Publications of the University of Texas
Publications Committee:
FREDERIC DUNCALF
G. C. BUTTE
KILLIS CAMPBELL
F. W. GRAFF
J. L. HENDERSON
E. J. MATHEWS
H. J. MULLER
A. E. TROMBLY
HAL C. WEAVER
The University publishes bulletins four times a month, so numbered that
the first two digits of the number show the year of issue, the last two
the position in the yearly series. (For example, No. 2201 is the first
bulletin of the year 1922.) These comprise the official publications
of the University, publications on humanistic and scientific subjects,
bulletins prepared by the Bureau of Extension, by the Bureau of Economic
Geology and Technology, and other bulletins of general educational
interest. With the exception of special numbers, any bulletin will be
sent to a citizen of Texas free on request. All communications about
University publications should be addressed to University Publications,
University of Texas, Austin.
University of Texas Bulletin
No. 2205: February 1, 1922
THE NEGRO IN TENNESSEE, 1790-1865
BY
CALEB PERRY PATTERSON
Adjunct Professor of Government in the University of Texas
[Illustration]
PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY FOUR TIMES A MONTH, AND ENTERED AS
SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN, TEXAS,
UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912
The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally
diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation
of a free government.
Sam Houston
Cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy.... It
is the only dictator that freemen acknowledge and the only
security that freemen desire.
Mirabeau B. Lamar
CONTENTS
Preface 7-8
I. Introduction of Slavery into Tennessee 9-24
I. The status of the negro in North Carolina, 1693-1790 12-21
A. Privileges 12-18
B. Restrictions 18-21
II. The status of the negro in the Franklin State, 1785-1788 22-23
III. The status of the negro in the Southwest Territory,
1790-1796 23-24
II. The Status of the Slave in Tennessee, 1796-1865 25-58
I. The Privileges of Slaves 25-30
A. Hunting 25-26
B. Travel 26
C. Suits for freedom 26-28
D. Trial by Jury 28-30
II. Disabilities of Slaves 30-33
III. Relations of Master and Society 34-38
A. Liabilities of the master to society 34-36
1. For his own acts 34-35
2. For the acts of his slaves 35-36
B. Liabilities of society to the master 36-38
IV. The Patrol System 38-41
V. Special Problems of Slave Government 41-52
A. The runaway 41-43
B. Importation of slaves 43-44
C. The stealing of slaves 44-45
D. Trading with slaves 46-49
E. Insurrections 49-50
F. Unlawful assembly of slaves 50-51
G. Punishment of slaves 51-52
VI. Title of Slaves 52-55
VII. The Law of Increase 55-56
VIII. The Legal Status of the Slave 56-58
III. Economics of Slavery in Tennessee 59-79
I. Slavery an Expression of the Soil 59-64
II. The Management of the Plantation 64-72
III. Was Slavery Profitable in Tennessee? 72-79
IV. Anti-Slavery Societies 80-101
I. The Tennessee Manumission Society 80-89
II. The Humane Protecting Society 89
III. The Emancipation Labor Society 89-91
IV. The Moral, Religious Manumission Society of West
Tennessee 91-94
V. The Tennessee Colonization Society 94-101
V. The Religious and Social Aspects of Slavery 102-152
I. The Methodists 104-125
II. The Baptists 125-131
III. Cumberland Presbyterians 131-136
IV. The Friends 136-139
V. The Presbyterians 139-148
VI. The Episcopalians 148-152
VI. The Legal Status of the Free Negro 153-175
I. The Establishment of a Policy 153-160
A. The policy of North Carolina 153
B. The policy of Tennessee in 1831 153
C. Changes in the policy from 1831 to 1865 153-160
II. System of Registration of Free Negroes 161-162
III. Protection of Free Negroes 162
IV. Suffrage for Free Negroes 162-173
A. In North Carolina 162-164
B. In the Convention of 1796 164-167
C. From 1796 to 1834 167-168
D. Its abolition by the Convention of 1834 168-173
V. Limitations upon the freedom of free negroes 173
VI. The Status of the Free Negro 174-175
VII. Abolition 176-198
I. Private Abolition 176-180
A. Methods 176-179
(1) By Deed.
(2) By Will.
(3) By Bill of Sale.
(4) By Implication.
(5) By Effect of Foreign Laws.
