Talk:Jim Crow laws/Archive 1

1723?
Where did this date of 1723 as the first Jim Crow law come from? Is nobody else confused by the fact that this date is over one hundred years before the Civil War as well as 54 years before the American independence from Britain? My investigations have shown the earliest possible date for a "Jim Crow" law to be 1877. Furthermore, investigations of the date 1723 in relation to the state of Virginia show that it was a) not a state and b) enacting only one of a history of statutes biased against slaves.

Since Jim Crow laws explicitly apply to freed blacks being kept in continual social and political oppression (but not sanctioned slavery) through exclusitory lawmaking, I cannot find any logic in the facts attached to this 1723 date. The fact it has spread to other articles and across the Internet through the hordes of Wikilazyripoffs and people might actually be taking this date at face value is mildly unsettling.

I am modifying this information. If anyone happens to have factual knowledge that proves my stance inaccurate, I will gladly concede the point and approve of any reversals of my actions.

Hindsight
With 20/20 hindsight:

If I were to ask an audience today whether or not you think the Jim Crow laws were morally right, most people would answer no. However, if I posed this question 50 years ago, they would say yes. Once upon a time, Martin Luther was a common criminal. The police were enforcing the law they swore to uphold. So, do you side with a common criminal or law enforcement? The Germans said they were just following orders. To this day, people say the same thing although publicly acknowledging that the Jim Crow laws were morally wrong. What gives? Are people just trying to save face? Brad C. January 13, 2007

A Gorilla
Why is there a gorrila on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightstryk3r (talk • contribs) 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

African American Flag??
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.116.126 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC) I do not agree with having an invalid and offensive altered U.S. flag on this page. There is no such flag. As an American, I am offended. Africa and the US are COUNTRIES. Someone from Africa who is not a U.S. citizen but lives here would be a literal African-American. Even a white person. Someone who lives in the USA and is Black, is not an African-American, he is an AMERICAN. Virtually every race that makes up America is offended by being termed a sub-species of an American. This term is very divisive and although "politically" correct, is not correct. The Jim Crow article is otherwise a good one, although it does not cite some sources.-Jf 10:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Africa is a continent not a counrty. - Sigurd

African-American is more of an ethnic identifier, separating the people of African or partially African descent living in America from the people in Africa. Their nationality is American, their ethnicity is African-American.


 * First of all, it's African colors superimposed over the outline of the US. Secondly, even if it were the African colors superimposed over a US flag... WHO DO YOU THINK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUPERIMPOSITION?!?  Give you a hint:  it ain't the Africans who were dragged to this country in chains. Groupthink 04:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where anyone would see "flag" in the image on the top of the page. The only similarities I can see are the fact that the image uses stripes and has three colors, both very common characteristics of flags that didn't start with the United States. Natalie 04:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Redeeemers
I am curious about who the "redeemers" were and whether this is the most appropriate name for them. --Daniel C. Boyer -This is so interesting! -<3Carson L. Easter<3- The redeemers were southerners that took control of the state governments after the end of the Civil War. redeemers are what they called themselves and what other people called them. - I have no time to edit the 20th century section, but I think it's important that the movers and shakers responsible for the overturning of Jim Crow have some mention here. The methodical, concerted strategy of the NAACP in tackling higher education, then elementary education, then public accommodations and the actors in those legal battles deserve mention. No account of Jim Crow can be complete without the names of Thurgood Marshall, Robert Carter and James Nabrit, et al., who meticulously went constructing a series of cases challenging segregation in public education. Important among these was a case initiated by a young high school student, Barbara Johns, in Prince Edward County, Maryland, who initiated a school walk-out and prevailed upon the NAACP to take on the PEC school system. After defying numerous court orders to desegregate its schools, PEC officials simply shut down, countywide, ALL public schools for a period of five years.

Further, there is no mention of the fact that, despite the striking down of de jure segregation, de facto segregation persists in this nation -- most notably in public education. One glaring example remains the Prince Edward County public education system.deeceevoice 07:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro needed
The article needs a clear concise introductary paragraph defining what exactly a Jim Crow law is, when they were enacted, and where the term comes from. Currently the reader needs to scan the text and find this info buried in the middle. johnsemlak 09:00 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! I look forward to reading the new intro. skywriter 13:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the intro. doesn't go its job of first defining the item. It also has WAY too much detail, as if what is now the intro. used to be the whole she-bang. I'll remedy the first problem at least. Sfahey 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The intro now represents history. For starters, I will remove this sentence: "The United States Congress and Supreme Court gradually whittled away at this discriminatory legislation" because it does not begin to explain the history, making it sound as though there was some sort of continuum where the court and Congress were "whittling" at discriminatory legislation. That's not what happened. People marched and sat in and were sprayed with water hoses and some Civil Rights workers were murdered before the government gave in. skywriter 04:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

21st Century?
To follow up with deeceevoice above, I have a question. There is still a measure in the Florida Constitution that denies the right of convicted felons to vote, even after they have paid their debt; unless brought before the State Governor. This law was codified into the State Constitution in 1868, long before the 1890 post-Reconstruction date cited by the article for the beginning of Jim Crow laws. However, since this law was enacted to create difficulty for freed-slaves to access the ballots, would this not be considered a "Jim Crow law"? If not, and considering it is yet a post-Civil War legacy, where should this sort of information be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bastique (talk • contribs) 09:16, 28 April 2005 (UTC)


 * Since 1776 most states have laws against convicted felons voting--it is explictly allowed by the 14th amendment. The point is that only good citizens should be allowed to vote. Rjensen 02:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The following two paragraphs were written by reporter Fox Butterfield in the New York Times, December 29, 2002


 * The disenfranchisement laws do that in 13 states, where a felony conviction can result in a lifetime ban on voting. Since the 2000 election, several states, including New Mexico, Delaware and Maryland, have abandoned or modified disenfranchisement laws.


 * Florida, which has not changed its laws, has the largest number of disenfranchised voters, estimated at more than 600,000 banned for life, according to a lawsuit by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. The lawsuit maintains that the ban disproportionately affects Florida's African-American population, prohibiting about one quarter of the state's black men from voting.

Skywriter 13:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that almost 95% of african-americans vote democrat, it could be sayd that its a low key Jim Crow law. Then again its debatable, since it is more of a political move more than anything else. [written by unknown contributor)

I have some material on this and will try to add it. By the way, if you press the tilde key four times, your signature (user name, the date and time will follow your comment) The tilde is the squiggly key reached by pressing the shift key and the key that is perhaps, but not always adjacent to the number 1 key. On my keyboard, the tilde, which looks like this ~ is to the left of the number 1 key. skywriter 03:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to rely on what sources say, not on our own conclusions. -Will Beback 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * @skywriter...sure, I know that now. But I wrote that back a long time ago!   ℬ  astique  ▼  par ℓ er  ♥  voir  ♑  04:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

jim crow laws
Can you give me some examples of Jim Crow Laws?--24.178.103.148 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I added a section with some general examples and some that are state-specific. This is a really big subject and this article touches only the tip of it. skywriter 05:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

what does this sentence mean?
This is in the current version of this article and it is unclear on many levels and imprecise:

The Supreme Court of the United States invalidated most of the laws with the Civil Rights Act of 1875, a law passed by Congress to protect African Americans from private acts of discrimination.

Does anyone understand the intent of the above sentence or what is its intent? Tx skywriter 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not positive this section is correct, or it may be factual but only with the barest of bonest. In any case, it is now consistent with the Wikipedia link to the 1875 Civil Rights law. skywriter 03:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

'That means (to me) that anyone can publically discriminate against a black person. Private means in the privacy of one's home or of the likes. Personally the Jim Crow laws were a load of crap and I give two barrels about them. The Jim Crow laws also spawned the Nuremburg Laws in Germany, where Hitler used them to determine who was jewish if they had German in them. Should he have been offed as well? I mean he had more Jewish looks than he did German. 147.153.251.188Babsi147.153.251.188 16.15 Uhr 23.August 2006'

Private act of discrimination - what about econmic discrimination. That is totally American.

... and this one too
"... provided some civil rights protection for African-Americans, who were formerly enslaved by white plantation owners, as well as smaller white farm owners." Were the "smaller white farm owners" the enslavers or the protected? Although confused by this opening sentence, I think I did correctly interpret "smaller" to refer to the farms, and not the farmers. Sfahey 06:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

does this help at all?

