| |
The concept of Franklin as a State
did not die, but survived to appear at
later stages of the history of East
Tennessee. The joinder of what was
Franklin territory in government with
the Cumberland Country and West
Tennessee never accorded with the
dictates of nature.
Gilbert Imlay, who watched the
development of affairs on the frontier
in behalf of Great Britain, about 1790
predicted that the Cumberland Country
would form the next State to follow
Kentucky into the Union, the difficulty
of communication between it and North
Carolina being so great as to compel its
separation. "The mountains [Cumberland]
will most likely be its eastern limits;
its southern limits will be, either the
partition line continued between North
Carolina and Georgia, or it will be run
southerly until it strikes the ridge of
hills which divides the Tennessee
[river] country from the country of the
Choctaws; thence a due west course to
the Mississippi, or following some one
of those branches which rise in those
hills and pursuing its course to that
river."1
Imlay's was an approach to Arthur
Campbell's conception of Franklin's
proper domain. Thus:
The country upon the headwaters of the
Tennessee stands next in the list of
advancement [into the Union]. This
country includes the settlements of
Clinch, and the settlements of Powell's
valley which are part in Virginia and
part in North Carolina; besides the
settlements of Nolachucky and French
Broad. This last settlement will be
extended to the borders of the Cherokee
country which will bind this State to
the southward. Its western boundary will
be the Cumberland mountains... Its
northern limits will be the ridges of
hills that divide the waters of
Tennessee and the Great Kanawha, and its
eastern boundary will be the high hills
that divide the eastern and western
waters. . . This State will be in extent
upwards of two hundred miles north and
south, and the average width from east
to west nearly an hundred and fifty.
This country has mountains on every side
but the southwest, and is interspersed
with high hills in most parts of it. The
valleys are extremely fertile and
everywhere finely watered. The climate
in the upper part of the country is not
so temperate as that of Kentucky, though
it lies in the same latitude, which is
owing to the neighboring mountains. Many
parts of this district are well settled,
and cultivation was brought to such
considerable perfection that the
inhabitants had it in contemplation to
become independent seven years since,
under the distinction of the State of
Franklin. Its population is not only
considerable, but its respectability in
every consideration will very soon
entitle it to the rank of a distinct
State; though it may require some time
to effect a unity of sentiments and a
consolidation of its various and
detached settlements into that order
which the organs of government require.
A distinguished Frenchman, Francois A.
Michaux, in his Travels of 1802,
recorded his impressions of East
Tennessee.2 After referring to the
frustrated attempt to establish the
State of Franklin, he says:
It is still very probable, and has
already been in question, that East and
West Tennessee [West Tennessee as
descriptive that time of all the country
west of the Cumberland Mountains] will
ultimately form two distinct States,
which will each enlarge itself by a new
addition of part of the territory
belonging to the Cherokee Indians. The
natives, it is true, will not hear the
least mention of a cession being made,
objecting that their tract of country is
barely sufficient to furnish, by
hunting, a subsistence for their
families. However, sooner or later, they
will be compelled to yield. The division
of Tennessea3 cannot be long before it
takes place, whether under the
consideration of convenience or the
enterprising dispositions of the
Americans. It is commanded, on the one
hand, by the boundaries that Nature
herself has prescribed between the two
countries, in separating them by the
Cumberland mountains; and on the other,
by their commerce, which is wholly
different, since Cumberland carries on
its trade by the Ohio and Mississippi,
while Holston does most by land with the
seaports belonging to the Atlantic
States, and has very little to do with
New Orleans by the river Tennessea, and
scarcely any with Cumberland and
Kentucky.
In 1796, in the Constitutional
Convention met to organize the State of
Tennessee, Alexander Outlaw moved, and
Joseph Anderson seconded, the insertion
in the document of a clause providing
"that, if we be not admitted by Congress
as a member State of the General
Government, we should continue to exist
as an independent State."
The next proponent of a new State was
Andrew Johnson, who at that time, as a
member of the Tennessee senate, was
barely started on a career that led to
the presidency of the nation.
As early as 1809, the State of Tennessee
in her polity was compelled to reckon
with the geographical peculiarities that
had from the outset presaged three grand
divisions; and the Constitution of 1834
gave formal recognition to such
divisions. Divisional feeling appeared
first when the Cumberland Settlements
failed to join in the Franklin movement,
and again when a large majority of their
inhabitants voted against statehood in
1795. The Chickasaw purchase of 1818
gave rise to a third grand division,
West Tennessee, between the rivers
Tennessee and Mississippi.