B. Extent of Emancipation in Tennessee 179-180
II. Anti-slavery Leaders 180-185
III. Abolition Literature 185-187
IV. Petitions to the Legislature for Abolition 187-189
V. Abolition in the Convention of 1834 189-195
VI. Abolition Sentiment after 1834 195-198
VIII. Conclusions 199-202
IX. Bibliography 202-209
X. Appendices 209-213
A. Anti-Slavery Societies of Tennessee 209
B. Tennessee Colonization Society 209
C. Anti-Slavery Leaders in Tennessee 210
D. List of Emigrants 210-211
E. Vice-President of American Colonization Society from
Tennessee 211
F. Comparative List of Manumission Societies and Members
in the United States 211
G. Slave and Free Negro Population in Tennessee 212
H. Comparative Value of Land and Slaves in the Three
Divisions of Tennessee, 1859 212
I. Approximate Value of Property, Slaves, Land, and
Cotton in Tennessee, 1859 212
J. Classification of Slaveholders in Tennessee and the
United States, on the basis of number of slaves
held, 1860 213
PREFACE
This work was undertaken to discover the exact status of the negro in
one of the border states. An effort has been made to give definite
information as to the legal, social, economic, and religious condition of
the negro from his introduction into slavery in Colonial Western North
Carolina to the abolition of slavery in Tennessee in 1865.
The study reveals the struggles of the slave from a status of servitude
under the common law through the institution of slavery regulated by
an extensive slave-code into the final condition of an almost helpless
citizen with a responsibility for which he was only partially prepared.
The status of the free negro is also established in his relations to both
the slave and the whites. It was rather disappointing to find that the
free negro was more disadvantageously situated than the slave. He never
attained either civil or political equality, although he exercised the
suffrage until 1834. He was subject to a special code different from
either the slave code or the regular code.
It is clear, however, that the negro, whether slave or free, was making
progress. He was receiving an industrial training without which he
could never have sustained himself without help, when freedom came. His
training for active participation in the body politic was negligible. He
was taught the lesson of being obedient to law.
A constructive part of the study is the disclosure of a large body
of loyal friends of the negro in all his stages of development.
These consisted of not only the abolitionists, the Friends, and the
anti-slavery forces generally, but of more conservative individuals who
saw that the negro could be fitted for freedom only by a gradual process.
The courts of the state deserve special mention in this connection.
The study has been a difficult one to make because of the scarcity of
the sources and the deplorable condition of those that were available.
The county records of Tennessee have either been burned, thrown away,
or thrown together in heaps in the basement of county court houses.
The state archives are in the attic of the Tennessee Capitol, covered
with dust, and are practically inaccessible for any thorough study.
The statutes of the state, records of courts, reports of anti-slavery
societies, church minutes, petitions, slave codes, periodicals, travels,
reminiscences, and newspapers are the principal sources consulted. A
goodly number of general, state, and church histories and biographies
proved useful for general information.
The work was begun under the direction of Professors Jernegan and Dodd
of the University of Chicago, and continued under the guidance of
Professor Albert Bushnell Hart of Harvard, Professor U. B. Phillips
of the University of Michigan, and Professor William A. Dunning of
Columbia University. Professor B. B. Kendrick of Columbia University was
especially helpful in organizing the material. But for the stimulating
and sympathetic assistance of these men, the study could not have been
completed. The author alone is responsible for any errors of fact and the
conclusions.
CALEB PERRY PATTERSON.
The University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The introduction of slavery into Tennessee was a part of the westward
movement of colonization. It had passed the experimental stage of its
development in North Carolina before Tennessee acquired an independent
political existence.[1] Its economic, social, and legal aspects had
largely been determined before Tennessee was even settled.[2] As a system
of labor, it had proved a valuable adjunct to the sturdy pioneers in
converting the wilderness of North Carolina into a growing community
that began immediately to look forward to statehood.[3] As a social
institution, it had been left primarily to the regulation of custom.
As a problem of government, an elaborate code had been enacted for its
control. Its establishment and regulation in North Carolina prior to 1790
constitute, therefore, the genesis of this study.
Negro slaves were brought into North Carolina in 1663 by Virginia
immigrants who planted a settlement on the Albemarle River.[4] A group of
more thrifty Virginians, with a large number of slaves, settled in the
central part of the state about the middle of the eighteenth century.[5]
A number of small farmers came to the western part of the state with
their slaves at about the same time.[6] It is impossible to state the
exact number of slaves owned by these early settlers.
The opportuneness of these settlements is shown by a number of
conditions. The contest between negro slavery and white servitude had
been settled in favor of slavery. The Tuscorora Indians, the implacable
enemies of negroes, were driven out of the colony in 1772. The moral
evils of slavery had not appeared.[7] The English government in 1663, by
chartering the Royal African Company to engage in the slave trade, became
interested in the development of slavery, and, thereafter, discouraged
the importation of indented servants into the colonies in order that
this company might have a larger market for slaves.[8] It was early
recognized that the industrial life of the colonies offered practically
no place to the white servant at the expiration of his indenture. He was
not financially able to purchase land and white servants or negro slaves,
necessary to farming, nor could he find employment in the villages and
small towns, because they were not sufficiently industrialized at this
time to offer such opportunities.
