FOOTNOTES
[1] State v. Hale, 2 Hawks, 585 (1823).
[2] Meigs and Cooper’s Code of 1858, Secs. 2603-9.
[3] M. & C, Secs. 2610-11.
[4] Ibid., Secs. 2612-13.
[5] Ibid., Sec. 2603.
[6] Acts of 1833. Ch. 3. Sec. 1.
[7] M. & C, Secs. 2666-68.
[8] Stewart v. Miller, 1 Meigs, 174 (1838).
[9] Harris v. Clarissa, 6 Yerger, 227 (1834); Blackmore v. Negro Phill, 7 Yerger, 452 (1835).
[10] Matilda v. Crenshaw, 4 Yerger, 299 (1833).
[11] Vaughan v. Phebe, I Martin & Yerger, 1 (1827).
[12] “Freedom in this country,” said Judge Crabb, “is not a mere name—a cheat with which the few gull the many. It is something substantial. It embraces within its comprehensive grasp, all the useful rights of man; and it makes itself manifest by many privileges, immunities, external public acts. It is not confined in its operation to privacy, or to the domestic circle. It walks abroad in its operations—transfers its possessor, even if he be black, or mulatto, or copper colored, from the kitchen and the cotton field, to the court house and the election ground, makes him talk of Magna Charta and the constitution; in some states renders him a politician—brings him acquainted with the leading citizens—busies himself in the political canvass for office—takes him to the ballot box; and, above all, secures to him the enviable and inestimable privilege of trial by jury. Can it be said, that there is nothing of a public nature in a right, that thus, from its necessary operation, places a man in many respects on an equality with the richest, and the greatest, and the best in the land, and brings him in contact with the whole community?” Vaughan v. Phebe, 1 Martin & Yerger, 1 (1827).
[13] Matilda v. Crenshaw, 1 (1827).
[14] Vaughan v. Phebe, 1 Martin & Yerger, 1 (1827).
[15] Acts of 1817, Ch. 103, Sec. 1.
[16] Sylvia and Phillis v. Covey, 4 Yerger, 27 (1883).
[17] Acts of 1715, Ch. 19, Sec. 9; Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 48.
[18] Acts of 1783, Ch. 14, Sec. 2.
[19] Manuscripts in State Archives.
[20] Acts of 1815, Ch. 138, Sec. 1.
[21] Acts of 1819, Ch. 35, Sec. 2.
[22] Acts of 1825, Ch. 24, Sec. 1.
[23] Acts of 1831, Ch. 103, Sec. 6.
[24] Acts of 1835, Ch. 9, Secs. 9-11.
[25] Kentucky, Maryland, Georgia, and Alabama were the other four. See footnote, Wheeler, Op. Cit., 213.
[26] Acts of 1838, Ch. 133, Sec. 1.
[27] Acts of 1848, Ch. 50, Sec. 1.
[28] Acts of 1858, Ch. 86, Secs. 1-2.
[29] Infra, pp. [59-79]; [102-152].
[30] Wheeler, Op. Cit., 190.
[31] Porter v. Blackmore, 2 Caldwell, 555 (1865); see also 5 Caldwell, 209; 3 Heiskell, 662; and 10 Lea, 663.
[32] Judge Catron held that “what is earned by the slave belongs to the master by the common law, the civil law, and the recognized rules of property in the slaveholding states of this Union.” University v. Cambreling, Yerger, 86 (1834).
[33] Acts of 1803, Ch. 13, Sec. 4.
[34] Turner v. Fisher, 4 Sneed, 210 (1856).
[35] Judge Green held that “A slave is not in the condition of a horse or an ox. His liberty is restrained, it is true, and his owner controls his actions and claims his services. But he is made of the image of the Creator. He has mental capacities, and an immortal principle in his nature, that constitutes him equal to his owner but for the accidental position in which fortune has placed him. The owner has acquired conventional rights to him, but the laws under which he is held as a slave have not and can not extinguish his high-born nature nor deprive him of many rights which are inherent in man. Thus while he is a slave, he can make a contract for his freedom, and by the same will he can take personal or real estate.” Ford v. Ford, 7 Humphrey, 95-96 (1846). Cf. Miller v. Miller, 5 Heiskell, 734 (1871).
[36] Stephenson v. Harrison, 3 Head, 733 (1859).
[37] Wheeler, Op. Cit., 194.
[39] Acts of 1794, Ch. 1, Sec. 32.
[40] Acts of 1813, Ch. 135, Sec. 5.
[41] Acts of 1839, Ch. 7, Sec. 1.
[42] Wheeler, Op. Cit., 197.
[43] Stephenson v. Harrison, 3 Head, 733 (1859).
[44] Andrews v. Page, 3 Heiskell, 665 (1870).
[45] Haitsell v. George, 3 Humphrey, 255 (1842).
[46] Andrews v. Page, 3 Heiskell, 666 (1870).
[47] Act of 1753, Ch. 6, Sec. 10.
[48] M. & C., Secs. 2563-64.
[49] Acts of 1825, Ch. 24, Sec. 2.
[50] Ibid., Secs. 3-5.
