The Strange Career of Jim Crow

“Year after year spokesmen of the region assured themselves and the world at large that the South had taken its stand, that its position was immovable, that alteration was unthinkable, come what might.”

The “illusion of permanency” that characterized the Jim Crow period was underlined by an anxiety that society would change. Segregationists in the South sought to preserve the status quo and convinced themselves that segregation was a natural outcome of Southern history and reflected the correct racial hierarchy. Woodward describes many white Southerners’ willful blindness to change in this quote.

“With no more perspective than we have as yet upon this Second Reconstruction it would be rash to attempt any definitive assessment of its effectiveness, of the motives behind it, or of its importance and meaning in Southern history. It may well be that after a few generations the historians will conclude that, compared with the contemporaneous abandonment of the one-crop system and sharecropping, or the rapid pace of urbanization, cropping, or the rapid pace of urbanization, automation, and industrialization, the crumbling of the segregation system was of relatively minor historical significance.”

Woodward draws attention to how much changed in Southern history and politics since he first wrote The Strange Case of Jim Crow. He makes specific reference to the historian’s role in shaping history but notes that with hindsight, this history may be understood quite differently. The impact of biased and subjective interpretations of events on the historical record becomes a key theme in the text.

“In all the Southern cities during the four decades prior to 1860 there was a striking imbalance of the sexes in both races. The significant fact is that the imbalance in one race was the reverse of that in the other. Among whites, especially in the cities west of the seaboard states, there was a great preponderance of men over women, always a phenomenon of rapid urban growth. Among blacks, on the other hand, there was a great preponderance of women over men, occasioned by the practice of selling off young males to the country. Among both races the shortage was always greatest among young adults. This situation helps to account for a considerable amount of cohabitation between white men and Negro women and a growing population of mulattoes. While the census of 1860 listed 12 per cent of all the colored people in the South as ‘mulattoes,’ the percentage of them in the cities was much larger, often three or four times as large.”

Woodward uses demographic information to contextualize his arguments. In this passage he uses relatively high rates of racial cohabitation to prove his argument that segregation was not common in the South before Jim Crow. He is careful to provide context for the numbers (the gender imbalance) and to note that the experience of African Americans in cities was very different from the experience of most Southerners, as the South was predominately rural.

“‘Before and directly after the [Civil War],’ W. E. B. Du Bois has written (with some exaggeration, to be sure), ‘when all the best of the Negroes were domestic servants in the best of the white families, there were bonds of intimacy, affection, and sometimes blood relationship, between the races. They lived in the same home, shared in the family life, often attended the same church, and talked and conversed with each other.’”

Here Woodward cites prominent African American sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois. In addition to primary sources, Woodward cites other scholars, primarily historians and sociologists. He includes a qualifier to Du Bois’s claim “(with some exaggeration, to be sure),” but he uses this quote to bolster his argument that under slavery, segregation was both impractical and undesirable. Woodward met Du Bois while a graduate student at Columbia University.

“Another heritage of the old order that kept physical contact between the races from becoming an issue and an irritant was both psychological and economic. The Negro bred to slavery was typically ignorant and poor and was not given to pressing his rights to such luxuries as hotels, restaurants, and theaters even when he could afford them or was aware of them. So far as his status was concerned, there was little need for Jim Crow laws to establish what the lingering stigma of slavery—in bearing, speech, and manner—made so apparent.”

Segregation was a series of laws and social conventions that imposed physical distance between the races. However, as Woodward describes, white supremacy had far-reaching effects that extended beyond the law. Economic and educational barriers heightened inequality, and many African Americans relied on support and patronage of affluent white Southerners. This system, called paternalism, helped maintain racial hierarchies.

“After Redemption the old and the new in race relations continued to overlap as they had during Reconstruction. The old heritage of slavery and the new and insecure heritage of legal equality were wholly incompatible as ideas, but each in its own way assured a degree of human contact and association that would pass with the fading of the old heritage and the eventual destruction of the new. Race relations after Redemption were an unstable interlude before the passing of these old and new traditions and the arrival of the Jim Crow code and disfranchisement.”

