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 they were 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.