Southern Historical Association
The Origin of the First "Jim Crow" Law
Author(s): Stanley J. Folmsbee
Source: The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 15, No. 2 (May, 1949), pp. 235-247
Published by: Southern Historical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2197999
Accessed: 05-12-2015 06:20 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Southern Historical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
Southern History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NotesandDocuments
THE ORIGIN OF THE FIRST JIM CROW" LAW
BY STANLEY
J.FOLMSBEE
thatNegroesuse
The practiceof requiringby legislativeenactment
separatefromthose for whites,
railroad coaches or compartments
commonly
referred
to as "JimCrow" legislation,did not becomegencentury.
eral in the Southuntilthe closingdecade of the nineteenth
Earlier,however,in 1881, the legislatureof Tennesseeenacteda law
for the
requiringrailroadsto provideseparatecars or compartments
use of Negroes.By thisabortivestatute-forso it provedto be-Tenin at least one colnessee acquireda somewhatundeservednotoriety,
of "JimCrow" legislation.'Moreover,
lege textbook,as theoriginator
its enactthe purposeof thislaw and the circumstances
surrounding
different
fromwhat is generallybelievedto be
mentwere strikingly
theoriginof thistypeof discriminatory
legislation.It is oftenassumed
racialdisthatpriorto thepassageof the"JimCrow" laws no effective
crimination
existedon railroadtrains.A reviewof the factswill serve
and also providebases fora comparison
to correctthismisconception
of the situationand attitudesas theywere thenwith what theyare
today.
The alleged "JimCrow" law of 1881 was enactedby a legislature
See A. M. Schlesinger,Political and Social Growth of the AmericanPeople, 18651940 (New York, 1941), 185. Incidentally,ProfessorSchlesingeris in error in stating
coaches or compartthat the Tennessee law of 1881 requiredNegroes to use" different
a Mississippi statuteof November 21, 1865,
ments.He naturallyignored,as temporary,
passed by the firstReconstructiongovernmentof the state, which prohibitedrailroads
fromallowing Negroes to ride in coaches set apart for or used by whites. W. L. Fleming (ed.), DocumentaryHistory of Reconstruction(2 vols., Cleveland, 1906), I, 281.
See also Vernon L. Wharton,The Negro in Mississippi, 1865-1890 (Chapel Hill, 1947),
230.
1
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
236
THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY
in whichone housewas controlledbytheRepublicanpartyand which
votedagainst
OnlytwoNegro members
includedfourNegromembers.
the measure;the othertwo did not vote.The bill was signedwithout
hesitationby the firstRepublicangovernorof the stateelectedafter
of the Radical regime.2The apparentanomalyof Rethe overthrow
publicansupportis explainedby the factthatthe bill was considered
by whitemembersto be a concessionto Negroes-a consolationprize
designedto assuage somewhatthe stingcaused by the failureof the
to securethe repeal of a more seriouslydisfourNegro legislators3
statutepassed in 1875. It was also designedto clarifya
criminatory
ratherconfusedlegal situation.
racial discrimination
In 1867 the Radical legislaturehad prohibited
law not onlynulliThe
1875
carriers.
by railroadsand othercommon
thisact,butalso wentso faras to abrogatethecommon
fied,in effect,
comlaw in regardto the "rights,duties,and liabilitiesof innkeepers,
of places of public amusement."Such
mon carriers,and proprietors
providersof publicservicewere releasedfrom"any obligationto encarryor admit,anyperson,whomhe shall foranyreasonwhattertain,
carryor admit"; and no rightunderthe
ever,choosenot to entertain,
commonlaw was to existin favorof any personrefusedadmission.
2 In the state campaign of 1880, Alvin Hawkins, one of the threeRepublicans elected
won the election because of a serious split in
to the governorshipsince Reconstruction,
elected
Democratic ranks over the issue of the state debt. The house of representatives
was composed of 37 Republicans,37 Democrats,and 1 Greenbacker,but was organized
by the Republicans.The Democratsretainedcontrolof the senate.John Trotwood Moore
and Austin P. Foster,Tennessee,the VolunteerState (4 vols., Chicago, 1923), I, 561.
