This site is no longer being
maintained at this location.

This section of the site Basic Needs has been moved to



Institutional Racism                                         X
01 Race and Racial Groups                                x
02 Citizenship Rights                                    x
03 Justice                                            x
04 Basic Needs                                             x
05 Intersectionality                                           x
06 Worldwide                                           x
  Web Editor:
  Vernellia R. Randall
Professor of Law
The University of Dayton
Web Editor
Race and Health Care
Personal Website                                          x
Legal Education
The JD Project
Living Together in a State of Adultery or Fornication 
Tony Pace v. State of Alabama,
106 U.S. 583 (1883).
Peter Wallenstein
Excerpted from:  Race, Marriage, and the Law of Freedom: Alabama and Virginia, 1860's - 1960's,  70 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 371- 437, 387-389 (1994).
 . . . .[Among] the cases appealed from trial courts in late-nineteenth century Alabama, one went on to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The nation's high court demonstrated no difficulty in accepting the main lines of argument that supporters of the Alabama antimiscegenation laws had developed from Ellis in 1868 to Hoover in 1878. Only the aberration of Burns remained as an exception and thus a reminder that the course of judicial history on miscegenation was not entirely inevitable. 

  In November 1881, a Clarke County jury convicted a black man, Tony Pace, and a white woman, Mary Jane Cox, under section 4189 on charges of "liv[ing] together in a state of adultery or fornication."  Each received the shortest sentence that the law permitted, two years in the state penitentiary. When they appealed, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the convictions.  Each defendant's punishment, the court observed, "white and black," was "precisely the same."  The differential punishment for interracial cohabitation was directed not "against the person of any particular color or race, but against the offense, the nature of which is determined by the opposite color of the cohabiting parties," an offense whose "evil tendency" was greater than if both parties were of the same race, as it might lead to "a mongrel population and a degraded civilization." 

  Pace appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Stephen J. Field rejected the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause offered a shield.  Rather, he adopted the Alabama court's line of reasoning.  Viewing the two sections of the Alabama law, Justice Field found them "entirely consistent" and in no way racially discriminatory.  Each, he insisted in all earnestness, dealt with a different offense.  Section 4189, he wrote,

  prescribes a punishment for an offense which can only be committed where the two sexes are of different races.  There is in neither section any discrimination against either race.  Section 4184 equally includes the offense when the persons of the two sexes are both white and when they are both black. Section 4189 applies the same punishment to both offenders, the white and the black. Indeed, the offense against which this latter section is aimed cannot be committed without involving persons of both races in the same punishment. Whatever discrimination is made in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offense designated and not against the person of any particular color or race.
  The decision was understood, from that time to the 1960s, as reflecting a validation of state antimiscegenation laws.  But the Supreme Court had not confronted the question of whether, given that Pace and Cox could not become husband and wife, they would inevitably be liable to prosecution for "adultery or fornication" if they lived as such.  Only by implication had the ban against interracial marriage been addressed.  Moreover, only by indirection did the Court address the question of whether, since it was a first offense, the sentence should have been for no more than six months.  In any event, the Court had upheld the Alabama laws, and no southern state, for the next eight decades, displayed any inclination to repeal such laws.  Certainly Alabama did not.  The Supreme Court's decision in Pace v. Alabama would prove to have an even more durable career in the American law of interracial sex and, by extension, marriage than Plessy v. Ferguson would have on segregated transportation and, by extension, education.
Submit for Periodic Updates
Update List
Affirmative Action                                            x
Education                                           x
Economic Issues                                           x
Employment                                            x
Environmental Racism                                           x
Family and Adoption                                           x
Health Care                                            x
Media                                            x
Poverty and Welfare                                           x
Property and Housing                                           x
Protest and Protection                                            x
Public Facilities                                           x
Sex and Marriage                                           x
Voting Rights                                            x
Miscellaneous                                           x
What's New!                                           x
Obama's Administration                             x
Webinars                                                x
The Whitest Law Schools                                           x
Law Reviews                                           x
Newsletter                                           x
Racial Surveys                                           x
Awards                                           x
Syllabus                                           x
Search this Site                                           x
Contact                                           x


Same level:
Historical Background on Miscegenation ] Interracial Marriages and the Effects on Children ] Pace v. State Of Alabama ] McLaughin v. State of Florida ] Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia ] [ Living Together in a State of Adultery or Fornication ] Dodging the Bullet: Jackson v. State of Alabama and Naim v. Naim ] Love on Trial - The Alice Jones and Leonard Rhinelander Story ]
Child Level:
Home ] Up ]
Parent Level:
Affirmative Action and Race ] Education and Race ] Employment Issues ] Environmental Racism ] Family Adoption and Race ] Race HealthCare and the Law ] Media and Race ] Economics and Race ] Poverty Welfare and Race ] Property -Housing and Race ] Protest Protection and Race ] Public Facilities and Race ] Sex Marriage and Race ] Voting Rights and Race ] Miscellaneous Pages ]
[Race and Racial Groups] [Citizenship Rights]  [Justice and Race] [Patterns of Basic Needs] [Intersectionality Issues] [Human Rights]


Always Under Construction!

Always Under Construction!

Copyright @ 1997, 2008.
Vernellia R. Randall

All Rights Reserved.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, some material on this website is provided for comment, background information, research and/or educational purposes only, without permission from the copyright owner(s), under the "fair use" provisions of the federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed for other purposes without permission of the copyright owner(s).

Last Updated:
Wednesday, April 25, 2012  

You are visitor number
Hit Counter    
Since Sept. 11, 2001

Thanks to Derrick Bell and his pioneer work: 
Race, Racism and American Law