These influences produced a rapid increase in the slave population of
the colonies. In 1709, Rev. John Adams, a missionary, reported 800
slaves in North Carolina.[9] In 1717, there were 1,100 slaves out of a
taxable population of 2,000.[10] Governor Burrington stated that there
were 6,000 in 1730.[11] The census of 1754 showed a population of 9,128
slaves. In 1756, there were 10,800 negro taxables and as the ratio of
taxable negroes (those of the age of twelve and above) to the total negro
population was about ten to eighteen, there must have been, at this time,
approximately 20,000 slaves in the colony. There were 39,000 in 1767.[12]
It is probable that the first slave was brought into Tennessee in 1766.
There are court records which show that slaves were a part of an estate
in Washington County in 1788. When John Sevier moved to Nolachucky in
1788, he owned slaves. James Robertson brought a “negro fellow” to
Nashville in 1779. John Donelson was accompanied by negroes on his famous
voyage to Nashville in the winter of 1779-80.[13] A court record, dated
November, 1788, at Jonesboro, Tennessee, shows that Andrew Jackson owned
a slave when he was only twenty-one years of age.[14] On the sixth of
September, 1794, a negro belonging to Peter Turner was stolen by the
Indians near the Sumner Court House.[15] Miss Jane Thomas, who came
with her parents to Nashville in 1804, tells an interesting story of a
prominent negro, who was highly regarded by the whites.[16] There was
also in Nashville in 1805, a famous “Black Bob” who ran a tavern. So it
is seen that slaves accompanied the westward movement into Tennessee, and
that some of them became rather prominent free negroes. In 1796, when the
census of the Southwest Territory was taken to ascertain if it contained
sufficient inhabitants to be admitted into the Union as a state, it had
a population of 77,262, of which 10,613 were slaves.[17] The population
of East Tennessee was 65,339, of which twelve and one-half per cent were
slaves. The population of West Tennessee (now Middle Tennessee) was
11,824, of which twenty per cent were slaves.[18]
The legal basis of slavery developed contemporary with the expansion
of settlement toward the western part of the colony. The famous law
of 1741 is regarded as the basis of the slave code of North Carolina,
although the Act of 1715 marks the beginning of slave legislation in
this colony. The laws of North Carolina were, in 1790, made the legal
basis of the government of the Southwest Territory,[19] which became
the State of Tennessee in 1796. These laws constitute the beginnings of
the slave code of Tennessee. The common law status of the negro was,
in this introductory period, gradually changed to a statutory basis.
This development took, primarily, the form of granting privileges to,
and placing restrictions upon, the negro. There were three political
organizations that participated in this development: North Carolina, the
State of Franklin, and the Southwest Territory.
I. THE STATUS OF THE NEGRO IN NORTH CAROLINA FROM 1693-1790
A. PRIVILEGES—
1. _Hunting_: Slaves were permitted to hunt on their masters’
plantations, but, by the Act of 1729, were prohibited from hunting
elsewhere unless they were accompanied by a white man.[20] If the slaves
violated this restriction, the master paid a fine of twenty shillings to
the owner of the land on which the slaves were hunting. Slaves were not
permitted to be armed in any way, or hunt anywhere, unless they held a
certificate from their master, granting this privilege. Any citizen could
seize an armed slave and deliver him to a constable whose duty it was
to administer twenty lashes on the slave’s naked back. The master was
charged a fee on recovering such a slave.[21]
The master was permitted to send a slave on business missions, or to
designate one slave to hunt on his plantation, to care for his stock, or
to kill game for his family; but this could only be done by the master’s
securing, from the Chairman of the County Court, a permit which specified
the slave that was granted such privileges. This was an ineffectual
regulation, and in 1753, the master was required to give bond to the
County Court, with good security, to guarantee the county against damages
that might be done by a slave enjoying any special privileges.[22] Such
permission was granted only during the time of cultivation or harvesting
of crops.
This act empowered the justices of the county courts to district their
counties and appoint three freeholders as searchers in each district,
who, under a very strict oath,[23] were to disarm the slaves of their
district. These persons were exempted from services as constables,
jurors, on the roads, and in the militia, and from the payment of county
and parish taxes.[24] This legislation laid the foundation for the patrol
system of North Carolina and Tennessee.
