NOTES

To increase our circulation and the membership of the Association the management has employed as Field Agent Mr. J. E. Ormes, formerly connected with the business department of Wilberforce University. Mr. Ormes will appoint agents to sell books and solicit subscriptions to theJournal of Negro History. He will also organize clubs for the study of Negro life and history.

Any five persons desiring to prosecute studies in this field intensively may organize a club and upon the payment of two dollars each will be entitled not only to receive free of further charge theJournal of Negro History, but may call on the Director for such instruction as can be given by mail. Members will be supplied with a quarterly outline study of the current numbers of theJournal of Negro Historyand with a topical outline of the contents of the back numbers.

Clubs will be left free to work out their own organization and plans. The management, however, follows the plan of a group working under the simplest restrictions. There should be elected a president, a secretary, a treasurer, and an instructor. The last named official should be the most intelligent and the best informed member of the group.

E. Payen'sBelgique et Congoand P. Daye'sLes Conquetes Africaniques des Belgehave been published by Berger-Levrault in Paris.

The Cornhill Publishing Company has brought outTwenty-five Years in the Black Beltby W. J. Edwards.

P. A. Means has published through Marshall JonesRacial Factors in a Democracy.

The following significant articles have appeared in recent numbers of periodicals:The Worth of an African, by R. Keable in the July number of the International Review of Missions;How Germany treats the Nativesby Evans Lewis and M. Montgomery-Campbell;Germany and Africaby Ethel Jollie in the June numberof the United Empire;International Interference in African Affairsby Sir. H. H. Johnson in the April number of the Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law;The Native Question in British East Africain the April number of the Contemporary Review; andThe Christian Occupation of Africain the Proceedings of the African Conference.

The problem of arming the slaves was of far greater concern to the South, than to the North. It was fraught with momentous consequences to both sections, but pregnant with an influence, subtle yet powerful, which would affect directly the ultimate future of the Confederate Government. The very existence of the Confederacy depended upon the ability of the South to control the slave population. At the outbreak of the Civil War great fear as to servile insurrection was aroused in the South and more restrictive measures were enacted.[1]

Most of the Negro population was living in the area under rebellion, and in many cases the slaves outnumbered the whites. To arm these slaves would mean the lighting of a torch which, in the burning, might spread a flame throughout the slave kingdom. If the Negro in the midst of oppression had been in possession of the facts regarding the war, whether the slaves would have remained consciously faithful would have been a perplexing question.[2]

The South had been aware of its imminent danger and with its traditional methods strove to prevent the arming of the Negroes. With the memories of Negro insurrections ever fresh in the public mind, quite a change of front would be required to bring the South to view with favor such a radical measure. The South, however, was not alone in its unwillingness to employ Negroes as soldiers. For the first two years of the war, the North represented by President Lincoln and Congress refused to consider the same proposal. In the face of stubborn opposition loyal Negroes had been admitted into the Engineer and Quartermaster Departments of the Union armies, but their employment as soldiers under arms was discountenanced during the first years of the war.

In the North this discrimination caused much discontent among the Negroes but those living in the States in rebellion did not understand the issues in the war, and of necessity could not understand until the Union forces had invaded the hostile sections and spread the information which had gradually developed the point of view that the war was for the extermination of the institution of slavery. It may be recalled that during the opening days of the war, slaves captured by the Union forces were returned to their disloyal masters. Here there is sufficient evidence in the concrete that slavery was not the avowed cause of the conflict.[3]If there was this uncertain notion of the cause ofthe war among northern sympathizers, how much more befogged must have been the minds of the southern slaves in the hands of men who imagined that they were fighting for the same principles involved in our earlier struggle with Great Britain! To the majority of the Negroes, as to all the South, the invading armies of the Union seemed to be ruthlessly attacking independent States, invading the beloved homeland and trampling upon all that these men held dear[4].

The loyalty of the slave while the master was away with the fighting forces of the Confederacy has been the making of many orators of an earlier day, echoes of which we often hear in the present[5]. The Negroes were not only loyal in remaining at home and doing their duty but also in offering themselves for actual service in the Confederate army. Believing their land invaded by hostile foes, they were more than willing under the guidance of misguided southerners to offer themselves for the service of actual warfare. So that during the early days of the war, Negroes who volunteered were received into the fighting forces by the rebelling States, and particularly during those years in which theNorth was academically debating the advisability of arming the Negro.[6]

In the first year of the war large numbers were received into the service of the Confederate laboring units. In January, a dispatch from Mr. Riordan at Charleston to Hon. Percy Walker at Mobile stated that large numbers of Negroes from the plantations of Alabama were at work on the redoubts. These were described as very substantially made, strengthened by sand-bags and sheet-iron.[7]Negroes were employed in building fortifications, as teamsters and helpers in army service throughout the South.[8]In 1862, the Florida Legislature conferred authority upon the Governor to impress slaves for military purposes, if so authorized by the Confederate Government. The owners of the slaves were to be compensated for this labor, and in turn they were to furnish one good suit of clothes for each of the slaves impressed. The wages were not to exceed twenty-five dollars a month.[9]The Confederate Congress provided by law in February, 1864, for the impressment of 20,000 slaves for menial service in the Confederate army.[10]President Davis was so satisfied with their labor that he suggested, in his annual message, November, 1864, that thisnumber should be increased to 40,000[11]with the promise of emancipation at the end of their service.

Before the outbreak of the war and the beginning of actual hostilities, the local authorities throughout the South had permitted the enrollment for military service of organizations formed of free Negroes, although no action had been taken or suggested by the Confederate Government. It is said that some of these troops remained in the service of the Confederacy during the period of the war, but that they did not take part in any important engagements.[12]There may be noted typical instances of the presence of Negroes in the State Militia. In Louisiana, the Adjutant-General's Office of the Louisiana Militia issued an order stating that "the Governor and the Commander-in-Chief relying implicitly upon the loyalty of the free colored population of the city and State, for the protection of their homes, their property and for southern rights, from the pollution of a ruthless invader, and believing that the military organization which existed prior to February 15, 1862, and elicited praise and respect for the patriotic motives which prompted it, should exist for and during the war, calls upon them to maintain their organization and hold themselves prepared for such orders as may be transmitted to them."[13]

These "Native Guards" joined the Confederate forces but they did not leave the city with these troops, when they retreated before General Butler, commanding the invading Union army. When General Butler learned of this organization after his arrival in New Orleans, he sent for several of the most prominent colored men of the city and asked why they had accepted service "under the Confederate Government which was set up for the purpose of holding their brethren and kindred in eternal slavery." The reply was that they dared not to refuse; that they hadhoped, by serving the Confederates, to advance nearer to equality with the whites; and concluded by stating that they had longed to throw the weight of their class with the Union forces and with the cause in which their own dearest hopes were identified[14].