As Middle Tennessee and West Tennessee
developed, and population increased,
primacy in State affairs passed from
East Tennessee. In 1840 the control was,
for all practical purposes, with the
middle division. It was felt by the
other two divisions that this power was
unfairly wielded.
The year 1841 was marked by high tension
in politics in Tennessee. In October of
that year, the first suggestion of a
division of the State, in order to the
creation of new ones, came from West
Tennessee.4
An editorial in the Nashville Whig
(December 6, 1841) commenting upon the
proposal expressed the opinion that it
was impracticable, since "East Tennessee
intends to set up for herself and become
a free, sovereign and independent member
of the Confederacy." It was not
suspected by the writer that there might
come about an alliance for dismemberment
between the East and the West.
That stormy petrel, Andrew Johnson, now
offered in the senate a joint resolution
which called for the appointment of a
joint committee to take under
consideration the propriety of ceding
East Tennessee to the general government
for the purpose of forming an
independent State to be called the State
of Frankland.5 The Whig at once
perceived and declared that the
separation of East Tennessee was "in
serious contemplation."
Johnson's plan was a reversion to Arthur
Campbell's State of Franklin. One of the
ablest West Tennesseans, John A.
Gardner, of Weakley county, offered a
similar resolution on the 15th, which
looked to the creation of the new "State
of Jacksoniana" out of the territory of
the Chickasaws.6
On January 18th Johnson called for a
consideration of his resolutions, and in
a speech which consumed an hour urged
their passage. He wished the deliberate
vote of the senate on the subject; the
project did not originate with him, he
said, but with the people of East
Tennessee. He adverted to the period
when that part of the State had been
under the sovereignty of the State of
Franklin, and to the republican
simplicity to which his people would
return.7
The resolutions were adopted by the
senate, there being seventeen "ayes" and
six "nays." All of the six negatives
were cast by senators from Middle
Tennessee. A combination between the
other grand divisions was evident. The
Nashville Whig, granting that Johnson
had placed the claims of East Tennessee
"in a strong light" and that the people
of that division were anxious for a
separation, continued to combat the
proposal as impolitic.
Samuel Milligan8 of Greene, called up
the senate resolution in the house of
representatives on January 22nd, and
advocated concurrence. Brookins
Campbell,9 of Washington
county, urged, favorable consideration,
"not upon the ground that East Tennessee
was disposed to complain of her
connection with Middle and West
Tennessee, but because of the
dissimilarity of her interests and of
the difficulty of legislating for a
people separated from the balance of the
State by a great natural barrier, and
whose local wants could not be correctly
appreciated by their brethren west of
the Cumberland mountains."
The resolution was finally approved by
the house of representatives, after
amendments, one of which was the
striking out of the direction that the
governor open a correspondence with
Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia.
The resolution as amended did not reach
the senate in time for action before the
adjournment of the Assembly. The
increasing importance of Tennessee as a
pivotal State in national campaigns, and
the close and bitter contests between
the Whigs and the Democrats for control
of the State, shunted aside the
separation issue for two decades."10
Another period of stress and turmoil
once more brought the separation of East
Tennessee to serious discussion.
Strangely enough, the movement for the
separation or secession of Tennessee
from the Union precipitated it. After
the passage of the ordinance of
independence by the legislature of
Tennessee, a convention was held (May
30, 1861) in Knoxville, composed of
members who were loyal to the national
authority. A vigorous "declaration of
grievances" was promulgated and
published in pamphlet form.
Commissioners were appointed to appear
before the State legislature, then in
session, to ask "its consent that the
counties composing East Tennessee . . .
may form and erect a separate State."
"Desiring, in good faith, that the
General Assembly will grant our
reasonable request, and claiming the
right to determine our own destiny"—was
a declaration, and steps were taken for
the holding of another convention in
case the legislature refused
independence."11
In the debate in the Assembly at
Nashville, following the presentation of
the memorial, the name of Franklin was
proposed for the projected State.
After the Civil War was ended, the
newspapers of that division announced
that "East Tennessee will ere long take
the preliminary steps for a separate
State organization"—encouraged,
doubtless, by the successful rape of
Virginia in the organization,
recognition and admission of West
Virginia as a State.12
Even in recent years there have been
suggestions of the revival of the
Franklin Commonwealth—faint echoes of
the early period that has always
appealed to Tennesseans. The mountain
and hill country of greater Franklin is
today often referred to as the "State of
Appallachia." A community of feeling and
interest—a real homogeneity—is
demonstrated by the fact that several of
the most influential churches disregard
state lines and maintain conference and
synod boundaries in keeping with
geographical, social and economic
demands.
