History of Interracial Mixing

Plymouth Rock, United States

Save Your People,
and Bless Your
Heritage

Buckingham Palace, England

"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." Thomas Jefferson

"There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance." -- Goethe

"The search for truth is never wrong. The only sin is to lack the courage to follow where truth leads." -- Duke

"He alone deserves to be remembered by his children who treasures up and preserves the memory of his fathers." -- Edmund Burke

INTER-RACIAL MARRIAGE

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The oldest known immigration law that still survives is from Egypt. Like it or not, the Egyptians were very racially conscious people and their depictions of the races in their art proves this fact. They clearly depict the races as separate and distinct.

Sunusret I was a pharaoh of the Middle Kingdom. Many monuments still remain that he erected. One stele on the Nile proclaims his royal command: "No Negro shall enter into Egypt beyond this point." Egypt was being threatened with invasion of the Nubians from the south. And the Egyptians, with few exceptions, would have none of it.

Libyan, Nubian, Asiatic, Egyptian

Found in Egyptian tomb of Seti 1 who died in 1279 BC

From "Book of Gates" found in tomb of Seti I

Same four distinct races

Those who would have you believe that Ancient Egypt was inhabited only by the race that lives there today don't want you to know history

Or your Heritage

The ancient Indian caste system was originally intended to preserve the racial purity of 16th century BC Aryan -- White - migrants who lived in the midst of the conquered, dark-skinned population. As a matter of fact, the Sanskrit word for "Caste" means "color."

The Spartans practiced a form of eugenics that upgraded their racial stock. The idea was that if you yoked good with bad, no good offspring resulted. But if both parents were of good stock they would bear noble children. The term eugenics is from the Greek for well-born. In the mid 20th century this would take on a bad connotation but we regularly practice "eugenics" with dogs, horses, cows and other livestock to improve and "upgrade" their "race." The ancient Spartans and Greeks did the same with their populations.

In early Rome to wed outside of one's race was a criminal offense. The punishment? Banishment! The term for this law was connubium, intermarriage only with members of good stock. Notice that "good stock" didn't mean White, it meant a member of your own race.

So now we get down to the "modern" era and the United States of America. You'd have to be living in a cabin deep in the woods with no technology and no outside access not to know that America, for the most part, openly accepts interracial marriage. In the larger cities of America, and other western cities, it's becoming increasing common to see race mixing of every kind. TV programs and movies are beginning to portray mixed race couples more and more frequently. White people are portrayed as backwards, red-necks and outright racist more and more often.

It wasn't always this way. Let's take a look at history and see the progression this country has made in the acceptance of interracial mixing.

The term used in the United States for interracial mixing was

Miscegenation

Where did this term come from? No other language has such a word and it's almost impossible to translate. If you look at the 1828 Webster's Dictionary you won't find the word.

That's because the word wasn't "invented" until 1863. It comes from the Latin "miscere" for mix and "genus" for race. The meaning has evolved over time. Older dictionaries will say that the meaning is "marriage or sexual relations between a man and woman of different races." (Webster's New World Dictionary, 1984)

As times have become more "politically correct" and race relations between Whites and blacks more antagonistic, thanks in large part to media half-truths and lies, the meaning now says "a mixture of races; especially: marriage, cohabitation or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race." (Merriam-Webster online.)

Obviously interracial mixing was going on long before the word "miscegenation" was invented in 1863. The "New World" which would become the United States of America started with Jamestown, founded by the British in 1607. The Pilgrims in came next. And of course, we can't forget about the Dutch in New York.

Secularists who are eager for an "anything goes" society will point out that Jamestown was founded purely for economic gain in 1607. They claim that unlike the Pilgrims who arrived years later, Jamestown was not founded by "religious" people, but secular people seeking profit.

Yes, Jamestown was founded for economic purposes. But does this mean that the people were not "religious?" Was there a difference in the thinking between the founders of Jamestown and the Pilgrims? Both were British but arrived in the New World for different reasons. Yet they had common backgrounds. Who were they? Let's go back in time. Some of the following is taken from the book "Beyond the Promised Land" by David F. Noble.

Constantine the Great was the first Christian emperor of Rome. Some say that his mother was a Christian from Britain. With the conversion of Constantine, Rome became to be seen as the New Jerusalem and Romans as advancing toward the promised land. Constantine was likened to both Abraham, who followed God's call, and Moses, who led God's chosen people to the promised land. Rome was given the role of a chosen nation progressing towards Christ. Romans were seen as a piece of the history of salvation that started with the Israelites in the Old Testament.

Clovis was the first king of the Franks to unite all the Fankish tribes. He became ruler in 481 at the age of 16. He introduced Christianity to his people. He was called the new Moses and heir of the Israelites.

Charlemagne, also known as Charles, became ruler of the Franks in 768. He declared himself to be the new David and restorer of the Kingdom of Israel. His kingdom included much of western and central Europe. His reign and reforms helped define Western Europe and the middle ages.

As early as the year 500 the Britons were identified by the historian and monk Gildas as the true Israelites. The Saxons, in the eighth century, were called the New Israel, chosen by God

The Normans were identified as God's Chosen People, the true heirs of Israel

This is the rich heritage that the British who came to the New World were a part of. It was no secret to them that they were Israel! They had known it for hundreds, no, thousands of years! So when the Pilgrims declared themselves to be the children of Israel, chosen to deliver the seed of Abraham to the shores of the new promised land, they were just continuing a long line of cherished heritage and beliefs.

Your Heritage, lost over the last four hundred years, is that the British, Irish, Scotch and other Whites who landed on these shores believed that they were Israel, chosen by God to inhabit this soil as their new promised land

It was their Heritage for hundreds, no thousands, of hears

But let's get back to Jamestown and Virginia. Because remember, secularists want you to believe that this colony, based on economics, could care less about their heritage.

In 1607 the Virginia Company of London sent three ships to the New World with 104 men and boys on board. No women. After a very long voyage, 103 made it alive on May 14 to what we now call the Jamestown Settlement. It wasn't for another year that women were brought to the settlement, and only then in small numbers. It would take several more years before women were brought over in large numbers.

The winter of 1609-1610 became known as the starving time at Jamestown. Only 60 out of 214 colonists survived. The colony was going to be abandoned when three supply ships arrived. The rest is history. But not quite.

Obviously, hearing about the difficulties in Jamestown, the Virginia Company was having problems finding people willing to colonize the New World. Before leaving England in April of 1609, William Symonds preached a sermon of encouragement to the departing colonists (of course, most of them would die that winter.) His sermon was intended for a much wider audience though. The hope was to encourage more people to travel to the promised land, the New World.

William Symonds preached from Genesis 12:1-3 where Abraham is called by God to leave his country, family and home. God promises to make a great nation out of Abraham. God promises to bless him and God promises that Abraham will be a blessing.

Symonds tells the colonists that they are not to intermarry with the "heathen" and "barbarians" that they will find in the New World
Symonds tells them that they are "God's chosen" and they are not to mix God's chosen with others
Symonds warns the colonists that "the breaking of this rule may break the neck of all good success of this voyage."

He tells them not to treat the heathen in a cruel manner like the papist Spanish have done, but do not intermarry with them.

Strong words for people who are just going on an economic adventure! Robert S. Tilton in his book "Pocahontas" says that this "fear" of unnatural mixing was "a constant feature of colonial and early American thought." We say that it wasn't fear but a powerful belief that they were the Chosen people of God and had to follow His law, not their sinful nature.

As a matter of fact, John Rolfe, when he married Pocahontas, agonized over breaking this very law but did it anyway. Because even though he did, even John Rolfe knew that he was a part of God's Chosen people. He said that they were "a peculiar people marked and chosen by the finger of God" to possess the land. He even went so far as to say that if the natives were uncooperative in allowing their settlement the biblical analogy justified war! ("The Best and Worst Country in the World" by Stephen Adams, p. 123)

Symonds echoed this belief. In answering objections to taking Indian land he pointed out that in the Bible God's Chosen people were "holy conquerors" who made offensive war." (ibid, p. 123)

Robert Johnson agreed with this sentiment. He also knew that they were God's Chosen people. Daniel Price did as well. There are probably others.

