Though
the author below cites Tennessee’s 1881 legislation as the first of the
“Jim Crow” type, New York in 1821 enfranchised all adult white male
citizens, but kept black men in a politically subordinate caste with a
$250 property-holding requirement for voting. Leading this initiative
was future president Martin Van Buren who argued that “democracy only
made sense with racial exclusion.” Van Buren ran for president again in
1848 on the Free Soil party ticket, which desired white racial
exclusivity in the western territories.
Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
"Documenting Cape Fear People, Places and History"
“Jim Crow” Law Origins:
“The
practice of requiring by legislative enactment that Negroes use
railroad coaches or compartments separate from this for whites, commonly
referred to as “Jim Crow” legislation, did not become general in the
South until the closing decade of the nineteenth century.
Earlier,
however, in 1881, the legislature of Tennessee enacted a law requiring
railroads to provide separate cars or compartments for the use of
Negroes. By this abortive statute – for so it proved to be – Tennessee
acquired a somewhat undeserved notoriety, at least in one college
textbook, as the originator of “Jim Crow” legislation.
Moreover,
the purpose of this law and the circumstances surrounding its enactment
were strikingly different from what is generally believed to be the
origin of this type of discriminatory legislation. It is often assumed
that prior to the passage of the “Jim Crow” laws no effective racial
discrimination existed on railroad trains.
The
alleged “Jim Crow” law of 1881 was enacted by a legislature in which
one house was controlled by the Republican party and which included four
Negro members. Only two Negro members voted against the measure; the
other two did not vote.
The
bill was signed without hesitation by the first Republican governor of
the State elected after the overthrow of the Radical [Republican]
regime. The apparent anomaly of Republican support is explained by the
fact that the bill was considered by white [legislature] members to be a
concession to Negroes – a consolation prize designed to assuage
somewhat the sting caused by the failure of the four Negro legislators
to secure the repeal of a more seriously discriminatory statute passed
in 1875.
[An
1880 Federal circuit court reviewed a case involving] a Negro woman,
alleged to have been a “notorious and public courtesan, addicted to the
use of profane language and offensive conduct in public places.” She had
been forced to move from the ladies’ car to the smoking car, which was
crowded with passengers, mostly immigrants traveling on cheap rates.
[The railroad company] based its case on the reputation rather than the
color of the plaintiff.
With
regard to trains carrying three or more passenger cars it appears that
the railroads attempted, at least, to pay lip service to the Tennessee
law…..they usually provided what was called the “colored” first class
car, to which Negroes of both sexes with first class tickets were
assigned but which was also available for the use of white persons..
[Though] not exclusively for the use of Negroes, they were sometimes
referred to as “Jim Crow” cars.
The
innovation of the modern “Jim Crow” car was not the result of the
Tennessee law of 1881 but of Supreme Court approval of a Mississippi
statute of March 2, 1888 [requiring separate but equal facilities].
[The Court held the Mississippi law as constitutional, with Kentuckian
and Justice] John M. Harlan dissenting, on March 3, 1890 . . .
[deciding] that the opinion of the Mississippi Supreme Court that the
law applied only to intrastate commerce must be accepted as conclusive.
It also held that the law was no more a burden on interstate commerce
than requiring certain accommodations at depots or enforcing stops at
street crossings.
(The
Origin of the First “Jim Crow” Law, Stanley J. Folmsbee, Journal of
Southern History, Volume XV, Number 2, May, 1949, pp. 235-237; 243-244)