[51] Thomas, T. Ebenezer, Anti-Slavery Correspondence, 71. The letter reads as follows: “Has the anti-slavery cause injured the condition of the slaves? Surely not. In my late journey through Kentucky and Tennessee, I did not see one dirty, ragged negro. The squads of little negroes I used to see naked as the pigs and calves with which they gamboled in the same grove, were now clad like human beings in shirts and pants or slips, and many of them had straw hats, such as my own little boys put on; nor did I; see, as formerly, boys and girls waiting at the table, in a state of stark nudity.”
“I was happy to acknowledge that a great change had taken place since I was conversant about Nashville, fifty-five years ago, when negroes were naked and ignorant. I said I was pleased to see so much attention paid to their bodies and their minds, and I wished that the people of Tennessee might go ahead of the people in Ohio in good offices to the negro. God speed you, dear friends, in this work.”
[52] Loftin v. Espy, 4 Yerger, 92 (1833).
[53] Wheeler, Op. Cit., 225; University v. Cambreling, 6 Yerger, 79 (1834); Craig v. Leiper, 2 Yerger, 193 (1828); Pinson and Hawkins v. Ivey, 1 Yerger, 303 (1830).
[54] Acts of 1741, Ch. 24, Sec. 40; Acts of 1753, Ch. 6, Sec. 2.
[55] Acts of 1831, Ch. 103, Sec. 3.
[56] Acts of 1835, Ch. 57, Sec. 2.
[57] James v. State, 9 Humphrey, 310 (1848).
[58] Acts of 1813, Ch. 56, Sec. 1.
[59] Acts of 1779, Ch. 11, Sec. 4.
[60] Acts of 1787, Ch. 6, Sec. 1.
[61] Acts of 1835, Ch. 58, Sec. 1.
[62] Ibid., Ch. 65, Sec. 2.
[63] Acts of 1799, Ch. 9, Sec. 2.
[64] Fields v. The State of Tennessee, 1 Yerger, 156 (1829).
[65] “If a slave commits a criminal offense while in the services of the hirer,” said Judge McKinney, “it would be sufficient cause to discharge him. And if the hirer desires to have him punished for such offense the law has pointed out the mode, and he has the right to pursue it, but he has no right to become himself the avenger of the violated law, much less to depute another person in his stead. And for a battery committed on the slave under such circumstances, the owner may well maintain an action against the wrong-doer, in which the jury would be justified in giving exemplary damages in a proper case.” James v. Carper, 4 Sneed, 404 (1857).
[66] Acts of 1813, Ch. 135, Sec. 3.
[67] Ibid., Sec. 5.
[68] Acts of 1803, Ch. 13, Sec. 11.
[69] Ibid., Sec. 3.
[70] Acts of 1753, Ch. VI, Sec. 4.
[71] Acts of 1779, Ch. 7, Sec. 3.
[72] Acts of 1806, Ch. 32, Sec. 5.
[73] Ibid., Secs. 6-7.
[74] Acts of 1817, Ch. 184, Sec. 3.
[75] Acts of 1831, Ch. 103, Sec. 2.
[76] Acts of 1858, Ch. 3, Sec. 1.
[77] Acts of 1831, Ch. 103, Sec. 10.
[78] M. & C., Secs. 2577-2580.
[79] Acts of 1856, Ch. 30, Secs. 1-4.
[80] M. & C., Sec. 2576.
[81] Acts of 1806, Ch. 32, Sec. 8.
[82] Acts of 1831, Ch. 103, Sec. 10.
[83] M. & C., Sec. 2575.
[84] M. & C., Sec. 2576.
[85] Tomlinson v. Doerall, 2 Head, 542 (1859).
[86] Jones v. Allen, 1 Head, 627 (1858).
[87] Jones v. Allen, 1 Head, 636 (1858).
[88] M. & C., Secs. 2581-3.
[89] Ibid., Sec. 2586.
[90] P. G. was an abbreviation for public jail.
[91] M. & C, Secs. 2596-8.
[92] Acts of 1819, Ch. 35, Sec. 1.
[93] Acts of 1825, Ch. 79, Secs. 1-2.
[94] Acts of 1831, Ch. 103, Sec. 8.
[95] Ibid., Sec. 9.
[96] Acts of 1844, Ch. 129, Sec. 1.
[97] Acts of 1852, Ch. 117, Sec. 2.
[98] Acts of 1786, Ch. 5, Sec. 1.
[99] Acts of 1812, Ch. 88, Sec. 1.
[100] This oath reads: “I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm that I have removed myself and slaves to the State of Tennessee, with the full and sole view of becoming a citizen thereof, and that I have not brought my slave or slaves to this state with any view to the security of the same against any rebellion or apprehension of rebellion. So help me God.” Acts of 1812, Ch. 88, Sec. 2.
[101] Acts of 1812, Ch. 88, Sec. 3.
[102] Acts of 1815, Ch. 65, Sec. 1.
[103] Acts of 1826, Ch. 22, Sec. 2.
[104] Acts of 1826, Ch. 22, Sec. 3.
[105] Acts of 1855, Ch. 64, Sec. 1.
[106] Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1834, 87-147.
