Resistance to the Segregation of Public Transportation
in the Early 1840's
Peter Lauranzano (BHS
class of '04)
During the years 1830-1845,
the treatment of African-Americans as passengers on
public transportation in the Boston area was discriminatory.
The prejudicial treatment of African-Americans on
railcars such as those owned by the Eastern Railroad
Company led to petition campaigns against racial discrimination
at the state and local levels.
In the mid 1830’s, New Englanders
were interested in the anti-slavery question. There
was no place in the United States that allowed African-Americans
to travel in the same class as white people. Slave
owners traveling with their slaves were able to travel
in first class but free African-Americans were forced
to travel in second-class cars. On September 29,
1841 Fredrick Douglass and his friend James N. Buffum
protested their not being allowed to travel in first
class with white passengers on the Eastern Railroad
Company. These two men, who were well-known as champions
of the anti-slavery cause, entered the cars in Lynn,
Massachusetts on their way to Newburyport.The conductor
of the train approached the two men and ordered them
to leave the car. Refusing to do so, two brakemen
tried to physically remove the men. Before they could,
a fight broke out between the two cars. For several
days the train did not make the stop in Lynn knowing
in the event that Douglass would come aboard again.[1] Douglass’ and Buffum’s
actions led to similar incidents on the Eastern Railroad.
Charles Lennox Remond was
an influential abolitionist that delivered many speeches
around the state, including one at Boston’s Marlboro
chapel. In a speech delivered to a special committee
of the Massachusetts House of Representatives he opened
by saying:
Trusting, as I do, that in this
country, this State, ay, this city, the Athens of
America, the rights, privileges and immunities of
its citizens are measured by complexion, or any other
physical peculiarity or conformation, especially such
as over which no man has any control. Complexion
can in no sense be construed into crime, much less
be rightfully made the criterion of rights.[2]
Remond’s audience applauded
after statements such as these. Remond went on to
say that "our right to citizenship in this State has
been acknowledged and secured by the allowance of
the elective franchise and consequent taxation, and
I know of no good reason, if admitted in this instance,
why it should be denied in any other." He stated that
African-Americans are discriminated in their own country
and while he traveled Europe for nineteen months in
England, Ireland, and Scotland he was received, treated,
and recognized, in public and private society without
"any regard". Remond noted that "there is a marked
difference between social and civil rights. It has
been well and justly remarked, by my friend Mr. Phillips
that we all claim the privilege of selecting our society
and associations; but, in civil rights, one man has
not the prerogative to define rights for another."
Railroad executives argued
that all Massachusetts corporations had been granted
the power to make "reasonable and proper" by-laws
for the management of their business, and "the established
usage and the public sentiment of this community authorize
a separation of the blacks and whites in public places."
A Boston newspaper claimed that recent legislative
proposals, designed to make Massachusetts a "paradise
of colored people," had resulted in a large increase
in African American immigration to the area. The
legislature refused to adopt the proposed act.
Through constant campaigning
the abolitionists got their desired result. In 1842,
a joint legislative committee, after conducting hearings,
reported that the railroad restrictions violated African-Americans’
rights as citizens, conflicted with the state constitution,
and "would be an insult to any white man." [3]The committee recommended a bill which
would prohibit any distinctions in accommodations
because of descent, sect, or color. One state senator
predicted as a warning that legislation would not
stop with the segregation of whites and blacks on
railroads but would eventually be applied to religious
societies, hotels, "and through all the ramifications
of society".[4]
The growing impact of
public opinion, and the threat of legislative action
prompted the railroad companies to abandon segregation.
A Joint Special Committee, to whom was committed the
petition of Francis Jackson and "sundry other petitioners",
suggested
a law securing to colored persons equal rights in
railroad accommodations. An act relating to the
rights of railroad passengers enacted by the Senate
and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled,
and by the Authority of the same read as follows:
Sec.1 No rail corporation shall,
by themselves their directors, or other, make or establish
by-law or regulation, which shall make any distinction,
or give a preference in accommodation to any one or
more persons over other, on account of descent, sect,
or color.
Sec.2 Any officer or servant of
any rail-road corporation, who shall assault any person
for the purpose of depriving him of his right or privilege,
in any car or other rail-road accommodation, on account
of descent, sect, or color, or shall aid or abet any
other person, in committing such assault, shall be
punished by imprisonment in the county jail not less
than six days, or by fine not less than ten dollars;
and shall also be answerable to the person assaulted,
to the full amount of his damage in an action of trespass.[5]
Even after the bill was
eventually passed in 1843, there were still cases
of segregation reported. These incidents occurred
despite the fact that Governor Marcus Morten suggested,
in the following year, that if any citizens, in railroad
cars or elsewhere, sustained injuries because of their
descent or color for which no legal redress was available,
they should be provided with "remedies adequate to
their protection in the enjoyment of their just and
equal rights.[6] The bill did not stop segregation of all transportation
in the state, as described in an article in The
Liberator entitled "Treatment
of Colored Passengers", published November 15,1844.[7]
In New York City, African-Americans formed the "Legal
Rights Association."
In one instance railroad
executives stated that public sentiment required separate
cars for Negroes and pointed out that African-Americans
could stand on the front platforms of any cars. In
a case involving the expulsion of an African American
woman from a segregated car, the presiding judge informed
the jury that African-Americans, "if sober, well behaved,
and free from disease," possessed the same rights
as whites and could not be excluded by force or violence
from public conveyances.[8]
Railroads were not the
only type of transportation that discriminated against
African-Americans. When Philadelphia streetcars began
operation in 1858, African-Americans were only allowed
to ride on the front platform. Many protested and
one newspaper claimed that Philadelphia was the only
northern city that excluded African-Americans from
public conveyance, which prevented them to move away
from the city into cleaner residential areas with
cheaper rates. In 1867, a legislative act discontinued
the segregation in public conveyances.
The circumstances that gave
rise to these petitions were matters of frequent disrespect
toward other races throughout Massachusetts. Railroad
corporations such as the Western, Nashua, Boston and
Portland, Norwich, Lowell, and Worcester, made no
distinction between the race of passengers and even
every person was allowed to purchase any ticket—whether
it was second or first class—a and choose a car and
seat that suited them best. On the other hand, the
Eastern Railroad, Taunton and New Bedford, and Providence,
often placed African-Americans where they pleased,
whether or not they had to ride in a car by themselves,
or in cars that were exposed to inclement New England
weather. African-Americans requested amends, not
only on observing that colored people were not treated
equally with their fellow white passengers, but on
the "broad
principle that the state constitution prohibited distinguishing
public privileges among different classes of citizens
of this Commonwealth".[9]
2 "Testimony
by Charles Lennox Remond", Black Abolitionist
Papers: Volume III United States 1830-1846. Document
52. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1985).