Yes, Virginia was founded as an economic enterprise. But it was founded by Godly men, leaders, who knew they were God's chosen people and taught it to their people.

The ratio of men to women in Virginia was so unbalanced that you would think men would be running into the woods to find themselves an Indian wife. This was not the case. Except for the glaring exception of John Rolfe (who agonized over marrying a "heathen") and Pocahontas, the White colonists stayed true to their heritage and stayed a nation apart, just like they were taught. Robert Beverley in "History of the Present State of Virginia" (1705) even lamented this fact. He said that the Indians wanted to intermarry with the Whites. And he claimed that if this did take place maybe they wouldn't shed so much White blood and would be converted quicker. But the Whites just wouldn't marry the Indians.

And interestingly, John Rolfe and Pocahontas only had one child. They went to England and were set to return to America and encourage others when Pocahontas was struck with pneumonia and died.

God will not be mocked.

Of course, some intermarriage was taking place because by 1691 because a law was passed forbidding such practice, which we'll get to next. But for the most part God's Chosen people in Virginia stayed separate for generations after landing on the shores of the New World.

What about the Pilgrims?

They had the same Heritage and knowledge as the people at Jamestown

They too knew that they were God's Chosen people. Remember, they were as British as the people who colonized Virginia!

Nathaniel Morton wrote "New England's Memorial" in 1669. He used Governor William Bradford and Edward Winslow's papers, quoting directly from them. In the section titled "To the Christian Reader" Morton gives his reason for writing the book. He states "that especially the seed of Abraham his servant, and the children of Jacob his chosen, may remember his marvellous works in the beginning and progress of the planting of New England, his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth; how that God brought a vine into this wilderness; that he cast out the heathen and planted it;..." In his dedication Morton says makes reference to "our Israel."

Yes, the Pilgrims knew they were the children of Israel, chosen to deliver and plant the seed of Abraham to the shores of the new promised land, just as God promised in II Samuel 7:10 to David where He says, "Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime." This promise was made to David after the children of Israel were in the promised land and had been for hundreds of years! The exodus was over, Moses was dead and buried for generations. Yet her God was telling David that Israel, God's people, were going to be appointed a new place.

John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony off and on for 12 years, wrote that

"we shall find the God of Israel is among us."
(From Beyond the Promised Land by David F. Noble)

Increase Mather, Puritan Minister to the Colony said that

we are "those whom the Lord hath set as Watchmen to the house of Israel"
(ibid)

Cotton Mather, son of Increase, wrote over 450 tracts and books. His rules on marriage include that marriage is between one man and one woman; marriage is for the increase of the "holy seed;" and no marriages are allowed if they're forbidden in the Word of God. That would ban any mixed race marriages. (Taken from "Magnalia Christi Americana, Or, The Ecclesiastical History of New-England" by Cotton Mather, Thomas Robbins, Samuel Gardner Drake.) Mather also says, "In Marriage, the husband and wife should have the same design. Would it not be inhuman for the one to have a design which tends to the ruine of the other?" (ibid) What other meaning does Mather mean but race? God intended for the races to marry each other. Every race is ruined if this is not followed, not just the White race.

Cotton Mather was following God when He created Eve who was the perfect "fit," or "same design" as Adam to be his mate

Don't tell us that the early settlers in this country didn't know that they were God's Chosen people, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! Historical documents, written by the very hands of the men who settled this country, tell us that these people knew exactly who they were. Not only that, their clergy made references to this truth constantly.

In the New England area there are no records of intermarriages before 1676 even though the ratio between men and women was unbalanced. And even after that, it was extremely rare to find intermarriage between Whites and non-whites.

But alas, Nathaniel Morton knew when he wrote these prophetic words: "what we have seen, and what our fathers have told us, we may not hide from our children, showing to the generations to come the praises of the Lord" that future generations would forget their roots, their heritage." The Israelites of old were told my God to keep His words in their hearts. They were to teach them diligently to their children. They were supposed to talk about God's commandments, statutes and judgments and laws when they were sitting down in their house, when they were walking outside, when they were lying down and when they got up. They were to bind them as a sign upon their hands and a frontlets between their eyes. They were to write them on the posts of their house and on their gates. In other words, God's laws were to be everywhere! Ingrained in their hearts and lives. The Israelites weren't supposed to go anywhere without God being right there with them. (see Deuteronomy 6:1-10)

God promised the Israelites rich blessings if they obeyed His commandments, statutes, and laws. Unfortunately, the opposite happened. They forgot! As time went by and the Israelites became "comfortable" in their new land, prosperous, "settled," they forgot about the Egyptian captivity. They forgot about the wilderness wandering. They forgot about the miracles of God. And guess what, it didn't take them very long either. The Bible tells us that after Joshua died, and the generation after him, "there arose another generations after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel." How could they not know the Lord or what He had done for Israel?!!! Because their parents did not teach them. The result? "And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim: And they forsook the Lord God of their fathers..." (see Judges 2:10, 11)

Two generations. That's all it took the ancient Israelites to forsake God and follow other God's. Nathaniel Morton had a right to be concerned. He had a right to want the Pilgrim Israelite children to know what God had done for Morton's Israel. From 1620 when the Mayflower landed in the New World to 1676 is 56 years. Approximately two generations. That's all it took for Morton's Israel to start marrying the heathen. Israelite history doesn't change. We have forgotten. The God of Israel has been forsaken in this country. Two generations for ancient Israel, two generations for Morton's Israel. History repeated itself.

But as you'll see, the American colonial leaders didn't sit idly by and let intermarriage happen. Oh no! At first they must have been astounded when it happened. There were no "savages" or "negroes" back in the "Old" country! Not knowing what to do, they punished those who were found in violation of God's law. That not being enough, soon civil laws were passed forbidding the union of the races.

God had already decreed the separation of the races. Now man attempted to force by law what should have been written in the hearts of men.

A quick reminder, it's been estimated that at least half and up to two thirds of the Europeans who came to the New World in the Colonial period of our history (up to the Revolutionary War) were White slaves. Some were indentured servants. In other words, they did not have the money to come on their own and someone else paid their way. Then they had to work off their debt for a period of years before they were set free. Some, if not most of the indentured servants were kept as slaves for life. Click below for information on this sometimes brutal practice.

The first blacks in this country were also indentured servants. By 1670 there were three times more White servants/slaves than black in this country. The first legally owned slave in this country was owned by a former indentured servant named Anthony Johnson, who was black himself. There were other slaves before this, but Anthony Johnson paved the way for slavery. Ironic, isn't it.

It's historical fact that blacks owned slaves themselves, even up to and through the Civil War. Slavery is much more complicated than our history teachers would have you believe.

We do not condone slavery. It is an unfortunate fact of American History that we cannot ignore. But perspective is essential. Be sure and visit the page on our site for more information. Also visit

We'll do a quick summary of the historical prohibitions on interracial marriage and cohabitation

Not only in Colonial America and after but other countries as well

We have done extensive research on this subject. But that doesn't mean we haven't made mistakes or left something out. We have attempted to be as factual and thorough as possible.

Territorial changes following the French and Indian War: land held by the British before 1763 is shown in red, land gained by Britain in 1763 is shown in pink.
Keep the above map in mind when you read these laws

Racial Laws in the New World

1523 - Spanish Law - Indians were to live separate from the Spaniard, Negroes and others.
1527 - Due to a slave revolt in Puerto Rico in1527, Spanish Royal Decree recommends that male slaves ought to marry female slaves as much as possible: "with marriage and their love for wives and children and orderly married life they will become more calm and much sin and trouble will be avoided."
1541 - Spanish Royal Decree for the colonies recommends that black men be married to black women since reportedly Negro slaves kept 'great numbers of Indian women, some of them voluntarily, others against their wishes."

