They didn't say everybody's personal liberty. Of course working people are still all subject to exploitation hand over fist. Regardless, your comment is nothing but a pointless deviation.
Legally enforced racial segregation denied everybody's personal liberty – although of course, African-Americans bore the brunt of that denial.
Berea College, founded by abolitionists in 1855, was the only desegregated and coeducational college in Kentucky – it admitted all students irrespective of their race or sex. Even though the state of Kentucky enforced racial segregation on all public educational institutions, Berea College was exempt from that as a private institution. Until 1904, when the Kentucky state legislature passed the "Day Law" (named for its sponsor, Democratic politician Carl Day), banning racially integrated private educational institutions. Since Berea was the only such institution in the entire state, it was a direct attack on Berea College's existence. Berea College refused to comply with the new law, and was convicted of the crime of being a racially integrated school; the College appealed the conviction all the way to the US Supreme Court, who in the 1908 case of Berea College v Kentucky, upheld Kentucky's law, on the rather specious grounds that the law did not infringe personal liberty, since Berea College is a corporation, and corporations don't have constitutional rights (such as personal liberty). Berea College was forced to expel all its African-American students; Andrew Carnegie gave them a large grant to open a new college for African-American students (the Lincoln Institute), although it was never very successful. Berea resumed admitting African-American students in 1950, when the Kentucky legislature revoked the ban on racial integration in private education.
So legally enforced racial segregation didn't just infringe on the personal liberty of African-Americans, it also infringed on the personal liberty of European-Americans, by denying them the freedom to associate with African-Americans when they freely desired to do so
Congratulations on derailing yet another meaningful conversation into a one-sided race war.
However, their status only ostensibly depended on the color of their skin. Their function was of course literally to labor for the profits of the southern gentile.
Racism is a byproduct of capitalism. The Black Panthers did not repeat this ad nauseam for no reason.
If that were true, how do you explain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_Soviet_Union (calling the Soviet Union "state capitalist" doesn't help here–it threatens to dilute the definition of "capitalist" to the point of meaninglessness; also, many of the Maoist advocates of "the Soviet Union was state capitalist" theory consider Soviet state capitalism to have begun with Stalin's death, yet the worst of Soviet racism, its genocidal excesses of mass deportation and mass murder, the antisemitic Doctors Plot, etc, occurred under Stalin's rule)
Is there any evidence for a correlation between how much capitalism a society has and how much racism it has? I'm not aware of any. Without evidence, it is just an unjustified assertion.