Tennessee Atlas of Historical County Boundaries
John H. Long, Editor; Peggy Tuck Sinko, Associate Editor and Historical Compiler; Douglas Knox, Book Digitizing Director; Emily Kelley, Research Associate and Digital Compiler; Laura Rico-Beck, GIS Specialist and Digital Compiler; Peter Siczewicz, ArcIMS Interactive Map Designer; Robert Will, Cartographic Assistant
Copyright The Newberry Library 2009
Prior to the establishment of the state of Tennessee in 1796, the territory that presently makes up the state was claimed, and in some cases actually controlled, by several different entities: the Virginia Company of London, the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, both the colony and later the state of North Carolina, Spain, the state of Franklin, and the Territory of the United States South of the River Ohio (Southwest Territory). Only North Carolina and the Southwest Territory created operational counties within the bounds of present Tennessee before statehood, all but one of which still exist today. See below for an explanation of the counties authorized by the state of Franklin.
A number of factors make Tennessee one of the most challenging and complicated states produced by the Atlas of Historical County Boundaries Project. The first challenge is the large number of county boundary changes. Most states recorded between 150 and 300 boundary changes and creations throughout their histories. There are over 1,100 individual laws creating or changing county boundaries in Tennessee. Putnam County alone tallied over ninety different boundary changes. In the year 1889, the Tennessee General Assembly passed fifty different laws concerning county boundaries; in just one single day, 17 May 1915, the Assembly passed eighteen different county boundary laws, possibly a national record.
The second challenge relates to the type of boundary changes set forth in the laws. About 900 of the 1,100 laws relate to “liners,” that is, individual landowners who lived on or near the county boundary line and who wished to have all their property consolidated in one county. Most states have permitted little or no county boundary legislation that was explicitly designed for the convenience of a single individual. In states where it has been allowed to a limited extent, such as Kentucky or Alabama, the compilers of this series have been able to locate most of these landowners and to mark the spot along a boundary. That was impossible to do in Tennessee because most “liners” were identified by name only, with no clue as to their location. Many of these changes are so small that they would be visible only on a very large-scale map. A typical example is found in the following 1905 law which detached one-eighth of an acre from Benton County and attached it to Carroll County: “Beginning on a large cedar tree on the county line runs [sic] east 48 feet to a plum tree; thence north 72 feet to a plum tree; thence west 48 feet to the county line; thence with said county line south 72 feet to the beginning, containing about one-eighth of an acre, so as to detach from Benton County and attach to Carroll County the land upon which is situated the residence and outbuildings of S.C. Walker” (Tenn. Acts 1905, 54th assy., ch. 20/p. 53). In another instance, a line was run 25 feet down the center of the Porterfield Schoolroom, detaching half the school from Rutherford County, and attaching it to Cannon County (Tenn. Acts 1891, 47th assy., ch. 254/p. 489).
Legislators recognized the problems that such personalized legislation presented and several attempts were made to limit or control such changes, but they were unsuccessful and “liner” laws continued unabated. An 1895 law was designed to “remedy this evil” of transferring lands “without any diagram, plat, survey or measurement, [which] leads to much uncertainty and difficulty in ascertaining where county lines really are,” but little seemed to change (Tenn. Acts 1895, 49th assy., ch. 105/p. 171). Another result of this practice is the large number of legislative repeals in which a county line is moved around the farm of a citizen one year and moved back at some future date, often the very next session of the legislature. Liner laws are still being passed at the end of the twentieth century.
Changes made to accommodate local landowners, combined with frequent decisions to run boundaries along mountain ridges, resulted in many Tennessee counties having highly irregular boundaries. It has proved practically impossible to tie each jog and turn in the modern line to a specific piece of boundary legislation. However, every boundary law is listed, both in the consolidated chronology and in the individual county chronologies, regardless of whether it can be mapped or not. This atlas has mapped “liners” and other small changes (if the location can be determined) as a small point or dot along the boundary line. This file of small changes is not available on the Tennessee interactive website maps. These changes are in a separate shapefile that is part of the downloadable version of Tennessee, designed for use with Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Because of the large number of unmappable changes in Tennessee, it has several times been necessary to map aggregate changes in one map that shows cumulative change over a period of time. For example, the modern boundary between Wilson and Smith Counties was generally established in 1801, but it experienced numerous small changes between 1860 and 1939. During those seventy-nine years, there were eleven boundary changes in this line, but the location of only three of the changes is known. Smith County, version 18 (dated 6 March 1939), depicts the net sum of changes in its boundary with Wilson County from the first unmappable change in 1860 to 1939, when the last change in the boundary occurred. Lacking an authoritative map or other source for the shape of that line at intermediate dates, the depiction of cumulative change is the approach least likely to present an error or to mislead users.
The three Tennessee State Constitutions, 1796, 1835, and 1870, all set standards for the creation of new counties, such as minimum size, minimum population, and proximity to adjacent county seats. Under the 1835 constitution, a new county was not allowed closer than twelve miles to an existing county seat; this changed to eleven miles under the 1870 constitution. Between 1835 and 1877, state legislators unsuccessfully tried to create fourteen new counties in Tennessee. Some failed because voters in the affected area voted against the new county, but in other cases legislators were unable to carve a county out of an area while maintaining the required minimum size and distance from nearby county seats. All proposed counties are mapped, with the exception of Hatchee County, for which no boundary description was given in the enabling law. Some of the proposed counties took on rather bizarre proportions as legislators tried to work around the constitutional requirements (see especially the long, thin Bell County, and the hourglass-shaped Etheridge County). Two of today’s counties were created in almost the same places as two of the unsuccessful proposals: Cheatham where original Cumberland would have been located, and Chester where Wisdom County was proposed. Maps of the proposed counties can be found on the interactive website maps in the layer marked “Unsuccessful Proposals;” they are also available as part of the downloadable shapefiles for Tennessee.