With hindsight, Southern history tends to be broken down into discreet chapters: slavery, reconstruction, and Jim Crow. However, history itself is rarely this neatly delineated. Change surfaces unevenly in different places, and it takes different forms, including conventions, social attitudes, and laws, which are enacted at different speeds. Woodward emphasizes that seemingly incompatible belief systems coexisted in the same period as old traditions, and conventions gradually gave way to new systems.

“It was a time of experiment, testing, and uncertainty—quite different from the time of repression and rigid uniformity that was to come toward the end of the century. Alternatives were still open and real choices had to be made.”

This quote outlines one of Woodward’s key points: History is not fixed or inevitable. Rather, a close examination of primary sources from the period shows an uncertain society in flux, one in which other paths were possible. Segregation was not the logical outcome of Southern history. Woodward highlights both external and impersonal forces, such as economic issues and recessions, as well as the individual choices of individuals and governments.

“More pertinent, whether typical or not, is the experience of a Negro.”

Woodward draws from a wide variety of primary source materials to include voices from the period. In this passage he introduces the experience of T. McCants Stewart, an African American from Boston who traveled through the South in 1885. Woodward clarifies that Stewart’s recollections do not represent the experience of all African Americans in the South. By writing “whether typical or not,” Woodward highlights the complexity of race relations in this period and the limitations of any primary source material. Drawing attention to his source material strengthens his argument that history is nuanced, complex, and often contradictory.

“A frequent topic of comment by Northern visitors during the period was the intimacy of contact between the races in the South, an intimacy sometimes admitted to be distasteful to the visitor. Standard topics were the sight of white babies suckled at black breasts, white and colored children playing together, the casual proximity of white and Negro homes in the cities, the camaraderie of maidservant and mistress, employer and employee, customer and clerk, and the usual stories of cohabitation of white men and Negro women. The same sights and stories had once been favorite topics of comment for the carpetbaggers and before them of the abolitionists, both of whom also expressed puzzlement and sometimes revulsion.”

One of the holdovers from slavery was intermixture between races in the South. Woodward spends considerable time analyzing the contact between races in the South to establish his argument that segregation was not a logical outgrowth of slavery. Instead, Woodward suggests that segregation was incompatible with slavery, as slavery often required intimate contact. While both systems are rooted in white supremacy, segregation was not necessary in the South because racial hierarchies were strictly maintained.

“It was no sentimentality for ‘Ole Marster’ that inspired the freedmen, but the hot breath of cracker fanaticism they felt on the back of their necks.”

Woodward uses descriptive language throughout the text. When describing the alliance between African Americans and conservative upper-class Southerners, he uses the colorful phrase “the hot breath of cracker fanaticism” to explain why this unlikely alliance happened.

“The policies of proscription, segregation, and disfranchisement that are often described as the immutable ‘folkways’ of the South, impervious alike to legislative reform and armed intervention, are of a more recent origin. The effort to justify them as a consequence of Reconstruction and a necessity of the times is embarrassed by the fact that they did not originate in those times. And the belief that they are immutable and unchangeable is not supported by history.”

This is a clear articulation of the “Woodward thesis.” Woodward responds to William Graham Sumner’s concept of “folkways,” which argues that social mores and conventions exceed legislative and political control. Many commentators described segregation as a folkway of the South, implying that racism and white supremacy were natural outgrowths of Southern history. In contrast, Woodward argues that segregation was just one possible outcome of Southern history. The deterministic argument of Sumner’s thesis is challenged by Woodward, who highlights changing racial attitudes throughout the book.