John Hope Franklin: "One must always remember that there were more small farms where there were slaves than large plantations, although always the majority of the slaves were on large plantations." http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/frame.htm

(The above is found deep in the conversation among historians about the TJ legacy. skywriter 06:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it because it clears up the preponderance of slave ownership issue. skywriter 06:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent change in Intro
You can't ignore Brown v Board and JOhnson's Civil Rights Act in getting the racist laws off the books. The last paragraph is also overly detailed for an Intro, but would go quite well in the text.Sfahey 23:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is pressure came from below. What the Warren court did in Brown and related cases in the mid-1950s, and what Congress did in 1965 came after black soldiers returning from WWII stirred against segregation at home. There was tremendous activity in African American and allied communities in the late 1940s and early 1950s pushing for equal justice under the law. It took until 1954 for the Brown v. school board case to wind its way through the courts but the lawsuits and demonstrations began much earlier. And, it took the deaths of too many in the Civil Rights movement before LBJ hopped on the bandwagon to push through the C.R. law of 1965. At all times, it was the groundswell from below that made it happen. Certainly the role of the Warren Court and LBJ is part of the story, but it wasn't like the government led the parade. Quite the contrary, especially RFK during JFK presidency. skywriter 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 20:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Jim Crow law → Jim Crow laws : More than one law involved; article uses plural.

Voting and discussion
Please add * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using " ~ "
 * Support as proposer. David Kernow 15:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support proposal for reasons stated by User:David Kernow. There were many Jim Crow laws, not just one. skywriter 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Ground Zero | t 17:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - though I note that "Jim Crow" would also suffice without bending the naming guideline. -Will Beback 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - yes there were many laws; probably most readers would not catch the subtley that 'Jim Crow law' would refer to the collective body of all Jim Crow laws.
 * Comment - Wikipedia naming conventions strongly prefer singular nouns. There are, of course, exceptions.  Whether or not this is one, I don't know -Jesuschex 04:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

addition
can anyone add more about the effect of these laws on latinos and asians for example ?

Should there be some mention of the "Jim Crow" character from Disney's Dumbo?

As I understood it, the laws and customs varied from place to place, but, generally speaking, Asians and Hispanics were expected to use white facilities such as restrooms and drinking fountains, and were expected to sit in front on public conveyances, but were barred from many places of public accommodation. The principal exceptions were Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, which had strong and influential Hispanic communities, often dating back to before Anglo colonization, and, as such, Hispanics had a good deal more access. However, Japanese-Americans stationed in the south during WWII encountered pervasive discrimination, and the issue flared up again. This is how it was related to me by people whom I trust and respect, but they are now dead. If anyone can suggest a good source to corroborate or dispute this, I'd be grateful.Carlaclaws 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect
I've recommended the article be semi-protected, as there have been so many vandal attacks on it recently. --Tim4christ17 16:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

don't move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 07:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * Jim Crow laws → Jim Crow … Rationale: the laws were only one aspect of the period known as Jim Crow … Please share your opinion at Talk:Jim Crow laws. Ewlyahoocom 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Oppose unless proposed title indicates more than a person's name; not all folk (especially outside U.S.) will realise article is about a period of U.S. history/sociology rather than a particular person. David Kernow 11:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I could support moving it to something like Jim Crow era, though based on my own admittedly limted perspective, the term I most commonly associate with "Jim Crow" is "laws". older ≠ wiser 15:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article name was just changed to what it is and explains what the article is about.  If one wants to pull all the Jim Crow era into one place, a category would work.  Thanks Hmains 15:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per David--Aldux 16:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * "Jim Crow" is a bit too informal, I suggest. Better I think to have an "Age of Segregation" title, which can cover more topics, like disfranchisement. Rjensen 00:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citations needed in the text
This article is better than some on related issues in that it has some sources directly in the text and therefore that content is verifiable. However, the basic problem remains with much of this article: it violates central tenets of verifiability and No original research.

Bibliography does not substitute for sourcing within the article.

Wikipedia has standards. They are not being enforced here. This is not a whim. It is policy. This page will be flagged for the absence of specific citations. Citing sources will be a service to readers, especially student readers who will know that we enforce policy against sloppy research techniques. Skywriter 02:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Gerrymandering
Small edit- Just adding to "The legacy of Jim Crow" that the manipulation of voting districts is called gerrymandering. Animarxivist 16:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure how this applies. Gerrymandering, in fact today, is politically, not racially motivated.  And it helps one party in some states, while it helps other parties in other states.  Bastique ▼ parler voir 02:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, a lot of gerrymandering is racially motivated, but that's irrelevent because all I added was that that's what the process was called. Animarxivist 05:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
Does anyone know where the term "Jim Crow" laws actually originates? Was Jim Crow an actual individual, was it a derogatory term for African-Americans, etc. Walton monarchist89 09:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same. It seems to have been a general word black people. Which in turn came from the song Jump Jim Crow. It says so in that article. Someone please incorporate it into this article somehow. --Apoc2400 09:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I will. Walton monarchist89 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Jim Crow laws in various states
Would be nice if all the laws had dates, like the ones under Florida. Date of enactment as well as date of repeal would be especially useful... --Bookgrrl 19:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Glitch in first line of article!
"in force between 1876 and..." When?

Could someone who knows the answer put it in? Many thanks Notreallydavid 20:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (really in Britain) 

Requested move

 * Jim Crow laws → Jim Crow Era … Rationale: The laws lasted for a certain time period, and aren't active today. The title makes it sound like a current law. … Please share your opinion of my request below 72.92.84.100 14:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Medium Support--I can see why that is a good title, but I'm debating wheather or not to agree.... (Will be decided later) Ry  Guy  14:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support-- Ok, I think it's a good move. Ry  Guy  12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

"This era was very important in the United States at this time."
I don't know what this sentence is supposed to mean. Could someone clarify this, or could it just be removed? Abimelech 22:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been removed. (SEWilco 07:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Disfranchisement after the Civil War
Disfranchisement issues were scattered among several articles so their relationship was not apparent. The topic is being woven together in Disfranchisement after the Civil War. Please examine that article, as the few mentions of election issues in Jim Crow laws should be moved when the other article is ready, unless there are "separate but equal" situations in election related situations. I'm only aware of the separate registration lists in Louisiana, and should that be considered a Jim Crow law? (SEWilco 07:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Vandalism
I have very little exp. on the edit side of wikis, so I don't know how to revert when an article is protected, but the edits by user loyaltothecorn are vandalism. Also, see his talk page. I'll leave it to one of the experts to handle, just wanted to point it out.Rocketbiff 05:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammar
In the following sentence, I recommend changing the first "were" to "be."

"Although it was required that the facilities provided were equal they were not."

D021317c 12:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Name
It would be nice if the article explained how these laws came to be named after the character of Jim Crow, described in the Thomas D. Rice article. -- Beland 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mixed tense
In this section:

Indeed, the question of the alleged "color-blindness" of the constitution has become increasingly a source of controversy on the Supreme Court. Some observers believed the Court is moving from trying to prevent oppression of minorities, to protecting the status quo.[11]

we have "believed" and "is" in the second sentence. I'm not clear which it should be (I'd guess the present tense is what we want), so I'm leaving the edit for someone else to make.

Brumongo (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the 21st Century?
The entry on "Jim Crow Laws" at the end of summary just above "Origins" currently states as a fact the following: "In the 21st Century, Jim Crow Laws are being looked at in a new light. Whereas, in the past, they were looked upon as examples of discrimination, they now are held up as examples of proper civil coexistence between the races. Also, the argument that illegal Mexicans are to be accepted for their work that Americans will not do did not exist in those times. Congress is actively seeking to restore several of these laws for the public welfare." I would like to see some evidence of the claim that Jim Crow laws are "now held up as examples of proper civil coexistence between the races." That's news to me!

Also, who in Congress is "actively seeking to restore several of these laws?" DickHnl 02:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC) --DickHnl 02:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim Crow laws not restricted only to southern and border states
The opening sentence of this article suggests that Jim Crow laws were restricted to only the southern and border states and this is not factually correct. I offer as evidence one of the citations from the Jim Crow laws article that shows an interactive map where almost 3/4 of the states in this country had some form of Jim Crow laws enacted at the state level. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/themap/map.html I cannot edit this article because it is locked but I am hoping that someone has rights to edit it can do so to correct this misimpression. Jim Crow laws are a shame that is shared by every state and citizen of this country and we should not restrict this to only certain regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.220.253 (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Confused opening sentence
In the first sentence the parenthetic comment ("often referred to as a system or legal state as the Jim Crow or mainly Jim Crow") does not make any sense, at least to me.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Plessy v Ferguson
This article never actually mentions the fact that the Supreme Court upheld these laws in plessy v ferguson. That at least should be mentioned, since it makes it appear as if these laws had no legal foundation and were removed quickly. Also, there isn't much talk on what exactly these laws are, just a general overview of where they existed, or how and when they were repealed. Eugenides (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Link fails
The following examples of segregation are excerpts from examples of Jim Crow laws shown at the National Park Service website.

