Unit
Years: 1830-1850
Freedom & Equal Rights
Historical Events, Movements, and Figures
A community of free African American people had begun to grow and flourish in Boston in the early 1800s, fueled by Massachusetts’ abolition of slavery in 1783. At the same time, the early to mid-1800s brought with it many efforts to improve life for all Americans, including efforts to provide free public schools, known as the Common School Movement. Led by Horace Mann, secretary of the newly founded Massachusetts Board of Education, the focus was on ensuring ethical and democratic participation in society.
African Americans, free and enslaved, had long recognized that literacy, freedom and equality were closely tied together. The Common School movement in Massachusetts now raised their hopes for educational opportunity. Free Black people knew, and began to argue, that as tax paying citizens, it was the right of their children to access quality public education.
By 1840, Boston had a thriving public school system. The Boston School District operated a two-tiered system of schooling that placed White students in neighborhood schools across the city and Black students in one school–the Abiel Smith School. Though this school had begun with private funding, the Abiel Smith School was officially established in 1835 as the first public school for Black children in the country.
However, by the 1840s, many questions about the quality of education provided to children at the Smith School were raised by parents. Often, schools with better outcomes and resources were closer to where a Black family lived, but their children were categorically excluded based on race. In 1848, recognizing the inequality at play, an African American writer and printer, Benjamin Franklin Roberts, chose to challenge this barrier. He attempted multiple times to enroll his daughter Sarah in one of the White neighborhood schools which were closer to their home.
Each time, the school committee rejected his requests and assigned his daughter to the Smith School. Frustrated with the injustice of having to watch his children travel across the city to attend a lower-quality school, Roberts filed a lawsuit against the city of Boston. The case of Sarah Roberts vs. the City of Boston cited that this policy of segregation violated the Massachusetts Constitution.
Judge Lemuel Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, disagreed with the Roberts family. He sided with the Boston school committee, asserting that no law had been broken because Black students did have access to public education, the city was simply providing a separate environment for their access. This ruling set the precedent for the “separate, but equal” argument upholding racial segregation in countless cases for the next 100 years following the Roberts v. City of Boston ruling.
Going forward, the Black community and abolitionist allies continued to agitate for educational equality, but with a more limited set of strategies available. It was not until the US Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that the legal underpinnings of racial segregation began to unravel, opening a legal path toward educational equality.
Anti-Slavery Almanacs
According to the American Antiquarian Society, almanacs dating from as early as 1656 were abundant and essential pieces of literature in colonial households. When books were a luxury, almanacs provided information for farmers and navigators as well as advice for living. Today the one that is best-known is Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac. Less familiar is the work of Benjamin Banneker, a free man of color. Banneker, a resident of Maryland, published and sold his annual almanac from 1792-1797. His work contradicted widespread opinion of the time that Africans were intellectually inferior to whites.
During the 19th century abolitionists published antislavery almanacs to inform Americans about the horrors of slavery. Almanacs typically included thirteen woodcuts, one for each month and the cover. Each image informed readers about the experiences of enslaved people as well as the dangers and discrimination that free people of color faced. The woodcut, featured in this lesson, focused its attention on incidents of educational discrimination against black children; the caption below the image revealed the almanac’s anti-colonizationist stance (an opposition to African resettlement that was widespread though not universal in the African American community in this period).
Educational Inequality: The Roots of “Separate but Equal”
Vocabulary & Key Terms:
Student Context:
A community of free African American people had begun to grow and flourish in Boston in the early 1800s, fueled by Massachusetts’ abolition of slavery in 1783. At the same time, the early to mid-1800s brought with it many efforts to improve life for all Americans, including efforts to provide free public schools, known as the Common School Movement. Led by Horace Mann, secretary of the newly founded Massachusetts Board of Education, the focus was on ensuring ethical and democratic participation in society.
African Americans, free and enslaved, had long recognized that literacy, freedom and equality were closely tied together. The Common School movement in Massachusetts now raised their hopes for educational opportunity. Free Black people knew, and began to argue, that as tax paying citizens, it was the right of their children to access quality public schools.
By 1840, Boston had a thriving public school system. The Boston School District operated a two-tiered system of schooling that placed White students in neighborhood schools across the city and Black students in one school–the Abiel Smith School. Though this school had begun with private funding, the Abiel Smith School was officially established in 1835 as the first public school for Black children in the country.
