Anti-literacy laws in many slave states before and during the Civil War affected slaves, freedmen, and in some cases all people of color. [1] [2] Some laws arose from concerns that educated slaves might falsify documents required to flee to a free state. According to William M. Banks, “Many slaves who learned to write actually gained freedom through this method. Posters searching for runaways often mentioned whether the escapee could write. [3] Anti-literacy laws were also born out of fear of slave uprisings, particularly at the time of the publication of abolitionist David Walker`s Appeal to The World`s Citizens of Color in 1829, which openly advocated rebellion,[4] and Nat Turner`s slave rebellion in 1831. Although ignorance of the law, like other errors of law, is not a defence, a factual error may very well be, depending on the circumstances: that is, the false but sincere belief in a fact that, had it been, would have rendered the conduct legally innocent. While “ignorance of the law” is not an excuse, Basciano says in some cases, considering a conviction in a criminal case or reduced damages in a civil case can be a mitigating circumstance. Educators and slaves in the South found ways to circumvent and challenge the law.
John Berry Meachum, for example, moved his school from St. Louis, Missouri, when that state passed an anti-literacy law in 1847 and reinstated it as a floating freedom school on a steamboat on the Mississippi River, which was out of reach of Missouri state law. [14] After being arrested, tried, and spent a month in prison for raising free black children in Norfolk, Virginia, Margaret Crittendon Douglas wrote a book about her experiences that helped draw national attention to anti-literacy laws. [15] Frederick Douglass learned to read in slavery.[15] [16] Discussion questions 1. What is the difference between a law and a rule? What happens if you pretend you don`t know a rule? What are the rules that you think should be laws? 2. Think of a time when you broke a rule you weren`t aware of. How did you feel? How was the situation resolved? 3. The article talks about certain exceptions where people have claimed to be ignorant and have not been convicted of the crime. Think of other examples where a person could commit a crime without knowing it and should not be punished. Explain your reasoning.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse in any country. If that were the case, the laws would lose their effect because you can always pretend. “Because I said it. “Life is not fair. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse. These are some of the great loopholes of all time, and the last one is particularly troubling in a country with so many laws that it`s impossible to count them all, let alone read them all. When was the last time you sat down with a comprehensive set of federal, state, and local laws detailing the tens of thousands of criminal violations you could be sent to jail for? If you answered “never”, you are in good company. Nevertheless, American judges still cling to the thesis that it is perfectly acceptable to lock people up for doing something they had no idea was illegal. But this is not acceptable, and the justifications for this patently unfair rule have only become more fragile over time. John Hope Franklin says that despite the laws, schools for enslaved black students existed throughout the South, including Georgia, Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia. In 1838, Virginia`s free black population asked the state as a group to send their children to school outside of Virginia to circumvent the anti-literacy law. They were rejected.
[8] In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (“ignorance of the law does not excuse”)[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (“ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone”)[2] is a legal principle that states that a person who does not know a law cannot escape responsibility for the violation of that law simply because he or she is not aware of it. “Knowledge of all properly disseminated laws can be attributed to anyone,” she says. “If knowledge of the law were required, criminal and civil defendants would regularly invoke ignorance of the law as a defence, undermining the concept and administration of justice.” Ignorance, in English law and in American law (as in Roman law), is divided into two categories: ignorantia juris and ignorantia facti. In some jurisdictions, there are exceptions to the general rule that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence.