Mississippi Black Codes: Keeping the Black Man in His Place

          The status of the freed slave following the Civil War was (along with the rebuilding of the South) among the most essential focal points of reconstruction for the South. Imagine yourself as a plantation owner with vast amounts of land. For years, this land had provided your wealth and prosperity. The means by which that land was kept, was through forced labor, and now, following a war that ravaged your backyard; that labor force is no longer legally your property. The Mississippi Black Codes following the end of the Civil War gives a glimpse into the desperation felt by a large portion of Southern Whites.  More importantly, the text written for these Black Codes exemplifies the South’s determination to keep the black man in his place.

                Southern whites had long used as a defense for slavery, the argument that they kept their slaves fed, and safe. Looking back today, we scoff at the idea of this, but sadly; it was somewhat true. Of course that in no way condones the evils of slavery. That argument remained in Mississippi even after the Civil War; and served as a means by which some freedmen could remain under the “safety” of plantation owners.  Section one the Mississippi law reads:

Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi, that it shall be the duty of all sheriffs, justices of the peace, and other civil officers of the several counties in this state to report to the Probate courts of their respective counties semiannually, at the January and July terms of said courts, all freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes under the age of eighteen within their respective counties… who are orphans, or whose parent or parents have not the means, or who refuse to provide for and support said minors; and thereupon it shall be the duty of said Probate Court to order the clerk of said court to apprentice said minors to some competent and suitable person, on such terms as the court may direct, having a particular care to the interest of said minors.

Make of this what you will, but it certainly seems to me that Mississippi’s intentions are blatantly obvious. Basically, all children that were not properly taken care of should be removed by the courts from their families and placed somewhere that they will be properly cared for. I pose this question. Which group of individuals is most likely to be poor, and unable to care for their children? Without a doubt it would be the recently freed blacks, am I right? Furthermore, who among the South are most likely to be a “competent and suitable person?” I mean financially of course. I would argue it was the wealthy plantation owners. Via this political loophole created by the Mississippi legislature; it would have become possible for black children under the age of 18 to be placed into the homes of a wealthy plantation owner. Those children that would have been subjected to this would then be in no better shape than they, or their parents were before the Civil War raged. Under the supervision and care of a new family, none of these new contracts between freed men and whites would apply, and thus there would be no legal bargaining. Those appointed as the children’s overseer’s would have complete control.

Section 2 of the Mississippi slave codes try to distract from the true purpose of the legislation. It includes orders that the new supervisors of these children must treat the children humanely, provide them adequate food and clothing, and furnish medical care for them. I would argue that the individual that would be working your land, and contributing to your well-being would be kept healthy even without a law ordering them to do so. It does not make it any less a Reconstruction form of slavery.

                Section 1 of this legislation was just the beginning in regards to keeping the black man in his place. Section 4 for instance certainly would have brought back haunting memories for slaves that attempted to escape to the north only to be captured and returned back due to the Fugitive Slave Act. Section 4 was written as follows:

Be it further enacted, that if any apprentice shall leave the employment of his or her master or mistress without his or her consent, said master or mistress may pursue and recapture said apprentice and bring him or her before any justice of the peace of the county, whose duty it shall be to remand said apprentice to the service of his or her master or mistress; and in the event of a refusal on the part of said apprentice so to return, then said justice shall commit said apprentice to the jail of said county, on failure to give bond, until the next term of the county court; and it shall be the duty of said court, at the first term thereafter, to investigate said case; and if the court shall be of opinion that said apprentice left the employment of his or her master or mistress without good cause, to order him or her to be punished, as provided for the punishment of hired freedmen, as may be from time to time provided for by law, for desertion, until he or she shall agree to return to his or her master or mistress.

Section 2 could have quite possibly fooled some into thinking that these Mississippi Black Codes were well intentioned; yet the continued use of “Master” in section 4 only brings the underlying intentions to the forefront. Just as the Fugitive Slave Act returned runaway slaves to Southern White land owners, this section would demand all that ran away from their “master” to be returned to them. To continue, and to be realistic; we all know that punishment for a young black female runaway in the south during Reconstruction would be much worse than a young white males negligence in any form.  The deep seated resentment for blacks would be far too great.

                Article two under the “Vagrancy Laws” in the Mississippi Black Codes continues the attempts of keeping the black man in his place in society. It orders that individuals “with no lawful employment or business, or found unlawfully assembling themselves together either in the day or nighttime” can be fined up to $150. The writing in this document attempts to say that all are subjected to these laws; but it should be clearly understood by all who would suffer most under these Black Codes; freed slaves.

                Simply put, the legislation written by officials of Mississippi intended to do nothing more than harm the previously freed black community; because there was so much disgust that these people (blacks) could be equal to them (whites). The South had long been dependent upon this race contributing to their livelihood through forced labor, and used scientific and religious reasoning to defend this evil. After many years of this being the norm in the South, most of the South honestly saw blacks as lesser of human beings than themselves. The South during reconstruction had to reconstruct itself entirely; economically, and perhaps even more difficultly, socially. White Southerners had to accept the fact that blacks were no longer their property. They would not walk away without a fight though, even following the brutal war. As we can see with the text of these Mississippi Black Codes; the South had a lot of reconstructing to do. In this instance, legislators attempted to defy the reality of black liberation by enacting policy that would keep the black man in his place. 

Bruce Frohnen. The American Nation: Primary Sources. ed. Bruce Frohnen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2008). Chapter: Black Codes of Mississippi. 

Mississippi Black Codes can also be read at this link---http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/recon/code.html