As the nation comes to grips with a new legal paradigm regarding civil rights, imposed by an unelected and hyper-partisan Court, it is time to reexamine just what Jim Crow actually meant to Tennessee and the South, as well as what it might portend for our future.

What Jim Crow was and how it took hold

The Jim Crow era, de jure and de facto, existed from the end of Reconstruction to the late 1960s. The term is the center identifier for all the laws, rules, and customs that governed the period. It originated around 1828, when Thomas Dartmouth “Daddy” Rice originated the character of “Jim Crow” in New York. Wearing “blackface,” Rice regaled audiences with dance and song in blackface, using burnt cork makeup to give the appearance of Black skin.

By 1840, “Jim Crow” was incredibly popular because of its deeply offensive representations of Black people. The outrageous stereotypes meant to dehumanize Black America would, by the 1890s, take on an even more menacing tone.

How Tennessee built a segregated society

Tennessee was the first state to reenter the Union in June 1866. Our state had a long history of holding people in bondage. Enslaved people were chattel, meaning they were little more than property to be bought, sold and possessed. After the war, Tennessee designed laws to make Blacks into second-class citizens.

In 1875, Tennessee created one of the first frameworks for a segregated society, which allowed a variety of public-facing entities – hotels, businesses, transportation and others – to refuse service and/or admission to Black Tennesseans. This was in response to Congress passing the 1875 Civil Rights Act, which promised equal treatment for Black people in public places and the right to serve on juries.

Opinion: Can Fisk prove ‘Quantum Leap’ won’t cost North Nashville?

By the start of the 20th century, Tennessee, like the rest of the South, erected all kinds of laws to trap Blacks into second-class citizenship. Everything was segregated, from housing to hospitals to cemeteries to water fountains to bathrooms to lunch counters. The Supreme Court gave its blessing to segregation in 1896 when it decided the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision. The federal government had given Tennessee and the rest of the South its blessing to enforce a deeply dehumanizing, two-tiered apartheid system.

The vast majority of Blacks were disenfranchised by a series of official acts of the Tennessee legislature in 1889. Laws regarding poll taxes and literacy tests restricted many from accessing the ballot. Lynchings served to intimidate Black Tennesseans from challenging the new laws.

At least 177 Black Tennesseans were lynched during Jim Crow. Ida B. Wells began her career in Memphis documenting the scourge of lynchings in her Free Speech newspaper. She was terrorized by angry whites, and after her press was burned by a white mob, she remained in the North, where she continued her work. The murders and mayhem undergirded Jim Crow in Tennessee.

Why change required sustained pressure

Today, it is not enough to say these laws have changed. Too often, it is noted that the country has moved past race. Brown v. Board of Education came to pass. The Civil Rights Act came to pass. The Voting Rights Act came to pass. The Fair Housing Bill came to pass. These advancements came about because of the courage of Black Americans, white and Jewish allies, and others who demanded change toward justice. Commentators point out these changes as if the country should be rewarded for finally delivering on basic rights already guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Congress and the statehouses did not change because they felt morally responsible for the plight of Blacks. The changes came because people said “enough.”

How today’s disputes reflect unresolved history

In 2026, our problems remain rooted in the Jim Crow past. A great many Americans, including those in Tennessee, never accepted the racial progress of the 1950s and 1960s. Some argue our new congressional maps are simply an exercise in partisanship and power.

Poppycock! Such measures will result in the disenfranchisement of Tennesseans. If some are not able to elect representatives who are in alignment with their political and policy views, then something most vile has been reawakened in the Volunteer State. 

Opinion: ‘Roots’ controversy is part of a larger cultural conflict

Basic issues such as support for public schools, public works, infrastructure and investment will subside as political attention is devoted to areas of the state perceived to be more authentically Tennessean at the expense of Black and poor residents. The irony is that the supermajority has forgotten that less than 20 years ago, they were in the minority and were quite sensitive about violations of the rights of the minority.

The stakes for voting rights and representation

To argue that race no longer plays a role in American life simply does not pass the smell test. Conservatives are missing an opportunity to gain traction, followers and, most importantly, voters because many are unwilling to put down the barbed clubs of grievance and shortsightedness. 

The Voting Rights Act was not a radical legislative solution. Its design was very basic and conservative in its purpose: to develop a series of mechanisms to enforce and ensure equal opportunity and access for all Americans to taste the richness of American democracy.

Daryl A. Carter, Ph.D., is associate dean, director, and professor of history at East Tennessee State University.