“If there must be Jim Crow cars on the railroads, there should be Jim Crow cars on the street railways. Also on all passenger boats. …If there are to be Jim Crow cars, moreover, there should be Jim Crow waiting saloons at all stations, and Jim Crow eating houses. …There should be Jim Crow sections of the jury box, and a separate Jim Crow dock and witness stand in every court—and a Jim Crow Bible for colored witnesses to kiss. It would be advisable also to have a Jim Crow section in county auditors’ and treasurers’ offices for the accommodation of colored taxpayers. The two races are dreadfully mixed in these offices for weeks every year, especially about Christmas. ...There should be a Jim Crow department for making returns and paying for the privileges and blessings of citizenship. Perhaps, the best plan would be, after all, to take the short cut to the general end…by establishing two or three Jim Crow counties at once, and turning them over to our colored citizens for their special and exclusive accommodation.”

In this extended quotation from an 1898 Charleston News and Courier editorial, the writer uses the tactics of reductio ad absurdum to highlight the illogical nature of Jim Crow laws. By citing primary sources from the period immediately before the implementation of Jim Crow that reflected the conservative perspective on race relations, Woodward demonstrates that Jim Crow was contested. He also highlights the dark irony of this quote, noting that shortly after it was published, the absurdist reality described by the writer became the norm in the South.

“As America shouldered the White Man’s Burden, she took up at the same time many Southern attitudes on the subject of race. ‘If the stronger and cleverer race,’ said the editor of the Atlantic Monthly, ‘is free to impose its will upon ‘new-caught, sullen peoples’ on the other side of the globe, why not in South Carolina and Mississippi?”

Woodward’s analysis explores regional, national, and international factors, and he links domestic policy to foreign policy throughout the chapter. For instance, he details the impact of American imperialism on race relations in the Philippines, Hawaii, and Cuba in 1898. Imperialism relied on justifications of white superiority, echoing arguments expressed by Southern white supremacists. In this context it is not surprising that imperialism and the doctrine of racism reached new levels of popularity in scholarly and intellectual circles. While Woodward notes that Southern white supremacists did not look to Northern intellectual circles for validation, it removed a level of restraint usually imposed by Northern liberal opinion.

“The standard devices for accomplishing disfranchisement on a racial basis and evading the restrictions of the Constitution were invented by Mississippi, a pioneer of the movement and the only state that resorted to it before the Populist revolt took the form of political rebellion. Other states elaborated the original scheme and added devices of their own contriving, though there was a great deal of borrowing and interchange of ideas throughout the South.”

One of the major outcomes of Jim Crow was the disenfranchisement of African Americans. However, the Constitution guaranteed certain rights to Americans, so the South implemented a series of creative laws that limited African American voting. Woodward highlights that disenfranchisement was not one quickly enacted law but a series of barriers that, together, effectively blocked African Americans from participating in the political system.

“Partisan politics was not the only index of the new trend in Southern race policy.”

Reflecting his interest in how history is written, Woodward clearly indicates his sources throughout the text. In this sentence he signals to the reader that he is supplementing his analysis of politics with a more personal perspective found in letters. This indicates both the breadth of his source material and his method of clearly indicating what material he is drawing his analysis from.

“Right here it is well to admit, and even to emphasize, that laws are not an adequate index of the extent and prevalence of segregation and discriminatory practices in the South. The practices often anticipated and sometimes exceeded the laws.”

Woodward’s analysis relies heavily on legal history. However, throughout the text he links legal history with political, social, and cultural history. By drawing from a complex array of source material, Woodward paints a comprehensive picture of the period he analyzes.

“Historians will long dispute the turning point of the South and the reasons for the momentous change of course. The first who attempt to plot the course and explain the change will make mistakes in emphasis and interpretation that will probably seem ludicrous to those who will later have the advantage of hindsight and perspective. But someone has to make a beginning.”

The Strange Career of Jim Crow was the first significant history of segregation in the South. This quotation demonstrates Woodward’s self-reflection on writing history. He identifies the limitations of any history, particularly one written so soon after the events described.