However, by the 1840s, many questions about the quality of education provided to children at the Smith School were raised by parents. Often, schools with better outcomes and resources were closer to where a Black family lived, but their children were categorically excluded based on race. In 1848, recognizing the inequality at play, an African American writer and printer, Benjamin Franklin Roberts, chose to challenge this barrier. He attempted multiple times to enroll his daughter Sarah in one of the White neighborhood schools which were closer to their home.
Each time, the school committee rejected his requests and assigned his daughter to the Smith School. Frustrated with the injustice of having to watch his children travel across the city to attend a lower-quality school, Roberts filed a lawsuit against the city of Boston. The case of Sarah Roberts vs. the City of Boston cited that this policy of segregation violated the Massachusetts Constitution.
Judge Lemuel Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, disagreed with the Roberts family. He sided with the Boston school committee, asserting that no law had been broken because Black students did have access to public education, the city was simply providing a separate environment for their access. This ruling set the precedent for the “separate, but equal” argument upholding racial segregation in countless cases for the next 100 years following the Roberts v. City of Boston ruling.
Going forward, the Black community and abolitionist allies continued to agitate for educational equality, but with a more limited set of strategies available. It was not until the US Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that the legal underpinnings of racial segregation began to unravel, opening a legal path toward educational equality.
Educational Inequality: The Roots of “Separate but Equal”
Vocabulary & Key Terms:
Student Context:
A community of free African American people had begun to grow and flourish in Boston in the early 1800s, fueled by Massachusetts’ abolition of slavery in 1783. At the same time, the early to mid-1800s brought with it many efforts to improve life for all Americans, including efforts to provide free public schools, known as the Common School Movement. Led by Horace Mann, secretary of the newly founded Massachusetts Board of Education, the focus was on ensuring ethical and democratic participation in society.
African Americans, free and enslaved, had long recognized that literacy, freedom and equality were closely tied together. The Common School movement in Massachusetts now raised their hopes for educational opportunity. Free Black people knew, and began to argue, that as tax paying citizens, it was the right of their children to access quality public schools.
By 1840, Boston had a thriving public school system. The Boston School District operated a two-tiered system of schooling that placed White students in neighborhood schools across the city and Black students in one school–the Abiel Smith School. Though this school had begun with private funding, the Abiel Smith School was officially established in 1835 as the first public school for Black children in the country.
However, by the 1840s, many questions about the quality of education provided to children at the Smith School were raised by parents. Often, schools with better outcomes and resources were closer to where a Black family lived, but their children were categorically excluded based on race. In 1848, recognizing the inequality at play, an African American writer and printer, Benjamin Franklin Roberts, chose to challenge this barrier. He attempted multiple times to enroll his daughter Sarah in one of the White neighborhood schools which were closer to their home.
Each time, the school committee rejected his requests and assigned his daughter to the Smith School. Frustrated with the injustice of having to watch his children travel across the city to attend a lower-quality school, Roberts filed a lawsuit against the city of Boston. The case of Sarah Roberts vs. the City of Boston cited that this policy of segregation violated the Massachusetts Constitution.
Judge Lemuel Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, disagreed with the Roberts family. He sided with the Boston school committee, asserting that no law had been broken because Black students did have access to public education, the city was simply providing a separate environment for their access. This ruling set the precedent for the “separate, but equal” argument upholding racial segregation in countless cases for the next 100 years following the Roberts v. City of Boston ruling.
Going forward, the Black community and abolitionist allies continued to agitate for educational equality, but with a more limited set of strategies available. It was not until the US Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that the legal underpinnings of racial segregation began to unravel, opening a legal path toward educational equality.
Petitions urging the desegregation of Boston’s public schools were submitted to the school committee in 1840, 1844, 1845, 1846, and 1849.
To the Primary School Committee of the City of Boston:
The undersigned colored citizens of Boston, parents and guardians of children now attending the exclusive Primary Schools for colored children in this City, respectfully represent:—that the establishment of exclusive schools for our children is a great injury to us, and deprives us of those equal privileges and advantages in the public schools to which we are entitled as citizens. These separate schools cost more and do less for the children than other schools, since all experience teaches that where a small and despised class are shut out from the common benefit of any public institutions of learning and confined to separate schools, few or none interest themselves about the schools, —neglect ensues, abuses creep in, the standard of scholarship degenerates, and the teachers and the scholars are soon considered and of course become an inferior class.