An observer in Charleston at the outbreak of the war noted the preparation for war, and called particular attention to "the thousand Negroes who, so far from inclining to insurrections, were grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of shooting the Yankees[15]." In the same city, one of the daily papers stated that on January 2, 150 free colored men had gratuitously offered their services to hasten the work of throwing up redoubts along the coast[16]. At Nashville, Tennessee, April, 1861, a company of free Negroes offered their services to the Confederate Government and at Memphis a recruiting office was opened[17]. The Legislature of Tennessee authorized Governor Harris, on June 28, 1861, to receive into the State military service all male persons of color between the ages of fifteen and fifty. These soldiers would receive eight dollars a month with clothing and rations. The sheriff of each county was required to report the names of these persons and in case the number of persons tendering their services was not sufficient to meet the needs of the county, the sheriff was empowered to impress as many persons as were needed[18]. In the same State, a procession of several hundred colored men marching through the streets attracted attention. They marchedunder the command of Confederate officers and carried shovels, axes, and blankets. The observer adds, "they were brimful of patriotism, shouting for Jeff Davis and singing war songs."[19]A paper in Lynchburg, Virginia, commenting on the enlistment of 70 free Negroes to fight for the defense of the State, concluded with "three cheers for the patriotic Negroes of Lynchburg."[20]

Two weeks after the firing on Fort Sumter, several companies of volunteers of color passed through Augusta on their way to Virginia to engage in actual war. Sixteen well-drilled companies of volunteers and one Negro company from Nashville composed this group.[21]In November of the same year, a military review was held in New Orleans. Twenty-eight thousand troops passed before Governor Moore, General Lowell and General Ruggles. The line of march covered over seven miles in length. It is said that one regiment comprised 1,400 free colored men.[22]The Baltimore Travelercommenting on arming Negroes at Richmond, said: "Contrabands who have recently come within the Federal lines at Williamsport, report that all the able-bodied men in that vicinity are being taken to Richmond, formed into regiments, and armed for the defense of that city."[23]

During February, 1862, the Confederate Legislature of Virginia was considering a bill to enroll all free Negroes in the State for service with the Confederate forces.[24]The Legislatures of other States seriously considered the measure. Military and civil leaders, the Confederate Congress and its perplexed War Department debated among themselves the relative value of employing the Negroes as soldiers. Slowly the ranks of those at home were made to grow thin by the calls to the front. In April,1862, President Davis was authorized to call out and place in service all white men between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five; in September the ages were raised to include the years of thirty-five and forty-five; and finally in February, 1864, all male whites between the years of seventeen and fifty were made liable to military service. The Negroes were liable for impressment in the work of building fortifications, producing war materials, and the like.[25]

The demand became so urgent for men that quite a controversy arose over the advisability of employing the Negroes as soldiers. Some said that the Negro belonged to an inferior race and, therefore, could not be a good soldier; that the Negro could do menial work in the army, but that fighting was the white man's task. Those who supported the idea in its incipiency always urged the necessity of employing Negroes in the army. A native Georgian supported the employment of these troops in a letter to the Secretary of War, recommending freedom after the war was over to those who fought, compensation to the owners and the retention of the institution of slavery by continuing as slaves "boys and women, and exempted or detailed men." The statement concludes with "our country requires a quick and stringent remedy. Don't stop for reforms."[26]

In November, 1864, Jefferson Davis in his message to the Confederate Congress recognized that the time might come when slaves would be needed in the Confederate army: "The subject," said he, "is to be viewed by us, therefore, solely in the light of policy and our social economy. When so regarded, I must dissent from those who advise a general levy and arming of slaves for the duty of soldiers. Until our white population shall prove insufficientfor the armies we require and can afford to keep the field, to employ as a soldier the Negro, who has merely been trained to labor, and as a laborer under the white man, accustomed from his youth to the use of firearms, would scarcely be deemed wise or advantageous by any; and this is the question before us. But should the alternative ever be presented of subjugation or of the employment of the slave as a soldier, there seems no reason to doubt what should be our decision."[27]In the same month, J. A. Seddon, Secretary of War, refused permission to Major E. B. Briggs of Columbus, Georgia, to raise a regiment of Negro troops, stating that it was not probable that any such policy would be adopted by Congress.[28]

In response to an inquiry from Seddon, the Secretary of War, as to the advisability of arming slaves, General Howell Cobb presented the point of view of one group of the Confederates, when he opposed the measure to arm the Negroes. "I think," said he "that the proposition to make soldiers of our slaves is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began ... you cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to Negro soldiers, your white soldiers will be lost to you, and one secret of the favor with which the proposition is received in portions of the army is the hope when Negroes go into the army, they (the whites) will be permitted to retire. It is simply a proposition to fight the balance of the war with Negro troops. You can't keep white and black troops together and you can't trust Negroes by themselves.... Use all the Negroes you can get for all purposes for which you need them but don't arm them. The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong."[29]General Beauregard, Commander of the Department of Georgia, South Carolina andFlorida, wrote to a friend in July, 1863, that the arming of the slaves would lead to the atrocious consequences which have ever resulted from the employment of "a merciless servile race as soldiers."[30]General Patton Anderson declared that the idea of arming the slaves was a "monstrous proposition revolting to southern sentiment, southern pride and southern honor."[31]

The opposite point of view was expressed by the group of southerners led by General Pat Cleburne who in a petition presented to General Joseph E. Johnson by several Confederate Officers wrote: "Will the slaves fight?—the experience of this war has been so far, that half-trained Negroes have fought as bravely as many half-trained Yankees."[32]J. P. Benjamin, Secretary of State, urged that the slave would be certainly made to fight against them, if southerners failed to arm them for southern defense. He advocated also the emancipation of those who would fight; if they should fight for southern freedom. According to Benjamin, they were entitled to their own. In keeping with the necessity of increasing the army, the editor of a popular newspaper in Charleston, South Carolina, was besought to commence a discussion on this point in his paper so that "the people might learn the lesson which experience was sternly teaching."[33]

