Comments on: Jim Crow: Government Against Market Forces

By: Barry Loberfeld

Barry Loberfeld — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:42:44 +0000

Jim Crow arose in the South during the Progressive Era: http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/when-bigots-become-reformers

By: J. Murray

J. Murray — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:19:12 +0000

It was the Federal level that forced that segregation on southern states during Reconstruction.

By: J. Murray

J. Murray — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:18:23 +0000

The vast, vast majority of discrimination was required to exist by government decree. Sure, some of it was voluntary, but that voluntary racism in business would not have survived had all other businesses not been forced into being discriminatory. Jim Crow laws came into being precisely because private business was refusing to be racist on its own.

By: Fephisto

Fephisto — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:52:16 +0000

I get booboisie who use this sort of historical argument to reason for world government.

By: Art Carden

Art Carden — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:47:01 +0000

A couple of quick replies: 1. As I understand it, the suits were usually for failure to enforce clear segregation. 2. The lunch counter protests and the like provide an interesting set of examples, but I think the best way to proceed is to look and see if you can find someone holding a gun. One of the things that's emerging from Chris Coyne's and my Memphis riot research is that it's probably a bad idea to give racists a monopoly on violence. I've read that in 20th century Memphis, businesses that didn't bend to Boss Crump's wishes had a tendency to find themselves suddenly being inspected by the health department or being fined for very minor "code violations." I suspect that a lot of Southern businesses that tried to integrate during Jim Crow would have had their power shut off, new difficulties with the local water monopoly, a flood of inspections, or a sudden increase in the assessed value of their property for tax purposes. That's mostly speculation at this point, but I think it's an important avenue for future research. Chris and I should have a lot more to say about issues like this over the next year or so.

By: jl

jl — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:59:34 +0000

Something that fascinates me about that era, is how much of the discrimination was imposed by government? We always hear about the famous lunch counter sit-in. Was that an assault on private property, or a protest against government rules? Who was choosing to discriminate? Maybe in some cases it was business owners, but there were plenty of Jim Crow laws as well.

By: David

David — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:22:56 +0000

Even though his conclusions are laughably bad, Howard Zinn does a nice job of detailing the colonioal government’s efforts to implant racism into the minds of poor White and Black Americans in Chapter 2 of People’s History. Why he felt that was a product of private property, I will probably never know, but his detailed analysis of government cementing racial tensions is very well done – and probably could be expanded much further.

By: Agora

Agora — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:06:18 +0000

I would like to clearify the facts. Did these railroads allow Blacks on to their trains with Whites, or was this an issue about the trains not allowing any Blacks because of a lack of separate cars? Please set me straight.

By: Capt Mike

Capt Mike — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 21:38:40 +0000

I think one problem with the public’s perception on this issue is the conflation of “The Government” and “The FEDERAL Government”.

There was segregation in the South until “The GOVERNMENT (tada!!!) passed the Civil Rights act.

No conception of the fact that segregation was a creature of the STATE Governments.

I try to make this point and the booboisie hear “States = Bad, Feds = good”. It’s not easy.

By: Old Mexican

Old Mexican — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 21:31:23 +0000

These companies had been convicted in the lower courts for failing to provide separate coaches or compartments for Negroes.

Thus rendering the idea that private companies would indulge in wholesale discrimination totally bogus.

By: Evan

Evan — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:52:26 +0000

Nice Info, Thank you

By: Michael A. Clem

Michael A. Clem — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:15:28 +0000

These companies had been convicted in the lower courts for failing to provide separate coaches or compartments for Negroes. interesting what unintended consequences can arise. They were convicted for not maintaining segregation.