3 The four Negro members of the house of representatives,
all Republicans, were
T. A. Sykes of Davidson County,T. F. Cassels and I. F. Norris of Shelby County,and
John W. Boyd of Tipton County. Sykes had come from North Carolina with revenue
officialsof the United States governmentand served as internal revenue collector in
Nashville. Cassels was a lawyer and had been educated at Oberlin College. He was an
assistant attorneygeneral of Shelby County. Norris was a successful businessman of
Memphis; he later moved to North Dakota. Monroe N. Work Compp.), "Some Negro
Members of ReconstructionConventionsand Legislaturesand of Congress," in Journal
of Negro History (Washington,D. C., 1916- ), V (1920), 113-15. See also Alrutheus
A. Taylor, The Negro in Tennessee,1865-1.880 (Washington, 1941), 298, n. 13. Taylor,
following Charles Miller, OfficialManual of the State of Tennessee (Nashville, 1890),
omits the name of Norris fromhis list of Negro membersof the assemblyof 1881. Prior
to 1881 only one Negro-Sampson W. Keeble, elected in 1872-had servedin the Tennessee legislature.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
237
The rightof innkeepers,
carriersof passengers,
and keepersof places
of amusementto "controlthe access and admissionor exclusionof
personsto or from"theirestablishments
was made as "perfectand
complete"as that of the owner "of any privatehouse, carriage,or
privatetheatre,or placesof amusement
forhis family."4
Exceptas applied to commoncarriersthislegislationis stillin forcein Tennessee
and is in accordwiththe generalpatternof southernracial discrimination.
So far as commoncarrierswere concerned,
thislegislationenabled
railroadcompaniesto adopt the policy,whichbecamecustomary,
of
givingNegroes,men and womenalike, the choiceof stayingoffthe
trainsor of payingfirst-class
fare and acceptingsecond-classaccommodationsin the smokingcars.These weremade offensive
bytobacco
smoke,tobaccojuice, profanity,
and obscenity.
Since this practiceoccasionallyinvolvedinterstatecommerce,however,it made possible
a testof the constitutionality
of such statelegislationby the Federal
courts.Consequently,
a Federal circuitcourtin 1880 adjudged the
Tennesseelaw of 1875 to be unconstitutional
in so far as it conflicted
with the Federal regulationof interstate
commerce.The particular
case involveda Negro woman,alleged to have been a "notoriousand
addictedto theuse of profanelanguageand offensive
publiccourtesan,
conductin publicplaces."She had been forcedto movefromtheladies'
car to the smokingcar,whichwas "crowdedwithpassengers,mostly
immigrants
travelingon cheap rates."The courtawardedtheplaintiff
fare
a judgmentfor$3,000 on the groundthathavingpaid first-class
she was entitledto accommodations
"equal in all respectsto the best
whichthe companyofferedon thattrainto otherfemalepassengers
travelingalone." Sincethe companywithdrewits originalplea, citing
the Tennesseelaw of 1875 and the regulationof the road excluding
personsof colorfromtheladies' car,and based its case on thereputation ratherthanthe color of the plaintiff,
the rulingof the courtreof the 1875 statutemay be considered
gardingthe constitutionality
4Acts of the State of Tennessee, 1875, pp. 216-17.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
238
THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY
somewhatin thenatureof an obiter
dictum.5
The case was notappealed
to the SupremeCourt,and it appearsto have had littleeffecton the
racial discrimination
policyof the railroads.
This was the situationwhen the fourTennesseeNegro legislators
elected in 1880 initiateda vigorouseffortto repeal the obnoxious
legislationof 1875.The repealmeasure,introduced
in thelowerhouse
T. A. Sykesof Davidson County,was deby a Negro representative,
featedon March10, 1891,bythenarrowmarginof 29 to 31. Although
Negro memberswon supportof a few Democrats,theywere unable
to secureenoughRepublicanvotes to defeatthe law.6 Later in the
sessionthe bill was reconsidered
and defeateda secondtime.On this
occasion,althoughthe bill obtaineda simplemajority,36 to 27, of
the votes cast,it lacked the majorityof "all the membersto which
of 1870 for the
that house is entitled"requiredby the constitution
passage of a bill.
a
On the same day,March 30, the fourNegro memberssubmitted
detailedprotest:
members
oftheHouseofRepresentatives
oftheFortyWe, theundersigned
of theLegislature
of theStateof Tennessee,
secondGeneralAssembly
hereby
enteroursolemnprotest
againsttheactionof thisHousein rejecting
House
reasons:
Bill No. 70, forthefollowing
1. Becausethesaidbill,No. 70, soughtto repealan actof theGeneral
oftheStateofTennessee,
Assembly
passedat itssession
in 1875,beingchapter
to annulthegenerallaw,and is a palpable
130 of said act,whichpretends
of oursystem
violation
of thespirit,
geniusandletter
of freegovernment.
