MASSACHUSETTS
Background information is provided to put the Jim Crow laws in context and explain how minorities were treated prior to the Civil War. In a few cases, the dates of specific information also have been provided. These examples pre-date the Civil War. The term "Jim Crow Law" was first used in 1841 about a Massachusetts law that required the railways to provide a separate car for black passengers and the "separate but equal" doctrine, Massachusetts. Source 1705: The Massachusetts colonial legislature passes law prohibiting marriage and fornication between negroes or mulattoes and whites. In 1786, the ban on fornication was removed, but the ban on mixed marriages was expanded to include Indians. Source Massachusetts in 1788 prescribed flogging for non-resident blacks who stayed more than two months. Source 1840–1850: Public schools in the communities of Salem, Nantucket, and Boston, Massachusetts, were separated on racial criteria. Source 1838: The Eastern Rail Road began with trains running between East Boston and Salem, MA, but it provided separate cars for white and black passengers. Source 1849 Massachusetts Supreme Court rules that segregated schools are permissible under the state's constitution. U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Roberts v. City of Boston (59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 198, later uses this case to support the "separate but equal" doctrine. Source
MICHIGAN
Background information is provided to put the Jim Crow laws in context and explain how minorities were treated prior to the Civil War. In a few cases, the dates of specific information also have been provided. In 1858, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld a steamboat company’s refusal to sell a cabin berth to black abolitionist William Howard Day. Grand Rapids was a hotbed of racial inequality during the Jim Crow years. Source
1885: Under the Civil Rights Statute, racial discrimination in public places was unlawful. The statute was not enforced, however, until African-American dentist Emmett Bolden in 1925 asked for seating on the main floor of Keith's Theatre, then standing on this site. The theatre's refusal led to a landmark 1927 decision of the Michigan Supreme Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor of Keith's Theatre, with Chief Justice Nelson Sharpe writing that "the public safety and general welfare of our people demand that, when the public are invited to attend places of public accommodation, amusement, and recreation, there shall be no discrimination among those permitted to enter because of race, creed, or color. (The Civil Rights Statute) is bottomed upon the broad ground of the equality of all (persons) before the law." Source
1908: the Grand Rapids Medical College began refusing re-admittance of students it had once accepted based on color. Source
1925: Parmalee v. Morris–Michigan, 1925 (188 N.W. 330). In a series of cases beginning with Parmalee and ending with McKibbin, the Michigan supreme court departed from its tradition of racial progressiveness and held that “racial covenants” (deed provisions forbidding homeowners to re-sell to blacks) and other practices hampering housing integration were not illegal under Michigan or federal civil rights laws. The court continued to protect Michigan blacks who were denied access to theaters and other public accommodations, but it made clear that it would not give civil rights precedence over private property rights. Source
1931: A boat ride going to Bois Blanc Park refused entry for future Detroit Mayor Coleman Young. He was part of a Boy Scout group that was to attend functions there, but he was the only one turned away, due to his race. The rest of the pack boarded the boat and left without him. There was scant media reference to this incident. During this period in history, the court’s position was that “theaters, circuses, racetracks, private parks, and the like were private enterprises.” Anything not government sponsored or funded could discriminate as they pleased. Source
1963. McKibbin v. Corporation & Securities Commission – Michigan, 1963 (119 N.W.2d 557). In a series of cases beginning with Parmalee and ending with McKibbin, the Michigan supreme court departed from its tradition of racial progressiveness and held that “racial covenants” (deed provisions forbidding homeowners to re-sell to blacks) and other practices hampering housing integration were not illegal under Michigan or federal civil rights laws. The court continued to protect Michigan blacks who were denied access to theaters and other public accommodations, but it made clear that it would not give civil rights precedence over private property rights. Source
1974: Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling clarified the distinction between de jure and de facto segregation, confirming that segregation was allowed if it was not considered an explicit policy of each school district. In particular, the Court held that the school systems were not responsible for desegregation across district lines unless it could be shown that they had each deliberately engaged in a policy of segregation. In short, The Court noted that desegregation, "in the sense of dismantling a dual school system," did not require "any particular racial balance in each 'school, grade or classroom. Source
MINNESOTA
Background information is provided to put the Jim Crow laws in context and explain how minorities were treated prior to the Civil War. In a few cases, the dates of specific information also have been provided. In Minnesota, one of the nation’s most progressive states, eight anti-segregation laws were passed between 1877 and 1947, reversing Jim Crow Laws and giving minorities" full access to public schools, transportation and other public facilities. Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. Minnesota never enacted them. Source
Why does Minnesota suffer through some of the worst racial disparities in the nation? The team behind Mapping Prejudice looks to answer that question by examining the history of the spread of racist, restrictive real estate covenants in the early 20th century. Jim Crow of the North charts the progression of racist policies and practices from the advent of restrictive covenants after the turn of the last century, their elimination in the 1960s through to the lasting impact on our cities today. (Video) This story and Minnesota Experience are made possible by the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund and the citizens of Minnesota.
In the South there were brutal consequences for violating this color-line. These laws and rules went by a name: Jim Crow. Jim Crow laws didn't extend to the North, but blacks migrating here found a culture deeply embedded with racist attitudes. MPR's Brandt Williams talked with a number of older African Americans in Minnesota about their memories of segregation. Source
MISSISSIPPI
Background information is provided to put the Jim Crow laws in context and explain how minorities were treated prior to the Civil War. In a few cases, the dates of specific information also have been provided. Mississippi occupies a distinct and dramatic place in the history of America's civil rights movement. No state in the South was more resistant to the struggle for black equality. No place was more violent. In the first half of the 20th century, Mississippi more nearly resembled a feudal society than anyplace else in America. In the state's plantation economy, conditions for many black farm workers were not much better than slavery. African Americans had virtually no education, no rights and no legal recourse against whites who exploited, cheated or attacked them.
In 1830, the Legislature passes act to extend jurisdiction over all Indians within state’s boundaries. Source