All three of these Spanish laws protected Indians, Blacks and Spaniards from interracial marriage
The last law specifically protected Indians

1630 - Jamestown, Virginia - Hugh Davis was ordered to be "soundly whipt before an assembly of negroes for abusing himself to the dishonor of God and the shame of Christianity by defiling his body in lying with a negro." Some speculate that since the word Negress was not used his offense was that of homosexuality. We contend that even if this is true, his offense was two-fold, Hhe crossed the color line and he committed an act of sodomy.
1638 - New Netherlands - Ordinance of the Director and Council of New Netherlands - "each and every one must refrain from Fighting, Adulterous intercourse with heathens, Blacks, or other persons, Mutiny, Theft, False Swearing, Calumny (slander) and other Immoralities..." if they committed any of these acts they were to be corrected and punished as an example to the others.
1640 - Jamestown, Virginia - Robert Sweat was ordered to "do penance in church according to the laws of England" for impregnating an African female. The woman was ordered whipped.
1649 - Jamestown, Virginia - William Watts and Mary (Mr. Cornelius Lloyd's negro woman) were both ordered "to doe penance by standing in a white sheete with a white Rodd in their hands in the Chapell of Elizabeth River in the face of the congregation on the next sabbath day that the minister shall make penince service and the said Watts to pay the court charges." Some say this was not a racial issue since both had to do the penance.
1662 - Virginia - "Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or free, be it therefore enacted and declared by the present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother, And that if any Christian shall committ ffornication with a negro man or woman, hee or shee soe offending shall pay double the ffines imposed by the former act (the fine was 500 pounds of tobacco)" This law did not legalize fornication between anyone, it just made the penalty more severe if the parties were of different races. The law making the child free or bond according to the status of the mother brought the Virginia law into line with Iberian laws that had been in effect since 1265. Over the next few decades, identical laws would be adopted throughout the British colonies.
1664 - Maryland - Law condemns free-born English women who intermarry with negro slaves:: "For deterring such free borne women from such shamefull Matches...whatsoever free borne woman shall inter marry with any slave...shall Serve the master of such slave dureing the life of her husband And that all the issues of such freeborne woemen so marryed, shall be Slaves as their fathers were." The statute noted that "divers freeborne English women forgettful of their free Condicon and to the disgrace of our Nation doe intermarry with negro Slaves." (Archives of Maryland, 1:533-34) Mothers condemned 78 children to 30-year slavery. Twenty years later the law was amended to promise freedom to women and children if the owner permitted. Notice that the intent of this law was to discourage the European women from marrying the negro slave by not only forcing her into slavery but her children as well

1677 - Pennsylvania - suggested a law that race mixing should be prohibited.

Conflict between the 1662 Virginia and 1664 Maryland Laws

We would like to believe that all people knew and understood the specialness of all races. But such was not the case. Because of the two laws, European men who wanted to marry African women fled to Maryland. and European women who wanted to marry African men fled to Virginia.

Not only that, some Maryland planters exploited the law by deliberately purchasing White women as slaves or indentured servants and forcing them to marry African men in order to breed more slaves. So the fix was...

1681 - Maryland - Legislature revoked the 1664 law and adopted Virginia's system instead. The law also punished any master who "instigated or merely allowed marriage between his white female servants and black male slaves."
1691 - Virginia - "An act for suppressing outlying Slaves and for prevention of that abominable mixture and SPURIOUS ISSUE which hereafter may encrease in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawfull accompanying with one another, be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that for the time to come, whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a negroe, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever..." Another section of the law states that free white mothers of an illegitimate child by a Negro or Mulatto have to pay 15 pounds sterling and the child becomes a servant until age 30. If she cannot pay she would become an indentured servant for five years. Regardless, the child is a servant for 30 years.
1692 - Maryland - Maryland outlaws intermarriage, virtually copying the 1691 Virginia law.
1692 - Maryland - White women who had children by slaves were sold as servants for seven years and, if they married the slave, their children were to serve until they were the age of twenty-one. If the woman was not married to the slave the child had to serve until they were thirty-one. Again, this law was to discourage White women from producing "spurious" offspring.

At least 256 white women were prosecuted in Maryland for the offense of interracial marriage during the colonial period.

1696 - Virginia - Made the 1691 laws harsher by punishing ministers 10,000 pounds of tobacco (an amount far beyond the reach of even some landed gentry and meant the defrocking of the minister). Ministers were also ordered to preach against intermarriage. Priests who refused to comply were defrocked and replaced.
1705 - Massachusetts - "Act for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue" bans interracial fornication and marriage by statute. Section 1 prohibits fornication of "any negro or molatto man" "with an English woman, or a woman of any other Christian nation within this province," punishable by whipping of both partners, the selling of the man out of the province within six months (after continuous imprisonment), and pressing the woman into servitude if she is unable to maintain a child. Section 2 bans fornication of 'any Englishman, or man of another Christian nation within this province," "with a negro, or molatto woman," punishable by whipping of only the man, who also shall pay a fine of five pounds and, if applicable, child support, and by the selling of the woman out of the province. Section 4 prohibits the contracting of matrimony between one of "her majesty's English or Scottish subjects, [or] of any other Christian nation within this province" and "any negro or molatto," threatening persons authorized who solemnize such a marriage with a fine of 50 pounds.
1715 - Maryland - Chapter 44, section 25 made the mixed-race descendants of white women who had children by slaves subject to the same punishments as white women. They were sold as servants for seven-year terms, and their children were bound until the age of 31.
1715 - North Carolina - Outlaws interracial marriage.
1717 - South Carolina - The Statutes at Large of South Carolina article XXI - "Any white woman, free or servant, that shall suffer herself to begot with child by a negro or other slave or free negro" if she is a a free white woman she is to become a servant for seven years; if she is a servant she is to finish her time and then become bonded for another seven years. If the "begetter of such child be a free negro" he is to be a servant for seven years "and the issues or children of such unnatural and inordinate copulation shall be servants" until 21 years of age if male, 18 years of age if female from their birth. "And any white man that shall beget any negro woman with child, whether free or servant" shall have the same penalties as a white woman.
1721 - Delaware - Outlaws interracial marriage
1724 - French Edict by Louix XV - Bans intermarriages between whites and blacks in Louisiana. "We forbid our white subjects or either sex to contract marriage with blacks, under threat of punishment and fines; and forbid all clerics, priests, or missionaries, lay or ordained, and even ships' chaplains, to marry them." Also prohibits whites "or freeborn or freed blacks" to live in concubinage with slaves.
1725 - Pennsylvania - Outlaws interracial marriage and cohabitation.
1728 - Maryland - Extends law to prohibit intermarriage and cohabitation between free mulatto women and black slaves; and subjects Negro women who have mixed race children by white men to the same penalties as white women and Negro men.
1750 - Georgia - Outlaws interracial marriage between Whites and any other race.

After the Revolutionary War

1786 - Virginia - Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, revises colonial marriage law, omits reference to preachers, "A marriage between a person of free condition and a slave, or between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a mulatto, shall be null."
1786 - Massachusetts - Reenacts the colonial law, "That no person by this Act authorized to marry, shall join in marriage any white person with any Negro, Indian or Mulatto, on penalty of the sum of fifty pounds...and such marriages shall be null and void."
1798 - Rhode Island - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks and Indians (repealed in 1881)
1808 - Louisiana Civil Code - page 24, article 8: "Free persons and slaves are incapable of contracting marriage together; the celebration of such marriages is forbidden, and the marriage is void; it is the same with respect to the marriages contracted by free white persons with free people of color."
1818 - Indiana - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks
1821 - Maine - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks and Indians
1829 - Illinois - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks
1835 - Missouri - Outlaws interracial marriage (blacks, Asians)
1837 - Texas - "It shall not be lawful for any person of Caucasian blood or their descendants to intermarry with Africans or the descendants of Africans."
1838 - Michigan - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks
1839 - Iowa - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks
1849 - Virginia - Ch. 109, Section 1, Article 471, makes "any marriage between a white person and a Negro absolutely void without further legal process." (this would automatically make the children illegitimate.)
1850 - California - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Asians and Filipinos.
1852 - Utah - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Asians and Filipinos
1855 - Kansas - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks (repeals law in 1859 before reaching statehood)
1855 - Nebraska - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks and Asians
1855 - Washington - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks and Indians (repealed before reaching statehood (1868?)
1857 - New Mexico - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks (repeals law in 1866 before reaching statehood)
1861 - Ohio - forbids intermarriage between a person of pure white blood and one having a visible admixture of African blood
1861 - Nevada - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Indians, Asians and Filipinos
1862 - Oregon - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Indians, Asians and Native Hawaiians
1864 - Colorado - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks
1864 - Idaho - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Indians and Asians
1865 - Arizona - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks and Asians (Filipinos (Malays) and Indians (Hindus) added in 1931)

Reconstruction in the South

Most people don't understand the devastation that the South endured both during after the Civil War

Their land was laid waste

Their government was being run by the victors in Washington D.C.

Don't judge someone unless you've walked in their shoes...or lived in their homes

These states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws during reconstruction and then later reinstated them

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina

1871 - Indiana - State v. Gibson, "The natural law which forbids their (black and white) intermarriage and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to them different natures."
1871 - Tennessee - Doc. Lonas v. State, "The laws of civilization demand that the races be kept apart in this country. The progress of either does not depend upon an admixture of blood. A sound philanthropy, looking to the public peace and the happiness of both races, would regard any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."
1877 - Alabama - Supreme Court, in Green v. State, asserts state's right to enforce intermarriage bans: "Manifestly, it is for the peace and happiness of the black race, as well as of the white, that such laws should exist. And surely there can not be any tyranny or injustice in requiring both alike, to form this union with those of their own race only, whom God hath joined together by indelible peculiarities, which declare that He has made the two races distinct."
1877 - Colorado - "All marriages between Negroes and mulattoes of either sex and white persons are declared absolutely void."
1878 - Virginia - "The Purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of our cherished southern civilization, under which two distinct races are to work out and accomplish the destiny to which the Almighty has assigned them on this continent...all require that they should be kept distinct and separate, and that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion."
1880 - Mississippi - Bans intermarriage
1881 - Florida - Provides twelve months' imprisonment and a maximum fine of $500 for a Negro and a white person of opposite sex who occupy the same room habitually. Penalty for violation of intermarriage prohibition is prison up to ten years and a maximum fine of $500; for clergy men, priests, or public officials who solemnize such a union, it is prison up to one year and a fine up to $1000.
1889 - Georgia - "The marriage relation between white persons and persons of African descent is forever prohibited, and such marriage shall be null and void."
1890 - Georgia - Federal District Court of Southern Georgia determines, in State v. Tutty, 41 Fed. 753, that Georgia laws forever prohibiting marriage between whites and persons of African descent cannot be circumvented by contracting a marriage in another state.
1891- Colorado - Mill's Annotated Statutes, secs. 1320-2989: "All marriages between Negroes or Mulattoes, of either sex, and white persons are declared to be absolutely void."
1893 - Kentucky - Statutes, sec. 2097, prohibits and declares void marriage "between a white person and a negro or mulatto"; intermarriages from other states are not recognized; no property rights come from such a marriage.
1898 - Utah - Revised Statutes, sec. 1184: "Marriage is prohibited and declared void: between a negro and a white person" and "between a Mongolian and a white person."
1901 - Arizona - Revised Statutes, sec. 3092: "All Marriages of persons of Caucasian blood, or their descendants, with Negroes, Mongolians or Indians, and their descendants, shall be null and void"
1902 - Oregon - Bellinger and Cotton Code, sec. 5217: "What marriages are void. 3. When either of the parties is a white person and the other negro, or Mongolian or a person of one-fourth or more of negro or Mongolian blood." Sec. 1999: "Hereafter it shall not be lawful within this state for any white person, male or female, to intermarry with any negro, Chinese, or any person having one- fourth or more negro, Chinese or Kanaka blood, or any person having more than one-half Indian blood, . . . . and all such marriages, or attempted marriages, shall be absolutely null and void."
1904 - Arkansas - Kerby's Statues, sec. 5174: "All marriages of white persons with Negroes or Mulattoes are declared to be illegal and void."
1906 - California - Kerr's Code, vol. 2, part 3, paragraph 60: "All marriages of white persons with negroes, mongolians, or mulattoes are illegal and void."
1906 - Missouri - Statutes, ch. 50, see. 4312: "All marriages between white persons and mongolians, are prohibited and declared absolutely void, and this prohibition shall apply to illegitimate as well as legitimate children and relatives." Sec. 2174: "No person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood shall be permitted to marry any white person, nor shall any white person be permitted to marry any negro or person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood; and every person who shall knowingly marry in violation of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years, or by fine of not less than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and the jury trying any such case may determine the proportion of negro blood in any party to such marriage from the appearance of such person."
1906 - Texas - Criminal Statutes, art. 346: "If any white person and negro shall knowingly intermarry with each other within this state, or, having so intermarried, in or out of the state, shall continue to live together as man and wife within this state, they shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for a term not less than two or more than five years."
1906 - West Virginia - Code, sec. 2917: "Void marriages: 1. All marriages between a white person and a negro."
1908 - Indiana - Statutes make void marriage between a white person and one of one-eighth or more of Negro blood.
1908 - Louisiana - Act 87 makes "concubinage between a person of the Caucasian race and a person of the negro race a felony, fixing the punishment therefore and defining what shall constitute the concubinage"; penalty imprisonment of one month to one year with or without hard labor. In the same year the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Tread away (126 La. 1908) acquits Treadaway of miscegenation charge "because his companion was an octoroon, and an octoroon was not 'a person of the negro blood or black race.'" This, the court argues, is because " [t] here are no negroes who are not persons of color; but there are persons of color who are not negroes" (see 1910 for Louisiana's legislative response). Louisiana Civil Code, art. 94, prohibits and voids marriage between white persons and persons of color.
1909 - Montana - Statutes passed declaring marriages between whites and persons of whole or part Negro blood or Chinese or Japanese null and void.
1909 - North Dakota - makes marriage of white state residents with persons of one-eighth or more Negro blood unlawful and void, punishable by prison of up to ten years and/or a fine of up to two thousand dollars.
1909 - South Dakota - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Asians and Filipinos
1910 - Louisiana -Legislature, in act 206, House bill no. 220, amends interracial concubinage prohibition to extend to any "person of the colored or black race."
1910 - North Carolina - case of Ferrall v. Ferrall turns down a husband's request to evade a property settlement and alimony on the grounds that his wife was "negro within the prohibited degree": "Years ago the plaintiff married a wife who, if she had any strain of negro blood whatever, was so white he did not suspect it until recently. . . . Now. . . he seeks to get rid of her . . . in a method that will not only deprive her of any support while he lives by alimony, or by dower after his death, but which would consign her to the association of the colored race which he so affects to despise. . . . The law may not permit him thus to bastardize his own children."
1910 - Oklahoma - Revised Laws, sec. 3894: "The marriage of any person of African descent, as defined by the constitution of this State to any person not of African descent to any person of African descent, shall be unlawful and is hereby prohibited within this State." The state constitution, art. 23, sec. 11, defines races as follows: "Wherever in this Constitution and laws of the State the word or words 'colored' or 'colored race,' 'negro' or 'negro race' are used the same shall be construed to mean or apply to all persons of African descent. The term 'white race' shall include all other persons."
1911 - Nebraska - Compiled Statutes, ch. 25, sec. 31, Consanguinity or Miscegenation: "Upon the dissolution by decree or sentence of nullity of any marriage that is prohibited on account of consanguinity between the parties, or of any marriage between a white person and a negro, the issue of the marriage shall be deemed to be illegitimate."
1912 - Nevada - Revised Laws, sec. 6517: "If any white person with any person shall live and cohabit with any black person, mulatto, Indian, or any person of the Malay or brown race or of the Mongolian or yellow race, in a state of fornication, such person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, and not less than one hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than six months or more than one year, or both."
1913 - Nebraska - Laws, ch. 72, sec. 5302. Void marriages: "First -- when one party is a white person and the other is possessed of one-eighth or more negro, Japanese or Chinese blood."
1913 - South Dakota - Compiled Laws, ch. 166, sec. 1: "The intermarriage or illicit cohabitation of any persons belonging to the African, Corean, Malayan or Mongolian race, with any person of the opposite sex, belonging to the Caucasian or white race, is hereby prohibited, and any person who shall hereafter enter into any such marriage, or who shall indulge in any such illicit cohabitation shall be deemed guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding ten years or both such fine and imprisonment."
1913 - Wyoming - Outlaws interracial marriage between whites and blacks, Asians and Filipinos
1915 - Michigan - Compiled Laws, sections 5700-5703 makes intermarriages expressly valid.
1919 - Idaho - law (amended 1921) declares marriage between whites and Mongolians, Negroes, or Mulattoes to be illegal and void; penalty for cohabitation is imprisonment up to six months and a maximum fine of $300.
1920 - Louisiana - Statutes of Louisiana, act 220, prohibits marriage between persons of Indian race and of colored or black race; act 230 forbids cohabitation between Negroes and Indians.
1920 - Wyoming - Compiled Statutes prohibit marriage of a white and a Negro, Mulatto, Mongolian, or Malay.
1921 - Georgia - Act makes felonious and void the intermarriage of whites and persons with an ascertainable trace of African, West Indian, Asiatic Indian, or Mongolian blood. Provisions for detecting such blood could not be enforced for lack of appropriations.
1921 - Montana - Revised Codes, sec. 5700, declares null and void the marriage between a white person and a Negro or a person with some part of Negro blood.
1923 - Michigan - Acts of Michigan, no. 7, declares intermarriages legal.
1923 - Oklahoma - Supreme Court, in Blake v. Sessions, declares void the marriage between a man of 3/4 Indian and 1/4 Negro blood and a woman with 3/4 Indian and 1/4 white blood (reason: 1910 Oklahoma Laws, sec. 1677, prohibits marriages between persons of African descent and persons of non-African descent).
1924 - Virginia - 27 February: Virginia Senate passes 23 to 4 the "Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," requiring racial ancestry certificate for all citizens born before 14 June 1912 and sharpening previous intermarriage bans: "It shall be unlawful for any white person in this state to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term 'white person' shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white" (previously persons of less than one-quarter Negro blood did not count as Negroes).