Slaves were especially prohibited from killing wild deer, either on
their own initiative or by command of their masters or overseers.[25]
For violation of this inhibition, they suffered punishment in the first
instance, and their masters or overseers in the second. This prohibition
was constantly strengthened by later legislation.[26] These restrictions
were intended to prevent damages to crops, and to limit the opportunities
of the slaves to run away and organize insurrections. By these acts,
masters were made very largely responsible for the peace and welfare of
the community.
2. _Travel_: The slave was permitted to travel, in the daytime, “the
most usual and accustomed road”; but he subjected himself to a whipping,
not exceeding forty lashes, if he violated this restriction.[27] He was
not permitted to travel at night or visit the quarters of other slaves.
He was subject to forty lashes, and the visited slave twenty lashes,
for violation of this regulation. Masters, however, were not prohibited
from sending their slaves on business missions with written permits. In
1741, an exception to the above regulation was made for negroes wearing
liveries.[28]
3. _Possession of Property_: Slaves at first were permitted, not by
law but by custom, to own horses, hogs, cattle, sheep, poultry and
to cultivate small areas for their own use. They frequently acquired
sufficient property to buy themselves. They were protected from
professional traders by law.[29] It soon developed, however, that this
privilege increased their disposition to steal, and multiplied their
opportunities of contact with outsiders. The accessibility of plantations
by means of creeks, bays, and rivers stimulated illicit trade. This
situation finally caused them to be prohibited by law from owning
property.[30]
4. _Protection_: The Locke Constitution of 1669 for the Carolinas stated
that “Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority
over his slaves, of what opinion or religion soever.”[31] This was done
to counteract the theory that a Christian could not be a slave. This
established the government of the master over the slave. The master
became the agent of the government in the control of his slaves, and it
became the government’s duty to see that its agents dealt humanely with
the slaves. The governors of North Carolina tried in vain to secure the
passage of laws that would offer the proper protection to slaves.[32]
In 1754, Governor Dobbs made an unsuccessful effort to accomplish this
result.[33] In 1773, William Hooper secured the passage of a bill to
prevent the wilful and malicious killing of slaves, but the Governor
vetoed it because “it was inconsistent with His Majesty’s instruction to
pass it, as it does not reserve the fines imposed by it pursuant to their
instruction.”[34] In 1774 it was made a criminal offense to be guilty of
willingly and maliciously killing a slave. The penalty for first offense
was twelve months’ imprisonment, and death without benefit of clergy for
the second offense.[35]
5. _Trial of Slaves_: A special court was established for the trial of
slaves. In 1741, a court of two or more justices of the peace and four
freeholders, who were slaveholders, was empowered to try all manner
of crimes and offenses committed by slaves.[36] Negroes, mulattoes,
and Indians, bond or free, could be witnesses. The chairman of the
court always charged the witness before the examination to tell the
truth.[37] The master of the slave could appear at his trial and defend
him before the court.[38] In 1783, a single justice was constituted a
court for the trial of non-capital offenses.[39] For capital offenses,
four slaveholders remained a part of the court as provided by the Act of
1741. This difference in the mode of the trial of the two classes of
offenses is evidently due to economic influences.
Since this court was not one of the regular courts, it sat at any time
and thus prevented the master from suffering excessive loss of the
slave’s time between terms of court. This court had rather free procedure
and broad jurisdiction.[40]
6. _Witness_: The slave was permitted to be a witness in the trial of
other slaves, free negroes, and mulattoes.[41] He was not permitted to
give testimony in court in a case to which a white man was a party.[42]
His paganism was a partial basis for denying him this privilege.[43] His
moral depravity and social prejudice were, undoubtedly, the main forces
in making this restriction a universal law of slavery.
The slave was cautioned against false swearing because he generally had
little regard for his word. If he was convicted of false swearing, one
ear was nailed to the pillory for one hour and then cut off. The other
ear was treated in the same way; and to complete this inhuman punishment,
the slave was given thirty-nine lashes on his back.[44]
7. _Manumission_: Manumission was the door of escape from slavery that
was constantly open to the slave. At common law, a master could free
his slaves on the basis of any agreement that he might make with them.
The owner of a slave could dispose of him like any other piece of
property. The spirit of manumission was so promoted by the churches and
by the doctrine of natural rights of the American Revolution that the
State, in self defense, placed a limitation on the common law method of
manumission.[45] After 1777, slaves could be freed only on a basis of
meritorious service, of which the county court was the judge.[46] Slaves
freed by any other method could be resold into slavery by the court.
