Primary Source Analysis

This primary source analysis is based upon the opinion of Judge Leon M. Bazile in a motion which was brought forth by Mildred and Richard Loving in 1965. The case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court which fostered the landmark ruling of Loving v Virginia in 1967. The following will examine this source’s means of creation, how it came into being and its purpose for existing. This paper will then analyse the evidence behind the legal judgement, the tones accentuated in it and how historians might approach such a source. Lastly it will explore the judgement’s context and engage with relevant books and newspaper articles which assist in explaining the setting in which the source was formed.
As stated before, this source is the legal …show more content…
Firstly the Judge agrees that the law is one that is needed for public cohesion, stating that it is “one upon which social order, public morality and the best interests of both races depend.” He heralds the law as ‘unmistakable’ and says to undermine it would be a “dead letter.” Furthermore the Judge elucidates his reasoning, stating that ‘Almighty God’ geographically spread ethnicities across the earth and therefore interracial marriage deviates from that arrangement. He frankly stresses this saying “the fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Judge Bazile’s snarky tone is exposed through his closing poem which declares that “nor all your piety, can change one line of it” when referring to the anti-miscegenation statute. The Judge is almost confident in his opinion and reveals his dogmatic undertones by insisting to the Lovings that “as long as you live you will be known as a felony.” The Judge does not waver or express any doubt in his position and his arrogance shows through by his proclamation that to question him is to question a long-standing truth ordained by ‘Almighty God.’ The Judge appears to be biased by social attitudes espoused at that time and by his own prejudices towards ‘coloured’ people. Instead of referring to data and statistics to support his assertions, he utilized broad claims such as that race mixing is ‘unnatural.’ Historians would approach this source with the knowledge that this is just one of many biased opinions espoused by a judge at this time in history. One of its advantages is that it is a thought-provoking insight into the reasoning behind miscegenation laws. It also aids in understanding the groundwork that cultivated the Supreme Court to take up the Loving’s case. However it is limited in that it lacks an exhaustive list of other Judge’s opinions that are