But to say nothing of any other reasons for this change, it is sufficient to say that the establishment of separate schools for our children is believed to be unlawful, and it is felt to be if not in intention, in fact, insulting. If, as seeks to be admitted, you are violating our rights, we simply ask you to cease doing so.
We therefore earnestly request that such exclusive schools be abolished, and that our children be allowed to attend the Primary Schools established in the respective Districts in which we live.
George Putnam, And Eighty-five Others
(Document 3.7.7)
Transcription of the PETITION of THE COLORED PEOPLE: To the School Committee of the City of Boston, entered in the record July 1849
GENTLEMEN:—We the undersigned, Parents of children, guardians and others, citizens of Boston, constitute a portion of the community who are excluded from the privilege of common School instruction for those children who are identified with us in complexion, in the various districts where we reside. A number among us have more than once made application to members of your Honorable Board for the admission of our children to the District Schools, but are refused, on the ground that there is an "exclusive School " for Colored children to which there is no objection. To this School, every intelligent person among us are ready to bear a direct testimony in opposition. Among some of the reasons why we are opposed to it, are these:—It is a great inconvenience on account of the scattered state of our residences—lt is an obstacle in the way of common rights—It secures to the child of the Foreigner a privilege that is denied to the native Bostonian—It holds up a barrier against a portion of the people, "solely on account of color," and encourages the worst of influences in the community. In no other place, in this Commonwealth, do we find "exclusive Schools " in existence; all children in the respective cities and towns meet together at the several places for School instruction. The results, you are well aware, are not unfavorable to a similar experiment in this City.
In relation to the present Teacher (Mr. Wellington) in that School, we have not the slightest dissatisfaction. We do not hold him responsible for the thin attendance or the lack of interest in the studies of the pupils. We consider him fully competent and able under ordinary circumstances to give the highest tone of character to a Public School. His case finds not a precedent in the State—having charge of a number of pupils who feel that indignation against the injustice which consigns them to that School or none, it is impossible for him to succeed as he would happily do. These pupils are every day witness to the agitation among their parents and guardians relative to the School. A great number among us have pledged ourselves never to countenance or encourage such a system of partiality and injustice.
In regard to the recommendation of a colored man, as Principal in that School, we hail the circumstance an attempt to quiet our efforts against its dissolution. We do, therefore, regard with suspicion and as unworthy of confidence, any individual who is identified with us, that will suffer himself to be a tool to suit the wishes of those who are opposed to the full enjoyment of our rights.
As all good citizens should, we ask to be placed in possession of common rights. Open the doors of our District Schools and let in those who are “hungering and thirsting” for instruction. We ask you to ABOLISH THE SMITH SCHOOL, and erect on its site if need there be for more Schools, a School free to all the children who reside nearest to it. And as it is our duty and our right, we will ever pray.
Signed by Jonas W. Clark and 201 others.
Boston, July, 1849
Source: Petition of the Colored People to the School Committee of the City of Boston, entered in the record July, 1849
(Document 3.7.9 )
Excerpts from the June 15, 1846 report of the Primary School Committee of the City of Boston responding to the parents’ petition
REPORT
In Primary School Committee,
Boston, June 15, 1846.
The Sub-Committee, to whom was referred the Petition of sundry colored persons, praying for the abolition of the special schools for colored children, respectfully
REPORT:
That they have given to this Petition, and to the subject embraced in it, their most respectful and careful consideration. They have listened to the arguments of able Counsel employed by the Petitioners, and to the testimony of several colored persons interested in the objects of the Petition; and, after having diligently sought for all the information which they could obtain, will now endeavor to present to the Board, such a view of the whole subject, as shall be both just and kind to the colored people, and for the best good of all the schools under our charge. . . .