The “pernicious practice” of manumitting slaves at common law
continued,[47] and the county court began to resell such negroes into
slavery. The power of the court to give valid title in such sales was
doubted, and the legislature was forced by special act to guarantee the
validity of the sale of illegally liberated slaves, made by the county
courts.[48] The preamble to this measure states that “many negroes are
now going at large, to the terror of the good people of this state.”[49]
This law was weak in that the power of apprehending illegally liberated
slaves was optional in freeholders only. In 1788, the state gave any
freeman the power to inform a justice of the peace of any such slave, and
required such justice to issue to the sheriff a warrant for the arrest
of the slave.[50] This legislation indicates a growth of the manumission
movement in the face of legal restrictions, and, also, registers a
protest against the conservative forces of society.
8. _Suffrage_: It does not appear that the slave ever possessed the
right of suffrage. The free negro, however, voted throughout the period
of colonial history in North Carolina. The Declaration of Rights of
North Carolina, adopted December 17, 1776, gave the franchise to “all
freemen.”[51] The Constitution of the State, adopted the next day, gave
the franchise to “all freemen” with certain qualifications as to age,
residence, property, and taxes.[52] This constitution remained in force
until 1835, during which time the free negro voted in North Carolina.
B. RESTRICTIONS—
1. _Marriage_: The slave never acquired legal marriage. It was generally
held that the slave regarded marriage lightly, and that, therefore, the
separation of husband and wife was not a serious matter. This philosophy
was largely true, but, at the same time, it fitted into the economics of
slavery very advantageously.
It is not to be inferred from the above that the slave did not have
formal marriage. He was usually married with considerable ceremony by
either his own minister or a white clergyman. Special preparation was
generally made for the wedding, which frequently took place in the
dining-room of the master’s mansion. It may well be contended that this
religious sanction was more sacred to the slave, who was of a very
religious nature, and, therefore, more binding than a civil marriage
would have been.
Slaves were forbidden to intermarry with free negroes or mulattoes,
except by the written permission of the master, attested by two justices
of the peace.[53] Marriage of negroes, bond or free, with white persons
was prohibited.[54] The white person of such a marriage, and the minister
who performed the marriage rite, were fined fifty pounds each.[55]
2. _Social and Economic Relations_: The slave’s relations with the
outside world were carefully guarded because they might lead to runaways,
marriages, or insurrections. No free negro or mulatto was permitted
to entertain a slave in his home “during the Sabbath, or in the night
between sunset and sunrise.”[56] The penalty for violating this act was
twenty shillings for the first offense, and forty shillings for each
succeeding offense. If the offender could not pay his fine, he was forced
to work it out. A free negro or mulatto was prohibited from marrying or
cohabiting with a slave unless the master’s consent, attested by two
justices, was obtained.[57] The free negro or mulatto, and not the slave,
was fined, for violation of this act, ten pounds or one year’s service
for the master. No master of a vessel was permitted to entertain a slave
on board, who did not hold a pass from his master or a justice of the
peace.[58] Such harboring of a slave indicated either an illicit trade
relation, or an intention of stealing the slave. For violation of this
act, the master of the vessel was fined five pounds for the first, and
ten pounds for each succeeding, offense.
Traffic with slaves was a very difficult matter to control. At first, a
person trading with a slave was required to pay treble for the article
purchased, and six pounds proclamation money.[59] Finally, traffic with
slaves was permitted only on the basis of a written permission from the
master, describing the article for sale. A person convicted for violation
of this law was fined ten pounds, and the slave received not exceeding
thirty-nine lashes.[60] If such a person did not have sufficient property
to satisfy the fine, he was committed to jail. Traffic with slaves became
more difficult to regulate as the slavery system expanded.
The slave was not permitted to engage his services to anyone, nor
could the master hire him out. For violation of this regulation, the
slave might be taken in charge by a magistrate or free-holder and set
to work for the county, for the benefit of the poor, for a period
not exceeding twenty days; “any law, usage or custom to the contrary
notwithstanding.”[61]
It is noticed that these restrictions pertained primarily to the
relations of the slaves with free negroes, Indians, traders, and poor
whites, who were as a rule more or less inclined to disturb the order
of the plantation. Their association with the whites in the home and at
church was a matter of unwritten law. The domestic servants were more
intimately associated with the whites and were frequently cultured.[62]
There was very little effort on the part of the masters, in the early
stages of the development of slavery, to teach or christianize the
slaves. Many of them, however, learned to read, and joined churches, but
they were not permitted to have separate church organizations.[63]
3. _The Runaway_: The runaway was one of the most difficult problems
of slave government. The wild life of the slave in Africa, and the
hardships of frontier American slavery naturally created a disposition in
the slave to run away from his master’s plantation. Organized bands of
slave-stealers, poor whites, and free negroes constantly took advantage
of this attitude of the slave. This was one method by which the slave
could, at least temporarily, break the bonds of slavery; and he did not
always find life more severe in the camp than on the plantation.
