The Wheel of Servitude by Daniel A. Novak

Author:Daniel A. Novak [Novak, Daniel A.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Science, Ethnic Studies, American, African American & Black Studies, Political Science, Labor & Industrial Relations, History, United States, State & Local, South (AL; AR; FL; GA; KY; LA; MS; NC; SC; TN; VA; WV), Discrimination
ISBN: 9780813182148
Google: 9AQaEAAAQBAJ
Publisher: University Press of Kentucky
Published: 2021-09-15T02:49:35+00:00

6

After Bailey

Thus it appears that Cook was arrested . . . solely on account of his failure to comply with his contract. . . . Even if this is true . . . defendants cannot be convicted . . . of peonage.

Taylor v. U.S. (1917)

The decision in Bailey v. Alabama had been hailed as a marked step forward in the battle against peonage. By Ray Stannard Baker it was seen as a second Dred Scott case, a start for a great push against an obnoxious practice. It was confidently expected that similar statutes on the books of other states would now be declared invalid and that sinister operation of the peonage system would soon cease.1

However, several factors militated against this happy result. First among these was the fact that only one sort of peonage law had been declared unconstitutional—the sort containing the presumptive evidence clause. A state that dropped this clause, or did not have it, could still prosecute debtors for accepting advances fraudulently. (As an additional fillip, since the Alabama rule of evidence regarding the defendant’s testimony had played a significant part in the Bailey decision, the state courts could still distinguish their statutes from the Alabama law on that basis.)

Further, the only sort of peonage which had been attacked was that which involved debt, “the basal fact of peonage” in the narrow definition given to it by the Supreme Court. There were other sorts of forced labor, closely akin to this, which were not covered by this definition. Assistant Attorney General Russell had anticipated this problem as far back as 1907 and had suggested passage of a new law forbidding “involuntary servitude and all attempts at it,” abandoning use of the word peonage altogether.2 This advice had not been taken by the Congress. No attack had been made on the labor-enticement laws either, and these remained untouched by the flurry of federal anti-peonage activities.

Perhaps more important, the push behind the federal government’s interest in the area was dissipated. With the election of Woodrow Wilson as president, the emphasis placed on peonage by Roosevelt and Taft was shifted to other areas. Complaints of peonage were still received, but few prosecutions were brought. It is doubtful that Georgia, for instance, would have been able to “finesse” the Bailey decision without the indifference of the federal government. Perhaps the neglect was “benign” in nature, from the government’s point of view; a noncontemporary can never know. Certainly, the effect was not—from the viewpoint of the helpless black laborer.

None of this should be taken to indicate that the decisions of the Supreme Court had had no effect. Alabama’s laws had, of course, been struck down. Within months the legislature had placed a new law on the books, but without a “presumptive evidence” section. South Carolina, in an apparent response to Bailey, dropped its presumption clause. In Mississippi and North Carolina the state courts declared their respective laws unconstitutional.3 It should be clear that none of these actions really reduced peonage; they simply made

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.