Passion, Purpose & Power

VIII. Problems With Sabbath Observance

43. Tennessee Chain Gangs

In 1892, the National Religious Liberty Association, forerunner of the current Religious Liberty Department at the General Conference, issued a 12-page pamphlet entitled, “In the Chain-Gang for Conscience’ Sake.” It recounted the story of three Seventh-day Adventists who were forced to work in a chain gang in Tennessee for working on Sunday. PPP 216.1

July 18, in the year of our Lord 1892, witnessed a sight that revives the memories of the religious persecutions of the Dark Ages. At Paris, Tenn., four Christian men had been lying in jail since June 3, 1892, for the crime (?) of following their “common avocations on Sunday, by working on the farm, plowing, hoeing,” etc. The term of one having expired, the other three, after having lain in jail forty-four days, were, Monday, July 18, marched through the streets in company with some colored criminals, and put to work shoveling on the common highway. All three were men of families, one fifty-five and another sixty-two years of age. PPP 216.2

As to the character of these men who were thus imprisoned and driven through the county seat of their county in the chain-gang, let the prosecuting attorney in the case, Mr. A. W. Lewis, ¹⁶⁴ answer. In his argument before the court, May 27, referring to their prosecution, he made the following statement, as appears from a stenographic report of the trial:— PPP 216.3

“It is regretted, because of the fact that otherwise [aside from their observing the seventh day as the Sabbath, and working on their farms on Sunday] ¹⁶⁵ they are good citizens.” PPP 217.1

These “good citizens” have suffered imprisonment and convict servitude, notwithstanding the constitution of Tennessee declares that “all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; . . . that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship.” —Art. 1, Sec. 3. PPP 217.2

In contradiction to this strong and explicit declaration of man’s natural right to worship his God unmolested, the State of Tennessee has enacted the following law, which was handed down to her from the theocracy of England through the State-Church period of North Carolina:—“Sec. 2289. If any merchant, artificer, tradesman, farmer, or other person, shall be guilty of doing or exercising any of the common avocations of life, or of causing or permitting the same to be done by his children or servants, acts of real necessity or charity excepted, on Sunday, he shall, on due conviction thereof before any Justice of the Peace of the county, forfeit and pay three dollars, one half to the person who shall sue for the same, the other half for the use of the county.” PPP 217.3

Tennessee has another statue providing for a penalty of not more than $100 for maintaining a nuisance, and the courts of Tennessee have decided that “a succession of such acts [Sunday work] ¹⁶⁶ becomes a nuisance and is indictable.” PPP 217.4

With this for a basis, the Grand Jury of Henry county found indictments against five members of the Seventh-day Adventist church who live on small farms near Springville, Tenn. The cases were tried at Paris, Tenn., May 27, 1892, before Judge W. H. Swiggart. The defendants did not choose to employ counsel, but appeared in their own behalf. PPP 217.5

Six witnesses were introduced by the prosecution, each of whom testified that he was not disturbed by the labor of the defendants on Sunday, and did not give the name of any person who was disturbed. The testimony introduced proved that W. S. Lowry had been seen at one time cutting fire-wood, and at another, loading wood on a wagon on Sunday; that J. Moon had been seen on one occasion cutting sprouts from his field on Sunday; that J. H. Dortch had been seen, on one Sunday only, plowing strawberries; and that James Stemm had followed his ordinary and common vocations on Sunday, no definite work on any definite Sunday being proved against him. Besides, in several instances their fields were not along any public road, and consequently a man could not be seen working in them, as the evidence proved, unless some one “chanced to pass that way.” PPP 218.1

Each one of the accused, when brought to trial, made a short statement of his position, and submitted his case to the jury. As an illustration of the defense of the accused, the statement of W. S. Lowry, whose case was heard first, is here appended:— PPP 218.2

“I would like to say to the jury, that, as has been stated, I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. I read my Bible, and my convictions on the Bible are that the seventh day of the week is the Sabbath, which comes on Saturday. I observe that day the best I know how. Then I claim the God-given right to six days of labor. I have a wife and four children, and it takes my labor six days to make a living. I go about my work quietly, do not make any unnecessary noise, but do my work as quietly as possible. It has been proved by the testimony of Mr. Fitch and Mr. Cox, who live around me, that they were not disturbed. Here I am before the court to answer for this right that I claim as a Christian. I am a law-abiding citizen, believing that we should obey the laws of the State; but whenever they conflict with my religious convictions and the Bible, I stand and choose to serve the law of my God rather than the laws of the State. I do not desire to cast any reflections upon the State, nor the officers and authorities executing the law. I leave the case with you.” PPP 218.3