Runaways, aside from the economic loss to the slave-owners involved,
might congregate and start an insurrection. Any outside contact made
possible conspiracies, and created a real danger to the community. It
was, therefore, a heavy fine for anyone to harbor a slave; and it was the
duty of all citizens to arrest runaways.[64] The law against the aiding
and harboring of runaways was made more severe by increasing the fine for
its violation. Finally, to promote the escape of a slave from the colony
became a felony and might involve the loss of life.[65]
This law also gave to the justices of the peace the power, by
proclamation, to outlaw any runaway who was in hiding, committing
injuries to the inhabitants of the community. It was then lawful for any
one to kill such a slave.[66] Any runaway who was caught was forced to
wear a yoke around his neck until he gave sufficient evidence of good
behavior.[67]
Sheriffs and constables were strictly charged with the safe keeping of
all runaways who were committed to their care. If they negligently or
wilfully permitted any to escape, they were liable for damages to the
master at common law with costs.[68] To encourage the police officials
to execute the law, they were exempted from the payment of all public,
county, and parish levies for their own persons. The keepers of ferries
were required to give immediate passage to officers charged with
conducting runaways.[69]
No feature of the slave code shows more progressively the attitude of the
whites toward the negro than the law on runaways. As the slaves developed
the means for evading the law, it was made increasingly rigid. White
men could be sold into temporary servitude to pay fines for persuading
the slave to run away.[70] Anyone convicted for attempting to steal
and convey a slave out of the colony was required to pay the owner
twenty-five pounds. If he could not pay this fine he was forced to serve
the master for five years.[71] The idea in these laws is not necessarily
harshness to the slave, but rather the security of the bondage of the
slave.
II. THE STATUS OF THE NEGRO IN THE STATE OF FRANKLIN FROM 1785 TO 1788
The State of Franklin[72] was included in the western part of North
Carolina, which later became the Southwest Territory and the State
of Tennessee. The independent action of its people is significant,
therefore, not only as an expression of their own position on slavery,
but also as a prophecy of the attitude of the state of Tennessee.
The constitution proposed by the Greenville Convention, November 14,
1785, established a liberal suffrage.[73] Section 4 of this constitution
states that “Every free male inhabitant in this state six months
immediately preceding the day of election, shall participate in electing
all officers chosen by the people, in the county where he resides.”[74]
The Declaration of Rights uses the terms “freeman,” “the people,”
and “every man,” synonymously. There was no property or religious
qualification for the suffrage. The slave, by emancipation, would have
voted under this constitution on the same basis as other citizens. This
constitution was finally rejected and that of North Carolina with few
changes was adopted.[75] The above proposal is interesting as a typical
frontier attitude on the suffrage question.
North Carolina never recognized the independence of the Franklin State.
There were two factions in North Carolina politics on this question.[76]
One of these, led by John Sevier, the Governor of Franklin, advocated
independence; and the other, led by John Tipton, demanded the downfall of
Franklin. The Tipton faction won, and the Franklin State came to an end
in 1788.
III. THE STATUS OF THE NEGRO IN THE SOUTHWEST TERRITORY FROM 1790 TO 1796
The western part of North Carolina continued to demand a separate
political existence, and in February, 1790, it was ceded to the National
Government by North Carolina. The Act of Cession provided that “the
laws in force and in use in the State of North Carolina at this time,
shall be and continue in full force within the territory hereby ceded
until the same shall be repealed or otherwise altered by the legislative
authority of the said territory”; and also, “that no regulations made or
to be made by congress shall tend to emancipate slaves.”[77] The cession
was accepted by Congress April 2, 1790, on the above condition;[78]
and when Congress, on May 26, 1790, organized the government for the
Southwest Territory, it mentioned the conditions laid down in the Act of
Cession.[79]
The provisions of the Act of Cession show how slavery, as it had
developed in North Carolina by 1790, was transplanted and legalized in
the territory that became Tennessee in 1796. There is no recorded protest
on the part of the people of the territory. The contract between the
National Government, North Carolina, and the Southwest Territory, shows
that the economic importance of slavery was already recognized.