Unfortunately the link given in that section no longer works. --Maxl (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Laws
It's great that there are examples of the Jim Crow laws, but the formatting is terrible and all over the place.... There are repetitions as well. When (if) I get a chance I'll take a first look. Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonder if it's time to off-load them to List of Jim Crow laws by state? Except the section lead suggests the list includes others off the topic, so maybe List of racially discriminatatory laws by state or somesuch? DMacks (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, laws are arbitrarily classified as Jim Crow, when sometimes their aim was broader - for instance, Maine and MA had laws in the late 19th c. requiring voters to be able to read English and write their names: this requirement for literacy was to restrict new European immigrants more than African Americans. Such examples really belong in a different category of restrictions on voters.--Parkwells (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The listing of laws is too lengthy to be examples and too uneven (sometimes listed in great detail; other times summarized) to be good for an encyclopedia article. Needs work.--Parkwells (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think DMacks is right; a couple of brief examples would be useful to illustrate Jim Crow laws, but the reader should be directed to a separate list. The obvious problem about classification of all distriminatory laws as Jim Crow remains, but who is it who decides? Historians, or was it the ordinary people in the street (John Q Public) at the time? I'm not an expert in this area... Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The list of laws is definitely too long for the Jim Crow laws article page; in addition, the NPS source website for the laws is non-existent. Moving the laws to a separate page will both clean up the Jim Crow laws page and subject the laws to more scrutiny and verification. 76.93.130.28 (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not just the list of laws that is all over the place and repetitive; the whole article suffers these flaws (e.g. two paragraphs in a row which both start with pointing out that Woodrow Wilson was a southern Democrat). The whole article needs to be rewritten by someone with a good ear for grammar.

Style Notes
This page is locked and thus I can't fix the following minor mistake:

Woodrow Wilson (sp?) is mentioned in one paragraph without a link. On the following paragraph he's mentioned again, this time with a proper link. Later on in the paragraph he's referenced as "Mr. Wilson". I figure you should just make the first reference linked to his item and with the proper President prefix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzafrir (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Laws In Georgia
Colored and whites could not eat in the same restaurant unless they were in seperate rooms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.216.158.7 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional Information
Hello, there is an article here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1248, that might be useful. Perhaps someone could review it and possibly add it as a reference or external link. Thanks, Justin --Duboiju (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
This etymology is quite garbled and appears to have been spoiled by too many editors. It's important to distinguish between the etymology of the caricature, Jim Crow, and that of the segregationist legal system. I found one (and only one!) reference to an independent work, I Hear America Talking by Stuart Berg Flexner, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1976, ISBN 0-8128-6238-4, page 162, that traces the use of the term 'crow' to refer to African Americans to the 1730s. I assume that blacks were not called crows because of crowbars but because of a simplistic association related to coloration and negative reputation.
 * How is Jim Crow "rhyming slang"? What does it rhyme with?
 * Jim Crow and crowbar are two different things (see crowbar). The connection between them is an unlikely stretch. If the implication is that the name Jim Crow was selected because blacks were viewed as thieves, then say that. Otherwise why bring up crowbar at all?

Jim is the name selected by the minstrel performer with that stage name or perhaps from some older theatrical heritage. That first name may have been selected because of the pun (and perhaps the implication of dishonesty and hence the need to bring up crowbars), but not because of any rhyme.

However, all this is an inadequate etymology for Jim Crow laws. The big unanswered question is what is the connection between the laws and the performer/character and how did that connection come about? This from the Jump Jim Crow article: "With time Jim Crow became a term often used to refer to African-Americans, and from this the laws of racial segregation became known as Jim Crow laws."

Sreed888 (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The following anonymous conjecture is from SCIway.com:
 * ''Black codes and Jim Crow laws


 * ''After the Civil War, white Southerners moved quickly to eliminate black people's newfound freedom. They wanted to return blacks, in effect, to their prewar status as slaves. In order to do this "legally," they passed new laws that appeared, on the surface, to be neutral and fair to all races. In actuality however, these laws were actually designed specifically to repress black people.


 * ''At first these laws were called Black Codes, but because of their deceptive nature, they eventually came to be known as the laws of Jim Crow. Jim Crow was the name of character in a minstrel show. Minstrel shows were popular during that time, and they featured white actors in "black face," or black make-up. Because of this, the name Jim Crow represented the fact that Black Codes were based on racial disguise.

It's my understanding that the black codes were rescinded by the Republicans at the start of Reconstruction and that the Jim Crow laws came after that. However, the possible association of the Jim Crow laws and black-face disguise is intriguing. I will try to find out who wrote this and what their sources (if any) were. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving list to a separate page
As per the discussion above, there seemed to be a consensus that there was a need to move the long list of Jim Crow laws to a separate page. Unless there is a bit outcry about doing so, I'll do just that in a week or so.DMacks suggested List of Jim Crow laws by state or List of racially discriminatatory laws by state. I'd go for the former and maybe look to revise the list of laws to include only ones which are Jim Crow ones. Any comments from the community? Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the list needs to be moved. I am left wondering what defined a Jim Crow Law, or is it simply a term to describe any law that is seen in hindsight as discriminatory? That open of a definition scares me a little, since while 90% of discrimination is obvious to most people, there are many laws that may be viewed by some as discriminatory, that others don't feel is. If there is no hard and fast rule for what counts as a Jim Crow Law, then I recommend a footnote reference, indicating the source used to determine that it qualifies. Boufa (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've left this for a while, and so I'll be Bold and create a new page, List of Jim Crow laws by State, which should only be for Jim Crow laws in existence between the dates stated on the page. I feel that it this should allow us to try and limit the scope as if it were a List of racially discriminatatory laws by state this could leave it far too open to interpretation. Including only the "Jim Crow" laws gives us a fighting chance of creating something that is not too nebulous. The list needs a radical tidy and formatting sweep even before getting into the nitty gritty of what is a Jim Crow law. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Voter Photo ID Laws
A new heading might be added to this page: "Voter Photo ID Laws"

24 States, all controlled by Republican legislatures, have introduced these laws. The rationale for their introduction has been to prevent voter fraud. However, there has been no demonstration that voter fraud is or was a genuine concern in any of the jurisdictions in which these laws have been enacted, and there is no requirement in the various laws that a person challenging a prospective voter's entitlement to vote demonstrate either an objective basis for doubting that the person is other than who they identify themselves to be, or an objective reason for doubting the person's entitlement to vote.

In Canada, where a strict form of voter photo ID law was enacted in 2006, the absurdity of the law is best demonstrated by the fact that no then existing piece of federal identification satisfied the requirement of the Act - a passport was, and is, insufficient because it does not indicate the prospective voter's address - even if that voter's name and address are correctly indicated on the voters' list posted in every poll and used in the polling station. Furthermore, in Senate hearings on the law, both the current and past heads of Elections Canada (Kingsly and Mayrand) testified that they were unaware of so much as a single documented case of voter fraud.

Though nominally impartial, their effect is disproportionately to disenfranchise people who are poor, who are homeless, who have recently moved, students, people with poor mobility, people who are young, recent immigrants, people who may not speak English well, people who do not have a valid driver's license, for whatever reason, and so on. The group most strongly affected is that of young black men. It is a form of de facto disenfranchisement, and the motivation behind it is precisely the same as the motivation behind the Jim Crow laws. The group most strongly affected are all groups that tend not to vote for the Republicans. Research has been done on these laws, including a paper published by Caltech on the effect of voter ID laws on voting participation. According to that study, voter photo ID laws may typically suppress voter turnout by 3 to 4% of eligible voters, with the effect of achieving a 4 - 6% left to right swing in percentages of popular vote on election day. The United States Supreme Court has recently upheld the constitutionality of these laws.

I am not an expert in this area, and would appreciate it if someone with better credentials and knowledge could contribute to this entry.Joebattsarm (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)joebattsarmJoebattsarm (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why archive one seemingly useful thread?
I am interested in knowing why one relatively recent thread was archived, in the sense of taking it off this page. Reason I'm asking is that this page is not particularly long--there are many throughout Wikipedia that are eons longer-- and I see no real reason to archive that one thread on this page.


 * I agree that there's little reason to archive this page since it is not that active. Maybe it was busy here at one time and archiving kept it manageable. Unless there is consensus otherwise I suggest we remove the archive bot. In any case I will set it to archive at 365 days instead of 30 days. JoJo (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Second question is --how exactly is a page or a thread archived? Thanks.Skywriter (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a box that says "Archive" here at the top of this page to the right of the table of contents with a link to get more info and a list of the archive folders which you can select to see the archived sections. Someone added a MiszaBot template (open this page to edit to see this) in March 2008 that moves sections into the archive automatically when there is no activity for some period of time. You can read about archiving here: Help:Archiving a talk page. JoJo (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference Typo
Under references, the reference #9 says "Full text of Korematsu v. Uniterd States opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com." As you can tell, the Uniterd needs to be changed to United. However, I am not sure if this is a typo, or a prank of some sort. I don't have an account to edit, just browsing through and caught it, so someone who can, please fix it. 4-26-08

Actually, that was number 11. It's fixed now. Thanks for pointing that out, I went right past it. Owlfalcon (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

jim crow
I believe you should look up and add how certain schools in Savanna Georgia did not desegregate completely till the early 1990's it would allow people to gain the scope of how close we still are to those "old" days

[NEW POST] Excuse me? De facto segregation did not end in the 1970s, nor the 1980s, nor the 1990s, nor the 2000s. Schools in the United States are still highly segregated, the reason being that neighborhoods, municipalities, counties, and states in the United States are highly segregated. People are still turned away from the schools of their choice for made-up reasons.