The Frank's spirit of independence, the
passionate and not sterile restiveness
under undue restraint or dictation, has
time after time burst into flame in the
history of Tennessee as a Commonwealth.
Andrew Jackson was made to feel its
power when he sought to compel
Tennesseans to support Van Buren, as his
own successor, against Hugh Lawson
White, the able and beloved Tennessean,
son of a devoted Franklinite. White
carried the State by a majority of
10,039 over Van Buren and Harrison, and
the party of Jackson was unable to carry
the State in a national contest until
1856.
The same characteristic was manifested
by the State in her withdrawal from the
Union in 1861, and, in turn, by the
eastern division in resisting secession
and itself seeking separation.
In 1910 and 194, the dominant political
party was brought to defeats in the
assertion by the people of the State of
their faith in a free and independent
judiciary.
The genius of the people has always been
of an intensely democratic type. They
have been responsive to leadership, but
susceptible to waves of punitory
resentment when that leadership has
shown a tendency to harden into
dictation.
___________
1 Imlay, in Winterbotham's
View, III, 170. Imlay's forecast of the
future of the Indian tribes proved truer
to the event. He foresaw that the
settlers in North Georgia would in a
very few years bid defiance to the
Cherokees in that quarter.
"The
settlement of [French] Broad, aided by Holston, have nothing to fear from them
[the Cherokees] and the Cumberland is
too puisant to apprehend any danger. . .
. The settlements at the Natchez and
above will soon extend do the southern
boundaries of Cumberland; so they will
be completely enveloped in a few years.
Our people will continue to encroach
upon them on three sides and compel them
to live more domesticated lives and
assimilate them to our mode of living or
to cross to the western side of the
Mississippi." Winterbotham's View, III,
175.
2 Michaux, Travels, 248.
Thwaite, Early Western Travels, III,
281.
3 So written by Michaux, the
younger. His father, in his earlier
Travels, spells the name "Tennasse" and
"Tenassee." Thwaite, Early Western
Travels, III, 74.
4 The Huntingdon Advertiser
proposed the formation of a new State by
adding to the western division, the
northern portion of Mississippi and that
part of Kentucky which lies west of the
Tennessee river. Thus was purposed the
consolidation into a State of the domain
of the Chickasaws.
5 "Resolved by the General
Assembly of the State of Tennessee, that
there be a joint select committee
appointed to consist of two members on
the part of the Senate, and three on the
part of the House of Representatives to
be chosen from the eastern portion of
the State (commonly called East
Tennessee) to memorialize the general
government for the purpose of being
formed into a sovereign and independent
State to be called the State of
Frankland; and said Committee shall
report by bill or otherwise.
"Resolved, That his excellency, Governor
James C. Jones, be and he is hereby
required to open and hold a
correspondence with the Governors of the
States of Georgia, North Carolina and
Virginia for the purpose of ascertaining
their opinions in relation to ceding a
portion of the territory of their
respective States, to the general
government, to be included in the State
of Frankland when formed, and for the
further purpose of requesting them to
lay the subject before their respective
legislatures at their next ensuing
session." Tennessee Senate journal,
1841-2; Nashville Whig, of December 10,
1841.
6 Tennessee Senate journal of
1841-2, 288, 345.
7 Nashville Whig, January
18th, 1842.
8 Afterward an associate
justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court
and a judge of the Court of Claims at
Washington.
9 Member of Congress, 1852-3.
The advocates of emancipation had their
stronghold in Upper East Tennessee and
they favored separation. At the
Anti-Slavery Convention which met in
London in 1843, Joseph Leavitt, of
Boston, made the interesting statement
that "the people of East Tennessee, a
race of hardy mountaineers, find their
interests so little regarded by the
dominant slaveholders of other parts of
the State that they are taking measures
to become a separate State. They are
holding anti-slavery meetings and
meetings of political associations with
great freedom, discussing the question,
rousing the people and showing how
slavery curses them, in order to bring
them to the period of action."
Proceedings of the Anti-Slavery
Convention, London, 1843. A contemporary
(Nov. 27, 1841) argument in favor of a
separate State is found in Letters of an
East Tennessee Abolitionist, E. T. Hist.
Soc. Pub., III, 144-5.
10 The resolution for the
establishment of the "State of
Jacksoniana" was defeated in the Senate
by a vote of nine to fourteen. But
recurrently and to the present time,
agitation has been renewed for a new
State covering the same territory with
the city of Jackson or Memphis as its
capital.
11Journal of Convention,
pamphlet, in Lawson McGhee Library,
Knoxville.
12 Draper Collection;
newspaper clippings. |
| |
|
|
