The End to Love's Journey

During the 19th centry it was not uncommon for a white landowner daughter to fall in love with a slave boy. In Forbidden Friut this was the case for John, a slave in the Walls's family and Jane Kings to best firends in love. In the 1840s, they fleed together on the Underground Railraod and winded up in a Canadian village. Found on page 174 Deramus it says "During their flight to freedom, John killed two wolves with an ax, according to Bryan Walls's book The Road That Led to Somewhere. When a slave catcher overtook them, Jane pretended to be John's owner and whipped him to prove it. Finally, they reached a Quaker safe house in Indianapolis, where they married. Around most people, though, John pretended he was the husband of a fugitive slave woman traveling with him and Jane." In this story John and Jane are face to face with controversy. As they are seen together they are quick witted and derive a plan so they won't get caught. Luckily, it worked and they were able to continue their flight away from the pain. As they faced their possible death being seen by this slave catcher they were able to free themselves, but what would have happened if they didn't think quick enough?

As the chapter continued DeRamus made a good point "Were those who risked their lives to violate these taboos trying to make a statement against slavery, enthralled by forbidden fruit, naturally rebellious or simply unwilling to deny the urging of their hearts" (175). In this case Jane and John where not making statement, they were just trying to flee together. Unlike Isaac and Lucy, John and Jane were close to their deaths when seen together. In my opinion I don't believe they were making a statement, in fact I just think they were running away. To me making a statement is coming out and displaying the true feelings you have for another person dispite their race. Granted back then it was extremely difficult to be able to stand up against society and display the love you've been hiding. John and Jane's actions show how much they wanted to be together because they ran away together. Jane took the biggest leap in order to leave everything of hers behind to be with him. That is true love once again I restate that love knows no color and luckily our society has come a long way.

To prove their love together they continued their relationship until the grave. Found on page 175 "John died in 1909 at ninety-six and Jane a year later at eighty-eight. Both are buried in the cemetery behind their old log cabin, the original homestead John built in 1846. Today that cabin is part of an Underground Railroad museum operated by the Wallses' descendants. People who visit the John Freeman Walls Historic Site and Underground Railroad Musuem in Puce get a chance to reenact the journey of a runaway slave on a trail running through nearby woods". This was a very imortant part of my reading. I found the fact that they are together still proves the statement that they ended up making after running away. Their running away was their escape from all that was going on in that time of history. Now my question to you Jessica is one that I struggled with; Do you think this is a sign of John and Jane making a statement about their love? or do you see it as them running away from the pain of not being able to show off their love for each other in public?

Runaway Love

One of the most interseting chapters in Forbidden Fruit is called Hound Dogs Hate Red Peper, it's about a run away slave named Issac Berry who fell in love with a white women, named LucyEsther Millard, who offered him sips of cool water and chunks of red-hot pepper. DeRamus writes, " it as been passed from one generation of the Berry family to the next". Berry was a fiddle-playing, ox-driving, horseshoe-making slave, that began walking from Missouri to Michigan in the spring of 1858. On his journey he encountered two white men, who stop and confronted him about his were abouts. Since Issac was feeling so threatened by the men, he pulled out a Bowie knife for protection. Thoughtout the whole time Issac had only one thing going on in his mind, his promise to meet Ester in Canada. DeRamus writes, "For what Isaac was planning he could have been whipped until the sun got tired of shining on fat fields and thin slaves. He could have been dragged by dogs, castrated or buried up to his neck in Missouri mud, sugar sprinkled on his head to draw flies. Until well into the twentieth century, real or imaginary relationships between black men and white women-a suspicion of rape, the whisper of love-became grounds for lynching and mutilating black men." Issac took it upon himself to defy the law and continue relations with the white woman that he met. This was a bold move for Isaac to make.

It is clear that they are truely in love. I found on Deramus 158 Lucy and Isaac are spending intimate times together. It says that once Lucy read the bible to him "the two of them fell under each other's spell" as I read this passage I quickly invisioned a lovely couple sharing their love for each other. Isaac and Lucy have true love and the color of their skin doesn't play a huge role in their decisions. My question is why did he go with this if he knew that if he was to be caught it would cost his life? This goes with my theme; love knows no color. Jessica I would like to know your opinion on this specific matter...do you think it was worth Isaac to risk his life to be this woman? Would you risk your life for your partner?

Loving vs. Virginia

One of the most important cases for the defense of interracial marriages was Loving v. Virginia.
When I came across this case in Forbidden Fruit, I decided that I wanted more detail so I did a little research on it. The plaintiffs, Richard Perry Loving (white) and Mildred Jeter (African and Indian descent), were residents of Virginia. They were married on June of 1958 in Columbia. In my last post we learned that interracial couples were unable to wed in Virginia because of the Racial Integrity Act, this law banned marriages between any white person and non-white person. When they came back to Virginia they were charged with a violation because they got married out of state and then return to Virginia. The couple was found guilty and sentence to one year in prison. However, the couple decided to take the case to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. By doing this the couple sparked public interest for example, Roman Catholic Church. They joined the movement because there was nothing in their religion prohibiting people of different background coming together. The Supreme Court overturned the convictions and it dismissed Virginia’s argument because it violates the fourteenth Amendment. This move that the Loving did could have resulted badly but the couple took the chance and trusted the public to come to their defense. Imaging all the threats they received for trying to be open minded. The Loving v. Virginia was not the only interracial case but out of all of them why was this case so lucky? I thought the Loving v. Virginia was significant because it open the doors for everyone in the 20th and 21st century. Just think about it if the Loving couple for some reason gave up on the relationship. How would that affect the world now? I feel really embarrassed now because people today talk about love like it’s nothing especially teens. We really lack an understanding of the meaning and we should look at the past to help understand. Again it does not matter what the other persons background is, it’s all about the personality. I believe that was the idea Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter were trying to show everyone.

