Talk:Black Codes in the USA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There seems to be a misunderstanding. The Midwest Black codes were designed to exclude blacks from the states The Southern black codes were designed to keep them in the South. The overlap is pretty small. The result is this is a POV article that is not very good history. Rjensen 18:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
"Distinction from Jim Crow laws" blatantly contradicts "History" with respect to when "Black Codes" began - will an authority please fix this fundamental contradiction?
Contents |
[edit] Northern/Southern?
The German article on Black Codes mentions only the Southern, Reconstruction-Era Black Codes. It seems strange that that should link to an article titled "Black Codes in Northern USA". Should the bit about Southern Black Codes be moved into a separate article and the interwiki links adjusted, or should the article's title be changed to reflect that both Northern and Southern Black Codes are dealt with in this article?--Bhuck 10:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- See the above comment. The article is skewed by its focus on a set of laws (those in the North before the Civil War) which are not normally those that are meant by "Black Codes" (laws in the South after the Civil War). Your solution seems worthwhile. -Will Beback 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Bhuck offers an either/or choice. One article, Black Codes in USA, should cover it, with sections for regional emphasis. That would also allow documentation of instances where state laws clashed. skywriter 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think that it'd be better to split it into two articles. The pre-war material is a different topic than the post-war material. -Will Beback 23:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The topics are related, so there is an argument for keeping both topics in one article together. Skywriter's expansion of the article was helpful. On the assumption that the Black Codes will continue to be dealt with in one article, I will move the article to "Black Codes in the USA". However, I think Will Beback is correct to point out that the emphasis of this article remains on the Northern Codes, even though it is the Southern Codes which are normally referred to by this term, so it would be a further improvement to the article if the section on the Southern Codes would be expanded and presented more prominently, and not as the third of three sections of history and the smallest of them all. Perhaps someone can explain how legislative control shifted from Southern interests to Reconstruction agendas, how the courts came to overturn the laws based on the new Constitutional Amendments, how the theoretically enfranchised freedmen participated or failed to participate in the legislative process leading to these laws, etc. --Bhuck 08:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Accurate wording
Words like " negrophobia " are inaccurate, political words that have no place in an encyclopedia. A phobia is a particular psychological problem, which has no connection to the motives for racists, or even those who merely feel "uncomfortable" around black people. It's an easy, political word. Tragic romance 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Segregation - POV and Confusion
This article is circular, going from arguing the Republicans ensured Black Codes weren't enacted, to using isolated quotes from an historian which seem chosen to provide an apologetic or rationale for segregation as ordinary. It may be, but I don't think these quotes tell much about the state of the South after the Civil War, or about the Black Codes or later segregation.--Parkwells 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additional Articles/Links
I deleted some of these, as they weren't referenced in this article and seemed to range far from it.--Parkwells 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Expansion 1840-1860
This section has too many generalities, for instance "several states had constitutions including or requiring Black Codes". Which and when? Is it really useful to call these Black Codes, or was there different intent at the time?--Parkwells 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)