We maintain, that the true interests of' both races require, that they should be kept distinct. Amalgamation is degradation. We would urge on our brethren of the African race, the duty of cultivating the genuine virtues, peculiar to that race. Is it degrading to them to be unmingled with their pale-faced neighbors? Confound the tongue that would utter such slander upon them! Let them not lean upon, nor look up to, the whites; but trust, under God, to their own native energies, unmingled and uncorrupted. Let them cultivate a respect for themselves, for their own race, their own blood, aye, and for their own color. Let them not come to us with the humiliating confession, that they cannot make their separate schools as good as those for the white children and tell us that their children, if put by themselves, even under the best instruction, must sink, unless they have the white children to pull them up. We will not believe this, we pronounce it a slander on the colored people; but we do say, that this course of policy will never elevate them, nor cause them to be respected.
We are bound, too, to consult the interests of the white children. Even if the colored children would be the gainers by the proposed change, we are bound to ask, whether the white children will not be, in an equal degree, at least, the losers? It is quite obvious, that disagreements and troubles, of various kinds, would immediately arise, if the change should be made, and that much injury would be done to the schools. How serious it would be, it is impossible to say. It is probable, too, that the attendance of the colored children would, in the aggregate, be seriously diminished. And we are unable to see that any good would accrue, to counterbalance these evils.
While, therefore, your Committee maintain, that the reasonable request, of even one colored parent, should be scrupulously respected, yet we also maintain, that if "the greatest good of the greatest number" will be promoted by our present arrangement, it ought to be retained. If these separate schools were abolished, and the colored children were mingled promiscuously in the other schools, the white children would not associate cordially with them. The whites would vex and insult the colored children, who would retort by blows, and thus continual quarrels would arise. It is also certain, that many scholars would be driven from our schools, by such a change. Many parents would not allow their children to associate with colored children; and these, too, from among the class who most need instruction; for the prejudices against color are strongest among the most ignorant. Another consequence would be, to impair the present high standing of our schools, by introducing a cause of discord, which would drive away some of the best scholars. . . .
One of the most serious evils in our schools, which has long been a subject of complaint, is, the injury arising from the irregular and inconstant attendance of a portion of the scholars.
Now, the average absences, in all our Primary Schools, has usually been about nineteen or twenty per cent.;—in some schools only four, five, and six per cent. : but in the Schools for colored children, it has been, as stated in past Reports, forty-four, forty-five, forty-nine, and even fifty-three per cent. For the last six months, while the average absences, in all the Primary Schools has been about twenty percent in the School for colored children; in District No. 1, it has been more than thirty-eight per cent. ; and that in the District No.2, it has been fifty-nine per cent. It cannot be supposed that these children would attend any more regularly if they were sent to the Schools for white children; and this Board would not certainly be justified, in causelessly introducing such an additional source of irregularity into those Schools. And your Committee submit, whether, if any other class of children could be found, so irregular in their attendance, it would not be legal, right, and expedient, for the Board to provide special and separate schools for their instruction, on this ground alone; in order to lessen the evils which are hereby occasioned to our schools. . . .
In looking into the history of the separate Schools for colored children, your Committee have been much impressed with the fact, that these special Schools were established at the urgent and repeated requests of the colored people themselves.
Thus it appears, that, although it must be confessed that the colored people have not manifested much interest in the education of their children, yet the request for the establishment of a separate school for this purpose came from them.
Our inquiries into the origin and history of these Schools have also convinced us, that the leading motive for their establishment was precisely the opposite of a design to degrade the colored people, as has been so frequently charged upon them
The question arises, by what means the views and feelings of the colored people, in reference to these special schools for their benefit, have been so mysteriously changed. The Petition now before your Committee holds the following very extraordinary language: "The establishment of separate schools for our children is believed to be unlawful, and it is felt to be, if not in intention, in fact, insulting." Is this the kind return of the present generation of colored men, to the City of Boston, for granting the petition of their sires?
After spending far more money for the education of the colored children, in proportion, than for the children of her white citizens, in the very way in which it was asked, is the munificence of this, perhaps too generous, certainly too indulgent City, to be declared insulting? Unworthy successors of Primus Hall, of Gyrus Vassall, and of Prince Sanders!
In applying these principles to the case of colored children, we maintain,
1. That their peculiar physical, mental, and moral structure, requires an educational treatment, different, in some respects, from that of white children. Teachers of schools in which they are intermingled, remark, that, in those parts of study and instruction in which progress depends on memory, or on the imitative faculties, chiefly, the colored children will often keep pace with the white children; but, when progress comes to depend chiefly on the faculties of invention, comparison, and reasoning, they quickly fall behind.