In a letter to President Davis, another argued that since the Negro had been used from the outset of the war to defend the South by raising provisions for the army, that the sword and musket be put in his hands, and concluding the correspondent added: "I would not make a soldier of the Negro if it could be helped, but we are reduced to this last resort."[34]Sam Clayton of Georgia wrote: "The recruits should come from our Negroes, nowhere else. We should away with pride of opinion, away with false pride, andpromptly take hold of all the means God has placed within our reach to help us through this struggle—a war for the right of self-government. Some people say that Negroes will not fight. I say they will fight. They fought at Ocean Pond (Olustee, Fla.), Honey Hill and other places. The enemy fights us with Negroes, and they will do very well to fight the Yankees."[35]

The pressure to fill the depleted ranks of the Confederate forces became greater as the war continued. It was noted above that Congress and the State legislatures had called into service all able-bodied whites between the ages of seventeen and fifty years; later the ages were extended both ways to sixteen and sixty years. Grant remarked that the Confederates had robbed "the cradle and the grave" in order to fill the armies[36]. Jefferson Davis began to see the futility of a hypothetical discussion as to the advisability or values in the use of Negroes as soldiers and in a letter to John Forsythe, February, 1865, stated "that all arguments as to the positive advantage or disadvantage of employing them are beside the question, which is simply one of relative advantage between having their fighting element in our ranks or in those of the enemy."[37]

A strong recommendation for the use of Negroes as soldiers was sent to Senator Andrew Hunter at Richmond by General Robert E. Lee, in January, 1865. "I think, therefore," said he, "we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ them without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they may be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in a marked degree. Long habits of obedience and subordinationcoupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guaranty of military efficiency. Our chief aim should be to secure their fidelity. There have been formidable armies composed of men having no interest in the cause for which they fought beyond their pay or the hope of plunder. But it is certain that the surest foundation upon which the fidelity of an army can rest, especially in a service which imposes hardships and privations, is the personal interest of the soldier in the issue of the contest. Such an interest we can give our Negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service."[38]This was an influential word, coming as it did from the Commander-in-Chief of the Confederate forces. The Confederate Congress did not act immediately upon this suggestion, but even if this had been done, the measure would have been enacted too late to be of any avail.[39]

The Confederate Senate refused on February 7, 1865, to pass a resolution calling on the committee on military affairs to report a bill to enroll Negro soldiers. Later in the same month the Senate indefinitely postponed the measure.[40]As the House and Senate met in secret session much of the debate can not be found. General Lee wrote Representative Barksdale of Mississippi another letter in which the employment of Negro soldiers was declared not only expedient but necessary. He reiterated his opinion that they would make good soldiers as had been shown in their employment in the Union armies.[41]With recommendations from General Lee and Governor Smith of Virginia, and with the approval of President Davis an act was passed by the Congress, March 13, 1865, enrolling slaves in the Confederate army.[42]Each State was to furnish a quota of the total 300,000.[43]The Preamble of the act reads as follows:

"An Act to increase the Military Force of the Confederate States: The Congress of the Confederate States of America so enact, that, in order to provide additional forces to repel invasion, maintain the rightful possession of the Confederate States, secure their independence and preserve their institution, the President be, and he is hereby authorized to ask for and accept from the owners of slaves, the services of such number of able-bodied Negro men as he may deem expedient, for and during the war, to perform military service in whatever capacity he may direct...."The language used in other sections of the act seems to imply also that volunteering made one a freedman.[44]

After the passage of the measure by the Confederate Congress, General Lee coöperated in every way with the War Department in facilitating the recruiting of Negro troops.[45]Recruiting officers were appointed in each State. Lieutenant John L. Cowardin, Adjutant, 19th Batallion, Virginia Artillery was ordered to proceed on April 1, 1865, to recruiting Negro troops according to the act. On March 30, 1865, Captain Edward Bostick was ordered to raise four companies in South Carolina. Others were ordered to raise companies in Alabama, Florida, and Virginia.[46]Lee and Johnson, however, surrendered before this plan could be carried out. If the Confederate Congress could have accepted the recommendation in the fall of 1864, the war might have been prolonged a few months, to say the least, by the use of the Negro troops. It was the opinion of President Davis, on learning of the passage of the act, that not so much was accomplished as would have been, if the act had been passed earlier so that during the winter the slaves could have been drilled and made ready for the spring campaign of 1865.

Under the guidance of the local authorities, thousands of Negroes were enlisted in the State Militias and in the Confederate Army. They served with satisfaction, but there is no evidence that they took part in any important battles. The Confederate Government at first could not bring itself to acknowledge the right or the ability of the man who had been a slave to serve with the white man as a soldier. Necessity forced the acceptance of the Negro as a soldier. In spite of the long years of controversy with its arguments of racial inferiority,[47]out of the muddle offact and fancy came the deliberate decision to employ Negro troops. This act, in itself, as a historical fact, refuted the former theories of southern statesmen. The Negro was thus a factor in both the Union and Confederate armies in the War of the Rebellion. These facts lead to the conclusion that the Negro is an American not only because he lives in America, but because his life is closely connected with every important movement in American history.

Charles H. Wesley.

