Libby Prison on Cary Street, Richmond, circa 1865. Photo credit: Flickr

by James A. Bacon

As a parting gift to Virginia, outgoing Attorney General Mark Herring has overturned 58 opinions issued by attorneys general between 1904 and 1967 that supported racially discriminatory laws from poll taxes to the prohibition of interracial marriage.

“While these discriminatory and racist laws are no longer on the books in Virginia, the opinions still are, which is why I am proud to overrule them,” Herring said in a press release today. “We are not the Virginia we used to be, and in order to truly be the Virginia that we want to be in the future we need to remove any last vestiges of these racist laws.”

Herring’s action will have no practical effect — the laws supported by these opinions have all been overturned. But many African-American politicians and activists found solace in the gesture.

“Just like Virginia wiped racist, outdated laws off its books in recent years, so too should it wipe away racist, outdated legal opinions that supported and helped to implement those laws,” said Cynthia Hudson, a former chief deputy attorney general and chair of the Commission to Examine Racial Equity in Virginia’s law.

I have mixed emotions. I can see the symbolic value of getting these heinous rulings off the books. (See a compilation here.) We should slam the door on Virginia’s racist past. However, I find the fixation on the past a distraction from current-day injustices that have origins unrelated to historic racism. Continually dredging up ancient wrongs feeds African Americans’ sense of alienation, victimhood and grievance, and it perpetuates the false narrative of systemic modern-day racism.

America has spent the past 55 years (using Herring’s demarcation line of 1967) not only expunging racism from American laws but trying to make amends through the never-ending expansion of the welfare state. We’re not perfect. Some of our institutions, especially criminal justice and housing, could benefit from fine-tuning.

But the primary sources of “inequity” — unequal group outcomes — has no connection to the 58 racist rulings, some of which date back a century.

What are the sources of immiseration today? Consider these:

  • Breakdown of the family structure and atomization of society, especially among the poor (of all racial/ethnic groups). This root cause of poverty and social dysfunction stems from society-wide changes in social mores whose leading champions are “progressives.” The decline of the two-parent family is aggravated by a welfare system that punishes marriage. This has nothing to do with slavery, Jim Crow, or racism.
  • Disintegration of the public school system. The old system had flaws, but it was a hell of a lot better than the one we’ve created. Discipline and order in the classroom are eroding. Standards and expectations are collapsing. Academic achievement is in free-fall. “Progressives,” who have been running Virginia’s schools for years, totally own this.
  • Rising murder rate. Similarly, the old system wasn’t perfect. But de-legitimizing police, policing and the criminal justice system hasn’t helped one bit. Murder rates have risen dramatically, and almost all of the increase has occurred in African-American communities. African Americans are paying the price.
  • College loans and indentured servitude. “Progressives” have told us that everyone who wants to should be able to go to college, and society will help pay for it. Literally millions of Americans have taken on more college-loan debt than they can possibly repay. This massive subsidy has enabled colleges and universities to jack up tuition, fees, room and board, and support vast cadres of “progressive” faculty and staff. Meanwhile, many students — disproportionately poor and minority — drop out of the system without earning the credentials they need to boost their income. Legally, they can never discharge the debt. Their access to credit suffers. Another example of unintended consequences.
  • Unaffordable housing. The costs of renting and owning houses is increasing far more rapidly than incomes, reflecting the proliferation of environmental regulations and zoning laws that restrict the supply of housing. Scarcity displaces the poor first. “Progressives” invented and propagated these laws. It must be said that middle-class homeowners often have captured the zoning laws to protect their property values, a major source of middle-class wealth. But “progressives” remain a big part of the problem. They push policies to bolster minority home ownership — even though such ownership leads to foreclosures that affect the poor and minorities disproportionately. The 2007 sub-prime fiasco, the result of do-good policies that obliterated traditional lending standards, wiped out more African-American wealth than any other event in American history.

I could go on and on. “Progressive” policy prescriptions today — now, in the 21st century, not the Jim Crow era — have proven disastrous to African-Americans at every turn. “Progressives” benefit from these policies, which invariably mean more spending, more sinecures, more consulting work, more status, more influence, and more power for them. Focusing on past wrongs serves their ends by distracting from the massive policy failures of the present.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

41 responses to “Imprisoned by the Past”

  1. DJRippert Avatar

    I have no problem with Herring cleaning up the paperwork as he leaves office. The marriage amendment is, as far as I know, still in the state constitution even though it has been found illegal by the US Supreme Court. Seems like that could be cleaned up too.

    As far as your five points … the final four are addressable by government. Those could be pillars of Younkin’s platform.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Adultery is still illegal in Virginia. The last guy convicted was in 2003 or so. $250 fine. No appeal even though Lawrence v. Texas pretty much tossed the bawdy laws.

      BTW, the guy convicted was a lawyer in Luray.

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Whew! Now that the progressives are no longer in charge, the Commonwealth will be Nirvana. Those progressives really did mess things up during the two years they were totally in charge.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      You’re just trolling for up-arrows. Progressives know snark. Conservatives are too serious to see it.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      I sense that come Saturday, narratives in BR will see change! For one – systemic racism will no longer be a problem!

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        I’m sure the constant complaints about perceived racism against Europeans and Asians will remain.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          well… it sorta depends if their families were slaves owned by whites for generations also?

          do you not see that as even more systemic racism?

      2. Donald Smith Avatar
        Donald Smith

        “systemic racism will no longer be a problem!”

        You’re saying that it was a problem to begin with? OK—define it. What about Virginia’s government and society is “systemically racist?”

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          It’s an issue, right? Do you think that systemic racism in the past has effects today?

  3. LarrytheG Avatar

    No current day systemic racism – and no current days impacts from decades of systemic racism so it’s verboten to even consider such a thing and besides no black person really believes it anyhow, right?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/travel/ghosts-of-segregation.html

    Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9a19d1b46652be802b9baba3e0b7a8538072c36c56ab0f7ae317e1d2d80e2563.jpg

    I wonder what we ought to attribute these modern day differences to:

    let me guess…. breakdown of family structure , right?

    1. tmtfairfax Avatar
      tmtfairfax

      One of the first things I learned about logic in 7th or 8th grade is not to make generalizations. And in high school English when we studied debate, the teacher would quickly flag each student every time a generalization was made. Alas, we are tumbling to the level of today’s journalists.

        1. Donald Smith Avatar
          Donald Smith

          “what are these differences below due to”

          You seem to be saying that, because these differences exist, we have to conclude that systemic racism is the cause of those differences.

          Perhaps you should show us first why systemic racism is the cause.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            So I’m asking if blacks actually were systemically discriminated against in the past that it affected their ability to build wealth the same as those who were not discriminated against – over decades?

            yes? no?

          2. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            The answer is some, indeed, many. But that tells you nothing about any individual.

            Also, the other groups are way too broad. There are many groups within the category of white that certainly never experienced any discrimination. But what about Jews, Catholics, Southern & Eastern Europeans, Appalachian Scots-Irish, Irish?

            Generalizations with data only mislead people.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Oh I think there is and always has been, and continues – discrimination but is that the same as being held enslaved, then emancipated, then have jim crow imposed on it and ALSO discriminated?

            Do you think that people who were enslaved and then systematically discriminated for decades – accumulated equivalent family wealth than those who did not suffer discrimination at all or much less than those enslaved?

            Do you think that history should be told?

  4. tmtfairfax Avatar
    tmtfairfax

    I have mixed feelings about this. Just as out of date or unconstitutional laws should be removed from statutes, it makes sense to remove out of date or unconstitutional attorney general opinions. But this is just more showboat from a pouting Herring. A real lawyer would have assigned attorneys to review the opinions at issue and write an explanation based on effective laws and court opinions as to why each opinion is no longer good law. Mark Herring is not a skilled lawyer.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      did you see the actual report? looks like they did lay it out.

      https://files.constantcontact.com/bfcd0cef001/e8b67ef2-3a88-40d8-87ac-f9b3b6bd287b.pdf

      When a substantial number of the laws were race-based and overtly discriminatory, I cannot imagine arguments to let them be…. but I know people do….which baffles me… some of them are the very essence of racism – that we say no longer exists – but it does – still in the law.

      Does that mean, we stopped enforcing the law – illegally?

      we’ve been violating the law all these years by not enforcing what is actually on the books?

      1. tmtfairfax Avatar
        tmtfairfax

        I looked at the documents. There is no analysis, just a collection of now repealed opinions. There should be an explanation of the reasons why each repealed opinion no longer applies. Any attorney general with basic legal skills would know this.

        It’s not that what Herring did is wrong, it’s just that he failed to follow normal principles of law to do it. You can’t say that this opinion no longer applies because it’s racist. You have to cite to case law or a statute that holds such an opinion is no longer valid. It’s not hard. But it would take some time to do it right. Herring didn’t. He’s not much of a lawyer.

        And data certainly tells something. But it’s wrong to make decisions about individuals based on averages or medians or modes. For example, data would show that young males are more likely to speed than younger females. But before we convict Peter or find Paula not guilty, we need to look at the facts. Was Peter speeding? Based on what evidence? Was Paula speeding? Based on what evidence?