2. Becausethesaidactof 1875soughtto be repealed
bythesaidHouse
BillNo. 70 authorizes
railroad
andtheiremployes,
companies
unjustly,
cruelly,
and in violation
wantonly,
without
justcauseor provocation,
of thecommon
5 Brown v. Memphis & C. R. Co., 5 Fed. 499 (1880). The railroad regulationexcluding persons of color fromthe ladies' car was obviouslyin violation of the congressional Civil Rights Act of 1875, prohibitingracial discrimination,but this law was
later, in 1883, declared unconstitutionalby the United States Supreme Court as an invasion of the rightsof the states. 109 U. S. 3 (1883). One of the cases involvedin this
decision originatedin Tennessee.
6 Tennessee General Assembly,House Journal, 1881, p. 540. The Negro members
also introduceda large numberof otherbills designedto lessen racial discrimination,
but
theyreceivedlittle consideration.
7 Ibid., 837.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
239
law and thelaws of thegeneralgovernment,
to oppressand discriminate
against
morethanfourhundredthousandcitizensof the Stateof Tennessee,and the
coloredpeople of all otherStateswho maydesireto travelin Tennessee.
3. Becausethe said act soughtto be repealed,in violationof everyprinto deny
ciple of rightand justice,wickedly,
cruelly,and inhumanly
attempts
to personsaggrievedby the provisionsof said Act any remedyor redressof
grievances
in the Statecourtsof Tennessee,thereby
drivingsuchcitizensof the
State,againsttheirdesiresand pecuniary
interests,
intoFederalcourts,in order
to procurea redressof grievances.
4. Because,while fourhundredthousandpeopleof the Stateof Tennessee
are citizensde jure,underthe provisions
of the act soughtto be repealedby
House Bill No. 70, theyare aliensde facto,and entitledto no rightsthatrailroads,hotels,and theaters
are boundto respect.
T. F. Cassels
I. F. Norris
T. A. Sykes
J. W. Boyd8
Meanwhile, RepresentativeNorris had introduced a bill "To pre-
vent discrimination
by railroad companiesamong theirpassengers,
etc.," presumablydesignedto prohibitchargingNegroes first-class
passage and thenrequiringthemto ride in smokingcars. This bill,
however,nevercame to a finalvote, and the house adoptedinstead
a senatebill-the first"JimCrow" law-which had beenpassedin the
upperchamberwithonlyone dissenting
vote.The substitute
bill passed
a
of
the
the house April 7, by vote 50 to 2,
two adversevotesbeing
castby two of thefourNegro members,
Norrisand Sykes.One of the
othertwo Negroes, Boyd, was absent,but the fourth,Cassels, was
presentbut not voting.10
The phraseologyof the law is interesting:
An act to preventdiscriminations
by railroadcompaniesamongpassengers
who are chargedand payingfirstclass passage,and fixingpenaltyfor the
violation[ofJ same.
Whereas,it is the practiceof railroadcompanieslocatedand operatedin
8 Ibid., 840-41.
9Ibid., 830, 868.
10Ibid., 987. The bill was introducedin the senate by Thomas F. Perkinsof Franklin,
Williamson County.The one dissentingvote in the senate was cast by M. D. Smallmanof
Smithville,De Kalb County. Tennessee General Assembly, Senate Journal, 1881, pp.
575, 625.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
240
THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY
the Stateof Tennesseeto chargeand collectfromcoloredpassengers
traveling
overtheirroadsfirstclass passagefare,and compelsaid passengers
to occupy
second class cars wheresmokingis allowed,and no restrictions
enforcedto
preventvulgaror obscenelanguage;therefore
Section1. Be it enactedbytheGeneralAssemblyof theStateof Tennessee,
that all railroadcompanieslocated and operatedin this State shall furnish
separatecars,or portionsof carscutoffbypartition
walls,in whichall colored
passengerswho pay firstclass passengerratesof fare,mayhave the privilege
to enterand occupy,and suchapartments
shallbe keptin good repair,and with
thesameconveniences,
and subjectto thesamerulesgoverning
otherfirstclass
cars,preventing
smokingand obscenelanguage.