Counties created in Tennessee by the state of Franklin in the 1780s are particularly problematic. Delegates from the eastern Tennessee country met in Jonesborough in 1784 to establish a new state that was not under the jurisdiction of North Carolina, with the intention of petitioning the United States Congress for admission to the Union. The General Assembly of Franklin recognized the existing eastern Tennessee (then North Carolina) counties of Greene, Sullivan, and Washington, and in 1784 and 1785 the state of Franklin authorized the creation of five more counties. The acts have not survived, and the precise boundary descriptions are unknown. North Carolina, which then had jurisdiction over the Tennessee country, never recognized the legitimacy of the state of Franklin and sought to regain control of the area. The Franklin counties are included in the consolidated chronology, but no attempt has been made to depict the counties or include them separately in the individual county chronologies due to this lack of mappable boundary descriptions. Rene Jordan, a local Tennessee scholar, has taken an alternative approach in an attempt to reconstruct these counties in his articles on Hawkins and Sumner Counties in Tennessee Ancestors (see Bibliography for complete citations).
Tennessee legislators recognized the limits of their geographical knowledge and therefore permitted surveyors quite a bit of freedom in demarcating county boundaries. County creation laws often explicitly authorized surveyors to alter lines if necessary as they prepared the original plats, few of which appear to have survived. The law that created Cheatham County in 1856, for example, specified taking territory from Dickson County, but that did not happen because the surveyor determined that including part of Dickson would reduce Dickson below its constitutional minimum size. He explained: “I would respectfully remark that from the want of time I was unable to survey Dixon [sic] County before the 5th of Sept., the day appointed by law to ascertain the will of the people in regard to the county of Cheatham, supposing that Dixon had at least considerably over her constitutional complement of square miles, but, after surveying Dixon I find her short 46.21 sqr. miles; consequently I have left out the small fraction previously taken from her” (Binkley, 31). Unfortunately, this type of explicit evidence is rare, and most modifications by surveyors, while recognizable, are not well documented.
A look at the counties in Middle Tennessee in the early 1800s reveals a number of county lines that appear as though they should run due north-south but actually tilt somewhat east of due north. The county creation laws indeed specified “due north” or “due south” lines, but the surveyors who marked those boundaries in the early nineteenth century did not make enough allowance for the variation of magnetic north (indicated by the compass needle) from true north, thus the eastward slant. This slant can still be seen today in the eastern and western boundaries of Hickman County and the eastern boundary of Dickson County.
A predictable result of all the uncertainty surrounding county lines was that many disputes arose and ended up in court. One can only guess at the number of cases settled at the local court level, some of which, no doubt, resulted in small shifts in the county lines that remain undiscovered, despite the efforts of local historians and this research project. However, a significant number of county boundary disputes progressed all the way to the Tennessee State Supreme Court. Rulings of the State Supreme Court have played an important role in the establishment of several county lines and are cited in the chronologies.
In 1972 the Tennessee General Assembly gave the State Board of Equalization full authority to determine the location of county lines, regardless of the reasons for a dispute. Boundaries can still be changed by special legislation, or a landowner can have a change accepted by the assessors of both counties. Changes made by the local assessors’ offices could not be documented and included in this atlas. The State Board of Equalization records changes and incorporates them on its current maps. The Board of Equalization does not maintain a historical record of county boundary changes, and without a centralized archive it is nearly impossible to find all locally generated changes. In Tennessee, many county lines remain uncertain and the task of reconciling boundaries between counties is likely to extend well into the future.
Sources
Research on early Tennessee laws was facilitated by Laws of the State of Tennessee, Including Those of North Carolina Now in Force in This State; From the Year 1715 to the Year 1820, Inclusive, compiled by Edward Scott and published in 1821. The published series, State Records of North Carolina, was also useful for identifying county creations and boundary changes in Tennessee between 1777 and 1790, when the Tennessee country was under the control of North Carolina. Land Laws of Tennessee (1891), compiled by Henry D. Whitney, has been considered the authoritative guide to state laws on county creations and boundary changes. However, a comparison against the state session laws revealed a number of omissions in Whitney. While the volume is relatively complete up to the Civil War, Whitney did not include some of the laws that changed county boundaries for the convenience of “liners,” those people living on or near the county line.
The mapping of pre-1800 Tennessee county lines was made easier due to the careful work done by Rene Jordan of the East Tennessee Historical Society. His series of articles in Tennessee Ancestors, begun in 1994 (see Bibliography for a complete listing), was invaluable, as was his willingness to share information and ideas. While the renderings in this atlas do not agree in every instance or detail with the sketches prepared by Jordan, there is broad general agreement on the development of Tennessee counties before 1800.
The number of large-scale or detailed nineteenth-century maps of Tennessee is quite small, compared with other states, but one historical map was critical for this project: Matthew Rhea’s 1832 “Map of the State of Tennessee.” Based on Rhea’s own field surveys, it was the most accurate map of Tennessee to that date. Although not officially sponsored or sanctioned by the state, this map clearly took on quasi-official status. In October 1832, the Tennessee General Assembly authorized funds to purchase copies of Rhea’s map “sufficient to furnish one map to each of the colleges in East Tennessee, one to the Nashville University, and one to each of the incorporated county academies of this State, and one to each State of the United States” (Tenn. Acts 1832, 19th assy., called sess., priv., ch. 93/p. 78). It appears that Rhea’s map was consulted when new county boundaries were proposed. While his county lines sometimes do not match the descriptions given in the state session laws, this compiler has adopted his renderings, since they represent the accepted boundaries of the time and because later changes were based on Rhea’s lines.