“The Court’s decision of 17 May was the most momentous and far-reaching of the century in civil rights. It reversed a constitutional trend started long before Plessy v. Ferguson, and it marked the beginning of the end of Jim Crow. But the end was to be agonizingly slow in coming.”

Woodward frequently uses foreshadowing as a literary device. He concludes this chapter with the observation that “the end was to be agonizingly slow in coming,” which introduces the theme of the next chapter—that change is slow and its implementation is often flawed.

“Every channel of communication, every medium of mutual interest, every reasoned approach, every inch of middle ground [had] been fragmented by the emotional dynamite of racism, reinforced by the whip, the razor, the gun, the bomb, the torch, the club, the knife, the mob, the police and many branches of the state’s apparatus.”

This quote was published in The New York Times in April 1960. The article describes the violence exploding in Birmingham, Alabama, as segregationists refused to accept the Supreme Court ruling to integrate schools. This is just one in the series of events that Woodward details to show the racial backlash against the Civil Rights Act. The extreme polarization of the South, and the refusal of segregationists to accept the legal changes ordered by the courts, are articulated in this observation.

“But the optimists in both instances shared two assumptions. The first was that the legal end of the institution abolished meant the end of abuse that was outlawed. The second was that the institution abolished was responsible for all, or nearly all, of the troubles of its victims. These assumptions proved to be tragically fallacious, as those who cherished them in both centuries were soon to learn.”

The Strange Career of Jim Crow focuses on segregation. In the period following its initial publication, Woodward reflects that race relations in America experienced many changes. However, increased civil rights did not heal the traumas of racism in the United States, and the legacies of economic and political inequality continue to shape African American life. Segregation was an important aspect of the African American experience in the United States, but it is not the whole story, as Woodward notes here.

“Only five days after the signing of the Voting Rights Act, which marked the peak of optimism for the civil rights movement, the country was shaken by a terrible explosion on the West Coast that ranked with the worst racial violence in American history.”

The civil rights movement brought decisive changes implemented through both the executive and judicial branches. However, Chapter 6 opens with the Watts riot in Los Angeles, an eruption of violence that reverberated across the United States for four summers. By highlighting how close in time these two momentous events were, Woodward draws attention to the speed with which race relations were transforming in the heightened atmosphere of the 1960s. This juxtaposition confirms his earlier observation that legal history is just one aspect that shapes race relations.

“The advocates of separatism differed widely in the kind of separateness they wanted, the completeness demanded, and the extremes to which they would go to achieve it. But they agreed broadly in repudiating—some in part and some completely—the very ideal toward which the civil rights movement had been striving.”

One of the “strange” things about the history of Jim Crow is the shifting importance of integration in the African American community. During the civil rights movement, desegregation was a key goal. In the 1960s and 1970s, the rise of the Black Power movement and demands for black self-determination were often coupled with a desire for separation. Chapter 6 was added after the initial publication of The Strange Career of Jim Crow, and in it Woodward attempts to contextualize why this reorientation happened.

“Yet many circumstances made it increasingly difficult to answer some of the separatists’ questions: How do we integrate with whites constantly in flight? How many will the exodus to suburbs leave us to integrate with? Are the cynics not right who define ‘integration’ as the period between the time the first Negroes move in and the last whites move out? Is the quality and control of schools not more important than their integration? How can we argue with the brute facts of demography? Instead of undertaking an impossible ‘breaking up the ghetto,’ why not consolidate it as a base of power and position? Is integration worth the risk of accepting white values to the point of denying black identity? What race could command respect of others without respecting its own values and culture? And who was to cherish those values and preserve that identity if not blacks themselves?”

Woodward lays out the complex issues surrounding integration, separation, and Black Power that surfaced in the 1960s and 1970s. While separationists remained a minority within African American public opinion, demands for autonomy and self-determination shaped race relations in this period. Here, Woodward lists a series of questions that reflect the separatists’ perspective.