1900: St. Louis’ City/ County Divide
Big Idea
While the 1876 decision for St. Louis City to split off from the county may have initially made sense for the city’s interests, in the twentieth century it became a means for racial segregation.
What’s important to know?
Separation: In 1876, the city of St. Louis separated from the administrative oversight of the county. At the time, the city felt that self-rule would benefit the residents of the city.
Segregation: The division between city and county rather than benefitting the city, became a means that White people used to restrict access of Black families to places in St. Louis county. The division hurt the city, causing a significant drop in taxes, and resulting in underinvestment and underdevelopment of primarily Black neighborhoods across the city.
1: Separation
The 1876 Missouri Constitutional Convention formalized rules concerning local governance, including creating an option for cities meeting a minimum population threshold of “adopting a charter of self-government” that would effectively remove them from the oversight of county governance and place them on an equal self-governing standard (Gordan, 2019, p. 22). This development was in fact informed by St. Louis City’s crafting and request, and shortly thereafter the city split from the county in order to exercise this “home rule.” While the concept of “home rule” originally allowed St. Louis City to separate from the county, by 1945 it had been extended to cities with a minimum of five thousand residents–and counties meeting a certain minimum assessed property value.
This split eventually became a tool to keep Black individuals away from specific areas. While the decision for St. Louis City to split off from the county may have initially made sense for the city’s interests, as the metropolitan area expanded and pressed against the western county borders and the eastern border with Illinois the urban and suburban growth occurred outside the regulatory oversight of the city (p. 23).
Timeline of Segregation
Image Source: Still Separate, Still Unequal
Colin Gordon explained why this created a particular problem for St. Louis:
Because the city could not expand, new residential developments to the west fell under other jurisdictions or created their own. The central planning goal of these private developments and new municipalities, in turn, was to insulate themselves from local costs or threats or burdens–especially industrial land use, multifamily housing, and African American occupancy. The damage here was done not by the divorce of 1876 but by the offspring of that divorce: the extension of home rule to a hundred odd municipal fragments that were–in purpose and practice–predatory, insular, and deeply discriminatory. (Gordon, 2019, p. 23).
Community Members
Want to learn more? Visit Mapping Decline, which is the website that accompanies Colin Gordon’s book, Mapping Decline: St. Louis and the Fate of the American City.
2: Segregation
As the metropolitan area expanded and pressed against the western county borders and the eastern border with Illinois the urban and suburban growth occurred outside the regulatory oversight of the city (p. 23). Colin Gordon explains why this created a particular problem for St. Louis:
Because the city could not expand, new residential developments to the west fell under other jurisdictions or created their own. The central planning goal of these private developments and new municipalities, in turn, was to insulate themselves from local costs or threats or burdens–especially industrial land use, multifamily housing, and African American occupancy. The damage here was done not by the divorce of 1876 but by the offspring of that divorce: the extension of home rule to a hundred odd municipal fragments that were–in purpose and practice–predatory, insular, and deeply discriminatory (Gordon, 2019, p. 23).
The concept of “home rule” enabled many municipalities in St. Louis County to restrict who could live there.
St. Louis County held six municipalities in 1900, eighteen municipalities by 1930, over thirty-six municipalities in 1940, and then over seventy-two separate municipalities by 1950 (Gordon, 2019, p. 23). The expansion and creation of these “one hundred odd municipal fragments,” as Gordon describes, were as effective in the St. Louis region as race-restrictive deed covenants at effecting the work of sustaining racial segregation (p. 50-51).
The division between City and County further isolated Black communities and kept them from receiving access to basic services. The suburban development in the St. Louis region created sharp jurisdictional dividing lines between city and county, and “on each side of [these lines], the provision of basic services–schools, policing, fire protection, garbage collection–stopped and started at county or municipal borders” (p. 51). As such, the patchwork of “insular corporate units that are uneven in size, capacity, and composition” led to a calcification of economic and racial segregation–concentrating access to resources in some municipalities while starving them in others (pp. 21-22). Even as the waves of white flight that occurred throughout the century continued and some of these municipalities (such as those in North St. Louis, like the city of Ferguson) shifted from predominantly white to Black in residential composition, “the consequences of segregation–including concentrated poverty, limited economic opportunity, a paucity of public services (except heavy policing), and political disenfranchisement–moved to these ‘secondhand suburbs’” alongside the changing demographics (p. 9).
