Emma Lacombe
Prof. Phillips
October 21, 2016
Rhinelander v. Rhinelander
Rhinelander v. Rhinelander or, as it was
later to be known, “the Rhinelander case”, was a marriage annulment case filed
in 1921 and tried in 1925. Although the case is little known, (in comparison
with other major interracial marriage cases such as Loving v. Virginia), as it never reached the US Supreme Court, it is
still a landmark case in terms of racial relations, and mixed race identity.
Alice
Jones and Kip Rhinelander’s love story was, to say the least, atypical for the
time. Rhinelander a white upper class New Yorker, heir to millions of dollars,
while Alice Jones was a working-class woman, born to English parents: a white
mother, and a “mulatto” (or at least considered as such in England) father.
Their relationship was already highly looked down upon because of the class
difference. They thus tried to keep their marriage secret for as long as they
could, living a very different life than heir Kip Rhinelander was set to live.
Their
secret marriage was however exposed by the press in November 1924. Pressured by
his father, Rhinelander filed for a marriage annulment, on the basis that Jones
had failed to disclose that she was of “colored blood”. Many expected Jones to
argue that she was, in fact, white – in other words, they expected her to pass.
To the general surprise, however, Alice did not try to pass. Rather, she argued
that Rhinelander was very much aware of her racial background by the time they
got married.
This
led to one of the raciest court cases the New York Supreme Court had ever seen.
In order to prove that Rhinelander was very well aware that she was not
completely white, Jones disclosed explicit love letters that proved that they
had engaged in pre-marital sex. Moreover, she undressed in front of court,
showing her legs, her shoulders, her back and her breasts so that the court may
identify her skin as “dusky”. Not white.
Despite the subsequent societal
humiliation for both parties involved, Jones ended up winning the case. Yet,
the couple divorced, shortly thereafter in Las Vegas.
What
is really crucial in the analysis of the Rhinelander
v. Rhinelander case is the reason why Alice Jones ended up winning. In
reality, the jury, comprised of white men, refused to admit that a non-fully
white woman, could pass as white. One juror even admitted that “if [they] had
voted according to [their] hearts, the verdict might have been different”. Thus,
although the jury would have liked for Kip to win – after all, he was the rich
white man who had been humiliated by a poor “colored” woman, Jones framed the
case a way that made it impossible for them to do so. By not pleading that she
was, in fact white, the jury could not accuse her of having corrupted an
innocent white man. In fact, she pleaded that she was, in fact, of colored
descent, and that her husband had always known of it. Thus, the only way the
jury could have given reason to Rhinelander would have been by legally allowing
Jones to pass as white – an outcome that was not possible.
The
Rhinelander case, although it did not create a tremendous precedent, remains an
important case to study when analyzing the voice and identity of mixed race
individuals in between the wars. As we have seen in Passing, not only were these individuals constantly scrutinized,
they were constantly forced to belong to either category – black or white –
rendering impossible a mixed race identity.
Works
Cited
Kittrell, Mark. "Love on Trial: An American Scandal in
Black and White." Race, Racism and the
Law. N.p., 2008. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.
Onwuachi-Willig, Angela. "What Would Be The Story of
Alice and Leonard Rhinelander Today?"
UCDavis Law Review 46.4 (2013): 939-60. Law Review, UC Davis.
Web. 18 Oct. 2016.
Image credits: https://passinglarsen.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/rhinelander-case-of-1924/
What I think is particularly interesting about this post is the emphasis on society's demand that a person be either black or white instead of a mix of the two or other mixes. It is so imbedded into the society at this time that it was not just an issue, but a court case. To me, that speaks volumes of how heavily imbedded this attitude and sort of either/or mentality was in concern to race. The fact that Alice actually had to go so far as to undress herself is also a shocking thing to think about and how she did so to demonstrate that she was not white and show that her husband knew.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nicole that the most compelling part of this story is the idea that you cannot be more than one race. It made me realize that even today while we have certainly come a long way from the Rhinelander case, we still tend to sweep mixed race identity under the rug in more subtle ways like forcing someone to pick one race when filling out a survey, etc.