California leads the way

1948 - California - California supreme court case of Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198P. 2d 17, declares state miscegenation laws unconstitutional.

BY 1950 30 out of 48 states prohibited

Interracial marriage

Most were between Whites and blacks, Asians, Indians and other races

A handful protected Indians from intermarriage

Only nine states never enacted laws

Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska and Hawaii

Washington DC also never enacted laws

1955 - Virginia - In Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S.E. 2d 749, Virginia supreme court sustains miscegenation statute; state's legislative purpose was "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens" and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "the obliteration of racial pride," and the ereation of "a mongrel breed of citizens."
1959 - Louisiana - Louisiana supreme court upholds the state's miscegenation law, arguing that the state could protect the children from such marriages from "a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone"

1951 Oregon repeals their law
1953 Montana repeals their law
1955 North Dakota laws repealed
1957 South Dakota and Colorado repeal laws.
1959 California, Idaho, and Nevada repeal laws
1962 Arizona law repealed.
1963 Nebraska and Utah repeal their laws

1964 - United States Supreme Court - Florida - In McLaughlin et al. v. Florida, U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Florida criminal statute 798.05, which prohibits an "unmarried interracial couple from habitually living in and occupying the same room in the nighttime" with a penalty of jail up to one year and a fine up to $500; ruling explicitly overturns Pace v. Alabama (1882). Court avoids the intermarriage issue as it rejects Florida's argument in support of the interracial cohabitation ban "without reaching the question of the validity of the State's prohibition against interracial marriage. . . . For even if we posit the constitutionality of the ban against the marriage of a Negro and a white, it does not follow that the cohabitation law is not to be subjected to independent examination under the Fourteenth Amendment."

1965 Wyoming laws repealed

Loving vs. Virginia would be the turning point in American law

1967 - United States Supreme Court - Virginia - 12 June: Loving v. Virginia. U.S. Supreme Court rules (9 to 0) that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional within the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Warren: "There can be no question that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. . . .Marriage is one of 'the basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." The case was that of the white construction worker Richard Loving and his Negro wife Mildred Jeter, who had married in the District of Columbia and then returned to Virginia.

360 years after the first permanent European settlement in the New World and activist judges made God's law null and void in the United States of America

When the United States Supreme Court made their decision, the following states had their laws automatically overturned:

Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia

Maryland had already initiated a repeal of their law.

1977 - Tennessee - Limited Constitutional Convention eliminates prohibition of interracial marriages from Tennessee Constitution by resolving unanimously that "Article XI, of the Constitution is hereby amended by deleting there from in its entirety Section 14 prohibiting interracial marriages."
1978 - Tennessee - 31 March: Tennessee proclaims repeal of the 1896 constitution's art. 11, sec. 14, prohibiting racial intermarriage after narrow approval of electorate with 199,742 against 191,745 votes.
1987 - Mississippi - 4 December: Mississippi Secretary of State proclaims that section 263 of 1890 constitution, prohibiting interracial marriage, is deleted based upon House Concurrent Resolution #13 (Laws 1987, ch.672) and ratification by the electorate on November 3.

States with Constitutional Amendments

1883 - North Carolina State Constitution - All marriages between a White person and a Negro, or between a White person and a person of Negro descent to the third generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited. (Article 14, Section 8)

1890 - Mississippi State Constitution - The marriage of a White person with a Negro or mulatto, or person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood, shall be unlawful and void. (Article 14, Section 263)

1892 - Florida State Constitution - All marriages between a White person and a Negro, or between a White person and a person of Negro descent to the fourth generation, inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited. (Article 16, Section 24)

1895 - South Carolina State Constitution - The marriage of a White person with a Negro or mulatto, or person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood, shall be unlawful and void. (Article 3, Section 33)

1896 - Tennessee State Constitution - The intermarriage of White persons with negroes, mulattoes, or persons of mixed blood, descended from a Negro to the third generation, inclusive, or their living together as man and wife in this state is prohibited. The legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate legislation. (Article 11, Section 14)

1901 - Alabama State Constitution (amended) - The legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any White person and a Negro, or a descendant of a Negro. (Section 102)

Other important rulings and events that have led to the acceptance of interracial marriage and mixing in our society:

1932 - Powell v. Alabama - The United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant in a capital case must be given access to an attorney as part of due process. This seems reasonable, on the surface. But when you read about the case, nine black male defendants were accused of raping two white women. Seven were given the death penalty. They were only given access to they lawyers just before the trial. The appeal was based on inadequate legal counsel and the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the trial was fair. The case then went to the United States Supreme Court.

The majority opinion reversed and remanded the decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court, holding that due process under the 14th amendment had been violated. The ruling was based on three main arguments: "(1) They were not given a fair, impartial and deliberate trial; (2) They were denied the right of counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consultation and opportunity for trial; and (3) They were tried before juries from which qualified members of their own race were systematically excluded.

The opinion noted that the atmosphere around the case was quite hostile; the prisoners were always escorted by the military and the trial took place in the presence of a "hostile and excited public".

The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. It has been used to force Roe vs. Wade on the American public, among others
White people today are rarely tried before juries that are qualified members of their own race
Ernse Zundel, and others who are considered bigots who have been tried for "hatred and bigotry" have trials in the presence of a "hostile and excited public."

Discrimination against Whites is alive and strong

1945 - Shelley v. Kraemer - The United States Supreme Court ruled that The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from enforcing restrictive covenants which would prohibit a person from owning or occupying property on the basis of race or color. The Shelley's, a black family, purchased property that had restrictive covenants in place which barred "people of the black or Mongolian race" from owning the property. The U.S. Supreme Court joined this case with a similar one from Detroit, Michigan and ruled that no state could uphold private land covenants that are racially-based.

White people who want to separate themselves from other races are considered hateful and racist and are not allowed to live in peace

By 1946 the United States Military was being integrated

1954 - Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, United States Supreme Court said that separate but equal in public schools was not equal.
The fourteenth amendment was the basis of this ruling

1941 - President Franklin D. Roosevelt - signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph

1961 President John F. Kennedy - Executive Order 10925 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

1965 - President Lyndon B. Johnson - Executive order 11246 and 11375 - The order, as amended, aims "to correct the effects of past and present discrimination". It prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin. The order requires that contractors take affirmative action to ensure that "protected class, underutilized applicants" are employed when available, and that employees are treated without negative discriminatory regard to their protected-class status.

