A 1965 television episode showed a commercial airplane flight with a few black passengers integrated among the passengers.
Would this have upset some southern white viewers? Or commercial airplane flights ever segregated the way buses and trains were? [Alfred Hitchcock Hour, "Power of Attorney."]
#
Yes, it’s likely that seeing Black and white passengers seated together on a commercial airplane in a 1965 TV episode would have upset some white viewers in the South. This was during a time when the Civil Rights Movement was actively challenging racial segregation, and the images of integrated spaces—even fictional ones—could evoke strong reactions.
However, commercial airlines in the United States were never formally segregated in the same way as buses, trains, or public facilities in the South. By the 1960s, the practice of segregating passengers on flights had not been legally established or widely enforced, as air travel was seen as a national and somewhat elite form of transportation less influenced by local segregation laws. The major airlines operated under federal regulations, which didn’t mandate racial separation, and passengers often traveled interstate, reducing the impact of state-level segregation laws.
That said, discriminatory attitudes and practices were still present in broader society, and some passengers and crew members might have been influenced by local customs. The inclusion of Black passengers in a mixed seating environment on television would have reflected the changing social landscape, and such imagery would have held symbolic weight, illustrating the gradual erosion of segregation norms in all public spaces.
#
I think you’re indicating that there were some localities were integrated. Transportation was actually illegal and segregation was legally mandatory. Although you’re also saying this didn’t apply to airplanes.
]We tend to think of Rosa Parks breaking the law, by sitting in front, but the driver was also breaking the law, by letting her sit in front.]
#
Yes, that’s correct. In many parts of the South, especially before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, segregation in public transportation—such as buses, trains, and terminals—was indeed legally mandated under state and local "Jim Crow" laws. This meant that Black and white passengers were required by law to use separate seating areas and facilities.
However, airlines operated under federal jurisdiction rather than state or local laws, so they were not bound by these segregation laws. Air travel was a federally regulated industry and fell under the purview of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). Since interstate travel was generally seen as outside the reach of state segregation laws, airlines did not practice enforced racial segregation, even when flights departed from segregated Southern airports.
This distinction set commercial air travel apart from local and regional forms of transportation, where segregation was actively enforced. Thus, while images of integrated airplane seating on television in the mid-1960s might have been surprising or even upsetting to some viewers accustomed to segregation, it reflected the legal reality that airlines were not subject to the same segregation laws as buses and trains in the South.
#
I understand that at some point, maybe in the 1940s or 1950s, they were transcontinental trains that were segregated in some states and when they got into western states like New Mexico or California they were no longer segregated.
#
Yes, that's correct. During the 1940s and 1950s, some long-distance trains crossing the United States, including transcontinental routes, practiced segregation while passing through Southern states where Jim Crow laws were in effect. However, when these trains entered states without segregation laws, such as New Mexico, Arizona, or California, the enforced racial separation would often end.
This was due to the patchwork nature of segregation laws, which varied by state. Railroads, which were regulated by both federal and state governments, often had to adapt their practices depending on the laws of the states they were passing through. For example, a train might enforce segregated seating and dining arrangements while traveling through the South but would end these practices once it crossed into states where segregation wasn’t mandated.
This arrangement led to complex and sometimes confusing situations for both passengers and railroad employees, who had to adjust to different rules as trains moved from one jurisdiction to another. It also highlighted the inconsistencies and inherent difficulties of enforcing segregation on transportation that spanned multiple states, ultimately contributing to legal challenges against segregated travel that would culminate in rulings like the Supreme Court's Boynton v. Virginia (1960), which helped pave the way for desegregation in interstate travel.
#
Boynton v Virginia?
#
Yes, Boynton v. Virginia was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in 1960 that played a significant role in ending segregation in interstate transportation. In this case, the Court ruled that racial segregation in public transportation facilities (like bus terminals) serving interstate travelers was unconstitutional under the Interstate Commerce Act, which prohibited discrimination by carriers involved in interstate commerce.
Bruce Boynton, a Black law student, had been arrested in a "whites-only" section of a bus terminal restaurant in Richmond, Virginia, while traveling on a Greyhound bus from Washington, D.C., to Alabama. He argued that the segregation he encountered at the terminal violated his rights as an interstate traveler. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, establishing that racial segregation in facilities related to interstate transportation—such as waiting rooms, bathrooms, and restaurants serving travelers—was illegal.
This decision strengthened earlier rulings, such as Morgan v. Virginia (1946), which struck down segregation on interstate buses, by extending the prohibition of segregation to facilities associated with interstate travel. Boynton v. Virginia became the legal basis for the 1961 Freedom Rides, where activists rode interstate buses through the South to challenge and expose ongoing segregation, despite federal rulings against it. This activism and legal precedent helped bring about more robust federal enforcement of desegregation in transportation.
#
So Morgan v Virginia was interstate, but, Rosa Parks was "within state."
#
Exactly, you’re right. Morgan v. Virginia (1946) and Rosa Parks' famous act of civil disobedience in Montgomery, Alabama, illustrate two different contexts of segregation laws: interstate and intrastate (within a single state).
In Morgan v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation on interstate buses was unconstitutional. Irene Morgan, a Black woman, was arrested in Virginia in 1944 for refusing to give up her seat on a Greyhound bus traveling from Virginia to Maryland. The Court held that state laws mandating segregation on interstate buses placed an undue burden on interstate commerce, which was under federal jurisdiction. This ruling meant that segregation laws could not legally apply to travelers crossing state lines.
However, within-state (intrastate) transportation remained legally segregated in states with Jim Crow laws. Rosa Parks' protest in 1955 was a defiant stand against Alabama's intrastate segregation laws, which mandated separate seating for Black and white passengers on public buses within the state. Her arrest and the ensuing Montgomery Bus Boycott became pivotal moments in the Civil Rights Movement, highlighting the injustice of intrastate segregation laws and leading to a greater push for desegregation across all public spaces.
While Morgan addressed interstate travel and helped set a precedent for desegregation in public transportation, it was limited to interstate routes, leaving intrastate segregation intact until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited segregation in all public accommodations, including intrastate travel.