I don't have time to do the research, but Jonathon Kozol, Tavis Smiley (The Covenant with Black America, 2000?), and DeGruy Leary are good places to start!

Chaim1221 (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

White Democrat
Why is 'white' before democrat every time in this article? Were there any black democrats? No, blacks were mostly republican until FDR and not fully until JFK. I feel like the word 'white' is before every democrat because it is hard to explain in the current political world how can the party that supported slavery, Jim crow, and other racist views now be the party that acts like it is for minorities and that Republicans are racist even though Abe was a Republican as was MLK and so it would look strange to see the word democrat before all those racist policies. 98.234.110.66 00:08, September 20, 2009

COULD YOU create a post explaining how this happened cant find support online anywhere even it its looking at me in the face thank you 198.60.121.1 12:56, October 27, 2009

Your statements are completely biased and pro-"Republican" propaganda. Political parties change over time, and now most of the former slave states in the South vote with large Republican majorities. As for Abraham Lincoln, as you seem to be trying to clean him up, you would know if you read any real history that Abraham Lincoln was an open racist who did not "free" a single slave. Lincoln only cared about "saving the union" and he personally used racist language against blacks and wanted forcibly remove them from the United States and send them to Liberia in Africa. To quote from a speech of Abraham Lincoln himself; "There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man." Doesn't sound like the non-racist you and other alleged non-racist "Republican" propagandists try to proclaim he allegedly was; along with the Africans you try to deceive with your lies.--Historylover4 (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading the history before the Civil War, Reconstruction and after may be helpful to you. This article deals mostly with southern states and the Democratic Party in the South.  It was only loosely a national party.  In the South, the voting society was virtually all-white and Democrat before the Civil War, with representation in Congress supplemented by the southern slave population (counting as 3/5 of a person for voting representation of the South in Congressional apportionment.)  After the Civil War, freedmen did tend to join the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, the Emancipation, and constitutional amendments giving them rights as citizens to vote - whether or not Republicans were less than fully unbiased.

After the Democrats (who were mostly white and had formerly been led by the planter elite) returned to political power in the South in the late 1870s, they virtually had one-party government for decades. They passed constitutional amendments and laws to disfranchise blacks and often poor whites (as in AL), a situation that persisted in some states until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. The Democratic Party in the North was made up of different people- in the cities it attracted many new European immigrants, and got involved in labor and other issues. Yes, the parties have changed since then, and since the 1960s, as has the country. Republican candidates, starting at the national level,have attracted more votes in the South since the 1970s.Parkwells (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization
In the "Origins of Jim Crow" section the 4th paragraphs first sentience is written as "In some cases Progressive measures to reduce". I know the paragraph later refers to "the Progressive Era (1890s" but does the word progressive need to be capitalized in the first sentience? 208.93.129.10 (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

William Gibbs McAdoo
In the paragraph about Woodrow Wilson, the "acting Secretary of the Treasury" is quoted "in 1913". This must be William Gibbs McAdoo. I'm also not sure why he's "acting" at this point. Could someone please change "the acting Secretary of the Treasury" to "Secretary of the Treasury William Gibbs McAdoo" in the article text? --69.168.48.167 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Darwinek (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this article is locked (for a good reason) but someone who has the ability to edit it really should re-read through it and fix some of the spelling, grammar, and general flow problems here. There are a few sentences that don't make logical sense due to structure and there are a few misspelled words. A couple of examples are: "disfranchised" isn't a word, the sentence "While public schools had been established by Reconstruction legislatures, those for black children were consistently underfunded, even within the strained finances of the South." doesn't make sense. If the last part of the sentence said "even with the plentiful abundance of money earmarked for education.", then it would make sense.

I wont pick and point out every mistake in the article. I just think that an article about this subject deserves a higher level of quality than what is currently present. Thanks. Rob 76.177.194.246 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 76.177.194.246 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * not contesting your general point but "disfranchised" is a word: past participle, past tense of dis·en·fran·chise (Verb)
 * 1. Deprive (someone) of the right to vote.
 * 2. Deprived of power; marginalized.
 * Merriam-Webster and I think the particular sentence would benefit from an addition of "when considered" as in: "While public schools had been established by Reconstruction legislatures, those for black children were consistently underfunded, even when considered within the strained finances of the South."Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

World War II era Typo
The second sentence of the second paragraph is: "In its pivotal 1954 decision, the Court unanimously overturned the 1896 Plessy ruling. decision." (bold added). I imagine only one of those ("ruling" [which I would go for] or "decision") was really intended to be there. Just thought I would give you a heads up, for the same reason as the William Gibbs McAdoo contributor.


 * ✅ Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim Crow nomenclature
Hi, I don't mean to sound like an idiot, but I was wondering if some more learned folk on this issue could expand on wtf 'jim crow' is and means. I mean, the article says it refers to something called 'jump jim crow'? I'm not American, so I don't quite understand the import of it. Was it a perjorative term for American's of African descent at the time? Would it be considered insensitive by the periods moral value set? For example, would it be the equivilent of say 'nigger laws' or something offensive of that nature? Or was it an Americanism that was thought to be less offensive?

From the outside looking in it seems patently obsurd that something as objective as LAWS would be named after some fictional thing called Jump Jim Crow. That'd be like a female sexual predator or pedophillia act being called brought in and called Beiber Laws, while to us, right now, that makes sense and we'll have a little chuckle, was that what this Jim Crow nonsense was? The obscurity of the fact it's based on a character in a play by a dude just leaves me wanting expansion on that section and frustrated and confused. :(

It's really hard to understand the scope of the naming of these laws, and it's always been something that's driven me friggen nuts every time I've heard it mentioned in books or on TV because I can't fathom how such a bizarre-o name could possibly pass through a parliament house without all present (racism aside, period aside, everything aside) not telling the petitioner to fuck off and come back when he takes democracy seriously. Although that being said, there'd be a lot of irony in that (for those slower than even I, which is pretty slow, I mean for non-democratic bills subjugating a people by ethnicity being a bad example of democracy for a reason ASIDE from the fact it's subjugating a people by ethnicity).

So please, please, PLEASE can we have some clarity on this weird name and what it's meant to be exactly? 58.165.131.151 (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

58.165.131.151 has a good point. It's not clear from the article that the name is not the official name but the vernacular reference to range of state and local legislation enacted over many years and in many locations. I'm not sure I'm the one to fix this but I make take a crack at it if no one else does. Joja lozzo  15:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Blacks and poor whites" - really?
There are four unsupported statements in the text of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs under "Origin of Jim Crow laws":

"participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease."

"effectively disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites"

"Denied the ability to vote, blacks and poor whites could neither serve on juries nor in local office. They could not influence the state legislatures, and their interests were overlooked."

"In some cases, progressive measures to reduce election fraud acted against black and poor white voters who were illiterate."

In each case, blacks are lumped together with "poor whites." This is not my understanding of the effect of the Jim Crow laws, and in any case, I find this difficult to believe. The origin of the Jim Crow laws was to be against blacks.

In point of fact, the article then goes on to refute these very points:

"While poll taxes and literacy requirements banned many Americans from voting, these stipulations frequently had loopholes that exempted white Americans from meeting the requirements." The article then goes on to give a documented example of such loopholes in Oklahoma.

If there is no verification/support for the information cited against "poor whites", I believe it should be removed. (Jgroub (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cites have been added, and a reference to the main article on Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era for more details. In Alabama, particularly, and some other states, poor whites were disfranchised along with blacks, who were indeed the main target - through literacy tests, poll taxes, extended residency requirements and other means. Virtually all blacks were disfranchise, even when educated and literate.  Yes, grandfather clauses helped some whites escape literacy tests - there were many variables state to state.  Such effects are not well known; that's why they are covered here. There has been considerable research on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the cites. Jgroub (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Akarisamax3, 19 August 2011
I would like to edit the "black Americans" name change to African-Americans. Though I'm not African-American, I find that the link is "black American" and not it's proper name. Thank you.

Akarisamax3 (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think your point is that the African American title was chosen over "Black American" for a reason and rather than argue that all over again we can just point to that decision and apply it here, right? In fact, there is a whole section in African American on the term "African American".


 * However, in the lead paragraph, the phrase "black Americans" appears to be used as a contrast with the subsequent phrase "white Americans." This is a stylistic choice that I think works well. (A more historically accurate term would be "'colored' Americans". I'm not sure how well that would work.)


