CHAPTER VIIIConclusions
The periods in the development of slavery in Tennessee are rather well defined. The institution made no remarkable progress before 1790. Its growth was slow and gradual. There were no special forces contributing to its development. Only the mountainous part of the state was being settled, and the cotton industry had not developed. The pioneers were not in thought or manner of living favorable to slavery. They either did their work single-handed, or combined with their neighbors in the performance of the heavier phases of it. Slavery was not a controlling factor, in a pioneer life characterized largely by hunting, fishing, trading, and small farming. It was more or less a useless luxury, which only the more fortunately situated could afford. Whatever progress slavery made during this period was due to purely natural forces and conditions. There were only 3,417 slaves in the state in 1790, and their value was less than $100 each.
From 1790 to 1835, slavery expanded very rapidly. In the first decade of this period, the slave population increased 297.54 per cent; in the second, 227.84 per cent; in the third, 79.87 per cent; and in the fourth, 76.76 per cent. There were 183,059 slaves in the state in 1840. Frontier conditions were largely supplanted by a more prosperous society. Cotton became the chief agricultural product of the state. West Tennessee, the part of the state especially adapted to the production of cotton, was settled during this period. Tobacco was profitably grown in Middle Tennessee, with the aid of slave labor. The river valleys of East Tennessee became cotton producing areas. Slavery in this period proved to be a profitable labor system in by far the larger portion of the state. This period is especially characterized by the growing economic importance of slavery and the weakening of the abolition sentiment. The slave was worth about $550 in 1835. The state reversed itspolicy toward the free negro in 1831, disfranchised him in 1834, and refused in the convention of 1834 even to consider abolition.
From 1835 to 1855, there was practically one opinion in the state on the slavery question. There was a dissenting minority, but it was so inconsiderable as to be almost negligible. The prevailing opinion was that abolition was impracticable. The slaves were not regarded as being able to sustain themselves. They were not prepared for the duties of citizenship. The state was not financially able to purchase them and colonize them. It was held that any policy the state might adopt would in its execution require the coöperation of the other slaveholding states. The more seriously the problem was attacked, the larger the proportions which it assumed. Slavery appeared from every angle to be a permanent institution. This conclusion led to a policy of safeguarding its interests, and improving the condition of the slaves. Legislation restricting emancipation, preventing influx of free negroes, and establishing voluntary enslavement was enacted. The change in the attitude of the churches during this period enabled them to have more influence over the slaveholders and to establish closer relations with the slaves. The churches constantly insisted upon a humane treatment of the slaves.
There are several outstanding features of Tennessee slavery that deserve special emphasis. The state, until the early thirties, may be ranked along with Ohio and New England as an abolition center. Tennessee had more abolition societies in 1825 than any other state in the Union except North Carolina. In 1840, there were 5,524 free negroes in the state. Maryville College, at Maryville, Tennessee, was a center of abolition propaganda. Union University, at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, numbered active abolitionists in its faculty. The state was the birth-place of the first out-right abolition paper published in the United States, and it became the connecting-link between Lundy and Garrison. The state sent a number of anti-slavery leaders into Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. The Tennessee churches were uniformly anti-slavery until they saw theywere losing their membership and were being ostracized from the proper contact with the slaves. As long as slavery existed in the state, manumission continued, despite legal restriction, as an expression of an active anti-slavery sentiment.
The slave’s legal status in Tennessee was exceptionably favorable. The law guaranteed to him shelter, food, clothing, and medical attention. It protected him against the violence of his master and of society. It prevented avaricious masters from emancipating him when he ceased to be productive and gave him the right to institute suit for his freedom. It permitted him to contract for his freedom against administrators of estates who were seeking to hold him in slavery. It furnished free counsel for his defense when his interests were in jeopardy. It also gave him trial by the same jury that the white man had.
The patrol system was an elaborate system of government for a non-citizen class. It was, however, a government of law. Its administrative agents included searchers, patrols, magistrates, sheriffs, constables, masters and mistresses. Every citizen was subject to patrol duty. These agents enforced a code that reduced almost every activity and relation of the slave to a basis of law. The patrol system was characterized by a careful consideration of the slave’s weaknesses and, with its patriarchal supervision, gave him a respect for authority that partially prepared him to be a citizen in a government of law. It is singularly true that Tennessee negroes today enjoy a greater participation in politics than any other Southern negroes. The background for this status and friendly attitude is to be found in the ante-bellum politics of the state.
The finest expression of Tennessee’s attitude toward the negro slave is found in the genuinely humane treatment accorded him. He was well fed, clothed, and housed. The evils of the absentee landlord system with its overseer and slave-driver were never prevalent. The small farmer was considerate of his welfare. The churches constantly sought to improve his condition. They reached him indirectly through their services. Their influence manifested itselfin charity, in marriage ceremonies, at the sick-bed, in manumission societies, in the halls of legislation, and in the benevolent philosophy of the Christian judge. Efforts at harsh legislation were either defeated at the time or modified later by more considered enactments. It has been abundantly shown, however, that it was the courts of Tennessee that constituted the bulwark of protection for the slave. They dealt with him not as a chattel but as a man. The slave code became in their hands an opportunity and a means to humanize the institution. They could not annul the law of slavery, but they did largely abolish it in fact by their interpretation of it.
The condition of the free negro was never promising. He was largely always subject to certain legal restrictions. The system of registration adopted in 1806, the exclusion act of 1831, and his disfranchisement in 1834 were expressions of an increasing hostility toward him. He was always a possible avenue through which the abolitionists might reach the slave. This made him a menace to society. His association, therefore, with slaves was forbidden by law. He was practically a social outcast. The slaves regarded him as worthless. Finally, provision was made for his re-enslavement.