The Negro in Tennessee, 1790-1865; a study in southern politics

Front matter

iV

V*

•.^1

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.

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.^ Its economic, social, and legal aspects had largely been determined before Tennessee was even settled.- 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.'' 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 166.") by Virginia immigrants who planted a settlement on the Albemarle River.* 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.^ A number of small farmers came to the western part of the state with their slaves at about the same time.*' It is imiTennessee 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.

2The first settlements in Tennessee were made in 1769 and 1772. Ibid., pp. 49-52.

sThe 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.

4Doyle, J. A., The English Colonies in America, I, 331.

Gibid., p. 19.

possible 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.' 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.* It was early recognized that the industrial life of the colonies offered practically no place to the w^hite 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.-' In 1717, there were 1,100 slaves out of a taxable population of 2,000. ^'^ 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.i-

^Colonial Entry Book, No. Ixxxii, p. 129. (Quoted by Doyle, I, 386.)

'^Bassett, Op. Cit., p. 20. ^"N. C. Col. Records, II, 17.

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 Nollichucky 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/ • 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.'^ On the sixth of September, 1794, a negro belonging to Peter Turner was stolen by the Indians near the Sumner Court House/" 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/'^ 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.'" The population of East Tennessee was 65,339, of which twelve and one-half per cent were slaves. The isHale, W. J., and Merritt, D. L., History of Tennessee, II, 292.

i*"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.

i^Haywood, John, The Civil and Political History of the State of Tennessee, 406.

i'3(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.

I'Ramsey, J. G. M., The Annals of Tennessee, 648.

population of West Tennessee (now Middle Tennessee) was 11,824, of which twenty per cent were slaves.'^

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,^^ 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. Himtmg: 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.'-*^ 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.-^ isHale and Merritt, II, 294.

isjredell, James, Laws of State of North Carolina, p. 85.

^oActs of G. A. of N. C, 1729, Ch. 5, Sec. 7.

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.-- 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 free-holders as searchers in each district, who, under a very strict oath,-^ 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. -^ 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.-'' 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.-'^ 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

22Acts of 1753, Ch. VI, Sees. 2-3.

23This 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.

24Acts of 1753, Ch. VI, Sec. 6.

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.-' 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.-*

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.--' 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.'"

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 opin-

-"■'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.

■''"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 th«; 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.

ion or religion soever."^^ 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. 2- In 1754, Governor Dobbs made an unsuccessful effort to accomplish this result." ' In 1773, William Hooper secured the passa,ge 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.""* 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. ^^^ .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 free-holders, who were slave-holders, was empowered to try all manner of crimes and offenses committed by slaves."'' 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.3' The master of the slave could appear at his trial and defend him before the court."** In 1783, a single justice was constituted a court for the trial of non-capital offenses."-' For capital offenses, four slave-holders remained a part of the court as provided by the Act of 1741.

siActs of 1741, Ch. 31, Sec. 2.

E^Ibid., Sec. 52.

soActs of 1783, Ch. 14, Sec. 2.

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.^"

6. Witness: The slave was permitted to be a witness in the trial of other slaves, free negroes, and mulattoes.^^ He was not permitted to give testimony in court in a case to which a white man was a party.^- His paganism was a partial basis for denying him this privilege.^' 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,-*

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

4oit 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 cf the offense may require; and on such judgment to award execution." Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Sees. 48-52.

4ilbid., Sec. 48.

*-"'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, Secc. 50.

4-iBassett, Op. Cit., p. 30.

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.*^ After 1777, slaves could be freed only on a basis of meritorious service, of which the county court was the judge. **^ Slaves freed by any other method could be resold into slavery by the court.

The "pernicious practice" of manumitting slaves at common law continued,*' 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.*^ The preamble to this measure states that "many negroes are now going at large, to the terror of the good people of this state."*'^ 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.'" 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.

^''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.

''^"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.

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."'^ 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.^- 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 diningroom 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."'' Marriage of negroes, bond or free, with white persons was prohibited. -'^ The white person of such a marriage, and the minister who performed the marriage rite, were fined fifty pounds each."'

2. Social and Economic Relations: The slave's relations

''1 Declaration of Rights of North Carolina, Sec. 6. 5-Constitution of 1776 of N. C, Sees. 7, 8. and 9. "'■^Acts of 1787, Ch. 6, Sec. 3.

-■Ibid., Sec. 14.

with the outside world were carefully guarded because they might lead to run-aways, 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. "^"^ The penalty for violating this act was twenty shillings for the first offense, and forty shillingsi 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.^^ 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.^^ 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.^^ 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.*^*^ 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.

eoActs of 1788, Ch. 7, Sees. 1-2.

for the benefit of the poor, for a period not exceeding twenty days; "any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding."''^

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.^- 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."^

3. The Runaivay: 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 slaveowners 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."' The law against the aiding and harboring of runaways was made more severe by increasing the line for its violation. Finally, to

«-Brickell, John, Natural History of North Carolina, 272.

promote the escape of a slave from the colony became a felony and might involve the loss of life.'"''

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.'"' Any runaway who was caught was forced to wear a yoke around his neck until he gave sufficient evidence of good behavior.^'

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.'^^ 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.'''^

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.^° 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. '^ The idea in these laws is not necessarily harshness to the slave, but rather the security of the bondage of the slave.

eelbid., Sec. 43.

6Tlbid., Sec. 46.

esBrickell, Op. Cit., 270.

'oibid., Sec. 37.

•ilbid.. Sec. 25.

11. THE STATUS OF THE NEGRO IN THE STATE OF FRANKLIN FROM 1785 TO 1788

The State of Franklin'- 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.'-^ 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."'* The Declaration of Rights uses the terms "freeman," "the people," and "every man," synonomously. 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.'' The above proposal is interesting as a typical frontier attitude on the suffrage question.