Section2. Be it further
enacted,thatupon the failureof anyrailroadcompanyoperatingin the Stateto have theprovisions
of thesecondfirstj section
of thisact strictly
enforced
bytheiremployes,
thensuchrailroadcompanyshall
forfeitand pay the sum of one hundreddollars,recoverable
beforeany court
havingjurisdiction
thereof,
one half to be paid to the personsueing,and the
otherhalf to go to the commonschoolfundof the State.":
For the Negro representatives
"JimCrow" legislationrevivedthe
tacticaldilemmawhichhad besettheirrace eversinceReconstruction.
Faced withthe impossibility
of securingrepealof thebasic discriminatorylaw, theywere,it appears,inclinedto acceptwithextremereluctancethe proffer
of more satisfactory
but segregatedaccommodations
on the railroads.It is perhapssignificant
thatone of the fourNegro
membersof the legislature,thoughpresent,refrainedfromvoting
againstthe "JimCrow" bill.
In the new legislatureof 1882, controlledby the Democrats,there
were again fourNegro members.Once moretheytriedto substitute
an effective
law againstdiscrimination
forthe one requiringseparate
railwayaccommodations
forNegroes.But theyhad muchless chance
of successthan in the precedingsession. The one Negro who was
to thehousefora secondterm,J.W. Boydof TiptonCounty,
returned
introduceda bill "To preventdiscrimination
by railroadcompanies
among passengerschargedfirstclass passage." Beforecomingto a
finalvote,it was amendedto requireseparatecarsfor"different
[that
is, Negro] passengers."In thisform,practically
the same as the "Jim
"lActs of the Stateof Tennessee,
1881, p. 211.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
241
Crow" law enactedduringthe precedingsession,it passed the house
by a vote of 56 to 19. Boyd voted againstit, but one of the other
refrained
Negroesactuallyvotedforit.The othertwoNegromembers
changein theexisting
Sincethebill made no significant
fromvoting."2
the
senate.
in
a
vote
it nevercame to
situation,
as was given Negro membersby whitelegislaSuch consideration
torsof the two generalassembliesof 1881 and 1883 was granted,it
a powerful
seems,largelybecause at that time Negroes constituted
pressuregroup.Accordingto the censusof 1880, takensoon afterthe
depopulatingyellowfeverepidemicof 1878-1879,the Negro population of ShelbyCounty,includingMemphis,was 55 per cent of the
total.Not only in ShelbyCounty,whichelectedtwo Negroes to the
legislaturein 1880, but also in otherWest and Middle Tennessee
any divisionwithinthe Democraticrankswould enable Redistricts,
Negroes,to attainan unusual
publicans,by occasionallynominating
truebecauseof the
measureof politicalsuccess.This was particularly
whichappearsto havebeen rampantat thattime.'3
politicalcorruption
to competevigorously
the Democratsfoundit necessary
Consequently,
with the RepublicansforNegro votes.By 1889 Democratshad supfor votingwithimprovedregisplementedthe poll tax requirement
indirectly.
trationand electionlaws designedto limitNegro suffrage
Tennessee,however,did not resortto the use of literacytestsand
in the statesof the
clauses"whichbecameso customary
"grandfather
12 Tennessee General Assembly,House Journal,1883, pp. 514, 812. The Negro who
voted for the bill, even with its "Jim Crow" amendment,was the Rev. D. F. Rivers of
Fayette County, a graduate of Fisk Universityand of the law departmentof Walden
University.He later served as pastor of the Berean BaptistChurch in Washington,D. C.
It is said that the popular daughterof the white man he defeatedin 1882 met him on
the streetafterthe electionand spat in his'face. Work (comp.), "Some Negro Members
of ReconstructionConventionsand Legislatures and of Congress," loc. cit., 114. The
nonvotingNegro memberswere Samuel McElwee of Haywood Countyand Leon Howard
of Shelby. McElwee was re-electedin 1884, and in 1885 he received the complimentary
for the speakership.Tennessee General
Republican representatives
votes of the thirty-two
Assembly,House Journal,1885, p. 7. So far as is known he has not been succeeded by
any othermemberof his race in the Tennessee legislature.