Footnotes:[1]Davis,The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida, p. 220.[2]For summary of such, legislation to prevent this, see J.C. Kurd,The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States, Vol. II. In Florida, 1827, a law was enacted to prevent trading with Negroes. In 1828, death was declared the penalty for inciting insurrection among the slaves and in 1840 there was passed an act prohibiting the use of firearms by Negroes. In Virginia as early as 1748 there was enacted a measure declaring that even the free Negroes and Indians enlisted in the militia should appear without arms; but in 1806 the law was modified to provide that free Negroes should not carry arms without first obtaining a license from the county or corporation court. One who was caught with firearms in spite of this act was to forfeit the weapon to the informer and receive thirty-nine lashes at the whipping-post. Hening,Statutes-at-Large, Vol. V, p. 17; Vol. XVI, p. 274.[3]General W. S. Harney, commanding in Missouri, responded to the claims of slaveholders for the return of runaway slaves with the words: "Already, since the commencement of these unhappy disturbances, slaves have escaped from their owners and have sought refuge in the camps of the United States troops from the Northern States, and commanded by a Northern General. They were carefully sent back to their owners." General D. C. Buell, commanding in Tennessee, in reply to the same demands stated: "Several applications have been made to me by persons whose servants have been found in our camps; and in every instance that I know of, the master has removed his servant and taken him away." William Wells Brown,The Negro in the Rebellion, pp. 57-58.[4]Secretary Seddon, War Department, wrote: "They [the Negroes] have, besides, the homes they value, the families they love, and the masters they respect and depend on to defend and protect against the savagery and devastation of the enemy."—Official Rebellion Records, Series IV, Vol. Ill, pp. 761-762.[5]Governor Walker of Florida, himself a former slaveholder, said before the State legislature in 1865 that "the world had never seen such a body of slaves, for not only in peace but in war they had been faithful to us. During much of the time of the late unhappy difficulties, Florida had a greater number of men in her army than constituted her entire voting population. This, of course, stripped many districts of their arms-bearing inhabitants and left our females and infant children almost exclusively to the protection of our slaves. They proved true to their trust. Not one instance of insult, outrage, or indignity has ever come to my knowledge. They remained at home and made provisions for the army." John Wallace,Carpet-Bag Rule in Florida, p. 23.[6]"For more than two years, Negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union."—Greely,The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 524."It was a notorious fact that the enemy were using Negroes to build fortifications, drive teams and raise food for the army. Black hands piled up the sand-bags and raised the batteries which drove Anderson out of Sumter. At Montgomery, the Capital of the Confederacy, Negroes were being drilled and armed for military duty."—W. W. Brown,The Negro in the Rebellion, p. 59.[7]Ibid., Vol. II, p. 521.[8]Jones,A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, Vol. I, p. 237; Schwab,The Confederate States of America, p. 194.[9]Laws of Florida, 12th Session, 1862, Chap. 1378.[10]Confederate War Department, Bureau of Conscription, Circular No. 36, December 12, 1864.Off. Reds. Reb., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 933.[11]Off. Reds. Reb., Series IV, Vol. Ill, p. 780. Journals of Congress, IV, 260.[12]Washington,The Story of the Negro, Vol. II, p. 321.[13]Order No. 426. Adjutant-General's Office, Headquarters Louisiana Militia, March 24, 1862.Cf.Brown,The Negro in the Rebellion, pp. 84-85.[14]Parton,History of the Administration of the Gulf, 1862-1864;General Butler in New Orleans, p. 517.[15]Greely,The American Conflict, p. 521.[16]The Charleston Mercury, January 3, 1861.[17]The announcement of the recruiting read: "Attention, volunteers: Resolved by the Committee of Safety that C. Deloach, D. R. Cook and William B. Greenlaw be authorized to organize a volunteer company composed of our patriotic free men of color, of the city of Memphis, for the service of our common defense. All who have not enrolled their names will call at the office of W. B. Greenlaw & Co."F. W. Forsythe, Secretary. F. Titus, President.Williams,History of the Negro, Vol. II, p. 277.[18]Greely,The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 521.[19]Memphis Avalanche, September 3, 1861.[20]Greely,The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 522.[21]Ibid., p. 277.[22]Ibid., Vol. II, p. 522.[23]The Baltimore Traveler, February 4, 1862.[24]Greely,The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 522.[25]Schwab,The Confederate States of America, p. 193. Moore,Rebellion Records, Vol. VII, p. 210. Jones,Diary, Vol. I, p. 381.[26]An indorsement from the Secretary of War reads: "If all white men capable of bearing arms are put in the field, it would be as large a draft as a community could continuously sustain, and whites are better soldiers than Negroes. For war, when existence is staked, the best material should be used."—Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 693-694.[27]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 799.[28]Ibid., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 846. J. A. Seddon to Maj. E. B. Briggs, Nov. 24, 1864.[29]Ibid., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 1009.[30]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series I, Vol. XXVIII, Pt. 2, p. 13.[31]Ibid., Series I, Vol. LII, Pt. 2, p. 598.[32]Davis,Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida, p. 226.[33]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 959-960.[34]Ibid., p. 227.[35]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 1010-1011.[36]Rhodes,History of the United States since the Compromise of 1850, Vol. IV, p. 525.[37]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. VIII, p. 1110.[38]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. VIII, p. 1013.[39]Williams,Negro Troops in the War of the Rebellion, Journals of Congress, Vol. IV, pp. 572-573.In theAmerican Historical Review, January, 1913, N.W. Stephenson has an article upon "The Question of Arming the Slaves." The article is concerned particularly with the debate in the Confederate Congress upon this perplexing question and with the psychology of the statements made by President Davis, Secretary Benjamin, General Lee and by various Congressmen. The author has searched the Journals of the Confederate Congress, newspaper files and personal recollections and gives conclusions which show that "the subject was discussed during the last winter of the Confederate regime," and by inference the dissertation shows that the fear of the consequences of arming the slaves was alike in the minds of all southern people. The treatise is a study in historical psychology; and, as in similar works by men of the type of the author, the point of view of the South and of the Confederacy is presented and the Negro and his actual employment as a soldier is neglected. The author contends that a few southern leaders attempted to force the arming of the blacks upon an unwilling southern public. He neglects the evidence contained in the action of local authorities in arming the Negroes who were free and their attitude concerning those who were slaves. He neglects also the sentiment of southern leaders who favored the measure. The Journals of the Confederate Congress, therefore, will be more valuable to those desiring information concerning the debates on this question.[40]Journal of Congress of Confederate States, Vol. IV, p. 528 and Vol. VII, p. 595; Jones,Diary, Vol. II, p. 431.[41]Richmond Dispatch, February 24, 1865; JonesDiary, Vol. II, p. 432.[42]Journal of Congress of Confederate States, Vol. VII, p. 748.[43]Richmond Examiner, December 9, 1864—Gov. Smith's Message. Jones,Diary, Vol. II, p. 43; pp. 432-433. Schwab,The Confederate States of America, p. 194.[44]Off. Reds. Rebell., SeriesIV, Vol. III, p. 1161.Ibid., Series III, Vol. V, pp. 711-712; Davis,Confederate Government, Vol. II, p. 660.[45]Rhodes,History of U. S., Vol. V, 1864-1865, p. 81.[46]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 1193-1194 and Appendix.[47]Cf. Southern Correspondence throughout the Rebellion Records.