The order specifically requires certain organizations accepting federal funds to take affirmative action to increase employment of members of preferred racial or ethnic groups and women. Any organization with fifty or more employees and an aggregate revenue exceeding $50,000 from a single federal contract during a twelve month period must have a written affirmative action plan. This plan must include goals and timetables for achieving full utilization of women and members of racial minorities, in quotas based on an analysis of the current workforce compared to the availability in the general labor pool of women and members of racial minorities..

The order is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Employment Standards Administration of the U. S. Department of Labor and by the Office of Civil Rights of the Justice Department.

In his commencement address at Howard University, a black school, given this same year, Johnson said:

Nothing is more freighted with meaning for our own destiny than the revolution of the Negro American...In far too many ways American Negroes have been another nation: deprived of freedom, crippled by hatred, the doors of opportunity closed to hope...But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair...This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result...To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough.
The falsehoods told to blacks and Whites alike about American History has led to the condition we are in today
While discrimination of any type is wrong, attempting to legislate hiring practices leads to discrimination for the race not protected by legislation
the White race

College Acceptance Rates (2005)
Harvard - 10% overall - 16.7% Black - +67.0% difference
MIT - 15.9% overall - 31.6% Black - +98.7% difference
Brown - 16.6% overall - 26.3% Black - +58.4% difference
PENN - 21.2% overall - 30.1% Black - +42.0% difference
Georgetown - 22.0% overall - 30.7% Black - +39.5% difference
Being black makes a difference in being accepted to college
At MIT being black made all the difference
Blacks make up 12% of the population
You tell us -- who is being discriminated against?

1962 - Engel v. Vitale - The United States Supreme Court restricts prayer in public schools

1963 - Abington v. Schempp - The United States Supreme Court removes the Bible from public Schools

1964 - Congress passed the Civil Rights Act which forced the full integration of American society and actually discriminates against Whites

1965 - Congress passes the Immigration and Nationality Act which abolished the racial quota system for immigration
previously only 20% came from non-White countries, after only 20% would come from White countries

1973 - Roe v. Wade - The United States Supreme Court allows the murder of unborn children. The Fourteenth Amendment was the basis of this ruling

1980 - Stone v. Grahm the United States Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky statute requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools

2003 - Lawrence v. Texas - The United States Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting sodomy saying that it's a "victimless" crime. The Fourteenth Amendment was the basis of this ruling

2003 - Federal judges in New York and California issue restraining orders blocking enforcement of the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act

2003 - Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health - Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples can marry under the laws of the state

The progression has been slow

But when you look at how far we've come from our roots

The Pilgrims would be appalled

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Race Laws in Other Countries

1678 - Cape Colony (South Africa) - Political Council of Cape Colony - prohibits marriages between Dutch burghers and freed slaves; reaffirmed by edict in 1685
1685 - Cape Colony (South Africa) - Prohibits marriage between white men and slave women; some legal unions of white men with free women of color continued to take place, but with decreasing frequency
1685 - Article 9 of Code Noir of Louis XIV (French Territories) - Threatens those men who live in concubinage with a Nebro slave woman with the high fine of 2000 livres (pounds of sugar). Penalty could be avoided if the man so charged was unmarried and married the slave woman, which also legitimated any earlier offspring.
1771 - Brazil - Viceroy of Portuguese Brazil - orders degredation of an AmerIndian Chief, who "disregarding the signal honours which he had received from the Crown, had sunk so low as to marry a Negress, staining his blood with this alliance."
1778 - France - Order of the Council of State forbidding all marriages between whites and blacks, on penalty of being expelled at once to the colonies.
1778 - Spanish marriage regulation, requiring parental consent for couples under 25 (in order to prevent unequal alliances), is extended to overseas possessions with proviso that it is not to be applied to "Mulattoes, negroes, Coyotes and other Castas and similar races."
1805 - Spanish Royal Decree - requires that persons of pure blood obtain permission of the viceroy or the audiencia in order to marry elements of Negro and Mulatto origin.
1897 - Transvaal (South Africa) - Law no. 2 -- "Wet tot tegengaan van deontucht," immorality legislation against extramarital intercourse between consenting white women and black men (defined to include all members of indigenous and colored races of South Africa as well as Coolies, Arabs, and Malays). Penalties for the white woman (in cases other than rape) were up to five years'
imprisonment or expulsion from the republic; for black men, six years of hard labor and up to 50 lashes. This law and its amendments (no. 46 -- 1903, "Immorality Ordinance," and no. 16 -- 1908, "Criminal Law Amendment Act") provided the models for other South African laws, including the 1927 "Immorality Act."
1897 - Transvaal (South Africa) - Law no. 3 -- regulating marriages of coloured people, "Wet regelnde de huwelijken van kleurlingen," which specified only the possibility that colored people marry other colored people, whereas the previous marriage law of 1871 was only for whites; colored marriages contracted before 1897 were legalized with ordinance no. 29 -- 1903.
1902 - Cape Colony (South Africa) - Law no. 36- 1902, "Betting Houses, Gaming Houses, and Brothels Suppression Act," prohibits voluntary sexual relations for the purpose of gain between white women and Africans ("aboriginal natives"); the maximum punishment for women is two years' imprisonment at hard labor (sec. 24), for procuring up to five years at hard labor, and for male procurers additionally up to 25 beatings (secs. 35 and 36). In the House of Assembly debates of 1902 (pp.438 and 486ff) the law was advocated by Mr. Graham as a protection of women, and by Mr. Merriman as a device in the interest of white and black in order to prevent riots of the kind that were familiar from the southern United States.
1903 - British Colonies (South Africa) - Enacted laws similar to but going beyond that of the Cape Colony. Natal: No. 31-1903, "Criminal Law Amendment Act," prohibits indecent relations between white women and colored persons (sec. 16); colored were defined in the "Vagrancy Law" 15-1869 as "Hot tentots, coolies, bushmen, Lascars, and members of the so-called kaffer population." 1903 - Orange Free State (South Africa) - Law No. 11, "Suppression of Brothels and Immorality Act," sec. 14-16. Transvaal: No. 46, "Immorality Ordinance," similar to Natal, but with harsher punishment and with a very broad definition of "native" as including natives of the indigenous or colored races of Africa, Asia, or St. Helena; in addition Transvaal had no provisions for (though also no direct ban of) intermarriages since 1897.
1903 - Rhodesia (Africa) - "Immorality and Indecency Suppression Act" (by Cecil Rhodes's British South African Company) makes illegal and punishable sexual relations between a white woman and a black man (but not those between a white man and a black woman).
1910 - Natal (South Africa) - Case of Biscombe and Bissesseur v. Rex: The white woman Biscombe was acquitted of miscegenation charges for her relation with the Indian man Bissesseur because the court determined that "coolies" was not a racial term but included class features: for example, a barrister of Indian parentage was not a "coolie" and Bissesseur was a "free" Indian and hence not a "coolie."
1912 - German Samoa - 17 January: Ban of racial intermarriages
1912 - German Colonies - 8 May: German Reichstag defeats proposal to ban intermarriage in colonies and resolves (202 to 133 votes) that Bundesrat enact legislation securing the validity of marriages between whites and natives in German colonies and regulating the rights of illegitimate children; sponsors: Zentrum, supported by Social Democrats. (NOTE: The Social Democrats were mainly Jewish communists. Jews and communists are great supporters of race mixing, when it messes up the White race.)
1913 - South Africa - South African Assaults on Women Committee, p. 36, criticizes 1902 "Brothels Suppression Act" for not including sexual relations between white men and native women.
1927 - South Africa - South African Union House of Assembly (under Hertzog government) passes "Immorality Act," no. 5 -- 1927, which bans all extramarital interracial sexual relations between Europeans and Africans. "Illicit carnal intercourse" is defined as an "offence" punishable with prison up to five years for men and up to four years for women. In the House of Assembly Debates 1926, p. 36, and 1927, pp.37ff., the minister of justice Tielman Roos defended the proposed act as protecting the native women of South Africa, and, second, in order to teach the populace that intercourse between Europeans and natives was not a thing to be taken lightly. From 1928 to 1938 about 550 Europeans (among them 75 women) and 600 natives (among them 510 women) were punished.
1949 - South Africa - South African Union passes "Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act" which makes intermarriage between Europeans and all non-Europeans illegal.
1950 - South Africa - South African Union amends 1927 "Immorality Act" to extend it to "Coloureds"; sexual intercourse or even "immoral or indecent acts" between whites and all nonwhite groups prohibited; maximum punishment of seven years of hard labor, corporal punishment for men; only exceptions are couples legally married before 1949 Act. "Sexual relations between persons of African, Coloured, and Asiatic origin are not forbidden by law."