13 Gerald M. Capers, Jr.,The Biographyof a River Town: Memphis, Its Heroic Age
(Chapel Hill, 1939), 164, 200-201.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
242
THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY
lower Southwheretherewas a greaterproportionof Negro population."4
There stillneeds to be explainedthe strangelack of oppositionon
the part of Republicansand BourbonDemocratsin the generalassupportedrailroad interests,and the
sembly.Many representatives
would have been ratherexpensivefor
legislationof 1881, if enforced,
theTennesseerailroads.It maybe thattherewas a tacitunderstanding
thatthe law would not be enforcedin such a way as to be offensive
to the railroadcompanies;and in factthe law was susceptibleof use
pracof theirdiscriminatory
by the railroadsas additionalprotection
tices.At any rate,thereis no evidencethatsuitwas broughtagainst
was made
or thatany effort
any railroadcompanyfornoncompliance
of the law.
by the railroadsto testthe constitutionality
Later courtcases indicatethatthe railroadsin Tennessee,withthe
discriminatory
approvalof the statesupremecourt,continuedin effect
practicessimilarto thosewhichhad led to the passage of the "Jim
Crow" law of 1881. Negro womenwerestillexcludedfromtheladies'
cars,unlesstheywere thereas nursesforwhitechildren.In the one
case involvingsuch exclusionwhich reachedthe supremecourt of
Tennessee,the railroadcompanywas able to proveto the satisfaction
of the courtthatthe car to whicha mulattowoman,Ida Wells, was
and
convenience,
assignedwas "alike in everyrespectas to comfort,
and
"furnished
were
cars
safety"to the ladies' car, and thatthe two
equipped alike, and with like accommodations.'Thereforethe court
"equal acacceptedthe railroad'scontentionthat it was furnishing
passengers,and agreed that its rule
commodations"to all first-class
assigningpersonsof colorto a particularcar was reasonable.The car
to whichthe Negro was assignedwas not, however,a separatecar
for use by Negro passengersas envisagedby the act of 1881, forit
to as available to personsof eithersex "withoutregard
was referred
to race or color." It is also possiblethatit was in realitya smoking
claimedthat"she saw one personsmoking
car. The mulattoreformer
14 Daniel M. Robison, Bob Taylor and the Agrarian Revolt in Tennessee (Chapel
Hill, 1935), 126-27.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
243
for
in thatcar,and thatit was filledwithtobaccosmoke."Fortunately
that"there
the railroadcompany,however,anotherpassengertestified
one of
and
that
smoke,"
tobacco
any
there
was no smoking,nor was
the six passengersin the car was a woman."5
In anothercase, decided duringthe same termof the Tennessee
supremecourt,thereis evidencethatalthoughNegrowomenwerenot
allowed in a ladies' car, "set apartforwhiteladies and theirgentlebyladies werenot denied
whitemenunaccompanied
man attendants,"
railAlthoughinvolvinga different
access to such accommodations.
in
case
Wells
of
the
that
to
was
similar
road company,the situation
carriedonlytwo passengercars,one of which
thatthetrainapparently
was the ladies' car. A whiteman,travelingalone,had refusedto surrenderhis ticketunless providedwith a seat-not merelystanding
acroom-in the ladies' car. The conductorofferedhim "temporary"
car untilthe trainreachedthe next
in the gentlemen's
commodations
station,whenit was expecteda seatwould be availableforhimin the
ladies' car. He refused,assertingthatthe foul air in the smokingcar
railroads
was likelyto makehimill.16If thepracticesof the different
in Tennesseeweremuchthe same,it is highlyprobablethatthe contentionof Ida Wells thatshe was offeredno betteraccommodations
was
than a smokingcar, designedlargelyfor the use of gentlemen,
state
the
until
reversed
by
It
is
that,
unjustified. significant
not entirely
supremecourt,thisclaimhad obtainedforhera $500 judgmentin the
circuitcourtof ShelbyCounty.
threeor morepassengercars it apWith regardto trainscarrying
at least,to pay lip serviceto the
pears thatthe railroadsattempted,
Tennesseelaw. In additionto the ladies' car and the regularsmoking
car, theyusuallyprovidedwhat was called the "colored" first-class
ticketswere ascar, to whichNegroes of both sexes with first-class
signedbutwhichwas also availablefortheuse of whitepersons.Since
were not enforced
and profanity
the rules againstsmoking,drinking,
smok"second-class,"
in such coaches,theystillpresenteda distinctly
Chesapeake, Ohio, and SouthwesternRailroad Co. v. Wells, 85 Tenn. 613 (1887).
16Memphis and CharlestonR. R. Co. v. Benson, 85 Tenn. 627 (1887).