The legislation of the Territory on slavery consists of one act, relating
to the negro’s participation in court procedure. Negroes, whether bond
or free, were permitted to be witnesses for and against each other, but
denied this privilege in cases to which a white man was a party. Persons
of mixed blood, descended from negroes or Indians, inclusive of the third
generation, suffered a similar restriction. No person of mixed blood to
any degree whatever, who had been held in slavery, could be a witness
against a white person within twelve months of his liberation.[80]
This preliminary study suggests the general lines along which the
institution of slavery developed in the succeeding decades. The social
and religious phases of the negro’s life were given less attention than
the economic and legal. His common law status was constantly changing to
a statutory basis. He was exchanging the status of a servant at common
law for that of a mere chattel at statute law. His place in judicial
procedure was determined. It was in this connection that racial prejudice
made its appearance. The foundation for a comprehensive patrol system
was established. The state asserted its right to limit manumission.
Free negroes had not become sufficiently numerous by 1796 to call for
the serious consideration that they later received. Consequently, there
was a relatively small amount of legislation concerning them prior to
this date. Some restrictions, however, were made on their relations with
the slave and on the process of manumission. On the whole, it may be
concluded that there had been laid a fairly secure foundation, for the
status of both the slave and the free negro, which future events only
modified.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Tennessee belonged to Virginia from 1607 to 1663, to Carolina from
1663 to 1693, and to North Carolina from 1693 to 1790. Garrett, W. R.,
and Goodpasture, A. V., History of Tennessee, p. 14.
[2] The first settlements in Tennessee were made in 1769 and 1772. Ibid.,
pp. 49-52.
[3] The settlements of western North Carolina became the State of
Franklin in 1785, the Southwest Territory in 1790, and the State of
Tennessee in 1796. Ibid., pp. 91, 105, and 127.
[4] Doyle, J. A., The English Colonies in America, I, 331.
[5] Bassett, John Spencer, Johns Hopkins University Studies, Vol. 14, p.
18.
[6] Ibid., p. 19.
[7] Doyle, I, 389.
[8] Colonial Entry Book, No. lxxxii, p. 129. (Quoted by Doyle, I, 386.)
[9] Bassett, Op. Cit., p. 20.
[10] N. C. Col. Records, II, 17.
[11] Ibid., V, 320.
[12] Ibid., VII, 5391.
[13] Hale, W. J., and Merritt, D. L., History of Tennessee, II, 292.
[14] “A bill of sale from Micajah to Andrew Jackson, Esquire, for a
negro woman named Nancy about eighteen or twenty years of age was proven
in open court by the oath of David Allison, a subscribing witness,
and ordered to be recorded.” Record of the Court of Pleas and Quarter
Sessions, Jonesboro, Tennessee, for November Term, 1788.
[15] Haywood, John, The Civil and Political History of the State of
Tennessee, 406.
[16] (He) “was a very prominent negro. He had a garden, and supplied a
great many people with vegetables. His oldest daughter married Graham, a
barber. She had a big wedding and invited all the prominent white people
in town, and they all went. He was a very respectable, upright, humble
negro. General Andrew Jackson attended the wedding, and Dr. McNairy
danced the reel with the bride.” Hale and Merritt, II, 293.
[17] Ramsey, J. G. M., The Annals of Tennessee, 648.
[18] Hale and Merritt, II, 294.
[19] Iredell, James, Laws of State of North Carolina, p. 85.
[20] Acts of G. A. of N. C., 1729, Ch. 5, Sec. 7.
[21] Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 40.
[22] Acts of 1753, Ch. VI, Secs. 2-3.
[23] This oath read: “I, A. B., do swear that I will, as searcher
for guns, swords, and other weapons among the slaves of my district,
faithfully, and as privately as I can, discharge the trust reposed in me,
as the law directs, to the best of my power. So help me God.” Acts of
1753, Ch. VI, Sec. 4.
[24] Acts of 1753, Ch. VI, Sec. 6.
[25] Acts of 1738, Ch. X, Secs. 1-3.
[26] Acts of 1745, Ch. 3, Sec. 3; Acts of 1768, Ch. 13, Sec. 2; Acts of
1784, Ch. 33, Sec. 2.
[27] Acts of 1729, Ch. 5, Sec. 8.
[28] Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 43.
[29] Anyone trading with slaves “without the license or consent in
writing under the head of his or her or their master or owner ... shall
forfeit treble the value of the thing bought, sold, or traded, trucked or
borrowed or lent.” Acts of 1715, Ch. 46, Sec. 10.
[30] No slave was “permitted, on any pretense whatever, to raise any
horses, cattle or hogs; and all horses, cattle and hogs that, six months
from the date thereof, shall belong to any slave, or of any slave’s work
in this government, shall be seized and sold by the church wardens of the
Parish where such horses, cattle or hogs shall be, and the profit thereof
be applied, one-half to the use of the said Parish and the other half to
the Informer.” Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 44; see also Acts of 1779, Ch.