        I was at an online meeting earlier this week. One person said that a fatal crash between a motor vehicle and a bicyclist was caused by the former’s speed. The statement was challenged by another, saying that there has not been any statement by the police about the cause of the crash. The first person simply relied on the fact that the average speed on that section of Route 123 is often above the limit. Should the driver be liable for damages or convicted of reckless driving based on averages?

        Data doesn’t tell anyone anything valid about an individual. And despite the cries of the Woke, we are all still individuals.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          do you not think that generations of a family kept enslaved affected their ability to compete for jobs and generate wealth compared to those who were not enslaved and often got better opportunities and jobs and better able to acquire and build wealth?

          so you think once the enslaved were free – they were “equal” with those who were never enslaved?

          1. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            Larry, you are ignoring my point. I’m not saying Herring was wrong in revoking the earlier opinions. I’m saying he didn’t do it correctly. He acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to provide a reasoned explanation of why each opinion should be considered invalid.

            For example, an opinion that assumed marriage between races was illegal would be revoked because the Supreme Court held that state bans on interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in Loving v. Virginia. A paragraph or two explaining that provides a sound and reasoned analysis that is legally sufficient to revoke such an opinion.

            It’s not unlike the Man in the White House who, rather engage in horse-trading in Congress to get statutory authorization to order larger businesses to require COVID vaccinations or weekly testing, simply directed OSHA to issue such an order. But, as SCOTUS ruled, OSHA did not have the statutory authority to issue such a sweeping order.

            Herring looks like a virtue-signaling buffoon when he could have done it correctly and be commended.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            You may have a fair point. I’m not sure what the standard is in Virginia or other states so is your argument on what you think should be done or what the standard is in most states?

            I don’t consider Herring a buffoon compared to some earlier GOP AGs in Va but he is a partisan and does engage in virtue-signaling… buffoon – not..

            On Biden and the mandate, I’m not sure of the distinction they made with respect to regular employers and health care employers.

            I suspect Biden knew there was a good chance the SCOTUS would rule against him but he was buying time to get more folks vaccinated AND he was doing exactly what many employers wanted done and now they are going to have to do it on their own – making it a requirement to work.

            Public health should not be a partisan issue IMHO but it has become exactly that.

            You might find this interesting:

            Fourth person dies after 2021 hepatitis A outbreak tied to Famous Anthony’s in Roanoke,

            https://www.wfxrtv.com/news/local-news/roanoke-valley-news/fourth-person-dies-after-2021-hepatitis-a-outbreak-tied-to-famous-anthonys-in-roanoke-attorney-says/

            so my question is – did this guy who was infected have the “right” to work in that restaurant without being vaccinated?

            And for the lawyer in you – who has liability exposure , who will be sued?

          3. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            The difference between the OSHA mandate and the health care mandate is based on legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. The Medicare and Medicaid law allows the federal government to impose reasonable conditions on the receipt of federal funding. The DoJ was able to persuade 5 Justices that this authority was sufficient for those institutions and individuals receiving those funds to be vaccinated or tested.

            On the other hand, Congress never gave OSHA sweeping authority to impose those same conditions on every business that has 100 employees or more. Why didn’t Biden put his chips on getting enabling legislation through Congress so that a mandate could have been issued? With appropriate concessions by both sides, legislation could have passed.

            The Founders of this Country knew that compromise was necessary for the government to function and that passion (on all sides) needed to be checked. Hence, the Constitution contains many checks and balances.

            As far as the Roanoke situation is concerned, if the deceased were employees, their heirs would receive workers comp. Non-employees could sue and would have to prove the elements of negligence to recover. As my late grandmother would tell you, just having a loved one die in a dentist chair after receiving anesthesia doesn’t mean you get compensation.

      2. Attorney General opinions are not law.

  5. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    When a statute is deemed invalid there is nothing wrong with repealing it. You look through the code and see notations for “repealed” sections all over the place. I guess creating a record that old AG opinions have been subsequently invalidated is similar. It is also just virtue signaling, with no real effect. Amazing how many voters are thrilled by empty gestures.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Oh, you’re saying that these laws HAVE BEEN repealed but the repeal process does not include removal from the books?

      I got the impression that some were still valid but not enforced.

      If the former, yes virtual signaling…

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        If they are “on the books” they CAN be enforced at anytime. Whether it will result in a successful prosecution or withstand an appeal is not an impediment to a bureaucrat hell bent on wreaking havoc.

