Formal Jim Crow segregation laws emerged decades after Reconstruction, following custom

Evidence

In an important study by C. Vann Woodward, on the “strange career of Jim Crow,” he argued that the end of Radical Reconstruction did not bring immediate and total segregation in the South. The most blatant Jim Crow laws, on the contrary, belonged to the very end of the nineteenth century. A certain period of trial and error, of ambiguity and complexity, preceded the time when apartheid was nailed solidly into formal law. “Custom” preceded law. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 2918

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the ‘Complaints About Immodesty’ piece pattern and general claim that formal law often codifies preexisting custom and practice, relevant to institutions course framing. — connects to: Segregating a hearing room mirrors the Jim Crow bus seating regime — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 76; Jim Crow terror was a reaction against Reconstruction-era Black political gains — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project: A New American Origin…, 892; The end of Reconstruction coincided with the dawn of modern racism — Marianne DeKoven, Utopia Limited: The Sixties and the…, 890 (+2 more)
• DEFINE: Introduces the concept of legal apartheid with custom preceding formal law, core vocabulary for the institutions course.

Broader Connections

• Jim Crow terror was a reaction against Reconstruction-era Black political gains #expands (0.75) — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project, 892
• The end of Reconstruction coincided with the dawn of modern racism #corroborates (0.75) — Marianne DeKoven, Utopia Limited, 890
• White Southern backlash nullified Reconstruction amendments through law and terror #corroborates (0.70) — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project, 386