5, Sec. 6.
[31] Acts of 1741, Ch. 31, Sec. 2.
[32] Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 48.
[33] Ibid., Sec. 51.
[34] Ibid., Sec. 52.
[35] Acts of 1774, Ch. 31, Sec. 2.
[36] Acts of 1741, Sec. 48, Ch. 24.
[37] Ibid., Sec. 51.
[38] Ibid., Sec. 52.
[39] Acts of 1783, Ch. 14, Sec. 2.
[40] It was directed “to take for evidence the confession of the
offender, the oath of one or more credible witnesses, or such testimony
of negroes, mulattoes or Indians, bond or free, with pregnant
circumstances as to them shall seem convincing, without solemnity of
jury; and the offender being then found guilty, to pass such judgment
upon the offender, according to their discretion, as the nature of the
offense may require; and on such judgment to award execution.” Acts of
1741, Ch. 24, Secs. 48-52.
[41] Ibid., Sec. 48.
[42] “All negroes, mulattoes, bond or free, to the third generation,
and Indian servants and slaves, shall be deemed to be taken as persons
incapable in law to be witnesses in any case whatsoever, except against
each other.” Acts of 1746, Ch. 2, Sec. 50.
[43] Bassett, Op. Cit., p. 30.
[44] Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 50.
[45] The preamble to this act reads: “Whereas the evil and pernicious
practice of freeing slaves in this state, ought at this alarming and
critical time to be guarded against by every friend and well-wisher to
his country.” Acts of 1777, Ch. 6, Sec. 1.
[46] Acts of 1777, Ch. 6, Sec. 2.
[47] “Whereas before the passing of the said act, and since the sixteenth
day of April, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-five, divers
evil-minded persons, intending to disturb the public peace, did liberate
and set free their slaves, notwithstanding the same was expressly
contrary to the laws of this state.” Acts of 1779, Ch. 12, Sec. 1.
[48] Acts of 1779, Ch. 12, Sec. 2.
[49] Ibid., Sec. 3.
[50] Acts of 1788, Ch. 20, Sec. 1.
[51] Declaration of Rights of North Carolina, Sec. 6.
[52] Constitution of 1776 of N. C., Secs. 7, 8, and 9.
[53] Acts of 1787, Ch. 6, Sec. 3.
[54] Acts of 1741, Ch. 1, Sec. 13.
[55] Ibid., Sec. 14.
[56] Acts of 1787, Ch. 6, Sec. 2.
[57] Ibid., Sec. 3.
[58] Ibid., Ch. 1, Sec. 1.
[59] Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 14.
[60] Acts of 1788, Ch. 7, Secs. 1-2.
[61] Acts of 1777, Ch. 6, Sec. 5.
[62] Brickell, John, Natural History of North Carolina, 272.
[63] Acts of 1715, Ch. 46, Sec. 18.
[64] Ibid., Secs. 6-8.
[65] Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Secs. 25-33.
[66] Ibid., Sec. 43.
[67] Ibid., Sec. 46.
[68] Brickell, Op. Cit., 270.
[69] Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 36.
[70] Ibid., Sec. 37.
[71] Ibid., Sec. 25.
[72] Earlier historians used the name Frankland (the land of the free),
but letters from officials of the state indicate that it was named after
Benjamin Franklin. See footnote p. 263, Vol. I, McMaster, John B.,
History of the United States.
[73] A copy of this constitution is now in the State Archives.
[74] Ramsey, J. G. M., Annals of Tennessee, 327.
[75] American Historical Magazine, I, 63.
[76] Phelan, James, History of Tennessee, 299.
[77] Scott, I, 437.
[78] I Stat. U. S., 106; Scott, I, 439.
[79] This act states that the territory “for the purposes of temporary
government, shall be one district, the inhabitants of which shall enjoy
all privileges, benefits, and advantages set forth in the Ordinance of
the late Congress for the government of the Territory of the United
States northwest of the River Ohio, and that the government of the
said Territory shall be similar to that which is now exercised in the
Territory northwest of the Ohio; except so far as it is otherwise
provided in the conditions expressed in an Act of Congress of the present
session, entitled, ‘An Act to Accept a Cession of Western Territory.’”
Hurd, John Cadman, Law of Freedom and Bondage, II, 90.
[80] Acts of the Southwest Territory for 1794, Ch. I, Sec. 32. See also
Scott, I, 471; and Meigs and Cooper’s Code of 1858, Secs. 3808-3809.