1961 - Rhodesia - Rhodesian "Immorality and Indecency Suppression Act" of 1903 abrogated.

1968 - South Africa - South African parliament votes to consider null and void any interracial marriage, solemnized abroad, between white South Africans and nonwhites.

1985 - South Africa - 15 April: Home Affairs Minister Frederik W. de Klerk announces that South African government accepts recommendation from three-chamber parliamentary committee to overturn the 1949 "Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act," the "Immorality Act," and other legislation prohibiting interracial sex or marriage. In the five preceding years, 918 people had been prosecuted for violations of these laws.

After years of economic sanctions and hate filled rhetoric from the world South Africa capitulated -- and now they're o longer a great nation -- nor a safe nation

Click here for more information about this tragic story

You might wonder why there are no dates for Germany, other then German Samoa, listed above

We believe that you can't get a true understanding of what took place in Germany during World War II just by looking at a date

Please take the time to understand

Just in case you have the idea that

Only White People desire to remain Separate

or that only the United States has racial problems

Here's some information on racial issues in other nations and the laws or measures they have attempted in order to

Protect their Heritage

Our Brothers in Great Britain

The genetic makeup of today's White Briton is much the same as it was thousands of years ago. The ethnic populations that have inhabited the British islands include the Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Norman peoples. All White.

Intermarriage with non-European populations began in the late 15th century, with the arrival of the Romani people, who have Indian origins. We know them as "gypsies." They remained a small, contained population.

Intermarriage didn't become more "common" until the 17th century, when the British East India Company began bringing over thousands of Indian scholars, called lascars, and other Indian workers (often Bengali and/or Muslim) to Britain. A large numbers of these married or cohabitated with local White British females since Indian women were not brought along with the workers. In 1817, a magistrate expressed disgust at how many local English women and girls were marrying or cohabitating with foreign South Asian lascars.

Yet the British didn't make legal restrictions against these foreign marriages. Bet they're kicking themselves now!

Following World War I, which left 885,000 British soldiers dead, there was a large surplus of females in Britain and no men for them to marry. Increasing numbers of seamen arrived from the Indian subcontinent, Arab World, Far East and Caribbean. Intermarriage and cohabitation with local White females increased to the point that race riots broke out. By World War II, any form of race mixing was considered offensive.

Today, in Great Britain, inter-racial relationships have become more and more accepted. So accepted in fact that as of 2009, one in ten children living in the United Kingdom, 10%, lives in a mixed-race family.

Not to mention the massive non-White immigration that our brothers in Great Britain are experiencing. At least one in seven in their schools speak English as their second language.

Over half a million school children in multicultural Britain with English as a 2nd Language

And we thought we had problems.

China

Throughout Chinese history there have been various periods where large numbers of Arabs, Persians and Turks migrated into Chinese territories. The first of these migrants arrived in the 7th century during the Tang Dynasty and most of them were male who intermarried with local Han Chinese females.

In 836 AD, a decree forbade Chinese to have relations with people of color, such as Iranians, Arabs, Malays, Sumatrans, etc. The result?

Race Riots!

Resulting in the massacre of several thousand Muslim merchants

During the Song Dynasty, third-generations immigrants with official titles were allowed to intermarry with Chinese imperial princesses.

During the Qing Dynasty, Manchus and Mongols were prohibited from marrying the Han Chinese but those within certain territories were exempt.

The edict prohibiting inter-racial marriage wasn't thoroughly repealed until February 1, 1902.

Shame on those racist Chinese...or kudos for protecting their heritage...depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

Malaysia

Malaysia has three "races" of people, the Malays, Chinese and Asiatic Indians. The majority of inter-racial marriages are between Chinese and Indians and their offspring are known as "Chindian." The government classifies them by their father's ethnicity. The majority of these inter-marriages usually involve an Indian father and Chinese mother so most of these mixed-race people are classified as "Indian" by the Malaysian government. Since Malaysia is a Muslim country, religion-based anti-miscegenation laws apply to the Malay people, who are predominantly Muslim. Legal restrictions make it very difficult for Malays to intermarry with either the Chinese of Indian populations.

India

Between 3 and 8000 years ago, Indo-European speaking nomadic peoples from Europe (aka, White) entered the Indian peninsula. There was already a dark, indigenous tribe. Over the centuries, a rigid cast system developed with four main groups, mainly based on four distinct groups or "varnas."

Now, "modern" researchers and historians will tell you that this has nothing to do with race. Even though some studies say that that lighter the skin, the more European the blood, the higher the cast. Yet these "modern" researchers and historians want you to believe that casts in South Asia grew out of traditional tribal organizations during the formation of Indian society and are not the product of any "Aryan Invasion."

Duh! The Aryan, or White, invasion was the formation of Indian society when they protected themselves from racial inbreeding and adopted the cast system.

You can't separate the two...unless of course you're a modern, "enlightened" thinker.

Japan

As early as the 7th century, Japan inter-married with Chinese and Korean immigrants. Yet by 1910 they were discouraging these marriages and even attempted a eugenics policy to limit the birth of children with inferior traits, as well as aiming to protect the life and health of mothers. In 1942 the Japanese declared that the Korean laborers brought into their country were "inferior" and of "lower class."

In 1945, the Home Ministry ordered local government offices to establish a prostitution service for allied soldiers to preserve the "purity" of the Japanese race." The official declaration stated that through the "sacrifice of thousands of Okichis (women sacrificed for the good of the country)...we shall construct a dike to hold back the mad frenzy of the occupation troops and cultivate and preserve the purity of our race long into the future..."

Who did the Japanese "sacrifice?" At least 200,000 women, mostly from Korea and China, were recruited, kidnapped or tricked into working in "comfort stations" that the Imperial Japanese Army established to prevent venereal diseases and rape by Japanese soldiers and to provide comfort to soldiers.

Today, Japanese society has traditionally been intolerant of ethnic and other differences and is known as very homogeneous. Men or women of mixed ancestry, foreigners and members of minority groups face discrimination in a variety of forms. In 2005, a United nations report expressed concerns about racism in Japan. The UN is concerned that the Japanese government doesn't recognize the depths of the problem.

Also in 2005, Japanese Minister Taro Aso called Japan a "one race" nation.

Aren't they lucky...

Korea

South Korea is among the world's most ethnically homogeneous nations. Koreans have traditionally valued an unmixed blood as the most important feature of Korean identity. The term "Kosian" refers to someone of mixed race and Kosian children often face discrimination, especially if they are part African American (due to the presence of United States military troops stationed on the Korean peninsula). THe Korean office of Amnesty International has claimed that the word "Kosian" represents racial discrimination.

Unfortunately for the Koreans, international marriages now make up 13% of all marriages in South Korea. Most of these marriages are unions between a Korean male and a foreign female, usually from China, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, United States, Mongolia, Thailand and Russia. Koreran females have married foreign males from japan, China, the United States, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Philippines and Nepal.

They're losing their identity at an alarming rate if they don't stem the tide of foreign marriages.

What is the inevitable outcome of race mixing?

Genocide

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, political, cultural or national group.

Miscegenation destroys both races involved

Miscegenation destroys both cultures involved

Miscegenation destroys both nations involved

Miscegenation destroys what God has created

Where have our religious leaders, pastors and clergy been as this country has gone against the laws of God?