St. Louis segregation through history.
Image Source: Still Separate, Still Unequal
The fragmentation and growth of these different municipalities–and their expansion over the unincorporated areas of St. Louis County–effectively excluded African Americans and restricted development of any multifamily housing. While there were several enclaves of African American residents who had previously settled in unincorporated county land, such as in Elmwood Park and Meacham Park, throughout the first half of the twentieth century these pre-existing enclaves of predominantly Black residents found themselves via “development” plans and strategic zoning practices physically circumscribed (Gordon, 2019, pp. 37-46). Boundaries such as railroads and motorways, or newer (White) neighborhoods with race restrictive covenants spread out across the county surrounding and abutting these original Black neighborhoods, in effect restricting any possibility for expansion and creating miniature ghettoes.
Additionally, in the first half of the century, neighborhoods and small African American enclaves such as these were absorbed into larger incorporated communities within the county. While that absorption on its face might appear as a way to extend municipal services, it rarely meant greater support or resources for those Black residents; the absorption of these Black neighborhoods also strategically diluted the Black vote.
These municipal fragments reveal a narrative of expansion and a narrative of systematic exclusion and segregation. This fragmentation and siloing of St. Louis County attempted and was successful at keeping resources, wealth, and services out of the hands of black St. Louis residents, while also ensuring that these residents would remain segregated in poorer, less desirable neighborhoods.
Your Turn
What was the result of the division between the county and city in 1876? How are these results still impacting the city and county today?
-
For the Sake of All [in collaboration with], Harvey, Thomas, McAnnar, John, Voss, Michael-John, Ascend STL Inc., Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis, Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing and Opportunity Council (EHOC), and Team TIF. Segregation in St. Louis: Dismantling the Divide (2018). Saint Louis University.
Federal, State, and Local Policies and Practices Led to De Jure and Then De Facto Segregation in Our Region and Schools. Still Separate, Still Unequal.
-
Crawford, K. (2021). St. Louis Teachers Say ‘Soul Of Education’ At Stake In Debate Over How To Teach History. St. Louis Public Radio.
Library of Congress Teaching Guide on Jim Crow and Segregation.
-
General Resources:
Cooperman, J. (2014). The story of segregation in St. Louis. The St. Louis Magazine.
Gregory, V. et al. (2023). Residential Segregation and the Black-White College Gap. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
Books & Articles:
Erwin, K. (2017). Gateway to Equality: Black Women and the Struggle for Economic Justice in St. Louis. University of Kentucky Press.
Taylor, Aaron N. (2013) "Segregation, Education, and Blurring the Lines of Division in St. Louis," Saint Louis University Public Law Review: Vol. 33: No. 1, Article 11. Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/plr/vol33/iss1/11
Archives:
The State Historical Society of Missouri: African American Finding Aid
St. Louis County Library finding aids related to city/ county divide
Segregation by Design - video of exhibit at St. Louis Public Library
-
Erwin, K. (2017). Gateway to Equality: Black Women and the Struggle for Economic Justice in St. Louis. University of Kentucky Press.
Grant, G. M. (2008). At the Elbows of My Elders: One Family's Journey toward Civil Rights (Volume 1). Missouri History Museum Press.
Uchitelle, S. and Heaney, G. W. (2004). Unending Struggle: The Long Road to an Equal Education in St. Louis. Reedy Press.
Wright Sr., J. (2000). Kinloch: Missouri's First All Black Town. Arcadia Publishing.
——-. (2001). The Ville: St. Louis. Arcadia Publishing.
——-. (2004). Florissant. Arcadia Publishing.
——-. (2005). St. Louis: Disappearing Black Communities. Arcadia Press.
——-. (2003). African Americans in Downtown St. Louis. Arcadia Press.
-
Gordon, C. (2009). Mapping decline: St. Louis and the fate of the American city. University of Pennsylvania Press.
———. (2019). Citizen brown: race, democracy, and inequality in the St. Louis suburb. University of Chicago Press.