article proposes that during the long Jim Crow era, there was an additional body of racially discriminatory state and federal law that discriminated against noncitizens of particular disfavored races. This body of law has not been fully recognized or described. Because the federal government and many state governments had policies encouraging white immigration, they sought methods to discriminate against nonwhite noncitizens, primarily Asians, without also burdening white noncitizens. The “declaration of intention” to naturalize, a required part of the naturalization process, was a key device used to effectuate this policy. Between 1790 and 1952, eligibility for nationalization was racially restricted, such that only members of preferred races could file a declaration of intent. Therefore, offering benefits to so-called “declarants” intentionally and effectively favored white immigrants. Hundreds of state and federal laws offered benefits to declarants with respect to a wide range of opportunities, including voting, land ownership, public benefits, military service, public employment, government contracting, and occupational licensing. This combination of state and federal law offered white immigrants in many parts of the United States an opportunity for substantial equality with white citizens from the moment they arrived in the United States, while it simultaneously restricted competition from—and maintained the subordinated status of—noncitizens of color. This body of law should be considered when evaluating the history of racial discrimination in this country and its present effects. 

The full article is available here

-- Karen Tani

Saturday, January 16, 2021

Weekend Roundup

  • The Viennese Legal History Society (Wiener Rechtsgeschichtliche Gesellschaft) holds its events online via Zoom during the pandemic and opens the talks now for the wider public.  On 19 January, at 18:50 Vienna, Professor Thomas Simon (Vienna) will give a talk in German with the title: "Christlich", "deutsch", "ständisch": Die sog. "Maiverfassung" 1934 und der "Autoritäre Ständestaat". Versuch einer verfassungsgeschichtlichen EinordnungZoom link.
  • On Monday, March 8, 2021, 12:00pm to 1:00pm, former LHB Guest Blogger Thomas McSweeney, William and Mary Law School, will discuss his book Priests of the Law: Roman Law and the Making of the Common Law's First Professionals (Oxford University Press, 2020) with Elizabeth Papp Kamali, Harvard Law School.  Register and more here.
  • The University of Nebraska, Lincoln is advertising a postdoctoral research associateship for “a project manager of a collaborative team collecting and processing habeas corpus petitions to design and populate a robust database that will allow researchers to demonstrate the many interpersonal and institutional relationships evident in these claims to freedom while also assessing their significance and value within the larger body of American jurisprudence.”  More.
  • Nial Osborough, "Ireland’s greatest legal historian," is dead (Irish Times).
  • The Supreme Court Historical Society has lesson plans for its video, "The Supreme Court and the 1876 Presidential Election."  
  • The Organization of American Historians has issued a statement January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
  • “The Society for U.S. Intellectual History is now accepting nominations for the 2020 Dorothy Ross Prize for best article in US intellectual history by an emerging scholar."
  • Over at Environment, Law, and History, David Schorr notices Thomas Le Roux’s extended review of Chad Montrie's The Myth of Silent Spring: Rethinking the Origins of American Environmentalism (U Cal Press, 2018).
  • Supervisory Curator Herman Eberhardt of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library explores “historic artifacts, documents, photographs, and film from the inaugural ceremonies of 1933, 1937, 1941, and 1945" on January 20 at 2PM.  More.
  • Legal historical op-eds and other writings on self-pardons, the 25th Amendment, impeachment, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and related matters are legion.  Here is a smattering: The US Senate History office on the post-resignation impeachment of William Belknap. William Eskridge says self-pardoning isn't a thing (WaPo).  Mark Graber on the second impeachment (WBALTV).  How scholars interpret "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" (NatGeo).  John D. Feerick on our nation's history with presidential inability and succession (The Hill).  Eric Foner and Gerard N. Magliocca on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (WaPo).  Joanne Freeman ad Geoffrey Stone on sedition (NYT).  Gregory Ablavsky compares the assault on the Capitol with the Wilmington Massacre of 1898 (Stanford News).
  • Also Phil Magness and the Pacific Legal Foundation on the 1619 Project (PLF).

Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Thursday, December 31, 2020

Eunice Hunton Carter, 1899-1970

[My annual exam in American Legal History also includes a biographical essay.  Previous years’ were on Stella Akin, the father-daughter duo Gaius and Jane Bolin, and others.  The subject of this year’s essay was Eunice Hunton Carter.  In writing it, I relied heavily upon Stephen L. Carter’s Invisible: The Forgotten Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster (Henry Holt 2018).  Also, Carter appears, facing away from the camera, here.  DRE]
            
Eunice Hunton Carter (1899-1970) was born in Atlanta to Black middle-class parents.  Her father, William Hunton, was the grandson of a Virginia slave who purchased his freedom and moved to Canada, where William was born.  College-educated, he founded the “Colored Division” of the Young Men’s Christian Association and in that capacity traveled widely in the United States to create chapters that recruited local African Americans to the YMCA’s creed of “education, hard work, and Christian virtue.”  While founding a chapter in Norfolk, Virginia, he met and married Eunice’s mother, Addie Waites Hunton, who had been educated in the elite Boston Latin School.  The couple moved to Atlanta shortly before Eunice’s birth.  Both parents traveled, leaving Eunice and her younger brother Alpheaus in the care of a maid or family friends.  Addie gained a national reputation as a founder of Black women’s clubs and lecturer.  In a famous address, “Pure Motherhood the Basis for Race Integrity,” she argued that the most important duty of Black women was to tend to the family.  

The Huntons’ life was shattered in 1906 when a terrible race riot devastated Atlanta’s Black middle-class neighborhood.  Within months they moved to Brooklyn, New York.  Both parents continued to travel, in Addie’s case, for the Young Women’s Christian Association, the NAACP, and a group advocating world peace.  As before, Eunice and her brother the children usually roomed with other families.  Even William’s death in November 1916 did not slow down Addie’s clubwork.  Indeed, after the American entry into World War I, she spent 18 months in France bolstering the morale of Black troops stationed there.

Eunice was already on her way.  In 1917 she enrolled in Smith College, an elite and overwhelmingly White women’s college in Northampton, Massachusetts.  A society matron in the NAACP may have paid her tuition.  A government professor introduced her to Calvin Coolidge, at the time, governor of Massachusetts, who gave her advice and let her read in his well-stocked library as she worked on her thesis on state government.  The experience reinforced her lifelong attachment to the Republican Party, a family legacy.  In 1921, she graduated cum laude with both a bachelor’s and master’s degree.

Eunice spent one miserable academic year teaching at a Black college in the Deep South before returning to New York City, where was a substitute teacher and wrote short stories, some of which appeared in journals alongside works by Langston Hughes and other writers of the Harlem Renaissance.  Her mother helped her find jobs in various charitable and race organizations in Harlem.  Through one of her projects, a free dental clinic, she met Lisle Carter, an immigrant for the Caribbean island of Barbados, who owned the most profitable dental practice in Harlem.   They married in November 1924, and a year later their only child, Lisle Jr., was born.

Soon Eunice Carter was back at her social work jobs.  She helped her mother host an international “Pan-African Congress,” which brought to New York City people of African descent from around the world to discuss “the many problems of racial and social uplift.”  She also joined in several civil rights campaigns, such as protests of white-owned businesses that refused to hire African Americans.  But she wanted more.  As a child of eight, she had told a friend that she wanted to be a lawyer so she could “make sure the bad people went to jail.”  Starting in 1927, while still employed as a social worker and against her mother’s advice, she enrolled in the evening program at Fordham Law School, one of only three women in a class that would graduate 367.

Carter’s initial grades were well above average, but she had to take a year off, probably to care for her son, who may have been ill.   She graduated from Fordham Law School in 1932, the first Black woman to do so.  In May 1933, on her second try, she passed the New York bar exam.  The success came during an odd interlude, lasting into the winter of 1933-1934, during which she may have had a hysterectomy and battled depression.  

Carter attempted the practice of law but had few clients.  She wrote a few wills and represented a few misdemeanor defendants before magistrates sitting without a jury but spent more of her time as a supervisor for the Harlem Division of the Emergency Unemployment Relief Committee, which coordinated the distribution of cash, in-kind benefits, and public works jobs during the Depression.  She also was an unpaid assistant in the Harlem branch of the city’s Women’s Court, probably as an interviewer and counselor of the prostitutes whose arrests made up most of the docket.  Carter’s biographer called Women’s Courts “dark, fetid, grim chambers, loud and disorderly and presided over by bored, time-serving magistrates, many of whom . . . were thoroughly corrupt.”

She also campaigned for Republican political candidates.  When stumping in Harlem for a Black Republican candidate for the State Assembly in 1928, she was appalled by the dirty tricks of Tammany Hall Democrats, including a fake flyer that played upon the racial fears of the district’s White residents.  In that year she also worked for Herbert Hoover’s election as president but also protested that his handlers, seeing a chance to win the votes of White Southerners appalled by the selection of the Irish Catholic Al Smith to head the Democratic ticket, were ignoring Black Republicans and dealing only with the party’s “lily-white” Southern faction.  Even so, she gave a rousing speech on Hoover’s behalf in 1932, and when the Republicans needed a candidate to run for the state assembly seat encompassing Harlem in November 1934, she agreed.  Despite the endorsement of the nonpartisan Citizens Union, she lost.

The race made her known outside Harlem’s Black social elite and earned her the gratitude of the city’s Republican leaders, which they soon repaid.  In March 1934, Harlem residents, angered by what proved to be a false report of police brutality, attacked white-owned businesses in Harlem.  Three African Americans died, and hundreds were arrested.  The newly elected mayor, Fiorello La Guardia, a Progressive Republican who won with Black support (including Carter’s), appointed a biracial investigatory commission to investigate.  As its secretary, Carter became the public face of the commission, whose final report La Guardia deemed too critical of the racial biases of city officials to release to the public.

A still greater opportunity came a few months after her appointment.  An increase in mob-related violence forced the Tammany-approved District Attorney to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate organized crime in New York City.  Thomas E. Dewey, a graduate of the University of Michigan and Columbia Law School who served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York at the end of the Hoover administrator, got the job.  When assembling his staff of twenty lawyers, he told a local judge he wanted to hire a woman.  The judge recommended Carter, and Dewey appointed her on August 5, 1935.  

Dewey was intent on busting the mob’s most lucrative enterprises, including the “numbers racket,” an illegal lottery.  Carter was put to work examining tickets and found those favored by Harlem’s residents never won.  But she was also convinced that the mob ran Harlem’s brothels, a view that went against received wisdom but was consistent with her observation of the Women’s Court.  Prostitutes who paid their employers a weekly “bonding fee” invariably escaped jail time.  The same lawyer appeared on their behalf, and when he did, arresting officers mysteriously forgot material details.  Carter reasoned that the mob must have used bribed police officers and judges. She persuaded a reluctant Dewey to conduct raids that led to the conviction of a top mobster.  Carter never appeared in court, however.

In the fall of 1937, Dewey easily won election as District Attorney.  Upon taking office in January 1938, he appointed Carter Deputy Assistant District Attorney in charge of the largest division, Special Sessions, whose staff, consisting mostly of white male lawyers, prosecuted 14,000 misdemeanors a year.  Her annual salary of $6,500 (about $122,000 today) was more than Charles Hamilton Houston made from working for NAACP.  Newspaper profiles had her working until at least 7:00 and often 11:00 at night but also mentioned her attire and on at least one occasion photographed her cooking.

Other African American lawyers took notice.  Carter addressed the national meeting of the National Bar Association in 1938 and served on two standing committees, Resolutions and on Discriminatory Legislation.  Sadie Alexander congratulated her on conducting “actual trial work” before juries.  “I cannot say too much for the ability that you have shown as well as the diplomacy you must have exercised to have obtained such a position,” Alexander wrote.

In her public addresses she was something less than a thorough-going feminist.  She did announce, “I believe in the independence of women,” but she also told an audience at Howard University in 1937 that too few Black children “learned the habit of working” and that Black women had “to see that the path is broken in the right direction.”  In 1938 she told a group of Black women voters, “Never argue with a man.  I believe that I have quarreled with a man only six times in my life.  Always it resulted in disaster.”  She elaborated: “Women’s influence should be from behind the throne, not on it.”   And: “Women must never forget that men should dominate the race and that a race is only as strong as its men.  We must continue to inspire them.”

The advice jibed uneasily with her own personal life.  While Carter attended law school, her son Lisle, Jr., often lived in the home of his father’s brother in New Jersey.  Then, in February 1935, the nine-year-old boy was sent to live with his father’s family in Barbados.  It would be a year before Eunice would see him; thereafter she visited only annually.  When he turned 14, he returned to the United States, only to be sent to prep school in upstate New York.  By that time his parents were living separately.  Lisle, Sr.’s extramarital affairs were well-known in the community; Eunice contemplated leaving him for another man.  Still, they stayed married and would later live together until Lisle Sr.’s death in 1963.

