1.​ What is the difference between a primary and secondary source?

Why do scholars use

primary sources, and which of these readings are primary sources?
-​ A primary source:
-​ A secondary source:
-​ Difference:
-​ Scholars use primary sources because:
-​ The readings that are primary sources are:

The biggest difference between a primary and secondary source is the fact that those with
primary sources have direct, first-hand experience and knowledge on the topic at hand,
while those using secondary sources are getting their information from another source.
Scholars use primary sources to give the reader the most accurate information that they
can. By doing this they also ensure that they are as knowledgeable as possible on the
subject they are writing about too. The readings that are primary sources in this tutorial
are “The Ethics of Living Jim Crow” written by Richard Wright, and also “A Red
Record--Alledged Causes of Lynching” written by Ida B. Wells.

2.​ Why did the white South implement Jim Crow segregation in the 1890s? How did it
impact Black people?
-​ Jim Crow segregation was implemented in the 1980s by the white South because:
-​ They didn’t want to be “degraded” from having equal voting rights
-​ “If blacks voted with whites as equals, they would insist on living and
sleeping with whites as equals, and no white southerner could
contemplate such degradation”
-​ “Disfranchisement, mostly through state constitutional amendments, came
to the South in the 1890s because the issue of political participation
remained linked in the whire mind with black assertiveness and social
equality”

​ The white South implemented Jim Crow segregation in the 1890s because they didn’t
​ want to be “degraded” by having equal voting rights. They believed that by having equal ​
​ voting rights, Black people would also insist on having more rights, such as living as equal.
​ This did not sit right with them, as they wanted to make sure that they were in a secured,
​ superior position.
 -​ The impact it had on Black people:
-​ They wanted to improve their position (they wanted to secure
accommodations that equaled those afforded whites)
-​ Instructed them on where and how to do everything
-​ “Whites only” ; “coloured only”
-​ Instructed them on where they could legally walk, sit, rest, eat, etc.
-​ In places where they could mix with white people, they realized they would
have to wait until the whites were served first
-​ Grocery stores, banks ,post offices, etc.
-​ Separation of the races often meant the total exclusion of black men and
women from certain facilities
-​ Amusement parks, swimming pools, bowling alleys, etc.

​ This implication of Jim Crow segregation had a great impact on Black people. They
hopelessly wanted to improve their situation after being emancipated and wanted to be
equal to whites, but were constantly being told that they were worthless and had no right
to have the same privileges as white people, solely based on the colour of their skin. There
were many restrictions, and very strict guidelines, that were to be followed. These include
almost many establishments, or even simple things such as elevators, being “whites only”
or “coloured only”. They were even instructed on where they could legally walk, rest, sit,
and even eat. The separation did not allow them to live as freely as whites, as they were
still being treated lesser than.

3.​ Why, according to Leon Litwack, did so few white Southerners challenge the racial
violence and mistreatment of Black southerners? How did African Americans attempt to
challenge Jim Crow laws?
-​ White Southerners didn’t challenge the racial violence to Black southerners
because:
-​ Believed that “keeping black people in their place, whether by statutes or
by terror, was nothing less than pest control, a way of combating an
epidemic or virus that if left unchecked would be detrimental to the health
and security of the community.”
​
​ According to Leon Litwack, so few white Southerners challenged the racial violence and
​ mistreatment of Black southerners, because they wanted to make sure that the Black
​ southerners continued to feel inferior to them. They wanted to hold their power and
​ continue to terrorize the Black community to ensure that they would stay segregated.
 -​ African Americans attempted to challenge Jim Crow laws by:
-​ Privately mocked its absurdities, contradictions, and obscenities (in
reference to the workings of Jim Crow)
-​ Between 1890 and World War I
-​ Black people responded to the new Jim Crow laws by organizing
boycotts of streetcar lines in more than twenty-five cities in every
state of the former Confederacy
-​ Varied from a few weeks to two or three years
-​ In a few places resulted in “crippling” losses for the transit
companies and even a temporary suspension of the Jim
Crow ordinance
-​ They walked, took private carriages, drays, hacks, etc.
-​ In some cities they developed informal transit
systems and companies
-​ Some did not attend any places that were segregated
-​ Tried to focus their energy on improving segregated facilities, trying to
make them equal of their white counterparts
-​ After World War II they started directly violating the laws of Jim Crow, but
much would change until a half a century later (when the foundations of Jim
Crow were confronted directly by an organized mass movement)

​ African Americans attempted to challenge Jim Crow laws by boycotting places such as
​ streetcars which heavily enforced the Jim Crow rules. While this approach was not
​ entirely effective in terms of reversing the laws, it did have an economic impact for transit
​ companies in some places. They also attempted to challenge the Jim Crow laws by trying to
improve the facilities that were segregated, but attempting to have equal rights and
opportunities as white people. However, after World War II, they started to completely
violate and ignore the laws of Jim Crow, this included behaviours such as staying seated at
the front of streetcars. While these attempts were very brave, the appeal of Jim Crow laws
would not see a court until much later on.

