When reading these three cases, each one addresses the historical perspective of each case/argument in a different way. Although they are different, all three have elements of historical importance are both valuable to the case and a danger as well. You cannot merely determine whose history is reliable. It is important however to point out the history behind the history, meaning who writes history and what effects law at that time in American history. For example, in the Loving v. Virginia, this case does a good job of tracing American history to prove that race is not something that is one, constitutional under the 14th Amendment to classify marriage relations and two, is viable to regulate if one looks at history. It states, "The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages" (8). Here, Cohen and Hirschkop are trying to argue that in previous years, the government has attempted to regulate race relations through slavery and other laws, but overtime this has proven to be unconstitutional and therefore, cannot be practiced in law or life. If this is true, then interracial marriage should not be kept illegal and the Loving party should not be charged. Both lawyers here, see that one should be suspicious of all reliance on history because of who is writing it, creating it, and ruling over it (legally speaking.)
In the State v. Samuel, we see race relations again, except during the practice of slavery. Once again, it is important to take into account who is writing it (white, slave owners) who do not believe in acknowledging marriage in the slave community because that would one, give them the right to certain liberties and two, prove that they are at a human level. This history was written by those who did not want to give up their power, therefore, once again, it is important to be suspicious of who is writing history because of their personal, political, and financial ties to the influence it has (in this case, slavery relations.)
The same could be said in the Omolade reading. This reading gives a critical background to the history of African American women experiences and ties their experiences into the cultural assumption that all African American mothers are single. This is a problematic generalization, most certainly, but the article gives critical incite into this massive generalization and delivers evidence that demonstrates the greater societal influences that causes these assumptions. From this reading, the author takes into account history as being written by the patriarchal power order, therefore, by looking at it with a critical cultural feminist lens, one can see where these assumptions were made and how the stereotypes behind African American women are played up by this power.
All of these readings prove three different ways history can be read and demonstrate this well.