Carter continued to campaign for Dewey whenever he sought elective office, such as his unsuccessful run for governor of New York in 1938 and for the Republican presidential nomination in 1940.  The latter bid included a whistle-stop campaign through Illinois, ending in a Chicago appearance in which Carter and other African Americans joined Dewey on the platform.  She supported Dewey in his successful gubernatorial bid in 1942, again in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination in 1944, and yet again in his presidential campaign against Harry S. Truman in 1948, notwithstanding the Democrats’ impressive civil rights platform.  Promotions or other preferments no longer followed, however.  Instead, Dewey’s successor as District Attorney demoted her (albeit at the same salary) to head the Adolescent Offender Bureau, where she implemented an innovative probation system for teenage offenders.  A judgeship she coveted went not to her but a Black male lawyer who started in the District Attorney’s office after she did.  

Carter thought she knew the problem: her brother.  Alphaeus Hunton had gotten a bachelor’s degree from Howard and a master’s degree from Harvard.  He then returned to Howard as an instructor of English and Romance Languages Department while pursuing and ultimately receiving a Ph.D. at New York University, with a dissertation, directed by a Marxist professor, on the politics of an English poet.  From at least 1933 onward, he met with Black communists, and he was a leader in John P. Davis’s National Negro Congress.  In 1943 he moved to New York to edit the journal of the Council on African Affairs, a group that turned up on the Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations.  For refusing to give the House Un-American Committee the records of another Communist Front group, he was imprisoned for six months in 1951.  After his release, he could find no employment and emigrated to Africa.  Although Carter had severed her ties with Alphaeus years earlier, she suspected, correctly, that the FBI had a substantial file on him and that it mentioned her and her connection to Dewey.

Carter left the District Attorney’s office in January 1945.  She attempted to practice law on her own but found leadership roles in Black women’s groups more interesting and remunerative.  Most of her new work had an international dimension, as when she represented the National Council of Negro Women at the organizational meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco.  She attended several overseas conferences as a representative of NGOs in the 1940s and 1950s.  “Each individual in this world has his own peculiar character and his own particular talent,” she said at one in 1951.  Democracies allowed the individual to “grow in character and in personality according to his own personal ability.”  Dictatorships, in contrast, forced him to “slave at tasks he would never choose for himself.”  They also denied women the chance to “choose and develop their individual beings in an atmosphere of freedom.”

Saturday, December 12, 2020

Weekend Roundup

  • The African American History Collection of the William L. Clements Library at the University of Michigan relating to slavery, abolition movements, and various aspects of African American life, largely dating between 1781 and 1865, is now online. 
  • William O. Douglas (LC)
    We are grateful to John Q. Barrett for bringing to our attention this quite arresting interview of William O. Douglas from 1966, which we understand he found here.

  Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Thursday, December 10, 2020

Park on Self-Deportation in the United States

My Georgetown Law colleague K-Sue Park has posted Self-Deportation Nation, which appeared in the Harvard Law Review (132 (2019): 1878-1941:

“Self-deportation” is a concept to explain the removal strategy of making life so unbearable for a group that its members will leave a place. The term is strongly associated with recent state and municipal attempts to “attack every aspect of an illegal alien’s life,” including the ability to find employment and housing, drive a vehicle, make contracts, and attend school. However, self-deportation has a longer history, one that predates and made possible the establishment of the United States. As this Article shows, American colonists pursued this indirect approach to remove native peoples as a prerequisite for establishing and growing their settlements. The new nation then adopted this approach to Indian removal and debated using self-deportation to remove freed slaves; later, states and municipalities embraced self-deportation to keep blacks out of their jurisdictions and drive out the Chinese. After the creation of the individual deportation system, the logic of self-deportation began to work through the threat of direct deportation. This threat burgeoned with Congress’s expansion of the grounds of deportability during the twentieth century and affects the lives of an estimated 22 million unauthorized persons in the United States today.

This Article examines the mechanics of self-deportation and tracks the policy’s development through its application to groups unwanted as members of the American polity. The approach works through a delegation of power to public and private entities who create subordinating conditions for a targeted group. Governments have long used preemption as a tool to limit the power they cede to these entities. In the United States, this pattern of preemption establishes federal supremacy in the arena of removal: Cyclically, courts have struck down state and municipal attempts to adopt independent self-deportation regimes, and each time, the executive and legislative branches have responded by building up the direct deportation system. The history of self-deportation shows that the specific property interests driving this approach to removal shifted after abolition, from taking control of lands to controlling labor by placing conditions upon presence.