      2. Again, Attorney General opinions are not law.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-365/

      “In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state cannot exact criminal sanctions on adults engaged in consensual sexual conduct without it violating the individual’s liberty interest under the Due Process Clause. The Court explicitly excluded any situation where coercion or unequal power led to the sexual conduct or where minors are involved. The implication for laws beyond those prohibiting homosexual sodomy is that any statute or regulation designed to enforce the views of a majority as to what constitutes good moral behavior is constitutionally circumspect.”
      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1003689

      1. tmtfairfax Avatar
        tmtfairfax

        And after explaining this in writing, Herring could clearly revoke any prior AG opinion that was to the contrary. But he didn’t do the analysis and, as such, is simply virtue signaling.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Well, you’re a lawyer. Let’s start with the problem. Fed, State, International treaties, OLC, 50 AGs, CofAppeals decisions, SCOTUS opinions, etc. etc., and we have no effing idea of how many laws we have. None. There isn’t even an estimate worth two sheds.

          It has been opined that the average American, whatever that is, commits a felony every single day.

          So capriciously striking the opinions of former AGs just might just be a good start.

          Oh yeah, mustn’t forget, throw the UCMJ in there too.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            I thought AG’s had the power to issue an opinion… so seems they could also undo them… the same way, no?

          2. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. All Herring would have needed to do was assign the suspect opinions to members of his staff with the assignment to analyze the opinions and write a memo for each explaining whether the opinion was still valid or not, and then explain why. Some could have been addressed in two paragraphs; others would have taken more analysis.

            It’s not too different from what lots of law firms do. They often write short information pieces and longer guides for clients. When something significant changes, the materials are revised. The process usually involves assigning the task to a more junior attorney, whose work is then reviewed by a senior attorney.

            Had Herring done this, instead of just signaling his virtue, I’d would have likely written that this was a job well done.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            If you read the last paragraph of his letter, he explains that a review on each opinion determined that the laws referenced by those opinions had ALL been either declared unconstitutional or abrogated.

            Of the review he could have done, this was a minimum. Granted.

          4. tmtfairfax Avatar
            tmtfairfax

            He should have explained why each individual opinion was either abrogated or declared unconstitutional. That’s what a real lawyer would do.

            I just received two pleadings from the other side in a case I am handling. Guess what, I need to address every point that the other side makes in both documents. If I just wrote a conclusion and said that we win, I’d be tossed on my ear.

            Indeed, I had a case before a federal district court judge in Colorado. He refused to let either side cite any cases generally but required citations to each page where a holding or statement was made. So, had one side or the other cited Brown v. Board of Education for the proposition that public school segregation by race is unconstitutional (or any other fundamental principle of law), the judge rejected the argument and demanded a page-by-page reference. And we each refiled and gave the court exactly what it requested. Had Herring filed his letter with the judge, he would have received a half-hour lecture.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It wasn’t the opinions. It was the laws referenced in the opinions that were either struck down or repealed. Therefore, the opinions became moot or OBE.

            Unless, I’m mistaken, an opinion that cites a law determined to be unconstitutional is, by definition, OBE.

            I do not know if he was sensitive to laws that were repealed and then replaced. That’s not clear, but if an opinion is needed based upon the new law, then that is the duty of some successor.

            It was a minimal job. Apparently, they read the opinion and simply looked to see if the cited law was still in effect. If not, they tossed it. They didn’t go looking for another hook on which to hang the hat.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            If there is an opinion based on a law that has been repealed – or even one that has been modified (perhaps as a result of an issue that resulted in an opinion)… or even a new law that affected old laws. I would think there would be a standard process for dealing with such opinions.

            I agree, I would think that some narrative would be written underlying the changes.

            I’m not sure we know that such a thing was not done.

            I would imagine when new opinions are written, the same thing, an underlying narrative – but what often gets reports is just the opinion.

            I found this:

            https://www.oag.state.va.us/citizen-resources/opinions/official-opinions

            and this:

            https://www.oag.state.va.us/citizen-resources/opinions/annual-reports

  6. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    So long Mr. Herring. Don’t forget to write.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM189yET7VM

  7. LesGabriel Avatar
    LesGabriel

    I think Mr Herring was in office about 2922 days, yet he waited until the 2920th day to make this move. Meaning that he was happy to live by the opinions for 8 years? I don’t think that the Party of the AG’s who originally wrote the opinions was specified. I am guessing that most, if not all, were written by Democrats. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    1. You are not wrong. Every single one of them was written by a democrat AG.

  8. I think it is a good idea. It appears to be a low-effort action (and therefore low cost to taxpayers) and it should have taken place about 50 years ago.

Leave a Reply