[107] Comptroller’s Report to General Assembly, 1859-60, 17.
[108] Acts of 1799, Ch. 11, Sec. 2.
[109] Acts of 1835, Ch. 58, Sec. 1.
[110] Ibid., Sec. 2.
[111] Christian Advocate and Journal, Bolivar, July 4, 1831.
[112] Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine, II, 105-6.
[114] Acts of 1799, Ch. 28, Sec. 1.
[115] Acts of 1803, Ch. 13, Sec. 4.
[116] Acts of 1806, Ch. 32, Sec. 4.
[117] Acts of 1813, Ch. 135, Sec. 3.
[118] Ibid., Sec. 1.
[119] Acts of 1829, Ch. 74, Secs. 1-2.
[120] Acts of 1829, Ch. 74, Sec. 4.
[121] Acts of 1832, Ch. 34, Sec. 2.
[122] Acts of 1846, Ch. 90, Sec. 3.
[123] Acts of 1842, Ch. 141, Sec. 1.
[124] Jennings v. the State, 3 Head, 519-520 (1859).
[125] M. & C., Sec. 4865.
[126] Jennings v. State, 3 Head, 522 (1859).
[127] Tennessee Gazette and Mero District, Vol. 5, No. 22, July 3, 1805.
[128] Acts of 1803, Ch. 13, Sec. 1.
[129] Acts of 1836, Ch. 44, Sec. 2.
[130] Niles Register, Vol. 41, pp. 340-1.
[131] 24th and 25th Annual Report of American Anti-Slavery Society, 1857-58, 76-78.
[132] 24th and 25th Annual Reports of American Anti-Slavery Society, 1857-58, p. 78.
[133] Acts of 1803, Ch. 13, Sec. 3.
[134] Acts of 1812, Ch. 135, Sec. 1.
[135] Acts of 1831, Ch. 103, Sec. 1.
[136] Unlawful assemblies was defined by the act of 1831 as being “all assemblages of slaves in unusual numbers, or at suspicious times and places not expressly authorized by their owners.”
[137] Acts of 1799, Ch. 28, Sec. 1.
[138] Acts of 1801, Ch. 32, Sec. 3.
[139] Acts of 1813, Ch. 135, Sec. 6.
[140] Acts of 1829, Ch. 74, Sec. 1.
[141] Acts of 1831, Ch. 103, Sec. 4.
[142] Acts of 1844, Ch. 129, Sec. 1.
[143] Acts of 1741, Ch. 8, Sec. 10.
[144] Acts of 1819, Ch. 35, Sec. 1.
[145] Acts of 1835, Ch. 19, Sec. 10.
[146] M. & C., Secs. 2625-28.
[147] Acts of 1831, Ch. 103, Sec. 4.
[148] Wheeler, Op. Cit., 41.
[149] Acts of 1784, Ch. 10, Sec. 7.
[150] Acts of 1801, Ch. 2, Sec. 11.
[151] Davis v. Mitchell, 5 Yerger, 281 (1833); See also Cains and Wife v. Marley, 2 Yerger, 582 (1831); and Battle v. Stone, 4 Yerger, 168 (1833).
[152] Ragan v. Kennedy, I Overton, 91 (1804).
[153] Acts of 1784, Ch. 22, Sec. 11.
[154] Ibid., Ch. 10, Sec. 4.
[155] Acts of 1796, Ch. 14, Sec. 1.
[156] Acts of 1819, Ch. 36, Sec. 1.
[157] Young v. Pate, 4 Yerger, 164 (1833).
[158] Acts of 1805, Ch. 16, Sec. 2.
[159] Acts of 1715, Ch. 27, Sec. 5.
[160] Hardeson v. Hays, 4 Yerger, 507 (1833); Kegler v. Miles, 1 Martin & Yerger, 426 (1825); Partee v. Badget, 4 Yerger, 174 (1833).
[161] Davis v. Mitchell, 5 Yerger, 281 (1833).
[162] Kegler v. Miles, 1 Martin & Yerger, 426 (1825).
[163] Acts of 1801, Ch. 25, Sec. 2.
[164] Acts of 1805, Ch. 16, Sec. 2.
[165] Callen v. Thompson, 3 Yerger, 475 (1832).
[166] Hooper’s Administratrix v. Hooper, 1 Overton, 187 (1801).
[167] Acts of 1801, Ch. 25, Sec. 2.
[168] Andrews v. Hartsfield. 3 Yerger, 39 (1832); see also Peters v. Chores, 4 Yerger, 176 (1833).
[169] Harris v. Clarissa, 6 Yerger, 227 (1834).
[170] Hope v. Johnson, 2 Yerger, 123 (1826).
[171] Preston v. McGaughery, 1 Cook, 115 (1812).
[172] Caines and Wife v. Marley, 2 Yerger, 586 (1831).
[173] Smith v. Bell and Wife, 1 Martin & Yerger, 302 (1827).
[174] Wheeler, Op. Cit., 225.
[175] Andrews v. Page, 3 Heiskell, 661 (1868).
[176] Ibid., 662.
[177] Andrews v. Page, 3 Heiskell, 662-3 (1868).