2. That the number of colored children, in Boston, is so great, that they can be advantageously placed in separate schools, where all needful stimulus, arising from numbers and competition, may be felt, without their being degraded or discouraged.
3. That they live so compactly, that in very few (if in any) cases, is it at all inconvenient to attend the special Schools provided for them.
4. That the facts, connected with the origin and history of these Schools, show, that, without them, the colored people would have remained ignorant and degraded, and very few would have been found in the Schools.
5. That if these special Schools were now abolished, the number of colored children in the Public Schools would be greatly diminished, while serious injury would also be done to the other Schools, and no benefit would result.
6. That the majority of the colored, and most of the white people, prefer the present system.
As, then, there is no statute, nor decision of the civil Courts, against classifying children in schools according to a distinction in races, color, or mental and physical peculiarities, the Committee believe that we have the right to classify on these principles; nor do they believe, that, by so doing, we defeat the intent, or violate the spirit, of the law, the Constitution, or the invaluable common-school system established by our fathers; nor in any way infringe the rights of the colored child, or degrade the colored people. These Schools were established for their special benefit: for the same reason we would have them vigorously sustained. No man, colored or white, who understands their real value to the colored people, would seek their destruction. While, therefore, your Committee propose no change in the policy of this Board, they recommend the adoption of the annexed Resolution, as expressive of their opinions.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM CROWELL,
JOSEPH W. INGRAHAM,
DAVID KIMBALL.
Resolved, That, in the opinion of this board, the continuance of the separate Schools for colored children, and the regular attendance of all such children upon those Schools, is not only legal and just, but is best adapted to promote the education of that class of our population.
(Document 3.7.8)
Letter to the Editor “School for Young Ladies,” The Liberator, October 15, 1841
Mr. Editor,
It has long been a source of regret to many residents of this city that there has been no opportunity afforded, through the medium of which their daughters could obtain a knowledge of those branches deemed so necessary to the completion of a young lady’s education. The baneful prejudice in active exercise against a large number of our citizens, merely because of complexional difference, has presented a barrier which has shut them out of from those facilities so richly enjoyed by the more favored classes.
But it is our pleasure to inform your readers, that a school has lately been opened in this city by Miss Susannah Bradshaw (a colored young lady,) where the accomplished branches are taught. Judging from the exercises to which we have listened, and the specimens of painting, sketching, rug-work, &c together with penmanship, composition, etc., with an examination of which we were favored, we feel justified in recommending the school to the attention of the public.
The terms are favorable and will be made known on application to the preceptress, at the school room in the basement story of the Baptist Church, Belknap Street.
Document 3.7.5
The opinion was delivered at the March term, 1850.
Shaw, C.J. The plaintiff, a colored child of five years of age, has commenced this action, by her father and next friend, against the city of Boston, upon the statute of 1845, c. 214, which provides, that any child unlawfully excluded from public school instruction, in this commonwealth, shall recover damages therefor, in an action against the city or town, by which such public school instruction is supported. The question therefore is, whether, upon the facts agreed, the plaintiff has been unlawfully excluded from such instruction.
The plaintiff had access to a school, set apart for colored children, as well conducted in all respects, and as well fitted, in point of capacity and qualification of the instructors, to advance the education of children under seven years old, as the other primary schools; the objection is, that the schools thus open to the plaintiff are exclusively appropriated to colored children, and are at a greater distance from her home. Under these circumstances, has the plaintiff been unlawfully excluded from public school instruction? Upon the best consideration we have been able to give the subject, the court are all of opinion that she has not.
It will be considered, that this is a question of power, or of the legal authority of the committee intrusted by the city with this department of public instruction; because, if they have the legal authority, the expediency of exercising it in any particular way is exclusively with them.
The great principle, advanced by the learned and eloquent advocate of the plaintiff, is, that by the constitution and laws of Massachusetts, all persons without distinction of age or sex, birth or color, origin or condition, are equal before the law.