[1]Davis,The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida, p. 220.

[2]For summary of such, legislation to prevent this, see J.C. Kurd,The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States, Vol. II. In Florida, 1827, a law was enacted to prevent trading with Negroes. In 1828, death was declared the penalty for inciting insurrection among the slaves and in 1840 there was passed an act prohibiting the use of firearms by Negroes. In Virginia as early as 1748 there was enacted a measure declaring that even the free Negroes and Indians enlisted in the militia should appear without arms; but in 1806 the law was modified to provide that free Negroes should not carry arms without first obtaining a license from the county or corporation court. One who was caught with firearms in spite of this act was to forfeit the weapon to the informer and receive thirty-nine lashes at the whipping-post. Hening,Statutes-at-Large, Vol. V, p. 17; Vol. XVI, p. 274.

[3]General W. S. Harney, commanding in Missouri, responded to the claims of slaveholders for the return of runaway slaves with the words: "Already, since the commencement of these unhappy disturbances, slaves have escaped from their owners and have sought refuge in the camps of the United States troops from the Northern States, and commanded by a Northern General. They were carefully sent back to their owners." General D. C. Buell, commanding in Tennessee, in reply to the same demands stated: "Several applications have been made to me by persons whose servants have been found in our camps; and in every instance that I know of, the master has removed his servant and taken him away." William Wells Brown,The Negro in the Rebellion, pp. 57-58.

[4]Secretary Seddon, War Department, wrote: "They [the Negroes] have, besides, the homes they value, the families they love, and the masters they respect and depend on to defend and protect against the savagery and devastation of the enemy."—Official Rebellion Records, Series IV, Vol. Ill, pp. 761-762.

[5]Governor Walker of Florida, himself a former slaveholder, said before the State legislature in 1865 that "the world had never seen such a body of slaves, for not only in peace but in war they had been faithful to us. During much of the time of the late unhappy difficulties, Florida had a greater number of men in her army than constituted her entire voting population. This, of course, stripped many districts of their arms-bearing inhabitants and left our females and infant children almost exclusively to the protection of our slaves. They proved true to their trust. Not one instance of insult, outrage, or indignity has ever come to my knowledge. They remained at home and made provisions for the army." John Wallace,Carpet-Bag Rule in Florida, p. 23.

[6]"For more than two years, Negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union."—Greely,The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 524."It was a notorious fact that the enemy were using Negroes to build fortifications, drive teams and raise food for the army. Black hands piled up the sand-bags and raised the batteries which drove Anderson out of Sumter. At Montgomery, the Capital of the Confederacy, Negroes were being drilled and armed for military duty."—W. W. Brown,The Negro in the Rebellion, p. 59.

"It was a notorious fact that the enemy were using Negroes to build fortifications, drive teams and raise food for the army. Black hands piled up the sand-bags and raised the batteries which drove Anderson out of Sumter. At Montgomery, the Capital of the Confederacy, Negroes were being drilled and armed for military duty."—W. W. Brown,The Negro in the Rebellion, p. 59.

[7]Ibid., Vol. II, p. 521.

[8]Jones,A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, Vol. I, p. 237; Schwab,The Confederate States of America, p. 194.

[9]Laws of Florida, 12th Session, 1862, Chap. 1378.

[10]Confederate War Department, Bureau of Conscription, Circular No. 36, December 12, 1864.Off. Reds. Reb., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 933.

[11]Off. Reds. Reb., Series IV, Vol. Ill, p. 780. Journals of Congress, IV, 260.

[12]Washington,The Story of the Negro, Vol. II, p. 321.

[13]Order No. 426. Adjutant-General's Office, Headquarters Louisiana Militia, March 24, 1862.Cf.Brown,The Negro in the Rebellion, pp. 84-85.

[14]Parton,History of the Administration of the Gulf, 1862-1864;General Butler in New Orleans, p. 517.

[15]Greely,The American Conflict, p. 521.

[16]The Charleston Mercury, January 3, 1861.

[17]The announcement of the recruiting read: "Attention, volunteers: Resolved by the Committee of Safety that C. Deloach, D. R. Cook and William B. Greenlaw be authorized to organize a volunteer company composed of our patriotic free men of color, of the city of Memphis, for the service of our common defense. All who have not enrolled their names will call at the office of W. B. Greenlaw & Co."F. W. Forsythe, Secretary. F. Titus, President.Williams,History of the Negro, Vol. II, p. 277.

F. W. Forsythe, Secretary. F. Titus, President.

Williams,History of the Negro, Vol. II, p. 277.

[18]Greely,The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 521.

[19]Memphis Avalanche, September 3, 1861.

[20]Greely,The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 522.

[21]Ibid., p. 277.

[22]Ibid., Vol. II, p. 522.

[23]The Baltimore Traveler, February 4, 1862.

[24]Greely,The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 522.

[25]Schwab,The Confederate States of America, p. 193. Moore,Rebellion Records, Vol. VII, p. 210. Jones,Diary, Vol. I, p. 381.

[26]An indorsement from the Secretary of War reads: "If all white men capable of bearing arms are put in the field, it would be as large a draft as a community could continuously sustain, and whites are better soldiers than Negroes. For war, when existence is staked, the best material should be used."—Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 693-694.

[27]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 799.

[28]Ibid., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 846. J. A. Seddon to Maj. E. B. Briggs, Nov. 24, 1864.

[29]Ibid., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 1009.

[30]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series I, Vol. XXVIII, Pt. 2, p. 13.

[31]Ibid., Series I, Vol. LII, Pt. 2, p. 598.

[32]Davis,Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida, p. 226.

[33]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 959-960.

[34]Ibid., p. 227.

[35]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 1010-1011.

[36]Rhodes,History of the United States since the Compromise of 1850, Vol. IV, p. 525.

[37]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. VIII, p. 1110.

[38]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. VIII, p. 1013.

