Poll: Should Republicans Have Forced Reconstruction States to Allow Blacks to Serve on Juries?

Should Republicans Have Forced States Under Federal Military Supervision to Allow Blacks on Juries?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,347
Location
Long Island, NY
#1
Prior to the Civil War, no Southern state allowed blacks to serve on juries. After the war, some states passed "Black Codes" that barred blacks from juries. Even without new Black Codes, Southern courts did not empanel black jurors. As Radical Reconstruction moved forward in 1867, many Republicans considered ending the jury color bar an important protection for the freedpeople. Through legislation they forced the former Confederate states to allow blacks to serve on juries. At the same time, some states outside the South continued to exclude non-whites from juries.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,916
Location
mo
#2
I'll vote no as you have worded it

You note some states outside the South continued to exclude non-whites from juries, yet ask if they should have forced only reconstruction states...…..

It would seem to me if the federal government intervened it should have been applicable to the whole United States rather then select states, or it would violate the concept of equal protection. And certainly wouldn't have been equal protection of black rights from the federal government as long as certain states were exempted

It probally should have been clearly defined in the 14th or 15th, then it would have applied to all, otherwise hard to see how selective discrimination is a good thing
 
Last edited:

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,916
Location
mo
#8
State passed new Constitutions that prohibitted racial discrimination in eligibility for jury service.
How would it been enforced? Judges could simply agree to dismiss any black juror challenged, as well how are you going to police who is actually called for jury duty pool in the first place.

If one of the points of reconstruction is to restore civil governments so reconstruction doesnt drone on endlessly.....you have to let local government function.

Plus that ignores from a federal government point of view, the very spirit of equal protection would be violated IMO, if federal government adopted a position of some states can discriminate while others cant.........
 
Last edited:

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,618
#9
The question isn't: would it be hard to get courts to seat black jurors, the question is, should the government outlawed excluding jurors automatically because they were black. I think there is only one reason why someone might oppose this in the 1860s: they didn't think blacks should be on juries.
 
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
76
#10
I believe that the way the Fedral Givernment handled Reconstruction is the root cause of many if our race problems today.

Think about it. The feds. took a group of people who were, for right or wrong, seen as inferior and forced the populace to not only accept them as equals, but give them power over white lives virtually over night.

Suddenly the former slave from the plantation next door was now telling you how to live ,what to accept, and could have you jailed on a whim. Not only that, there were rumors of land confiscation to be given to blacks from private property.

The draconian measures enforced by the north as punishment created resentment and fueled hatred.

Then, there were churches in the north calling for southern white women to be forced to marry former slaves. Can you imagine the uproar over that idea?

Blacks were not welcomed in northern states, and this hypocrisy only added fuel to the fire.
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,916
Location
mo
#13
I am guessing that slavery was the root cause.
Really? Are you suggesting every country that had slavery has the same race problems as our country.......If slavery was the root cause they all should have......if not I'd suspect how we went about ending slavery and the events during reconstruction would indeed have played a role compared to the other countries.......
 
Last edited:

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,085
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
#15
Really? Are you suggesting every country that had slavery has the same race problems as our country.......If slavery was the root cause they all should have......if not I'd suspect

Most of those countries/States did not have extensive laws against intermarriage......as I seem to recall.

If you know of some I would kindly ask you to cite them. Btw, I am aware that many so-called northern States in the U.S. did so up until the mid 20th century.
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,916
Location
mo
#16
Most of those countries/States did not have extensive laws against intermarriage......as I seem to recall.

If you know of some I would kindly ask you to cite them. Btw, I am aware that many so-called northern States in the U.S. did so up until the mid 20th century.
Thanks for pointing out another difference between race relations here, and in other countries that had slavery....It would also seem to indicate that having slavery itself wasnt the root cause, but the way it was went about ending it that was.....

Like BenKalba pointed out I dont see how one can ignore the way reconstruction was carried out. That it should have been obvious that turning a society upside down racially was going to cause resentment and anger seems easily forseeable. I have a hard time thinking it wasnt, and agree with BenKalba it seems to have been done more to simply to use former slaves as pawns to punish and put a burr under the former confederates, if so it was wildly successful with effects that lasted another 100 years, just as there was also political discrimination against the former confederates, there was a republican faction that simply wanted revenge, and apparently didn't care what further divisions it would cause.

Rather then humiliate and humble them it just made them prouder and defiant. To the point some historians say they lost the war, but won the peace......
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
9,311
Location
on the long winding road
#18
Thanks for pointing out another difference between race relations here, and in other countries that had slavery....It would also seem to indicate that having slavery itself wasnt the root cause, but the way it was went about ending it that was.....

Like BenKalba pointed out I dont see how one can ignore the way reconstruction was carried out. That it should have been obvious that turning a society upside down racially was going to cause resentment and anger seems easily forseeable. I have a hard time thinking it wasnt, and agree with BenKalba it seems to have been done more to simply to use former slaves as pawns to punish and put a burr under the former confederates, if so it was wildly successful with effects that lasted another 100 years, just as there was also policial discrimination against the former confederates, there was a republican faction that simply wanted revenge, and apparently didn't care what further divisions it would cause.

Rather then humiliate and humble them it just made them prouder and defiant. To the point some historians say they lost the war, but won the peace......
No doubt. This is exactly what happened. People are trying to rationalize it through a 21st century lens.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top