 * African Americans are often referred in this article and in African American as "blacks." Are you proposing we change them all? Joja  lozzo  03:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No consensus, no ref  Chzz  ► 05:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim Crow is not just Law
Why is there no article in Wikipedia about Jim Crow itself? We only have an article about Jim Crow laws. But Jim Crow was much more than the laws; Jim Crow refers to the entire system of apartheid that was established to keep blacks in apartheid conditions. This included some laws, yes, but it also included the myriad voluntary decisions of whites to refuse blacks access to civil society and full rights: the refusal of banks to give blacks loans; the refusal of realtors to sell blacks property except in black ghettors; the refusal of private schools to take black students; the refusal of businesses to provide jobs or services to blacks, except within the framework of Jim Crow.

This is a serious gap in Wikipedia. An article about Jim Crow -- not Jim Crow Laws -- is badly needed. 24.180.162.13 (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You may be right. But for any long-term law to exist, there supposedly exists and underlying support for it in a democratic society. This could be discussed in this article, perhaps? And a redirect from "Jim Crow" if it doesn't exist already? Student7 (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"From and started" - really?
From 1876 but started in 1890... Really? So for 14 years they were thinking about it? That's Wikipedia for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.77.174.58 (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Three civil rights workers murderers originally went free
According to another Wikipedia entry about the three civil rights workers, the nineteen people indicted by the FBI all went free when the charges were dismissed. In this paragraph (below) in the entry for Jim Crow Laws it gives the false impression that seven were convicted in 1964 as a result of the FBI investigation immediately following the crime. In fact, it wasn't until 2000 that the elderly men were convicted. This is a very important part of history.

See below for the paragraph I believe should be corrected.

"End of de jure segregation

In January 1964, President Lyndon Johnson met with civil rights leaders. On January 8, during his first State of the Union address, Johnson asked Congress to "let this session of Congress be known as the session which did more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined." On June 21, civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney disappeared in Neshoba County, Mississippi. The three were volunteers aiding in the registration of African-American voters as part of the Mississippi Summer Project. Forty-four days later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recovered their bodies, which had been buried in an earthen dam. The Neshoba County deputy sheriff, Cecil Price and 16 others, all Ku Klux Klan members, were indicted for the crimes; seven were convicted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.177.141 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. Thank you. Joja  lozzo  01:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried to work in the rest of the story but then realized that the trial and other legal process had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the subject of that section) since that was passed before the three were even found. The section reads more clearly with the outrage over their disappearance as the final straw that drove the legislation through without the distraction of events that had nothing to do with the law's passage. I added a link to take readers to the page that tells the whole story. Joja  lozzo  02:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I should say that your article is well written and includes important information and historical perspective. However, while it is true that you need to be concise and not get off the main subject, I beg to differ. By including the information about the swiftness and success of the FBI investigation, a reader gets the impression that justice was served. I realize that you know this is not the case, and I knew, but what about so many readers who don't know how bad it really was. The fact that charges were dismissed by a US Commissioner (as reported in the Wikipedia account of the 3 civil rights workers murder) speaks volumes. It took forty years to get convictions. They basically got away with it until the very end of their lives. You are the historian here, and I realize this is just my bias or preference. My source is another Wikipedia entry rather than primary sources so maybe THAT speaks volumes. :-) Thank you for your response. Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.177.141 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no argument with your points but the section we are discussing is not about this injustice. It is about getting the CRA passed by July 2 '64 (about 2 weeks after the disappearance, about 2 weeks before the bodies were found). Furthermore in my last version there is no mention of trial or perpetrators since none of that is relevant to (or happened before) the passage of the CRA. Because of that there is no impression of justice being served or not being served since justice isn't in the picture at that time.


 * Perhaps you can find another section in this article where your points would be appropriate but I suspect the other articles on the murders are much better suited and no doubt already leave no impression of justice being served. Joja  lozzo  19:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I included Mississippi's refusal to prosecute as an important motivation for the VRA of '65, since it was clearly relevant to that legislation. Joja  lozzo  19:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, Aug 13, 2012. Link repair requested.
In the 5th paragraph of the section:

Origins of Jim Crow laws

in the link whose anchor text is:

eight box law

the URL is incorrectly capitalized, thus failing to correctly scroll the page pointed to.

Incorrect URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement_after_Reconstruction_era#Eight_box_law

Correct URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement_after_Reconstruction_era#Eight_Box_Law

The page's URL is OK, and loads correctly (at least in Firefox.) It confusingly doesn't scroll to the Section:

Eight Box Law

-HLane 24.225.66.199 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for diagnosing and solving that! DMacks (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson: Southern Democrat?
Woodrow Wilson was not a "Southern Democrat," he was elected from New Jersey.

The sentence: "Woodrow Wilson, a Southern Democrat and the first Southern-born president of the post-Civil War period, appointed Southerners to his Cabinet." is inaccurate.

Suggested Edit: "Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat elected from New Jersey, and the first Southern-born president of the post-Civil War period, appointed Southerners to his Cabinet." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinano44 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Student7 (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 March 2013
The paragraph at section 7.2 (Legacy/ Political) seems distorted as if it intended to focus as much blame on Democrats as possible. That claim doesn't hold up well in the light of facts, however. I suggest adding the following text either as an additional paragraph under 7.2 or as a continuation of that section's paragraph (i.e. following immediately after ". . . all but two of them Southern Democrats."). I analyzed this data taken directly from the Wikipedia article on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

SUGGESTED TEXT:

66.213.18.2 (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right; that paragraph is biased something grotesque. ✅-- Laun  chba  ller  17:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The original "problem" was the division of Democratic Party in 1860 into several main factions, leading to the election of Lincoln. One of the divisions was what became the "Southern Democrats," a very conservative group. This eventually morphed with time in the latter 20th century to liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans, but the change was hardly instantaneous. Roosevelt brilliantly melded the conservative South with the liberal north for a coalition which elected him 4 times in a row and then Harry Truman, who followed. It is part of history, like the rest. I don't know about the "fault" of the Democrats. It's just what happened. The Republicans won in the North in 1860 because they "seemed" to favor abolition, but they probably weren't all that outspoken, as a group, against slavery, until later. That, too, is "history."
 * It's just the way the various factions fell out. That's the way politics is and politicians are. They are great wo/men of principle when they talk to you, running for office. But these principles tend to fall apart when beset with DC/national political reality. Student7 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Louisiana Population Numbers
I have a small suggestion about this part of the article:

"In Louisiana, by 1900, black voters were reduced to 5,320 on the rolls, although they comprised the majority of the state's population. By 1910, only 730 blacks were registered, less than 0.5 percent of eligible black men. 'In 27 of the state's 60 parishes, not a single black voter was registered any longer; in 9 more parishes, only one black voter was.'"

When I read the first sentence, I had little idea how to interpret it, because it compared a relative measurement (majority) with an absolute measurement (5,320). The article implies that the number is low, but it is impossible to know how low: technically, with a population of 10,641 or larger, that sentence could be true. I feel it would be useful to give the population of Louisiana at the time (according to Wolfram|Alpha, 1.382 million[source]|undefined), to show the extreme disparity of 5,300 registered black voters out of over 691,000 black people living in the state. Similarly, I think it would help to have the same data for 1910 (1.656 million) to show that, assuming the state was still majority-black, at least 827,000 potential black voters were disenfranchised. —Cayen Aleva (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle that numeric comparisons would be more meaningful than the current phrasing. But we need to be careful about assumptions based on synthesis and original research. The 1,656,000 population in 1910 would be the total population of the state. Presumably about 828,000 of those would have been women, not allowed to vote regardless of race (except possibly in tax and budgetary votes). Another large but unknown number would have been under 21 years of age, also not eligible. That brings the eligible black population for 1910 a lot closer to (but stilt probably greater than) the 146,000 indicated in the current statement. If you can find a reliable source that gives the actual number of eligible blacks, than yes, it should be included, but otherwise we can't Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The ninth citation in the article itself has the number of registered black voters in Louisiana in 1896 at 130,334, which is a good demonstration of how the number of actual black voters plunged during this time. So perhaps instead of using eligible black voters vs. registered black voters, a better (or easier) comparison could be registered black voters pre- vs. post-disenfranchisement.


 * Also, now that I'm reading that paper, it seems somewhat inappropriate in an article about Jim Crow to point out that "tens of thousands of poor whites" were unable to vote in Alabama without mentioning that in the same period registered black voters went from 181,471 to 3,000. At the very least, I feel the two numbers should be presented side-by-side. —Cayen Aleva (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Political paragraph is still very misleading
(Art iii (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)) The Political paragraph is incredibly misleading because it states a partisan divide without enough emphasis on a regional one. Both parties voted in favor of it. Based on the numbers in the first paragraph, 152 Democrats voted yes and 96 voted no (61% support) and 138 Republicans voted yes and 34 voted no (85% support.) Within the two parties there was more support from the Republicans than the Democrats. Both parties supported the bill overall.

In the South 7 members voted yes and 97 members voted no for 7% and in the North 283 voted yes and 33 voted no for 89%. The difference in support between North and South is vastly different than the numbers between Republicans and Democrats. Maybe you should make a table showing this.