This Article identifies subordination as a primary mode of regulating migration in America, which direct deportations both supplement and fuel. It highlights the role that this approach to removal has played in producing the landscape of uneven racial distributions of power and property that is the present context in which it works. It shows that recognizing self-deportation and its relationship to the direct deportation system is critical for understanding the dynamics of immigration law and policy as a whole.
--Dan Ernst

Monday, December 7, 2020

Vats, "The Color of Creatorship"

Stanford University Press has released The Color of Creatorship: Intellectual Property, Race, and the Making of Americans, by Anjali Vats (Boston College). A description from the Press:

The Color of Creatorship examines how copyright, trademark, and patent discourses work together to form American ideals around race, citizenship, and property.

Working through key moments in intellectual property history since 1790, Anjali Vats reveals that even as they have seemingly evolved, American understandings of who is a creator and who is an infringer have remained remarkably racially conservative and consistent over time. Vats examines archival, legal, political, and popular culture texts to demonstrate how intellectual properties developed alongside definitions of the "good citizen," "bad citizen," and intellectual labor in racialized ways. Offering readers a theory of critical race intellectual property, Vats historicizes the figure of the citizen-creator, the white male maker who was incorporated into the national ideology as a key contributor to the nation's moral and economic development. She also traces the emergence of racial panics around infringement, arguing that the post-racial creator exists in opposition to the figure of the hyper-racial infringer, a national enemy who is the opposite of the hardworking, innovative American creator.

The Color of Creatorship contributes to a rapidly-developing conversation in critical race intellectual property. Vats argues that once anti-racist activists grapple with the underlying racial structures of intellectual property law, they can better advocate for strategies that resist the underlying drivers of racially disparate copyright, patent, and trademark policy.

Advance praise:

"Building on the work of racial justice and intellectual property pioneers, Anjali Vats elevates the conversation to important new registers, including concerns of equitable distribution and post-racial identity claims. Vats shows how IP and contested citizenship have evolved to embed centuries of systemic racial injustices, reaching into the past to imagine a new and exciting future for creatorship." —Jessica Silbey, Northeastern University

"American law defined black human beings as chattel, deprived Asian Americans the right to own property, and justified the appropriation of Native lands. Anjali Vats's riveting book reveals how intellectual property is rife with racial bias and actively creates racialized notions of citizenship and humanity. From the Marvin Gaye plagiarism suit to Prince's radical protest against copyright as modern slavery, Vats explores the racial biases that underlie rhetoric around ingenuity, citizenship, property, and the public domain. A tour de force." —Madhavi Sunder

More information is available here.

H/t: New Books Network, where you can find an interview with the author. 

-- Karen Tani

Saturday, November 14, 2020

Weekend Roundup

  • The Smithsonian’s Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation announces the webinar series, Black Inventors and Innovators: New Perspectives.  It is free and open to the public and will convene daily November 16–20, 2020 from 1:00-2:30pm ET. “This week-long program will draw renewed attention to historic and contemporary inventors of color and Black technology consumers, while discussing strategies for building a more equitable innovation ecosystem. Through presentations by an interdisciplinary group of thought leaders and engaged discussions with our online audience, this 'state of the field' workshop will identify critical questions, seek out new case studies, and articulate theories, concepts and themes to inform the next generation of research, archival collecting, museum exhibitions, and invention education initiatives.”  Kara W. Swanson, Northeastern University, is on Thursday’s panel. 
  • Ronald K. L. Collins reviews Hamilton and the Law: Reading Today’s Most Contentious Legal Issues Through the Hit Musical by Drexel University law professor Lisa A. Tucker (WaPo).
Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.  

Friday, November 13, 2020

Paschal's "Jim Crow in North Carolina"

 Richard A. Paschal, an attorney in private practice in Raleigh, has published Jim Crow in North Carolina: The Legislative Program from 1865 to 1920 (Carolina Academic Press, 2020):

This book is a comprehensive study of the Jim Crow laws in North Carolina from 1865 to 1920. While it catalogs all of the laws enacted by the North Carolina legislature during those years, the laws and statutes do not fully explain the true extent of racial discrimination created through the implementation of those laws. The author demonstrates how de jure discrimination in North Carolina was not simply a result of the Jim Crow statutes but was imposed through the operation of law and, in turn, how the operation of law was itself affected by societal attitudes.

Paschal argues that the application and implementation of North Carolina’s laws were more important in terms of the actual discrimination experienced by African Americans than the statutory texts. He contends that the racial contagion which swept the state during the elections of 1898 and 1900—the White Supremacy Campaigns—dramatically changed white attitudes and, consequently, the operation of the law. This book provides an in-depth history of the shadow that Jim Crow casts over North Carolina and the nation.
Mr. Paschal tells us that his research was funded by a generous financial grant from the North Caroliniana Society.

–Dan Ernst