[39]Williams,Negro Troops in the War of the Rebellion, Journals of Congress, Vol. IV, pp. 572-573.In theAmerican Historical Review, January, 1913, N.W. Stephenson has an article upon "The Question of Arming the Slaves." The article is concerned particularly with the debate in the Confederate Congress upon this perplexing question and with the psychology of the statements made by President Davis, Secretary Benjamin, General Lee and by various Congressmen. The author has searched the Journals of the Confederate Congress, newspaper files and personal recollections and gives conclusions which show that "the subject was discussed during the last winter of the Confederate regime," and by inference the dissertation shows that the fear of the consequences of arming the slaves was alike in the minds of all southern people. The treatise is a study in historical psychology; and, as in similar works by men of the type of the author, the point of view of the South and of the Confederacy is presented and the Negro and his actual employment as a soldier is neglected. The author contends that a few southern leaders attempted to force the arming of the blacks upon an unwilling southern public. He neglects the evidence contained in the action of local authorities in arming the Negroes who were free and their attitude concerning those who were slaves. He neglects also the sentiment of southern leaders who favored the measure. The Journals of the Confederate Congress, therefore, will be more valuable to those desiring information concerning the debates on this question.

[39]Williams,Negro Troops in the War of the Rebellion, Journals of Congress, Vol. IV, pp. 572-573.

In theAmerican Historical Review, January, 1913, N.W. Stephenson has an article upon "The Question of Arming the Slaves." The article is concerned particularly with the debate in the Confederate Congress upon this perplexing question and with the psychology of the statements made by President Davis, Secretary Benjamin, General Lee and by various Congressmen. The author has searched the Journals of the Confederate Congress, newspaper files and personal recollections and gives conclusions which show that "the subject was discussed during the last winter of the Confederate regime," and by inference the dissertation shows that the fear of the consequences of arming the slaves was alike in the minds of all southern people. The treatise is a study in historical psychology; and, as in similar works by men of the type of the author, the point of view of the South and of the Confederacy is presented and the Negro and his actual employment as a soldier is neglected. The author contends that a few southern leaders attempted to force the arming of the blacks upon an unwilling southern public. He neglects the evidence contained in the action of local authorities in arming the Negroes who were free and their attitude concerning those who were slaves. He neglects also the sentiment of southern leaders who favored the measure. The Journals of the Confederate Congress, therefore, will be more valuable to those desiring information concerning the debates on this question.

[40]Journal of Congress of Confederate States, Vol. IV, p. 528 and Vol. VII, p. 595; Jones,Diary, Vol. II, p. 431.

[41]Richmond Dispatch, February 24, 1865; JonesDiary, Vol. II, p. 432.

[42]Journal of Congress of Confederate States, Vol. VII, p. 748.

[43]Richmond Examiner, December 9, 1864—Gov. Smith's Message. Jones,Diary, Vol. II, p. 43; pp. 432-433. Schwab,The Confederate States of America, p. 194.

[44]Off. Reds. Rebell., SeriesIV, Vol. III, p. 1161.Ibid., Series III, Vol. V, pp. 711-712; Davis,Confederate Government, Vol. II, p. 660.

[44]Off. Reds. Rebell., SeriesIV, Vol. III, p. 1161.

Ibid., Series III, Vol. V, pp. 711-712; Davis,Confederate Government, Vol. II, p. 660.

[45]Rhodes,History of U. S., Vol. V, 1864-1865, p. 81.

[46]Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 1193-1194 and Appendix.

[47]Cf. Southern Correspondence throughout the Rebellion Records.

In 1790, the free colored population of Tennessee was 361, while the slave numbered 3,417.[1]In 1787, three years previous, Davidson County, which then, as now, comprised the most important and thickly settled part of the Cumberland Valley, had a population of 105 Negroes between the ages of 1 and 60.[2]Nashville was just a rough community in the wilderness with a few settlers from the older districts of the East, living in several hewed and framed log-houses and twenty or more rough cabins. The census of 1790 gives Davidson County 677 Negroes, a figure which compared with the 3,778 Negroes in the entire State at that enumeration, means that this frontier region had already grown important enough to draw to it nearly one-fifth of the Negro population of the commonwealth. In 1800, there were in the State 13,893 Negroes, of whom 3,104, or nearly one fourth, were in Davidson County. Thereafter, although the ratio between the county and State did not increase in favor of the county, still it kept up so that by 1850 Davidson had the largest Negro population of any county in the State. During the decade 1850-60 Shelby County, containing the important center, Memphis, gained the ascendency in number of Negro inhabitants, which it has since that time maintained. The likely cause of this shifting was the steady growth of cotton-raising districts and their rapid expansion toward the West and South. A general intimidation of the Negroes of Nashville and vicinity occurred in 1856, probably having some influence on the decline of population for that period in question. This cause, however, is not sufficient to explain the constantsuperiority of numbers in the Southwestern Tennessee region thereafter.

As slavery expanded from this small territory into all parts of the State, the attitude of the people of the Commonwealth with respect to the nation and slavery at various times may be shown. After Tennessee had been ceded to the United States in 1790 by North Carolina, she had a most unusual method of throwing off her territorial government for nearly three months in 1796, and existed in absolute independence for that period before being admitted into statehood by the Federal Government.[3]Nevertheless in the period of the Civil War this State was the last to secede and the first to comply with the terms of readmission. With respect to slavery the early attitude of Tennessee toward the national government was peculiar. The cession act of North Carolina provided: "That no regulation made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves."[4]Probably because of this fact Lincoln did not mention Tennessee in the Emancipation Proclamation.

Yet Tennessee did have a strong anti-slavery sentiment, beginning with the outspoken protest of some of the King's Mountain heroes, also expressing itself in the work of many petitioners to the State legislature in the period 1800-1820. Then in 1834, in the State constitutional convention of that year, the anti-slavery feeling developed to proportions little appreciable at the present day, since we know the general opposition to such feeling and sentiment. Any antagonism to a so strongly fixed social convention then meant unusual courage in the midst of a majority of persons of adverse opinion.