- Not only that, the political paragraph is convoluted to the point of incomprehensible as written and is just attempting to whitewash the Democratic legislative opposition by splitting the opposition between southern and northern Democrats because southern Democrats were so much larger, it turns a single vote into a "greater percentage."

So the paragraph is not objective, and it is extremely difficult to follow without a proper table. It is essentially a reverse gerrymandering argument. And most fatally, it is un-sourced. It represents original research of the congressional record, against Wikipedia guidelines.

A proper discussion here would probably just reference the civil rights bill article for the background on the vote. As it stands this paragraph is just attempting to shield the Democrats from the negative implications of the article. A nice link to a real secondary discussion which discusses why the Democrats are not branded as the racist party anymore despite their long support for Jim Crow laws is probably where this paragraph is going. Until then, I recommend simply removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.242.98 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Please show the total vote and %. House of Representatives: Democrats for:      152 Democrats against:   96 Republicans for:    138 Republicans against: 34

Senate: Democrats for:       46 Democrats against:   21 Republicans for:     27 Republicans against:  6

What you have is purposely misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.30 (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Article locked, but where is the quality control?
It is often the case that people kill other over something that someone included/ removed, with fights going on for months and years, while nobody actually bothers to improve the articles. I read the first line and picked up two gross errors: "The Jim Crow laws were state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1876 and 1965. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a separate but equal status for African Americans." The first sentence implies that all laws were Jim Crow laws. Secondly, it says these were enacted "between 1876 and 1965" ... "starting in 1890" - if these started in 1890, they can't be between 1876 and 1965. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Laws
If we are going to call this "Jim Crow Laws", we really need to confine this to actual law which may include real estate covenants in the North. But de facto segregation is not a law, nor are "loan policy", nor are "union practices" nor is "hiring practices."

It might be better to change the title to "Jim Crow" or "Jim Crow practices." The article looks okay, but some of the material, right now, is non--WP:TOPIC. Having said that, most people thought of the South when they thought of "Jim Crow" even if some northern practices were "suspect." Student7 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe there should be two articles, one higher level on "segregation practices in the US" including de facto, and a lower level one confining itself to actual law, not de facto stuff. Student7 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 22 February 2014
I suggested an edit to the legacy section which another user has reversed. There is currently massive press attention to a new law legalising discrimination against LGBT people in Arizona and similar proposed legislation in other states all referring to these laws as Jim Crow laws. The user who reversed the edit stated that they felt it was off topic. I agree that there is a clear difference as the new laws legalise homophobic discrimination, rather than racist discrimination. However, people reading the press coverage of the current situation and seeing it referred to as Jim Crow laws could look this up on wikipedia if they do not know what they are. Modern parlance now refers to homophobic legislation as Jim Crow laws and this is directly because of the legacy of the original Jim Crow laws. I think the term has been carried across from one equalities category to another because the civil rights movement prizes equality for all, (for example, Martin Luther King was pro-equality for all discriminated against groups including LGBTs).

So I do think it is fair to say that the reason the press are now widely referring to anti-LGBT laws as Jim Crow laws is as a direct result of the legacy of the original Jim Crow laws. Indeed, if that were not true why would the same name be used? I think a reference to this is needed in the legacy section. Please can others comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.30.231 (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is about this edit and I'm the editor who removed the material. It's my feeling that this article is about the actual laws "enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level," as our current lead has it.  "Jim Crow" is a powerful metaphor, which has an immense amount of social power in the US, and it only makes sense that it will be used by people to describe laws, which are factually not Jim Crow laws in the sense that this article covers, which they oppose in order to demonize them.  Are we to have a paragraph in here on every law that someone tries to insult or criticize by comparing it to Jim Crow laws?  How in the world is that going to add to the reader's understanding of what the actual Jim Crow laws were?  Calling a law a "Jim Crow law" in the US is rhetorically equivalent to comparing a politician to Hitler.  They don't list instances of that in the article on Hitler, nor should they.  That's my position anyway.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with omitting it. If someone hears this term in the recent-use sense, he could surely read this article to learn what the term means. Alf is correct: it's not actually a Jim Crow law, just either a metaphor or epithet. So readers would quickly see that and be 1) educated about the term, but more importantly, either 2a) see through the strong emotional language and instead focus on more direct understanding of the actual situation rather than a different population, time, and historical background, or 2b) see how/why the comparison to a different population/time/etc may be appropriate. Choice among 2a vs 2b probably depends on your political stance, but either way those seem important results of keeping the article on its actual topic. Wikipedia articles are instructed to be focused by topic, even if there are several topics that have the same name (WP:DAB rather than a monolithic multientry page). It would certainly be appropriate to discuss this new use of the term in the articles about the LGBT laws (and link from there to here) but I don't think vice versa. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The section in question is about the legacy of Jim Crow laws, so it might be appropriate to include the information that other discriminatory laws have been referred to as Jim Crow laws, as that spread to other equalities groups is a genuine and significant part of the legacy of Jim Crow laws. But in this case (i.e. the SB1062 bill in Arizona) this does not only apply to LGBT people - it is a genuine Jim Crow law and it applies to ethnic groups as well. It allows anyone to refuse goods and services to anyone else if they believe this conflicts with their religious beliefs. Homophobia may have been the initial motivation for the bill, but it does also legalise racist discrimination and there are indeed people who would use it as a reason to legally discriminate against black and ethnic minority people. There are indeed still religious organisations that promote racist views and this is indeed a genuine Jim Crow law. Religion is a red herring here and a weak excuse to legalise discrimination. All that is required for it to become law now is for the governor of Arizona to sign it. Whether is is appropriate or not to include a mention of the legacy of Jim Crow laws in the way the term is now used to refer to legal discrimination against other equalities groups, I think it would still be right to refer to SB1062, which is a genuine new Jim Crow law and will be open to use for legal racist discrimination is signed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.158.172 (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a "separate but equal" status for African Americans."


 * Does SB1062 mandate that gays use different bathrooms, go to different schools, ride in different areas of public transportation than straights? Hardly. Ignorant and inflammatory use of a term by opponents of the proposed law may be appropriate to discussing that opposition. It has no business being used to promote a false equivalence that serves to minimize the actual state-enforced oppression of that era. There really needs to be some sort of Godwin's law corollary for this sort of foolishness. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * SB1062 doesn't mention gay people at all - it applies to black people and gay people equally. Its creators are supposedly motivated by homophobia but if it is signed it will enable any racial segregationist or anti-miscegenationist to refuse goods and services to ethnic minorities. Did Jim Crow laws only apply to government-run institutions? If they applied to private businesses then this is a Jim Crow law. The law would be used to legalise any form of faith-motivated discrimination so I would think it would probably in reality be used more against Muslims and other religions than against LGBTs and only some of the smaller, more extreme religious groups would use it against BME people, for example refusing service for mixed race marriages etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.30.231 (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We understand what you mean about readily identifying people for discrimination. This cannot usually been accomplished with LGBT. But we are documenting a series of laws which applied mostly in the Southern United States during a particular period of history. We cannot unilaterally open this up to another period and another state. It is off WP:TOPIC.
 * Southern laws were generally aimed at "collecting" African American money or labor, but inconveniencing them in the process. The most widely known example was Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus, per law, despite having paid the same fare as whites. Arizona laws are about not doing business at all! Quite different from Jim Crow.
 * We should not use the tone of journalism, whose main goal is to "sell time" to advertisers. We are an encyclopedia. We do rely on journalism for reporting the events, but we must use WP:RS for analysis. The faculty of objective reporting and analysis does not usually occur in modern journalism. Student7 (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Arizona law (now vetoed anyway) is clearly NOT a "Jim Crow Law". The Jim Crow put legal mandates separating people on the basis of race, making it an offense for a black man to use a whites only toilet; to sit outside of the "coloreds" area of the bus; to use a whites drinking fountain; and segregated education facilities. It is also used to describe the laws passed to effectively disenfranchise African-Americans: this not only kept them from voting, but kept them off of the juries as jury selection was based upon voting registration. The Arizona law does NOT specify that LGBT people must sit in the back of the bus; cannot eat in a non-LGBT part of a restaurant; must only use LGBT designated public toilets; can only attend LGBT designated education facilities; or impose any kind of test likely to prevent a LGBT person from registering to vote. What it is designed to do is to allow business owners to refuse service on the basis of "religious conviction". You could argue that it is "discriminatory", but it is not the same as Jim Crow, in that it allows people to discriminate, rather than legally mandate discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

== Why isn't this mentioned when talking about the division of Southern and Northern Democrats? It is that the entire Democrat platform was racist - that being a fact needs to be recorded and not hidden in deceitful ways. ==

Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.

and

Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeborgx (talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The article explains that pretty clearly. Do you have specific suggestions?  Why don't you just edit the article?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2014, Structuring "Origins of Jim Crow"
These conservative, white, Democratic Redeemer governments legislated Jim Crow laws, segregating black people from the white population.