Timeline

Through out the novel, Forbidden Fruit, DeRamus creates a Timeline of multiple events in the 19th century that helps readers to understand the problems interracial couples had. I only selected a few from the book because these seem to be the most interesting. Again I would have had a really difficult time obeying these rules because they took away people’s freedom. After reading this timeline how would you feel do you agree or disagree?

1851: In the January 1, 1851 issue of the Voice of the Fugitive, Henry Bibb talks about two letter writers in the Amherstburg Courier on December 7, one anonymous, one named Edwin Sarwill. The letter writers complain that blacks are inferior and ignorant and that if they are allowed to settle in Canada they will marry the whites and degrade both races.

1855: Celia, a Missouri slave, is hanged on December 21, 1855, after clubbing to death her widowed owner, Robert Newson, who she claimed had forced her to have sexual relations over a period of years. She had borne him two children, both of whom became his property. Although the second article of Section 29 of the Missouri statutes of 1845 forbids anyone “ to take any woman unlawfully against her will and by force, menace or duress, compel her to be defiled. “Judge William Hall refuses to instruct the jury that the enslaved woman is covered by the term “any woman”

1861: At least nine biracial couples live in Buxton, a black settlement near Chatham in Ontario, Canada. They include a white male and black female, seven black males and white females and one Native American and mulatto female.

1867: Bill Wyronosdick, a Crenshaw, Alabama, black man, pays a two-hundred-dollar fine and goes to jail for thirty days for living with a white female employee.

1870: The radical Mississippi legislature repeals the 1865 ban on racial intermarriage.

1880-1940: … A black man can be considered guilty of assault with intent to rape by showing up in a woman’s backyard, stilling next to her on a trolley or looking at her in the “wrong” way.

Determined Souls of the 19th century

If you were an African American slave, during the 19th century, and you were giving the chance of freedom would you take knowing that you would leave your family behind? What would you do? See it’s a hard question to answer. I don’t know what I would do. DeRamus states; “ many black husbands risked their lives for enslaved wives. They considered freedom a dubious gift, a counterfeit coin, if they couldn’t spend it on the people they loved”(DeRamus 10). That takes true love to really give your freedom up; it takes a lot of strength and courage to do something like that. In the first chapter DeRamus gives the reader a background story about a man named Joseph Antoine who basically gave up his freedom for his wife. His owner in Cuba first freed Antoine of slavery, he then moved to Virginia where he wanted to start a new life as a freed man. His wife name was not known, however she was born in Hampshire, Virginia (now known as West Virginia). DeRamus writes, “ or maybe she was a pale woman with a slant to her eyes and a whisper of silk and cinnamon in her hair”(DeRamus 7). Her owner Jonathan Purcell threatened to sell her in Spanish territory unless Antoine signed papers making him and his wife indentured servants for seven and a half years. They signed however; Purcell lied at the two would actually be indentured servants for fifteen years. So they fled to Kentucky because of exhaustion she died and Antoine was captured and sent to jail. DeRamus writes, Joseph Antoine would have found the twenty-first century as baffling as ballet is to a bulldog. He wouldn’t have understood married couples who split up before their wedding flowers wilt or their new woks and washing machines lose their showroom shine… Most of all he wouldn’t have understood why, for some men, falling in love became a fatal flaw, the crack in a man’s smooth chocolate-ice-cream cool”(DeRamus 3). I love how DeRamus gives Antoine an opinion about the 21st century; through her writing the reader can sense the confusion Antoine must have about our time. I enjoy the examples of simile that she uses in this quote for example, “as baffling as ballet is to a bulldog”, when a person thinks of this image they cant help but be confused. DeRamus through Antoine reminders the reader how times have change and how people don’t have to make the decisions to choose between a loved one and their freedom. What did you think of this story, how did it affect you?

Background of Miscegenation

I am still waiting for Forbidden fruit from the library to come but I thought I would do some research on the 19th century. Miscegenation is the mixing of different races that is marring, having sexual relation and having children with a partner a different race. This term stared in the Apartheid era; it was enforced in Nazi Germany there is was called “ amalgamation”. In the United States alone there were many laws prohibiting the marriage of whites and blacks. In other states the intermarriage of whites with Native Americans and Asians were also prohibited; this laws were known as Anti-miscegenation laws, this law was enforced in 30 out of the then 48 states from 1913 to 1948. I found it interesting that United States Congress was thinking about proposing an “Anti-Miscegenation Amendment”. When I read this I was like what, how could they even think about creating a law that would stop someone the right to wed whom ever they like? In the case of Loving v. Virginia it stated that the anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. However, in Nazi Germany and South Africa still believed in racial purity and white supremacy. After World War II many white segregationists accused the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. of trying to destroy the “white United States” through miscegenation. I found this to be ridicules because the segregationists took it to the head it nothing to do with them. People who were against interracial couples did everything they could to erase the idea of people of different races coming together. By doing this research I learned a new term used in the 19th century and how impossible it was for people. When the book comes in I well be talking about the stories of multiple couples and the obstacles they face to break the laws.