incentive to find arguments in support of the institution. When this report was put to a vote it was carried by forty-four against ten.9

The negative voters were Hugh. C. Armstrong, representing Overton and Fentress Counties, which are in Middle Tennessee, although the last named is contiguous to East Tennessee; Richard Bradshaw, Bradley Kimbrough, Robert J. McKinney, John M. M'Gaughey, and Matthew Stephenson of East Tennessee, and Joseph Kincaid of Middle Tennessee. It will be seen thus that the opposition was almost entirely from the eastern portion of the State. Among the negative voters, the only man of real prominence was Robert J. McKinney, a native of Ireland, who, in all probability, was the ablest man in the Convention. The action on this report was one of expediency, and the ten members who voted in the negative constituted the uncompromising radical element, several of whom insisted upon entering protests declaring the action of the Convention to be opposed to the spirit of the gospel, an apology for slavery, and otherwise wrong.10

There is no room to doubt that as an original proposition, the sentiment of the Convention was opposed to slavery. The memorials which gave it so much trouble were not produced by any general or

9 Journal, Constitutional Convention, 1834, page 100. 10 Journal, Constitutional Convention, 1834, pages 104, 147, 223.

concerted movement, and the number of signers was insignificant. The Chairman of the committee, resenting the criticisms contained in the several protests, made an additional report at a later date, vigorously defending his committee and re-arguing the question.11

From this last report it appears that memorials had been presented from the following counties: Washington, Greene, Jefferson, Cocke, Sevier, Blount, McMinn, Monroe, Knox, Rhea, Roane, Overton, Bedford, Lincoln, Maury and Robertson. The number of signers in Washington was 273; in Greene, 378; in Maury, 33; in Overton, 68; in Robertson, 24; in Lincoln, 105; in Bedford, 139. The signers of each of the remaining petitions represented more than one county so that no distinction could be made. The total number of memorialists was 1804, of whom one hundred and five declared themselves slaveholders, and it is possible that there were other slaveholders who did not so designate themselves.12

Of the sixteen counties represented by the memorialists eleven were in East Tennessee, and five in Middle Tennessee. More than one-third of the signers resided in the counties of Washington and Greene in East Tennessee, the counties in which the papers of Embree and Lundy had been published.

It is apparent that there was nothing of the nature

11 Journal, Constitutional Convention, 1834, page 125. 12 Journal, Constitutional Convention, 1834, page 125.

of a popular uprising and no demand of sufficient proportions to impress itself strongly upon the Convention, and therefore, the sentiments of that body against slavery must have existed in the minds of the members, without regard to these memorials.

A few years later, mention of the subject in such a forum would have provoked the bitterest controversy, and opinions such as were expressed in the report certainly would not have been endorsed as they were in this instance.

The plans proposed by the memorials were interesting and as a rule, impracticable. It appears that Washington county was "almost the only one" that did not submit a definite plan. Of the remaining thirty petitions, about one-half asked that all the children of slaves in this State, born after 1835, be made free, and that all slaves be made free in 1855, and sent out of the State. The others prayed that all slaves be freed in the year 1866 and colonized. Forty-six counties presented no memorials.13

Legislation in Tennessee as it stood at the outbreak of the war between the States represented a constantly increasing determination to rid the State of free negroes as far as possible. Slaves could be emancipated upon the application of the owner, and in cases of bequest of freedom, on the application of the personal representative of the testator or, if he refused, on application of the slave himself, by next friend; and even

13 Journal, Constitutional Convention, 1834, page 126.

the court, whose assent was required in every case, could not consent to the emancipation except upon condition of the immediate removal of the emancipated slave from the State. This condition was made part of the decree, and the applicant was required to guarantee the removal by a bond, in a penalty equal to the value of the slave. Finally, the law provided for the transportation to the west coast of Africa of "all slaves having the right of freedom, but not emancipated by the courts; of all slaves who should acquire the right to freedom by contract or will; of those who should sue for a recovery of freedom, and of free negroes allowed to remain in the State, on condition of giving bond, who had not given such bond. Elaborate provisions were made for raising the money necessary to defray the expenses of transportation, and for providing the transported with money sufficient to support them six months in Africa.1

14

These statutes were severe, but they were not exceptional at that time. There was no State north or south, which did not object to receiving and retaining free negroes, and the Tennessee laws only expressed a sentiment which prevailed throughout the States with almost equal intensity.

The Convention probably was moved by a sense of equity to insert a clause recognizing the existence of grand divisions of the State, and requiring one Judge of the Supreme Court to be taken from each

14Code of Tennessee, 1858, sections 2692-2709.

of them, but it is submitted, that the policy was altogether bad. It may be that sectional divisions in sentiment would have resulted naturally from the geographical peculiarities of the State, but as they cannot be regarded otherwise than as unfortunate and injurious, no recognition of them in the Constitution or laws of the State can be justified. Divisional feeling was first manifest when Cumberland failed to espouse the cause of Franklin, and again when it voted against statehood in 1795, and was accentuated as population increased, and East Tennessee reluctantly yielded its primacy in State affairs. Institutionally the division. began with the creation of judicial districts, and before the era of railroads there was justification on the ground of convenience, but the plan is retained in our present Constitution and has strengthened and confirmed sectional jealousies which ought to have disappeared long ago. A change is improbable, and might at this late day do no good, but genuine state pride and patriotism must condemn the policy.

The County Courts were discussed in the Convention, but a resolution depriving them of judicial powers, and making them purely administrative bodies, was not approved. It was proposed that the office of Comptroller of the Treasury be created, but this likewise failed, and the office was established soon thereafter by the Legislature.

Willie Blount would have established a Council of State, similar to the one provided for in the rejected