ReplyDeleteI loved this blog post; I had never heard of this court case before, so thank you Emma for bringing it to my attention. I think another aspect of the case that is interesting is that of gender dynamic. This must have been an extremely brave and independent thing for a woman to do, especially a working class woman of color. Alice Jones reminds me more of Janie than of Irene or Clare, since she ultimately embraces her identity and moves forward as an independent woman.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you covered this topic this week. It's a different, more grounded view of the issues and changes that this time period saw. It's certainly interesting to note how the jury declared Alice the winner in order to save people of the same race the embarrassment of being duped by a colored woman.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you covered this topic this week. It's a different, more grounded view of the issues and changes that this time period saw. It's certainly interesting to note how the jury declared Alice the winner in order to save people of the same race the embarrassment of being duped by a colored woman.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate how much this blog post connects to the idea of "passing." Jones' refusal to pass is great. It is appalling that she had to go so far as undress to prove her point, but as mentioned, it just goes to show how racist people could be.
ReplyDeleteThis blog post ties back to the articulation of race and the idea that something unspoken was constantly involved during that period of time. I appreciate your post connecting something vague to an actual event that helps us better understand the reality of mixed racial marriage.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Alice Jones won the case is interesting not just for the reasons you pointed out, but also because of the strange court proceedings. The court making her undress is also interesting as we know from Passing that physical attributes aren't infallible in determining race.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that the Rhinelander case related passing to a kind of power for Jones, because legally allowing her to pass would demonstrate that people of different races weren't so fundamentally different; anyone with light enough skin could have the "power" to be white. Nonetheless, passing can also be seen as a lack of power, because it forces a person to deny their race to gain status. It sounds like an interesting topic and I'm glad you shared the case with us!
ReplyDeleteI really love this story and the fact that Alice Jones took control of her terrible situation and turned it around. It comes into stark contrast with Larsen's "Passing" and how the characters are incredibly trapped in a specific racial narrative that society imposes. Alice Jones manages to break through that narrative not just as a person of mixed race, but also as a woman. Alice's success in doing so gives a glimpse of hope to anyone who wishes to break through their own narrative that society imposes on them and their identity. She completely sheds the miserable, victimized, trapped identity that many of the characters in "Passing" carry, and she shows that she can successfully use the narrative against itself. She is truly a brilliant woman and I am very glad you brought this case to our attention Emma.
ReplyDeleteI really love this story and the fact that Alice Jones took control of her terrible situation and turned it around. It comes into stark contrast with Larsen's "Passing" and how the characters are incredibly trapped in a specific racial narrative that society imposes. Alice Jones manages to break through that narrative not just as a person of mixed race, but also as a woman. Alice's success in doing so gives a glimpse of hope to anyone who wishes to break through their own narrative that society imposes on them and their identity. She completely sheds the miserable, victimized, trapped identity that many of the characters in "Passing" carry, and she shows that she can successfully use the narrative against itself. She is truly a brilliant woman and I am very glad you brought this case to our attention Emma.
ReplyDeleteI think this case highlights the tragedy of being "caught" passing. From what I read, Rhinelander and Jones loved one another and even stood by each other through an intense national interest in their marriage. I don't see how Jones could find empowerment as a woman of color through an examination of her body and eventually dissolution of her marriage through litigation. I find that this case speaks more to the tragic dynamic between Clare and her husband in Passing than it does to the idea of self affirmation and empowerment that one might find in Their Eyes Were Watching God.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a definite contrast between the court case in Eyes and this case. In Janey's narrative, it's the white community who rallies around her and defends her from the hostility of the black community. However, in Alice Rhinelander's case, the white jury makes it abundantly clear that they felt no allegiance with her, and would rather have convicted her. I think this raises two contradictory views of the mulatta - on the one hand, Janey is protected, while Alice is looked upon with suspicion and disgust.
ReplyDelete