Just as in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, our leaders have been right there leading the pack

When Israel returned from the seventy-year Babylonian captivity, the officials discovered that "The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations." They go on to list the peoples that had been racially mixed with the Israelites. Ezra says that "They have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness (TRESPASS or SIN) the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost." Ezra 9:1-2

The priests and Levites, the religious leaders who should have known better and taught the Israelites to obey the Law of God, were leading the way to apostasy!

Just like today

Almost every church in America condones and protects interracial marriage. Men like Ken Ham write books of abomination and call it scriptural. Thousands are misled. We are personally acquainted with people who have been censured by their church for taking a stand against the practice of interracial marriage and for God's law. Later, they were disfellowshiped. Interracial mixing, dating and marriage are practiced openly and proudly all across our land. Churches that once wouldn't think of performing a marriage ceremony between people of different races now have dating services just so that the different races can meet and marry.

Clergy who are supposed to uphold the law of God are giving in, and in most cases promoting interracial marriage

In pre-Civil War Louisiana, some Catholic priests officiated at sacramental "marriages of conscience" for interracial couples who could not legally obtain a civil marriage.

1968 - Presbyterian Church in America 146th General Synod

The Report of the Committee on Racial Questions

Rev. Will Barker presented the report of the Committee on Racial Questions

Proposed Statement on Interracial Marriage

1 Corinthians 6:15-16; 7:16, 39. These verses relate to the subject of intermarriage, especially the last verse, and the last clause: "only in the Lord." It is striking that in all of Paul's discussion of marriage this is the one principle that is stressed in regard to whom one should marry. This is not to say that marriage to any Christian is necessarily expedient, but the only marriage clearly prohibited is that of a believer to an unbeliever. The bible does not teach that interracial marriage of believers is morally wrong. We do recognize that children of a mixed marriage born into a prejudiced society face a serious problem of identity. this problem of identity is largely overcome, however, where the commitment to Christ is uppermost and where the church welcomes all who are in covenant relationship to the Lord into its fellowship. Although marriage between the races should be approached with caution because of the serious nature of the difficulties involved, nevertheless we are persuaded that God's blessing is promised to all who marry "in the Lord."

We recommend that this statement be adopted and be put in the place of the section on intermarriage in the Report on Racial Questions adopted by the 144th Synod in 1966 in any subsequent editions and distributions of that Report.

The 144th Synod didn't make a bold statement on interracial marriage. The "Report on Racial Questions" summary said that "the Bible maintains the unity of the human race before the one redeemer and judge, Jesus Christ." They go on to say that if the Hamitic curse applied to the Negro then it was counteracted by the Gospel in the story of the Good Samaritan. They end with "We look upon our approach to the Negro, whether Christian or unbeliever, in a spirit of repentance, and we exhort one another to greater obedience to the Great Commissions to make disciples and to Christ's commandment to His disciples of whatever race, "That ye love one another, as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (John 13:34).

From the above statements it's clear that the Presbyterians struggled with what to do in 1966 but my 1968 they wholeheartedly embraced interracial marriage.

The Bible calls these leaders "dumb dogs."

God says that "His watchmen (religious leaders) are blind, they are all without knowledge; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber." (Isaiah 56:10)

"Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!" says the Lord, "You have scattered my flock, and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil doings, says the Lord." (Jeremiah 23:1, 2)

Woe to those WHO CALL EVIL GOOD AND GOOD EVIL,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20

Journal of Lutheran Ethics - 1964

Effective Ministry in Intercultural Communities, A Statement of The American Lutheran Church

Adopted by the Second General Convention of the American Lutheran Church

Summary: The statement claimed that "man-made distinctions of race and class" restricted the ministry of the gospel and hindered them from "uniting men through Christ." They said that "all are created in the image of God" citing Acts 10:34 and Colossians 3:11 as proof. They also stated that if the church fostered race or class distinction that this violated God's will and was sin, citing James 2:9.

"Congregations, therefore, must avoid segregation and stratification and repent of the evil fruit of natural man's pride and his assumption of superiority over those who are different from him in color, economic position, national origin, or ethnic grouping."

If the church would let Christ influence them, they wouldn't have pride or prejudice. "Snobbery and discrimination are rejected."

They decided to reach out to everyone regardless of race, economic standing, religious background, or other circumstances. All pastors were expected to teach this "inclusive ministry."

"Should a congregation willfully and persistently refuse to accept into its membership individuals who in faith and life qualify for membership in a Lutheran congregation, or stubbornly cling to patterns of segregation and discrimination, that congregation should become the object of the pastoral concern" of the Lutheran hierarchy. The "violation" was to be reported to the church council. Pastors could lose their pastorate but should receive "the moral and spiritual support of his brethren, and financial assistance from the district for a limited period until he receives a call to a new pastorate."

1968

Interracial marriage, A Statement of The American Lutheran Church

Approved by the Fourth General Convention of the American Lutheran Church

Summary: God created one human family and all men everywhere, whatever their color, culture, class, or caste, are part of that family. Progress had been made toward equality of the races. But "a major barrier, both real and symbolic, yet remains. That is the barrier to interracial marriage, a social and psychological barrier in many hearts and minds." Based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, "a person's race is not a valid ground to deny him marriage to the person with whom he purposes to build a life-long marital union. We confidently affirm that there are no Scriptural barriers to marriage across racial lines." The church recognizes that a couple who desires to commit themselves to interracial marriage need to examine their reasons and motivations. They also need to "enlist the aid of balanced and objective counsel, including that of their pastor." If they decide to go forward, "their decision should be honored and respected." The church, including families, friends, neighbors and the congregation should embrace the couple. "We neither advocate nor condemn interracial marriage." The church "rejoices over the diversity in the human family." They even go so far as to "understand why persons who appreciate their distinctive racial heritage wish to perpetuate it." Yet they "deny that race must be the determinative criterion in any proposed marriage."

The Bible calls these religious leaders and pastors, Dumb Dogs

His watchmen are blind, they are all without knowledge; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber.
Isaiah 56:10

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20

For I the Lord do not change
Malachi 3:6

2008 - California

Homosexuals point to past bans in interracial marriage in their quest for "equality"

Dennis Prager, 20 May 2008, Real Clear Politics states the case clearly. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system.

These "religious leaders" are now aghast with the idea that homosexuals are getting "married." But where were they when interracial marriages should have remained banned? They remained silent. You cannot pick and choose which command of God to obey.

God will not be mocked.

Are you really seeking truth?

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.
(2 Timothy 4:3, 4)

There are a handful of brave churches and pastors willing to stand for God's moral and spiritual truth. These brave people have the spiritual strength to say NO to the politically correct world around them and teach their congregations that God does not change. Interracial dating and marriage were not acceptable in the days of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, and interracial dating and marriage are not acceptable today.

Here are a few of those brave ministers of God:

Church of Israel and Watchman Outreach Ministries, Route 1, Box 218E, Schell City, MO 64783
They do not have a web site but if you write to them they will be happy to send you information.

Mission to Israel - www.missiontoisrael.org

Scriptures for America - www.scripturesforamerica.org

In 2000 a pastor in Ohio had the courage to say no to a white/black union at his church, the Pleasant Valley Community Church in Pike County, 60 miles south of Columbus. The Reverend Donald Ellis refused any comment other than, "This is my church."

He should have said, God will not condone this union, and neither will I

Few parents have the courage to take a stand and emphatically say no and teach their sons and daughters the biblical truth regarding interracial dating and marriage. Some fear what others will think of them, some don't want to have the conflict with their children, some just may not know and others just don't care.

God does not change. Man can legislate what he wants. The law of God is eternal.

Interracial mixing will never be acceptable in the eyes of God, the creator of all races

And God saw everything that He had made and behold, it was very good

Next

An honest look at the social issues of interracial marriage

Besides the genocide of the races and the breakdown of society, who suffers the most from breaking God's law?

Children!

In no way should the information on this web site be used as an excuse for hatred, violence or to commit any illegal act against any person of color

This site is about information and education of White people and the preservation of our unique Heritage

Be Respectful, Be Polite, Be Christian at all times

Remember -- Truth is not Racist, Facts are not Hate!

Act accordingly