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 13:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Disfranchisement
Blacks were still elected to local offices in the 1880s, but the establishment Democrats were passing laws to make voter registration and electoral rules more restrictive, with the result that political participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease. --&mdash; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berndelaleman (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 April 2014‎

Exactly what are you asking for?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2014, Structuring "Origins of Jim Crow"
For instance, even in cases in which Jim Crow laws did not expressly forbid black people to participate in sports or recreation, the laws shaped a segregated culture.


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 13:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The elections of 1912 and Wilson's Presidency
In the Jim Crow context, the presidential election of 1912 was steeply slanted against the interests of black Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berndelaleman (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 April 2014‎

Exactly what are you asking for?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2014, Structuring "Origins of Jim Crow"
For instance, even in cases in which Jim Crow laws did not expressly forbid black people to participate in sports or recreation, the laws shaped a segregated culture.


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 13:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The elections of 1912 and Wilson's Presidency
In the Jim Crow context, the presidential election of 1912 was steeply slanted against the interests of black Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berndelaleman (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 April 2014‎

Exactly what are you asking for?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2014
Currently it states: "The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level." to be more accurate it should state "The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level Democratic Parties."

Although the Jim Crow laws started around 1876, many of the Jim Crow laws didn't start until after Republican Ulysses Grant defeated Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election and

March 30, 1868: Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men” which was the Democratic call.

I don't care about recognition, I just want accuracy.

Zjohngates (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No source supplied for relevance to state/local or for it being strictly a Democratic Party act. DMacks (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request
The lead on this article does not reflect the contents (particularly the "Origin" section which makes the well-sourced claim that "Jim Crow" laws disenfranchised poor whites as well as blacks). There should be some mention of poor whites in the lead. As it stands it seems like the only factor in these laws was race when, in reality, the Democratic politicians weren't interested in having anyone but white business and land owners vote.50.81.150.190 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Re The New Jim Crow
Regarding blacks without advanced education getting incarcerated (committing crimes) more often, isn't the point that blacks without advanced education are incarcerated more often than whites without advanced education? Even those who commit crimes - white criminals are less harshly treated than black criminals. See re New York City marijuana laws 2014.deisenbe (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I had placed "Yale Law Professor, and opponent of mass incarceration James Forman Jr." "opponent of mass incarceration" was rm with the explanation that "who favors mass incarceration?"
 * My point was to establish the credentials of James Forman Jr. who does not have an article himself (not notable but reliable source).
 * I thought the point of these articles was to establish that Jim Crow supporters were in favor of (among other things) mass incarceration of blacks.
 * As stated in that paragraph, both Atlanta and DC, both black-run cities (among others), both incarcerate blacks at nearly the same rate as white-run cities. QED, it is not "Jim Crow" (i.e. bigoted), to incarcerate blacks at a higher rate. It is the fall out from drugs, and lower education. Where are the statistics to support that poor whites are better treated by "the system?" Statistics seem to lump all whites together as though they could be compared by color than by class. Student7 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've seen recent stories on Ferguson MO tagged with "Jim Crow". Don't remember where. deisenbe (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Intro paragraph
It says "The separation in practice led to conditions for African Americans that were inferior to those provided for white Americans". To me, the use of the word "led" suggests that at some point the conditions were similar for both groups, which it isn't true, as conditions for black people were always worse. 200.90.244.160 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015
The use of latin terms such as de jure and de facto when simple English terms such as "in law" or "legal" could be used is not necessary and IMHO pretentious. This usage adds nothing to the article, only adding potential confusion to the less able reader. Suggest replacing these latin terms with simple English terms.

82.28.14.136 (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This occurs most frequently in technical articles, whether that technicality is scientific, legal or some other specialist field. The guidance at Make technical articles understandable includes:- Alternatively, if people are having real trouble understanding the article, a version is available at the Simple English Wikipedia - as is shown in the left-hand column. - Arjayay (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ Wikipedia runs a difficult line between "accessibility" i.e. making an article comprehensible to most readers, and "dumbing down" i.e. over-simplifying an article.
 * "an encyclopedic style with a formal tone is important. Instead of essay-like, argumentative, or opinionated writing, Wikipedia articles should have a straightforward, just-the-facts style. However, the average reader should be able to comprehend the erudition"
 * The terms de jure and de facto are both linked when they first occur, so readers can easily look them up, and the legal meanings are rather wider than the one word substitutions you suggest.
 * Generally I hate foreign language terms. We're supposed to be using English {WP:UE etc. :). However, these terms are commonly used when describing the two systems. Anything else might confuse Americans! Student7 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

homer plessy paragraph
just a minor mishap, but homer plessy was 1/7th black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.122.237 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible Main Page Featured Article for next Martin Luther King Day
I know it's a long way in advance, but I thought I'd note that I've nominated The Negro Motorist Green Book, which relates to the Jim Crow era, for consideration as a Featured Article candidate with the aim of having it on the Main Page on the next Martin Luther King Day. If you would like to comment, please see Featured article candidates/The Negro Motorist Green Book/archive2. Prioryman (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference to Woodrow Wilson as the first southern President since 1856 is incorrect.
Immediately before becoming President, Woodrow Wilson was the Governor of New Jersey. 100.36.150.121 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Although Wilson was Governor of New Jersey, he was the first Southern-born and raised President since the civil war. He spent his childhood in Virginia, Georgia and South Carolina and he later took his law degree from the University of Virginia. He was definitely Southern, so this portion should be rewritten to clarify this fact because the way it is now written leaves ambiguity. Bill Eastland (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Examples
The first reference is a bit misleading since it only refers to the website in the text. The reference link will take one to the reference, but it would also help to put some addition clarification in the text itself. For example, simply adding the phrase "on the page for the Martin Luther King Jr national historic site" will clarify for the reader where the examples are found. This will also help should the reference link ever break - the intent of the reference will be retained to make future corrections quicker and easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.191.148.4 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you.
 * We say something in a positive voice. "Jim Crow was started in 1879"(ref) or whatever. The ref is supposed to contain something that supports that statement. I agree that we should not have to go chasing around within some other internal web site to back up that phrase. But we don't "explain/narrate" web sites. Reliable web sites may be used to support our statements. We do not "explain" the contents of theirs. If you are having to "chase around" to find the particular material, the citation needs to be changed to something more readily available. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

states affected
It seems to me there could be more information here about which states had Jim Crow laws. Were they only former members of the confederacy? Did all former members of the confederacy have such laws? Were there differences in extent and severity of such laws in affected states? When my parents bought a home in Wisconsin in the 1950's, the deed included a racially restrictive covenant, which they crossed out, but still a form of segregation, despite Wisconsin being a union state. This makes me think that Jim Crow was not strictly confined to the old south, though I'm not sure. (unsigned)


 * The article itself states "Along with Jim Crow laws, by which the state compelled segregation of the races, private parties such as businesses, political parties and unions created their own Jim Crow arrangements..." While bigotry may have been widespread in the U.S., a restrictive convenant in Wisconsin-- i.e. a private document-- isn't an indication that Wisconsin had Jim Crow laws, just that the original deed holder was a bigot. -- NewkirkPlaza (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Legacy:Political section
This section has a neutral point of view problem. It leaves the reader with the impression that Republicans in both houses of Congress gave less support to the 1964 Act than did Democrats, which is false. The actual percentages in favor in the House was 80.2% of Republicans and 61.3% of Democrats while in the Senate it was 81.8% of Republicans and 68.7% of Democrats. It remains a fact that without Republican support, the Act would not have passed. The Democrats did not have the votes on their own.

The last two sentences are also false. The first of those alleges that "All (100 percent) of the 10 Southern Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted against the act..." when the truth is that those 10 Southern Republicans were in the House. There was only one Republican (John Tower of Texas) in the Senate from the South. He voted against the act making the the word "All" correct but the number given is so inaccurate as to leave the reader with a negative impression. In fact the total number of Republicans voting against in the Senate was just six.

The last sentence reads, "This pattern of greater support for civil rights from Democrats than from Republicans also shows among a survey of Northerners: 98 percent (45 out of 46) of Northern Democrats but only 84 percent (27 out of 32) of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964." The first clause is global in its scope and is therefore false, as I noted above. The support for that clause, citing a "survey of Northerners" is both unclear and invalid for its purpose. It leaves the reader with the impression that a public opinion survey was done when the numbers reported are the votes of Northern Senators. Not even referencing the Senate is a major omission of the key fact that would make sense of those numbers. This sentence should be rewritten to report the facts and remove the reference to a "survey." That word clearly does not apply. Also the statement of "greater support" by Democrats is just false and should be removed.