But, when this great principle come to be applied to the actual and various conditions of persons in society, it will not warrant the assertion, that men and women are legally clothed with the same civil and political powers, and that children and adults are legally to have the same functions and be subject to the same treatment; but only that the rights of all, as they are settled and regulated by law, are equally entitled to the paternal consideration and protection of the law, for their maintenance and security.
Conceding, therefore, in the fullest manner, that colored persons, the descendants of Africans, are entitled by law, in this commonwealth, to equal rights, constitutional and political, civil and social, the question then arises, whether the regulation in question, which provides separate schools for colored children, is a violation of any of these rights.
The power of general superintendence vests a plenary authority in the committee to arrange, classify, and distribute pupils, in such a manner as they think best adapted to their general proficiency and welfare.
The committee, apparently upon great deliberation, have come to the conclusion, that the good of both classes of schools will be best promoted, by maintaining the separate primary schools for colored and for white children, and we can perceive no ground to doubt, that this is the honest result of their experience and judgement.
It is urged, that this maintenance of separate schools tends to deepen and perpetuate the odious distinction of caste, founded in a deep-rooted prejudice in public opinion. This prejudice, if it exists, is not created by law, and probably cannot be changed by law. Whether this distinction and prejudice, existing in the opinion and feelings of the community, would not be as effectually fostered by compelling colored and white children to associate together in the same schools, may well be doubted; at all events, it is a fair and proper question for the committee to consider and decide upon, having in view the best interests of both classes of children placed under their superintendence, and we cannot say, that their decision upon it is not founded on just grounds of reason and experience, and in the results of a discriminating and honest judgement.
The increased distance, to which the plaintiff was obliged to go to school from her father’s house, is not such, in our opinion, as to render the regulation in question unreasonable, still less illegal.
On the whole the court are of opinion, that upon the facts stated, the action cannot be maintained.
Plaintiff nonsuit.
(Document 3.7.11)
Letter to the Editor “School for Young Ladies,” The Liberator, October 15, 1841
Mr. Editor,
It has long been a source of regret to many residents of this city that there has been no opportunity afforded, through the medium of which their daughters could obtain a knowledge of those branches deemed so necessary to the completion of a young lady’s education. The baneful prejudice in active exercise against a large number of our citizens, merely because of complexional difference, has presented a barrier which has shut them out of from those facilities so richly enjoyed by the more favored classes.
But it is our pleasure to inform your readers, that a school has lately been opened in this city by Miss Susannah Bradshaw (a colored young lady,) where the accomplished branches are taught. Judging from the exercises to which we have listened, and the specimens of painting, sketching, rug-work, &c together with penmanship, composition, etc., with an examination of which we were favored, we feel justified in recommending the school to the attention of the public.
The terms are favorable and will be made known on application to the preceptress, at the school room in the basement story of the Baptist Church, Belknap Street.
Document 3.7.5
The opinion was delivered at the March term, 1850.
Shaw, C.J. The plaintiff, a colored child of five years of age, has commenced this action, by her father and next friend, against the city of Boston, upon the statute of 1845, c. 214, which provides, that any child unlawfully excluded from public school instruction, in this commonwealth, shall recover damages therefor, in an action against the city or town, by which such public school instruction is supported. The question therefore is, whether, upon the facts agreed, the plaintiff has been unlawfully excluded from such instruction.
The plaintiff had access to a school, set apart for colored children, as well conducted in all respects, and as well fitted, in point of capacity and qualification of the instructors, to advance the education of children under seven years old, as the other primary schools; the objection is, that the schools thus open to the plaintiff are exclusively appropriated to colored children, and are at a greater distance from her home. Under these circumstances, has the plaintiff been unlawfully excluded from public school instruction? Upon the best consideration we have been able to give the subject, the court are all of opinion that she has not.
It will be considered, that this is a question of power, or of the legal authority of the committee intrusted by the city with this department of public instruction; because, if they have the legal authority, the expediency of exercising it in any particular way is exclusively with them.
The great principle, advanced by the learned and eloquent advocate of the plaintiff, is, that by the constitution and laws of Massachusetts, all persons without distinction of age or sex, birth or color, origin or condition, are equal before the law.