The burning question of human rights for the black inhabitants of the State still became more ardent as the years passed, and the signs of its greater intensity were clearly seen in the Anti-Slavery Convention which met in London in 1843. The chronicle of proceedings contains a speechof Joshua Leavitt of Boston, who made the interesting statement that "The people of East Tennessee, a race of hardy mountaineers, find their interests so little regarded by the dominant slave-holders of other parts of the state that they are taking measures to become a separate state. They are holding anti-slavery meetings, and meetings of political associations with great freedom, discussing their questions, rousing up the people and showing how slavery curses them, in order to bring them to the point of action."[5]At this time it was well known that both Tennessee and Kentucky were "exporting slaves largely."[6]

In 1820, Elihu Embree,[7]at Jonesboro, Tennessee, the county seat of Washington County, in the far eastern section, began to publishThe Emancipator, an abolition journal. Later, there came from this same county a man who easily became the leader of anti-slavery sentiment in the Constitutional Convention of 1834 at Nashville, Matthew Stephenson. It may have been that as a young man Stephenson was fired with the zeal of Embree. The period of Embree's activity was also one of large interest in the North and South in behalf of emancipation. In this same year the Missouri Compromise was passed in the national legislature. The concessions made both by pro-slavery and anti-slavery adherents at this time show the relative strength of the two forces and the remarkable fact is that there could be such near-equality of fighting strength on both sides.[8]Tennessee seems to have had an epitome of this national situation within her borders. Not only the zealous work of Embree indicates this, but the general feeling of the people of eastern Tennessee toward slavery. It is interesting here to point out thatThe Emancipatorwas the first abolition journal in the United States.[9]

The outcome of this anti-slavery feeling in Tennesseewas that when the State Constitutional Convention met at Nashville in 1834 to consider important changes in the Constitution of 1796, there was such an outburst of sentiment against slavery that it was only with considerable resistance of the pro-slavery convention delegates that the State did not abolish it by providing for the gradual emancipation of slaves over a period of twenty years, when all should have been emancipated.[10]So significant is the public opinion of that time in Tennessee history, and so well calculated to give large insight into the Negro's condition then in the State, that it will hardly be amiss in this paper to enter into a somewhat detailed discussion of the work of the convention, and the sentiments there displayed.

The legal enactments of the slave code of Tennessee prior to 1834 will give us the right perspective here. One of the earliest enactments of the commonwealth was the absolute denial to slaves of the right to own property. Property held by them, such as horses, cattle, or anything of personal value was to be sold and one half of the proceeds given to the informer, the other half to the county.[11]Another law forbade the slave to go about armed unless he was the huntsman of the plantation. Small penalties were provided.[12]Still another made it unlawful for slaves to sell "any article whatever without permission from owner or overseer." The penalty for breaking this law was a maximum of "39 lashes on his, her, or their bare backs."[13]Many other matters were rigidly prescribed in the early statutes, chiefly concerning the slave's right to go or not to go from place to place, and to conduct himself under certain circumstances. Among slaves perjury was punished by mutilation and whipping. The brutality of the former was all the more disgusting because defended by law.[14]The slaying of a black or mulatto slave, however, was actuallydeemed murder and made punishable with death. It has not yet been ascertained, as far as the writer knows, whether any white citizen of Tennessee was ever indicted under the provision of this law. We do have a case of a famous old slave-holder in a community not far from Nashville being tied to his gate post and severely whipped by his neighbors, because of his brutal murder of one of his slaves.[15]

In the early laws the "hiring of one's own time," for a slave, was expressly forbidden. This practice was that of the master's allowing a slave to purchase his time for a certain amount of money, usually paid per annum. The law forbidding it was later rather generally evaded, although we cannot be sure of the evasion during the years 1796-1834. But during the later decades of the period under discussion, especially from 1840-60, there is absolute agreement among the testimonies of ex-slaves that evasion was the rule and not the exception. Various forms of this law were later enacted, but the penalties were usually light, and it may have been this fact together with the case of evasion that caused the disregard of it to become general. An ex-slave of Wilson County explains that the usual method of evasion was the declaration of the employer of the slave that he had hired the slave from the slave's master. Sometimes the owner would pretend to keep the wages of the slave, but really was holding them at the slave's disposal. In this way numbers of slaves bought themselves.

There were other laws affecting masters in regard to their treatment of their slaves and privileges of the latter. One provided that if the slave should steal food or clothing because ill-fed or destitute of apparel, the master should pay for the stolen property.[16]By the provisions of another, slaves were allowed to give testimony in trials ofother slaves; the jurors, however, had to be "housekeepers" and "owners of slaves."[17]The beating or abuse of a slave without sufficient cause (no indication given as to what were the limits of "sufficient cause") was an indictable offence, and the person committing a crime of this sort was liable to the same penalties as for the commission of a similar offense on the body of a white person.[18]

Various laws of the early codes, 1813, 1819, 1829, restricting the slave from selling or vending articles under conditions apart from desire or knowledge of his owner are all evidence of his complete subjection by law to the will of his master, even in the smallest things and affairs of personal life, and disposal of belongings. Great care was taken to state specifically in these early laws that there should be no sale of liquor or any intoxicant to slaves.[19]

The provisions concerning larger questions of a slave's activity and privilege are all interesting, and it will be of value to regard, first of all, that for bringing slaves into the State. Slaves were not to be brought into Tennessee unless for use, or procured by descent, devise, or marriage.[20]This enactment was made in 1826, and prepared the way for far more severe measures later. The idea of all legislation of this nature argues clearly the discouragement of slavery as a prevailing institution, by means of preventing fresh importations for sale. Tennessee was not to be, if it could be prevented, a slave market, like Mississippi.

A citizen holding slaves might petition the county court and emancipate a slave. Bond and security were required of the owner, and the slave thus set at liberty became free to go where he chose provided that, if he became a pauper, he should be brought to the county in which he had been set free, and there taken care of at public expense.[21]But occasionally there would arise a situation which requiredspecial enactment of the legislature as in the instance of one, Pompey Daniels, a slave, who died before the emancipation of his two children, Jeremiah and Julius, whom he had purchased. This required a special act of the legislature, as there seems to have been no law covering such a case.[22]Years before, in 1801, there was enacted a law, giving power of emancipation to the owner, as we have just seen before, but not to any slave who might essay to deliver another from bondage.[23]

Once free, the Negro's status was rather precarious in some respects. He was required to have papers filled out by the clerk of the county in which he lived, specifying personal details and information intended to identify the person thoroughly. He must without fail have these emancipation records with him at any time and place in order to prove his freedom. In 1831 a law was passed which made it obligatory for the slave to leave upon his emancipation, and persons intending to emancipate their slaves were then compelled to give bond for their speedy removal.[24]Another clause of the same law stipulates that free Negroes should not be allowed to enter the State.[25]Fine and imprisonment were specified as penalties for remaining in the State as long as twenty days. This was a reaction from the provisions of State laws of 1825 when free colored persons immigrating into the State might have papers of freedom registered there, when proof of their absolute freedom had been made. Before the enactment of 1831, the increase of free Negroes was not so actively discouraged by the State, and many having their residence there, the laws concerning this class were quite as important and nearly as well detailed as the provisions of the slave code.