This section is a classic example of how to use statistics to draw a conclusion unwarranted by the facts. The erroneous conclusion is that Democrats were more supportive of the 1964 CRA than Republicans. The only way to do that is to divide the votes by section to show greater percentages of support among Democrats versus Republicans in each section and then draw the conclusion that, overall, Democrats were more supportive than Republicans. In the House, the much greater number of Democrat no votes from the South created the higher overall percentage of Democrat no votes. It does not matter that in the South the absolute number of Democrat yes votes (7) was greater than the Republican yes vote (0). The absolute number of Southern Democrat no votes (94) was so much greater than the absolute number of Southern Republican no votes (10) that the Democratic advantage from Northern votes was obliterated in the overall vote. The story is the same in the Senate. Of course, the truth is that support for the '64 CRA in both houses of Congress was overwhelming and bi-partisan. That is the clear reason this section has an NPOV problem. The author's bias is to deny the importance of Republican support for the CRA. The fundamental fact is the South voted no, the rest of the country voted yes and those votes were bi-partisan.

Here is a suggested rewrite for the entire section: “Although Republicans gave greater percentages of support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in both houses of Congress, within each house Northern Democrats supported it in greater numbers than did Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats were more supportive than Southern Republicans. Among members of the U.S. House of Representatives who represented congressional districts in the South, more Democrats (seven out of 94 or roughly seven percent) than Republicans (none out of 10) voted for the Act. (At that time there were hardly any Republicans.) Of Northern Democrats in the House, 145 (out of 154 or 94 percent) voted for the Act compared with 138 (out of 162 or 85 percent) Northern Republicans. The only Southern Republican in the U.S. Senate (John Tower of Texas) voted against the Act as did most (20 or 95 percent of 21) Southern Democrats. Among Northern Senators, 98 percent (45 out of 46) of Democrats but only 84 percent (27 out of 32) of Republicans supported the Act. However, in the aggregate House Republicans voted yes by 80.2% compared to 61.3% of Democrats and in the Senate, it was 81.8% Republican to 68.7% Democrat. For more than a decade before 1964, both political parties had called for civil rights legislation in their platforms. The Republicans, of course, had a longer tradition of support, but by the 1950s both parties favored ending Jim Crow in one form or another. All of the major civil rights legislation of the 1950s and 1960s passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support but with greater support from Republicans than from Democrats due to the lingering opposition in the South.”Bill Eastland (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Intro: Jim Crow was "segregation"
It seems to me that the word "segregation" is woefully inadequate to convey the reality of the Jim Crow laws. So, since I know very little about this, I am doing a bit of lazy research. I find this: "a series of racist statutes, the Jim Crow laws ," "the system of government-sanctioned racial oppression and segregation in the United States ". I suggest fixing the Introduction in harmony with this. I hope to go ahead and make the change in a few days if there is no objection. Tom Haws (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"Such allegations continue"
At the end of the intro, I see "citations needed" on that statement. How long has it been there? Can we find out? If we can't find contemporary cases for this then I suggest we remove it from the paragraph. Akesgeroth (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Welp, no taker and it seems the tag has been there since March. Removing the statement for now, feel free to re-add it if you have relevant and reliable sources. Akesgeroth (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2015
Political Overall final vote by party The Senate version:[20] Democratic Party: 46–21  (69–31%) Republican Party: 27–6  (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20] Democratic Party: 153–91  (63–37%) Republican Party: 136–35  (80–20%)

RChurchill (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It desperately needs to be cleaned up, it is confusing and really testing NPOV. This isn't a forum for partisan political commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.132.166 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeated sentence
The sentence that starts

One historian notes that the

is repeated a couple of lines later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.119.177 (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
The name “Jim Crow” originates in “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”; it’s the nickname of Harry, Eliza’s son, and he’s called that when he starts singing and dancing—hence the song title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgasper (talk • contribs) 19:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected page - citation needed for Loving v. Virginia
This page is semi-protected to prevent new accounts from editing, but from CitationHunt, there seems to be a citation needed for:

Although sometimes counted among "Jim Crow laws" of the South, such statutes as anti-miscegenation laws were also passed by other states. Anti-miscegenation laws were not repealed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1] but were declared unconstitutional by the 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia.[citation needed]

Here are some citations for this:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395

Ujwalamurthy (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jim Crow laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304111738/http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm
 * Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20070601223741/http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm on http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm
 * Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20040203140654/http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_etiquette.htm on http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_etiquette.htm
 * Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20050407215126/http://www.robinwashington.com/jimcrow/1_home.html on http://www.robinwashington.com/jimcrow/1_home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Under the "Origin of Jim Crow Laws" heading, the second paragraph states: "In 1877, a national Democratic Party compromise to gain Southern support in the presidential election resulted in the government's withdrawing the last of the federal troops from the South." This is incomplete and misleading. A more accurate statement would be: "In 1877, in order to gain southern support, Republican presidential candidate Rutherford B. Hayes compromised with Democrats, particularly southern Democrats, to be elected president. The result of the compromise was the withdrawal of federal troops from the south." Democrats did not need to compromise with each other. This compromise was done with a Republican. The way it's written, leaves the Democrats as the only party responsible for the end of Reconstruction, and the spread of Jim Crow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamon Jordan (talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016
58.104.8.245 (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Hi,

There is a statement on this page that seems to be at odds with other information on another page. It relates to the dates and subsequent context of the "Black Codes". Unless, and I admit to my detailed ignorance of this topic, there were in fact two "Black Codes".

This statement in the Jim Crow laws entry, "'These Jim Crow laws followed the 1800–1866 Black Codes, which had previously restricted the civil rights and civil liberties of African Americans.", places the "Black Codes" in existence since colonial times.

The entry specifically on "Black Codes", at URL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States), contains the following statements.

"In the United States, the Black Codes were laws passed by Southern states in 1865 and 1866, after the Civil War."

"From the colonial period, colonies and states had passed laws that discriminated against free Blacks. In the South, these were generally included in "slave codes;" "

"In the first two years after the Civil War, white dominated southern legislatures passed Black Codes modeled after the earlier slave codes."

These intimate that the Black Codes, specifically, came into existence after the Civil War, although other "slave codes" had existed pre CW. If this is the case, the statement cited above, from the Jim Crow laws entry should possibly make reference to the "slave codes" rather than the "Black Code".

Hope this helps.

Regards Damien S
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that part of the text is incorrect. It reads "These Jim Crow laws revived principles of the 1800–1866 Black Codes, which had previously restricted the civil rights and civil liberties of African Americans. " and it should be "These Jim Crow laws revived principles of the 1865 and 1866 Black Codes, which had previously restricted the civil rights and civil liberties of African Americans. " Bestrob (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

earliest usage
The article mentions a usage in the NYT of 1892. There was an earlier usage in the Seattle daily post-intelligencer., February 04, 1887, see this page: "We don't want any Jim Crow laws as that on our statute books." I didn't check if the meaning is consistent. Zerotalk 11:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jim Crow laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720111358/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20021004051643/http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/history.htm to http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212050132/http://afroamhistory.about.com/cs/jimcrowlaws/a/jimcrowlaws.htm to http://afroamhistory.about.com/cs/jimcrowlaws/a/jimcrowlaws.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040618111006/http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/what.htm to http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/what.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Improvement: Citation
Opening paragraph, first line Enacted by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures in the late 19th century While it is relatively self-evident that this legislature was white, some form of citation should be added on the word "white" to ensure accuracy. Otherwise this specifier should be removed. If the racial makeup of the legislature that enacted these laws cannot be directly verified, it should not be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimodephone (talk • contribs) 07:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018
The article states that the laws lasted until 1965, but they ended on July 2nd of 1964. Isiahmcmillian98 (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was, indeed, July 2, 1964, but the Jim Crow laws are generally considered to have ended with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Arjayay (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

African-American life section
This section talks about how entertainers and sports figures helped to erase racial barriers. I think rock and roll should also be mentioned here, as it appealed to both white and black audiences and numerous black performers such as Chuck Berry crossed racial lines, either directly or through white audiences being introduced to their music through white performers doing their own versions and then seeking out the originals. You also had scenarios such as integrated groups like Joey Dee and the Starliters, and even Bill Haley and His Comets toured with a black saxophone player (Frank Scott) for part of 1957. 136.159.160.8 (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Trimmed section "New Jim Crow"
Trimmed section entitled "New Jim Crow". This section had been added because a noted author, Michelle Alexander, asserted that modern American drug prosecutions appeared similar to Jim Crow laws. In fact, they are not Jim Crow laws; they just appear--to this author--to be like Jim Crow laws. This is a typical coatrack, slipped in to make a point. Being "like" something does not make it that thing. Edward Lucas wrote The New Cold War to describe the tension between Putin's Russia and the West. Lucas obviously noted similarities between the Cold War and a modern phenomenon, but that does not mean Lucas' theories should automatically be included in the article Cold War, because the Cold War is over, as are the Jim Crow laws. If there is in fact a "New Jim Crow" group of theorists, details about it should be added to a new article. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The topic of whether the “War on Drugs” has disproportionately affected minorities is an important and relevant social and political question. That said, this additional two sentence section seems like an unnecessary social and political statement and brief counter-statement that adds nothing to, and in favt distracts from, the relevant historical discussion of the Jim Crow laws. Edokin (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018
First paragraph, second sentence. Laws WEREN'T enforced until 1965. Sydneyhogue1029 (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's correct as is.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)