4.​ How did the U.S. Supreme Court defend its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson?
-​ Decision: rejected Homer Plessy’s appeal (against the law enacted by Louisiana in
1890 that forbade any railroad passenger to enter a “a coach or compartment to
which by race he does not belong”)
-​ Eight to one

-​ How the U.S. Supreme Court defended their decision:

-​ Rejected appeal and found no problem with accommodations that were
“equal but separate”
-​ "Social prejudices," wrote Justice Henry B. Brown for the majority, may not
be "overcome by legislation," and legislative bodies were "powerless to
 eradicate racial instincts." Rejecting the idea that "the enforced separation
of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority," Justice
Brown observed, "If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the
act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction
upon it." Equal rights, in any event, did not require "an enforced
commingling of the two races," and any effort to force such commin gling
would only exacerbate race relations. "If one race be inferior to the other
socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the
same plane." The doctrine of white supremacy could not have been
enunciated more clearly.”

5.​ Based on the documentary Slavery by Another Name, what were the kets goals of African
Americans coming out of slavery? In contrast, what were the goals of most white
Southerners after the Civil War?
-​ The kets goals of African Americans coming out of slavery were:
-​ Wanted to enjoy, receive, and to live: freedom
-​ Reaffirming marriage vows, reconstituting families
-​ “A new future”
-​ Willing to work long days: but wanted to own their own land and decide
their own terms (how many hours and when to work, etc.)
-​ The goals of most white Southerners after the Civil War were:
-​ To continue mistreating black people and using them to complete their
labour (using them for profit; basically to continue slavery)
-​ To segregate and to stay completely separate from black people

6.​ What is the “slavery by another name” that the documentarians and historians disucss in
the PBS film you watched? How did it affect African Americans trying to make a life for
themselves in the Jim Crow South?
-​ The “slavery by another name” discussed in the documentary is:
-​ “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States”
-​ 13th amendment
-​ “Extends slavery by another name”
-​ Criminalizing things such as vagrancy (loitering in any way and can’t
prove that you are employed) and having the punishment be slavery
-​ Paying your debts through work

-​ It affected African Americans trying to make a life for themselves in the Jim Crow
South by:
-​ Making slavery legal again (but under another name)
 -​ They would never be free or have any chance to make a life, because they
were slaves and had no money (they were trapped)
-​ Forcing them to work for other people to pay off “debts” when they should
be working for themselves (causing them to always be poor)
-​ Vagrancy was a crime, so they were trapped in this cycle
-​ Convicted for being a vagrant, then bought by someone to
pay off their debt (never making money for themselves)

7.​ What is the debt peonage system and how did it operate? What is sharecropping? How
did these systems limit the advancement of African American people?
-​ The debt peonage system was: peasantry; paying off debt with work (basically
slavery)
-​ It operated by: the us government (courts)
-​ Black people would be stopped, accused, and convicted of
something, after being taken to court they would not be able to pay
court fees, the white people would pay and then make them pay
their debt of with work

-​ Sharecropping was:
-​

-​ These systems limit the advancement of African American people by:

-​

8.​ How did Richard Wright’s mother socialize him for survival? How did Wright try to
maintain his dignity within a racist system designed to undermine it?
-​ His mother told him to hide, and basically to not look for any trouble with white
people, because they would kill him
-​ She said no never engage in any more “cinder” fights
-​ She told him that she was working for white people, and the actions of Richard
could upset them (it put a roof over their head)
-​ An example of Wright trying to maintain his dignity is at the end when his hat falls
of his head, he doesn’t want to acknowledge the white man for helping him, but
knows he would be in big trouble if he didn’t, so he decided to pretend that his
packages were falling (and that he was occupied with that) so that he wouldn’t have
to say thank you (he keeps his pride)
-​ His two options were (1) to smile and grin, (2) say thank you (which would
make the white man feel like he were doing him a service), which could end
badly for him
9.​ Why, according to Ida B. Wells, did white Americans lynch Black people in large numbers
in 1865 and beyond?
-​ Three reasons:
-​ 1. Race riots
-​ “News” would be spread to the North that an insurrection was being
planned by the Negroes, which the white men would then go to “defend”
-​ There were only ever black men being wounded and killed in these
situations, white men always escaped unharmed

-​ 2. “Negro Domination” in the government (they were scared of this)

-​ To gain control of power and make sure there was no “Negro Domination”
(from both a real life and government perspective)
-​ This is invalid because they could not vote in the south

-​ 3. They had to be killed to “avenge their assaults upon women”

-​ “Humanity abhors the assailant of womanhood”
-​ White men claimed to be very chivalrous and protecting of their women,
which is what they said to justify the lynching of Black men (and women)
-​ White women from the North became teachers and preachers for
those who were emancipated
-​ The same white men insulted, persecuted and ostracised
these white women
-​

10.​How did white people attempt to justify their racial violence? Why was Wells critical of
the WCTU resolution on lynching (written by Mrs. Fressenden)?
-​