15
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244
THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY
fortheuse of Negroes,
ing-carappearance;and thoughnotexclusively
to as "JimCrow" cars.17
referred
theyweresometimes
Such was the situationpriorto the appearancein the Southof the
now familiar"JimCrow" carsforNegroesonly.Obviouslyit was not
to coloredwomen,who were exto Negroes,particularly
satisfactory
cludedfromthe ladies' cars,whichusuallywere the onlyones where
enforced.In view of the
the rules againstsmokingwere rigorously
of tobacco smoketo women duringthat period,such
offensiveness
a real hardship.With regardto male Negroes,
exclusionconstituted
or seghowever,thereappearsto have been muchless discrimination
the situationwas consideredhighlyunsatisfactory
regation.Therefore,
by manywhitepeople.
The innovationof the modern"JimCrow" car was not the result
of the Tennesseelaw of 1881 but of SupremeCourtapprovalof a
Mississippistatuteof March 2, 1888. The Mississippilaw required
railroads(except streetrailways) to provideseparatebut equal acforwhiteand coloredpassengersand requiredwhites
commodations
as provided.Becauseof
and Negroesto use separateaccommodations
the refusalof the Louisville,New Orleansand Texas RailwayCompanyto complywiththislaw, thestatutecamebeforetheUnitedStates
Justice
JohnM. Harlan
SupremeCourtandwas upheldas constitutional,
on March3, 1890.The courtdecidedthattheopinionof the
dissenting,
comMississippisupremecourtthatthe law appliedonlyto intrastate
mercemustbe acceptedas conclusive.It also held thatthe law was
commercethan requiringcertainacno more a burdenon interstate
at depotsor enforcing
stopsat streetcrossings.18
commodations
Soon afterthisdecisionothersouthernstatesenactedsimilarlegislation.Amongthefirstwas Louisiana,on July10, 1890. In connection
17 G. W. Cable, "The Silent South," in CenturyMagazine (New York, 1870-1930),
XXX (1885), 685. Also incorporatedin a book, The Silent South, published in three
editions (New York, 1885, 1889, 1907).
18 Louisville, New Orleans and Texas Railway Company v. Mississippi, 133 U. S.
587 (1890). The Mississippi law is quoted in its entiretyin the decision. It was enacted,
apparently,because the first-and second-class arrangement,actually in effectdespite
emphasize racial differences."Wharton,
legislation to the contrary,"did not sufficiently
Negro in Mississippi, 231-32.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
245
withthislaw, thequestionof theconstitutionality
of requiring
Negroes
to accept separate accommodations
came beforethe United States
SupremeCourtin 1896 as a resultof the refusalof a Negro,Homer
Adolph Plessy,of onlyone-eighth
Africandescent,to ride in a "Jim
Crow" car. The SupremeCourtupheldthe law on the groundthatit
did not violate the Thirteenthor the FourteenthAmendmentand
declaredthatsocial prejudicecannotbe removedby legislation.Misinterpreting
the real intentof southernlegislators,it also declaredto
be a fallacythe argumentof the plaintiff
that the enforcement
of a
separationof racesstampedthe coloredrace witha badge of inferiority.19
Meanwhile,the legislatureof Tennessee,apparentlyunawarethat
therewas alreadya "JimCrow" law on the statutebooks,passed another,this one on the Mississippi-Louisiana
model,in March,1891.
This act requiredall railroadsin thestateexceptstreetrailwaysto provide "equal, but separateaccommodations"
forthe whiteand colored
races,but it specifically
allowed whitepersonsto have colorednurses
in a white car. Conductorswere also requiredto assign white and
and the
coloredpassengersto theirrespectivecars or compartments,
railroadsweredeclarednot liable fordamagesforrefusalto carryany
The senateamended
passengerunwillingto acceptsuchassignment.20
thebill to makeit applyto streetrailwaysas well,butthehouseeventuallyforcedthe senateto recede.21
In contrastto the abortivelegislationpassed ten yearsbefore,the
bona fide"JimCrow" law of 1891 was opposedby the entireRepubof the
lican delegationto the senateand by a considerable
proportion
19Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896).
Acts of the State of Tennessee, 1891, pp. 135-36. The colored nurse amendment
was in accord with the prevalentsouthernview that "whereverthe Negro appeared in
a subordinatecapacity,he was welcome; when he appeared as equal or superior,he was
anathema." W. B. Hesseltine, The South in AmericanHistory (New York, 1943), 590.
See also [Belton O'Neall Townsend], "South Carolina Society," in Atlantic Monthly
(Boston, 1857- ), XXXIX (1877), 676.