Among the early laws is one exacting a penalty of $500fine for selling a "free person of color."[26]A free person imported and sold as a slave under the law might recover double the price of his sale from the seller, who might be held until he should give bond.[27]This marks a high degree of feeling of justice toward the freeman, and yet it is worthy of notice that this was not always adequate to obtaining actual justice. Record is given of three young colored men, seamen and free, "carried to Mobile and New Orleans in the steamerNew Castleand taken ashore by the captain to the city prison on pretext of getting hemp for the vessel, but really taken by the captain to the city prison as his slaves and sold by the jailor to three persons who carried them into Tennessee."[28]It is further stated that these unfortunates remained in slavery. One, however, was freed by the diligent work of the Friends, who had agents in the South busy gathering information concerning slavery, and planning means of combating it.

The free person of color was exempted from military duty and from the payment of a poll-tax. In accordance with an amendment to the Public Works act of 1804, he was expected to give service on public roads and highways just as other citizens.[29]It is doubtful whether any freeman of color voted under the constitution of 1796, but it seems to have been possible. The new constitution of 1834 restricted the right of voting to "free men who should be competent witnesses against a white man in a court of justice." In the courts free Negroes were legal witnesses in certain cases among their own people, but might themselves be testified against by slaves, even, if the defendants were only freedmen.[30]Otherwise slaves were not allowed to be witnesses against free men of color. Writs of error were granted to both freemen and slaves.

There were numerous small observances regarding thepersonal conduct of freemen. Life was at best for them a strange and circumscribed affair. They were "neither bond nor free," and probably suffered more from the provisions of the law and their ambiguous position than did their slave brothers. The freeman was not to entertain any slave over night in his home, or on the Sabbath. A small fine was the penalty.[31]Intermarriage of free persons and slaves without consent of the master of the slave was strictly forbidden. Breach of this law, also, was punishable by fine. There were penalties for whites and free Negroes alike for being in "unlawful assembly" with slaves. The word "unlawful" here seems to have had a special judicial meaning, signifying primarily for the purpose of instigating rebellion or insurrection. A law providing for voluntary enslavement of a free person of color, to any person whom he might choose, introduces a most interesting situation which probably indicates that there were more than a few free Negroes who preferred slavery to the condition of a creature living in a sort of limbo between freedom and bondage.

By an act of the legislature in 1819, encouragement was given to European immigrants to come into the State, with the idea that they would become home builders and land-tillers, and make good citizens. The colored population already had a general reputation for thrift, but the sentiment of racial sympathy in the white population just then favored more the immigrant. For a period the tide of public opinion was on this side, and it was considered best for the Negro to be taken in charge by the Tennessee Colonization Society. The State appropriated $10 for every black man removed from the State, an expense finally sanctioned by a law of 1833.[32]

Two years prior to the year of the Tennessee Constitutional Convention of 1834, Virginia in her State Legislature, had witnessed an exciting scene of debate on the questionof slavery. In the District of Columbia, also, there was sent to Congress in the session of 1827-28 a petition requesting the "prospective abolition" of slavery in that district, and the repeal of certain laws authorizing the sale of runaways. Similarly in Tennessee the outbreak of antislavery sentiment, long fostered in the eastern part of the State, came into the Convention of 1834. The few details presented here concerning the convention show conclusively that there was a strong, even violent opposition to human slavery in the State. Certain representatives of counties from East Tennessee were conspicuous for their protest against the system, and maintained their convictions despite the failure to win their point at that time.

Many memorialists in the State had addressed the legislature on the question of emancipation both pro and con prior to the convention, and finally, in the convention, on June 18, Wm. Blount of Montgomery County, Northern Tennessee, offered a memorial that on the subject of slavery the General Assembly should have no power or authority to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners or without paying their owners.[33]The memorial further prayed that, the legislature should not discourage the foreign immigration into the State and that certain laws providing for the owners of slaves to emancipate them should be made with the restriction that beforehand such manumitted persons should be assuredly prevented from becoming a charge to any county.

There were presented other memorials respecting the slave population at this time. Hess, of Gibson and Dyer counties, wanted no emancipation of slaves except by individual disposition of their masters as the latter saw fit, or at least never unless the price of the slave was paid, provided the master did not freely give manumission, and the good of the State seemed to demand the liberation of the slave. But memorials of a different sentiment also were coming in. On May 26, McNeal presented a memorial ofsundry citizens of McMinn County, asking for the emancipation of slaves in Tennessee, and on the same date, Senter of Rhea County also brought a petition from "sundry citizens" of his district asking for emancipation.[34]On the 28th, a memorial was given by Stephenson of Washington County from citizens unhesitatingly favoring emancipation. It was read and tabled.

On May 30, Stephenson introduced a resolution to have a committee of thirteen, one from each congressional district "appointed to take in consideration the propriety of designating some period from which slavery shall not be tolerated in this state, and that all memorials on that subject that have or may be presented to the convention be referred to said committee to consider and report thereon."[35]This resolution passed without trouble.

Stephenson was conspicuous for adherence to emancipation principles. It will be observed that he came from Washington County, in the far eastern portion of the State, the region already famous for its declaration of enmity toward slavery within Tennessee borders especially. An article in theKnoxville Registerof the year 1831, just a few years prior to this Nashville Convention, denounces slavery in no uncertain terms, but also grows bitter at the thought of free men of color even remaining in the State. "Shall Tennessee" it asks, "be made the receptacle of the vicious and desperate slave as well as the depraved and corrupting free man of color?"[36]

Back to Index Next