Was the Jim Crow South a democracy?

[darklordoftech]

I'm aware that voting was heavily suppressed.

[Former President tack50]

Yes, as long as you were white. I'd probably put it around as democratic as Apartheid South Africa. The elections themselves (well, the primary at least) were fair but not everyone could vote.

[smoltchanov]

For whites - yes. Otherwise - no.

[parochial boy]

Yes, as long as you were white. I'd probably put it around as democratic as Apartheid South Africa. The elections themselves (well, the primary at least) were fair but not everyone could vote.

Apartheid South Africa wasn't even especially democratic for whites. It was heavily gerrymandered, and even  white opposition was often suppressed and subject to censorship (eg the liberal party of South Africa was essentially outlawed, and it's white opposition activists were often arrested or banned from political activities).

I think the US South experienced lots of intimidation type tactics that weakened democracy even for whites, but it wasn't as institutional as in South Africa

[Mr. Reactionary]

It was a republic

[PragmaticPopulist]

By definition, it was not. There was one-party rule, and any chance of changing that was suppressed by poll taxes and other voter suppression techniques.

[DC Al Fine]

I imagine it would vary by time and place. Wasn't SC basically  a one party state at one point?

[TDAS04]

No.  Not for blacks, and in some cases, not even for many whites.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Women and black males were prevented from voting, but the 20th Amendment, spearheaded by Woodrow Wilson, started the end of the Jim Crow era, alieviating it finally in 1954

[Ohioguy29]

Interesting question to think about. Is it truly democracy if certain races or genders can't vote? I lean towards no.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. And it wasn't for whites either.

[Yellowhammer]

It was a republic

[Person Man]

It was a republic

Like the PRC, the Russian Federation, or the DPRK. Seriously. The entire Republic thing is bullsh**t.

[DC Al Fine]

Can someone give a brief description of the democratic "situation" for whites in the Jim Crow South in various times and places?

There's been a lot of plain yes and no answers, but some detailed descriptions would be great. I know very little about the South and would like to know more

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It was a republic

Well, not, it wasn't —not if you're using the Classical definition of what a republic is, which you ought to if you're going to make a distinction between republican and democratic forms of government.

To answer the OP, the Jim Crow South was a dictatorship of the majority. Accordingly, it had some features which resemble 'democracy' (regular elections and a general consensus among politicians to abide by the results of those elections) and some which resemble authoritarian regimes (mass disenfranchisement of racial minorities, one party rule, etc.). It was a democracy in the Classical, Aristotelian sense of the word —which was very much meant as a criticism. It was not what we would call a constitutional or republican state, because its socio-political institutions were underwritten by threats of violence against the minority.

[DINGO Joe]

Can someone give a brief description of the democratic "situation" for whites in the Jim Crow South in various times and places?

There's been a lot of plain yes and no answers, but some detailed descriptions would be great. I know very little about the South and would like to know more

1948 Presidential election--selected states

State-1950 Census Pop-Total popular vote for President--A-A% of pop in 1950

Connecticut--2.0 Million--883,518--2.7%
West Virginia--2.0 Million--748,750--5.7%
Virginia--3.3 Million--419,256--22.1%
Alabama--3.1 Million--214,980--32.0%
Mississippi--2.2 Million--192,190--45.3%
South Carolina--2.1 Million--142,571--38.8%
Delaware--318,000--139,073--13.7%

Obviously, even controlling for the black population, white voter participation in the South lagged other states quite substantially.  Poll taxes and literacy tests were the primary means to achieve this.  While disenfranchisement of A-A voters was almost total, disenfranchisement of white voters could vary by southern state and even within a state (Virginia would be an example of this).  The county clerk/political machine has considerable discretion to how they were applied.

There was no democracy within the south at this time.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Can someone give a brief description of the democratic "situation" for whites in the Jim Crow South in various times and places?

There's been a lot of plain yes and no answers, but some detailed descriptions would be great. I know very little about the South and would like to know more

It depends a lot on the state.

In South Carolina for example, the hurdles to voting were so entrenched and steep, that turnout was mostly just limited to the die hard party machine hacks, after all why pay a poll tax and bother with all those tests just to vote in an effectively already decided election? One thing that I remember being mentioned in one of my college classes was that some states actually mandated the poll tax be prepaid, aka it was paid long before election day and if you missed it you couldn't vote that year. And the day it was due was set to coincide right before harvest time when farmers would be lowest on money. So basically all poor farmers of all races were disenfranchised. The election was about as democratic as one to the Soviet Politboro. This was also true in Mississippi and most of Georgia.

But other states were a bit more open or split by region. The Upper South states had Unionist Republican enclaves and while they disenfranchised most blacks, weren't quite as onerous in the limitations. Also true of Alabama to some extent. What those states often did is just threw in loopholes to the restrictions allowing most whites to qualify. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenfranchisement_after_the_Reconstruction_Era#Educational_and_character_requirements

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hence why Alabama came close to voting for Hoover in 1928. Compare that to South Carolina, which didn't have a sizable Catholic population obviously.

Meanwhile this is what South Carolina did:

You must be logged in to read this quote.