But, when this great principle come to be applied to the actual and various conditions of persons in society, it will not warrant the assertion, that men and women are legally clothed with the same civil and political powers, and that children and adults are legally to have the same functions and be subject to the same treatment; but only that the rights of all, as they are settled and regulated by law, are equally entitled to the paternal consideration and protection of the law, for their maintenance and security.
Conceding, therefore, in the fullest manner, that colored persons, the descendants of Africans, are entitled by law, in this commonwealth, to equal rights, constitutional and political, civil and social, the question then arises, whether the regulation in question, which provides separate schools for colored children, is a violation of any of these rights.
The power of general superintendence vests a plenary authority in the committee to arrange, classify, and distribute pupils, in such a manner as they think best adapted to their general proficiency and welfare.
The committee, apparently upon great deliberation, have come to the conclusion, that the good of both classes of schools will be best promoted, by maintaining the separate primary schools for colored and for white children, and we can perceive no ground to doubt, that this is the honest result of their experience and judgement.
It is urged, that this maintenance of separate schools tends to deepen and perpetuate the odious distinction of caste, founded in a deep-rooted prejudice in public opinion. This prejudice, if it exists, is not created by law, and probably cannot be changed by law. Whether this distinction and prejudice, existing in the opinion and feelings of the community, would not be as effectually fostered by compelling colored and white children to associate together in the same schools, may well be doubted; at all events, it is a fair and proper question for the committee to consider and decide upon, having in view the best interests of both classes of children placed under their superintendence, and we cannot say, that their decision upon it is not founded on just grounds of reason and experience, and in the results of a discriminating and honest judgement.
The increased distance, to which the plaintiff was obliged to go to school from her father’s house, is not such, in our opinion, as to render the regulation in question unreasonable, still less illegal.
On the whole the court are of opinion, that upon the facts stated, the action cannot be maintained.
Plaintiff nonsuit.
(Document 3.7.11)
A publication containing weather forecasts, astronomical information, tide tables, and other miscellaneous data, often published annually.
A person who provides financial or other assistance to support a cause, organization, or individual.
A coordinated refusal to buy, use, or participate in something as a form of protest or pressure, often to achieve social, political, or economic goals.
A person who works to effect positive social change and improve the lives of others.
The active involvement of citizens in the democratic process, including voting, political engagement, and participation in public affairs and decision-making.
Characterized by the inclusion or incorporation of diverse or different elements, groups, or individuals into a unified whole, often used to describe processes or systems that promote equality, diversity, and cooperation among people of different backgrounds or identities.
A formal written request or appeal addressed to a person or authority, often signed by multiple individuals or groups, and seeking action, redress, or relief on a particular issue, grievance, or concern, typically submitted with supporting evidence, arguments, or proposals, and used as a means of initiating legal proceedings, influencing policy decisions, or obtaining official responses.
Individuals or groups who submit a petition, formal written request, or appeal to a person or authority, often seeking action, redress, or relief on a particular issue, grievance, or concern, and typically signed by multiple individuals or representatives, and accompanied by supporting evidence, arguments, or proposals. Petitioners may include plaintiffs in legal cases, citizens lobbying for legislative changes, or activists advocating for social reforms.
A party initiating a legal action or lawsuit in a court of law, typically seeking redress, damages, or enforcement of rights or obligations against another party known as the defendant, and responsible for presenting evidence, arguments, and claims in support of their case, under the guidance of legal counsel or representation. Plaintiffs may include individuals, organizations, or entities alleging harm, injury, or violation of legal rights.
A legal principle, rule, or decision established by a court or authoritative body in a previous case or legal proceeding, and serving as a model or guide for subsequent cases with similar facts or issues, based on the principle of stare decisis, or the doctrine of following precedent. Precedents provide a basis for consistency, predictability, and fairness in the application of law, and help ensure uniformity and coherence in the legal system.
Segregated refers to the enforced separation of different racial, ethnic, or religious groups, typically in public facilities, schools, housing, and transportation, as was common during the era of racial segregation in the United States.
A statue is a sculpture, typically representing a person, animal, or abstract form, created to commemorate an individual, event, or concept. Statues are often placed in public spaces as monuments or memorials.
In legal terms, a suit refers to a civil action or lawsuit brought before a court of law to resolve a dispute or claim between parties, typically seeking damages, compensation, or other legal remedies for perceived injuries or violations.