I. SLAVERY AN EXPRESSION OF THE SOIL.
Someone has said, “The rocks determine our politics.” The rocks make the
soil, which in turn determines the agricultural products that a section
can produce with profit, and, hence, the labor system. Slavery nowhere in
the United States reflected physiographic features more distinctly than
in Tennessee. The three sections of the state have always differed very
largely in their agriculture, in their sympathy with various sections
of the country, and in their politics. In fact, there are almost three
peoples and three civilizations in Tennessee. Physiography has been the
biggest factor in the differentiation. The human response to the soil
is very clearly shown. The differences in the sections of the state on
the subject of slavery were due mainly to geography, since differences
in climate were not sufficiently marked to promote or create any special
attitude of mind toward slavery.
East Tennessee remained throughout the slavery regime mainly a section
of small farmers. It was only the river valleys of the French Broad,
the Watauga, the Holston, and the Tennessee that yielded with advantage
to agriculture. These valleys were mostly of limestone formation, and
produced a loamy soil that was very fertile.
The counties[1] in these river valleys produced considerable quantities
of wheat and corn, but very little cotton. In 1850 East Tennessee
produced one bale of cotton, ten hogsheads of tobacco, 1,813,338 bushels
of wheat, and 10,998,654 bushels of corn.[2] In 1840, the counties
containing the largest number of slaves were Knox, numbering 1934;
Hawkins, 1499; Jefferson, 1282; and McMinn, 1241. There were six
counties with slightly over one thousand each, six in the six hundred
column, and the others ranged from 150 to 450 each. In 1860 there were
four counties in East Tennessee with 2000 slaves in each. In the same
year, there were 27,560 slaves in East Tennessee.[3]
In 1856 there were only 28 farms in East Tennessee containing one
thousand acres or more. There were 164 containing from 500 to 1000 acres,
1,173 having from 100 to 500 acres, 7,117 having 50 to 100 acres, and
6,920 containing less than fifty acres. There were only 192 farms which
contained more than 500 acres. It is seen from these figures that East
Tennessee was populated essentially by small farmers who raised wheat and
corn and live stock.[4]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account