This group of laws in Mississippi was clearly passed to suppress former slaves. The authors were most likely white men, whom previously had slaves. Although this document did not give much hope for former slaves at the time, some sections of the document seem to be beneficial to all.
This first law in the document, the Apprentice Law, was made to apprentice orphans to masters. This gave orphans a home, but it probably wasn’t always a good home. The next law, the Vagrancy Law, made it so that former slaves who are unemployed were fined and went to jail. The law also prohibited gambling and prostitution. Next it was the Civil Rights of Freedmen. This law gave rights such as marriage between the same races and to own a job. Last in the document …show more content…
In this document we see that there are some laws that make the former slaves have the same rights as the white men, but other laws that take rights away from the former slaves and open up possibilities of abuse.
We can clearly see from the Penal Code the fear that the white men had of an uprising of the former slaves. They did not want them to have weapons or to group together and spread speeches against the white men. The Vagrancy Law also shows this fear. From this law we see that the white men wanted the former slaves to work a lot like they used to for them and if they did not they’d be punished with debt. The white men were afraid of groups of the former slaves and did not want them communicating with each other much.
From this document we can see that Mississippi was quite a religious state. In section 4 from the Vagrancy Law, we see that anyone, not just former slaves, who “militate against good morals” shall be punished. And in the Civil Rights of Freedmen, we see that it was illegal for any former slave “to intermarry with any white person” and vice versa. These laws stem from the major religion in Mississippi at the …show more content…
This law took away the former slaves right to own firearms and suppressed their right of free speech. These are both part of the Bill of Rights.
The document could have had the names and descriptions of the people who passed the document. This would have given more insight to the thoughts of the people and the ideas they had for Mississippi. We can assume who these people were, but within the document itself we are not sure.
This document only applied to a section of the US at the time, but similar state laws were likely passed after the end of the civil war. It was probably a little frustrating for the federal government, since people had to obey not only the state laws but also the federal laws and this could have led to conflicting laws. For example, if a former slave were to argue that the Bill of Rights gives them the right to own firearms, white men would say that the Penal Code prohibits them. Which law is to be obeyed? Likely the Penal Code would win out, due to the prejudices at the
This first law in the document, the Apprentice Law, was made to apprentice orphans to masters. This gave orphans a home, but it probably wasn’t always a good home. The next law, the Vagrancy Law, made it so that former slaves who are unemployed were fined and went to jail. The law also prohibited gambling and prostitution. Next it was the Civil Rights of Freedmen. This law gave rights such as marriage between the same races and to own a job. Last in the document …show more content…
In this document we see that there are some laws that make the former slaves have the same rights as the white men, but other laws that take rights away from the former slaves and open up possibilities of abuse.
We can clearly see from the Penal Code the fear that the white men had of an uprising of the former slaves. They did not want them to have weapons or to group together and spread speeches against the white men. The Vagrancy Law also shows this fear. From this law we see that the white men wanted the former slaves to work a lot like they used to for them and if they did not they’d be punished with debt. The white men were afraid of groups of the former slaves and did not want them communicating with each other much.
From this document we can see that Mississippi was quite a religious state. In section 4 from the Vagrancy Law, we see that anyone, not just former slaves, who “militate against good morals” shall be punished. And in the Civil Rights of Freedmen, we see that it was illegal for any former slave “to intermarry with any white person” and vice versa. These laws stem from the major religion in Mississippi at the …show more content…
This law took away the former slaves right to own firearms and suppressed their right of free speech. These are both part of the Bill of Rights.
The document could have had the names and descriptions of the people who passed the document. This would have given more insight to the thoughts of the people and the ideas they had for Mississippi. We can assume who these people were, but within the document itself we are not sure.
This document only applied to a section of the US at the time, but similar state laws were likely passed after the end of the civil war. It was probably a little frustrating for the federal government, since people had to obey not only the state laws but also the federal laws and this could have led to conflicting laws. For example, if a former slave were to argue that the Bill of Rights gives them the right to own firearms, white men would say that the Penal Code prohibits them. Which law is to be obeyed? Likely the Penal Code would win out, due to the prejudices at the