21 Tennessee General Assembly,Senate Journal, 1891, pp. 331, 442. According to a
newspaper report,it was generallyconceded that the bill could not pass with the street
railway amendment.Chattanooga Dcily Times, March 20, 1891. Subsequent legislation
applying to streetrailwayswas passed in 1905.
20
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
246
THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY
Republicansin the house.The onlyDemocratto vote againstthe bill
W. L. Ledgerwoodof Knox County.
in eitherhousewas Representative
All the opposingvoteswerefromEast Tennessee,the sole remaining
followed
in thestate.22
Moreover,
thislegislation
Republicanstronghold
controlof the Democraticpartyin the
the acquisitionof temporary
stateby the Farmers'Alliancein the campaignof 1890 and the election of an Allianceleader,JohnP. Buchanan,to the governorship.2"
enforceThis same legislaturealso providedfor the firsteffective
forvotingand made moregenerally
mentof the poll tax requirement
and electionlaws of 1889-1890.24
registration
applicablethe stringent
it would appearthatthe passage of bona fide"JimCrow"
Therefore,
legislationwenthandin handwiththeadoptionof indirectrestrictions
This actionwas probablyconsiderednecessaryin
on Negro suffrage.
view of the avowed oppositionof Negro leadersto such legislation.
At the same time the Tennessee legislaturewas passing the "Jim
Crow" law of 1891,an associationof colorededitors,meetingin Cincinnati,not only deploredthe failureof Congressto enactthe Blair
EducationBill and Federal electionlaws, but also "denouncedas an
practicedin
outragethe 'JimCrow car' and all otherdiscriminations
and accommodation."25
places of publicamusement
of southern"JimCrow" legislationis now
The whole structure
threatenedas a resultof the recentSupremeCourt decisionin the
case of Morgan v. Virginia,whichdeclareda Virginia"JimCrow"
of such
on the groundthat the diversity
law to be unconstitutional
22 Tennessee General Assembly,Senate Journal, 1891, p. 332; Tennessee General
Assembly,House Journal,1891, p. 271. The votes were 71 to 7 in the house and 21 to 8
in the senate. Although originallyvoting against the bill, Ledgerwood later spoke in
favor of the measure while opposing the senate amendments.ChattanoogaDaily Times,
March 20, 1891.
23 J. A. Sharp, "The Entranceof the Farmers' Alliance into Tennessee Politics," in
East Tennessee Historical Society's Publications (Knoxville, 1929- ), No. 9 (1937),
77-92.
24Acts of the State of Tennessee, 1891, pp. 337, 435-40. The poll tax law, amending
an act of 1890, required the actual presentationof a poll tax receiptby the voter or the
makingof an affidavitthat he had lost or misplacedhis receipt.It also providedpenalties
of fine and imprisonmentfor voting withoutsubmittingsuch evidence of paymentof the
poll tax, if required,and for the permittingby an election judge of such illegal voting.
25 ChattanoogaDaily Times, March 21, 1891.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
247
coman undue burdenon interstate
statutesin the South constitutes
invalidateracial segAlthoughthisdecisiondoes not directly
merce.26
travel,it could be arguedthatwhereinterstate
regationin intrastate
an undue
would also constitute
facilitiesareInvolvedsuchsegregation
commerce.This pointprobablywill be clarified
burdenon interstate
in somefuturedecisionof the SupremeCourt.The endingof segregawithinone state
facilitiesoperatingexclusively
tion on transportation
and
statesthemselves,
will requireremediallegislationbythesouthern
as evidencedby
Also important,
suchactionis by no meansimminent.
adoptedby
the situationin the 1880's,will be the policiesvoluntarily
companiesin responseto public opinion. In the
the transportation
finalanalysis,therewill have to be a veryextensiverevisionof public
sentiment
before"JimCrowism"becomesa thingof the past.
26 328 U. S. 373 (1946).
In his dissentingopinion JusticeHarold H. Burtonpointed
out that on the basis of this argumentthe decision casts doubt on the validityof the laws
of eighteenstates prohibitingdiscriminationas well as of those of the other nine states
in his concurringopinion, dein the South requiringit. Also, JusticeFelix Frankfurter,
if Conclared that since the commerceclause "does not require geographicconformity,"
gress should choose to do so, it could enact legislation requiringracial segregationon
common carriersin the South while prohibitingit elsewhere.
This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:20:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions