Tennessee Constitution of 1796
Tennessee constitutional convention
delegates met in Knoxville in January 1796 to write a constitution
for a new state. This was a requirement for requesting Congress
to grant statehood. Constitutional Convention 1796: Link
Free males over 21, who owned at least
200 acres and had lived in the territory for three years could vote.
Read it here: Link
More here: Link
Tennessee Constitution of 1834
Read it here: Link
When the Tennessee Constitutional
Convention of 1834 came together, it was flooded with petitions from
all parts of the State, and especially from East Tennessee, praying
for immediate emancipation. Nearly one third of the members of that
body voted in favor of the action requested. But the majority turned
a deaf ear to all entreaties and spread upon the journal an elaborate
paper written by that astute lawyer John A McKinney, who sat for the
County of Hawkins, in defense of their action. The remarkable thing
about the paper, which I have published in full in the Quarterly
Review of the Methodist Episcopal Church South for April 1892, is
that it fully and frankly concedes slavery to be a great evil, and
predicts that in some way or other its abolition is sure to come. The
protest of the minority which was also made a matter of record was as
strong a document as Wendell Phillips or William Lloyd Garrison ever
wrote. It reads as if it might have come from one or the other of
those radical reformers.
But after the year 1840- perhaps a
little later- slavery came to be considered a fixed thing in
Tennessee. Free debate concerning it was not longer tolerated, though
many persons continued to cherish in silence the conviction that it
was a great evil. Perhaps the last open utterance on the subject was
in an address delivered by the Hon John M Lea before the Apprentice's
Union at Nashville in 1841. Judge Lea is still living as fine a
specimen of a cultivated and high minded gentleman as can be found in
these United States. He is a son of the Hon Luke Lea, who as
Congressman from the Knoxville District, secured David Farragut his
position as midshipman in the United States Navy. I may also add that
he was himself a large slaveholder and treated his slaves with such
humanity and consideration that when emancipation came they were all
capable of making a comfortable support for themselves. By his own
testimony they are now- such of them as are still living- doing
better for themselves than they did when they belonged to him.
The reasons for the sudden arrest of
the reform that seemed to be imminent may be set down under four
heads:
1. There was a natural resentment of the interference of the North which whether justly or unjustly was looked upon as an impertinence.
1. There was a natural resentment of the interference of the North which whether justly or unjustly was looked upon as an impertinence.
2. There was a growing fear fed by such
incidents as the Nat Turner insurrection in Virginia that the further
agitation of the question would lead to tumult and insurrection. Men
who knew something from history as to what a servile war meant, might
be excused if they shuddered at the mere prospect of such a thing.
3. There was a perplexing doubt as to
what woud or could be done with the slaves if they were set free. Did
not this doubt have some rational foundations? Do we yet know what
the final results of emancipation are to be? As late as 1866, the Hon
Horace Menard predicted that it would prove the euthanasia of the
negro race. Is the man alive who would now venture to give any
definite opinion on the subject? One thing is certain the stroke of
Mr Lincoln's pen that set these ebon millions free raised almost as
many questions as it settled.
4. In consequence of the invention of
the cotton gin, slavery became what it had never before been, a very
profitable institution. Human greed and avarice were thereby enlisted
in favor of its perpetuation. No wonder that it got a new lease of
life. Let not our Northern friends be too critical of us on this
score. They had no vested interests to interfere with the operation
of their benevolent sentiments. The notion that if conditions had
been reversed they would have exhibited a loftier and more unselfish
morality than the Southerners did is one of those pleasant delusions
which the attentive student of human nature does not think it worth
while to consider with anything like a careful scrutiny. It were easy
to be virtuous, did virtue consist in denying to another man his
cakes and ale. All this is now past. Let us be thankful that it is
so. Who does not rejoice in his inmost heart that no man woman or
child can now be held in bondage where the flag of the Republic
floats? Who does not wish that the emancipated slaves should enjoy to
the full the fruits of their freedom in increasing wealth, growing
intelligence, and an improved morality. To assess the responsibility
of the different sections of the country for the introduction and
perpetuation of the evil system from which we are now happily
released, would be an impossible task. That is a matter that must be
settled at a more august and impartial tribunal than has ever yet
been set up on this earth. But we can nevertheless, without thinking
of the errors and mistakes of the past, address ourselves to the
glorious work of lifting up all the citizens of our land to the
highest level on which it is possible for them to stand. The past is
history. But the present is in our hands. (Source: Elihu Embree,
Abolitionist, Elijah Embree Hoss, University Press Co., 1897, pp.
26-28)
Suggested Reading:AFRICAN SLAVERY AND
THE TENNESSEE CONVENTION OF 1834, (Quarterly Review of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, Volume 12, Issue 1,Bigham & Smith, 1892,
p 118) Article Starts on page 118 Link
Tennessee Constitution: Link
No comments:
Post a Comment