of Negroes, and made incompetent the testimony of persons having one-eighth or more Negro blood.[9]
Illinois,[10] in 1853, made it a misdemeanor for a Negro to come into the State with the intention of residing there, and provided that persons violating this law should be prosecuted and fined or sold for a time to pay the fine.[11]
Iowa,[12] in 1851, forbade the immigration of free Negroes,[13] and provided that free colored persons should not give testimony in cases in which a white man was a party.
Oregon,[14] in 1849, forbade the entrance of Negroes as settlers or inhabitants, the reason being that it would be dangerous to have them associate with the Indians and incite the latter to hostility against white people.
This sketch of the "Black Laws" of some of the free States, incomplete as it is, is sufficient to show how those States regarded free Negroes. First, they tried to keep Negroes out; and, secondly, they subjected those that remained to various disabilities. When the first Civil Rights Bill was before Congress, the strongest opposition to its passage was on the ground that it would compel the free States to repeal these "Black Laws" and allow Negroes to intermarry with whites, attend the same schools, sit on juries, vote, bear firearms,[15] etc. The free Negro constituted a distinct class between the slave and the master, his condition being more nearly that of a slave.
The Southern States had been afraid of the free Negro. He was a sort of irresponsible being, neither bond nor free, who was likely to spread and foster discontent among the slaves. When a slave was emancipated, it was desired that he leave the State forthwith. Thus, the Virginia Constitution[16] of 1850 provided that emancipated