As evidence that these prosecutions are in the nature of religious persecution, that they are attempts to compel obedience to church dogmas, protected and promulgated by the statues and court decisions of the State of Tennessee, extracts from the plea of the State’s Attorney J. W. Lewis, ¹⁶⁷ before the jury, are herewith submitted:— PPP 218.4

“While the Constitution guarantees to him the right to keep Saturday, and protects him in his worship while engaged in that worship; and if in his church others should disturb him, he would have the same safeguards thrown around him, and the same solemn protection given him in that worship that you have in your own church, yet he must bow to the laws of the State of Tennessee; he must bow to the laws of this country; he must bow to the laws that have been made and recognized and must be enforced by the courts of this country. And if he feels that it is his duty to keep Saturday, his Honor will charge that the law makes him desist from his secular work on Sunday. It is not a question of fact at all; it is only a question of law; because he does not dispute that he follows his everyday avocations, but admits it; he does not dispute that he follows the work on Sunday that he follows during the week, but admits it, and gives as an excuse that it is a conviction of his church belief.” PPP 219.1

“The people of Tennessee, by the laws, designate and point out a certain day as the Sabbath, and they say that day shall be kept holy, and around it they throw the safeguards of law, and they say that no man shall work on that day, unless it is a work that is absolutely necessary and cannot be foregone. . . . I cannot conceive how that a man who claims to be a peaceable, law-abiding citizen can go on disregarding the day openly in the face of law, openly in the face of protections that are thrown around the holy Sabbath, as we believe it and hold it, and protected by the laws of this State; and this is a question that I presume you gentlemen will not have any difficulty in coming to a decision upon.” . . . PPP 219.2

The State’s attorney was correct in his statement to the jury that it was a question that he presumed they would “not have any difficulty in coming to a decision upon,” as the jury in none of the four cases remained out over twelve minutes before returning a verdict of “guilty.” (One case was dismissed for lack of evidence.) PPP 219.3

On refusing to pay their fines, these four men were lodged in jail, June 3, where they remained from forty-five to fifty-three days each. The sheriff, Mr. Blackmore, a kind-hearted man, was loth to take them to jail, and remarked to the judge that the convicted were conscientious in the matter, to which the judge replied, “Let them educate their consciences by the laws of Tennessee.” This statement is strangely out of harmony with the Constitution which the judge is sworn to uphold, which says, “No human authority can in any case whatever control or interfere with the rights of conscience,” and that “no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship.” PPP 220.1

Their reasons for going to jail in preference to paying fines and costs, are stated in the following extract from a letter received by the secretary of the National Religious Liberty Association at Chicago, from J. H. Dortch, one of the defendants:— PPP 220.2

“We did not pay our fines and costs, which accounted to about twenty-five dollars each, because we considered them unjust; and besides, if we had paid them and returned to our work, we would have been re-arrested, and thus compelled to spend all the little property we own in paying fines.” PPP 220.3

The prisoners were allowed twenty-five cents a day for each day’s imprisonment, in payment of fines and costs. Not satisfied with this punishment, the prosecution, after a diligent search among obsolete statues and decisions, finally arrived at the conclusion that the county jail was the county work-house, and consequently, on the morning of July 18, three of them were marched through the streets of Paris in company with three colored criminals, and compelled to labor at shoveling on the streets. PPP 220.4

The chain-gang was composed of three honest, sober, industrious Christian farmers, “good citizens,” whose only crime (?) was that of doing farm labor on the first day of the week; and three negroes (sic.), whose crimes were drunkenness, discharging of fire-arms on the streets, fighting, and shooting at the city marshal. Strangely contrasted companions for a chain-gang! Three punished for their obedience to the commandment of God which reads, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;” and three for violations of the commandments of God in committing crimes against the persons of their fellow-men. And what at first would seem the strangest feature of this shameful persecution, is the fact that those most interested in it are professed followers of Jesus Christ,—followers of him who never attempted to force his teachings upon anyone, but who rebuked his disciples for desiring to do so. Yet to him who has studied the past, this is but the repetition of history; and there is little difference between the spirit which associated these Christian men with common criminals in the chain-gang, and the spirit which associated Christ with murderers, and crucified him with two malefactors. PPP 220.5

Another proof that this is religious persecution, directed against the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, is the fact that violations of the Sunday law on the part of others are passed unnoticed. While these four men were under confinement, the Post-Intelligencer, the official paper of Henry county, contained the following announcement of a Sunday excursion from Paris to Hollow Rock:— PPP 221.1

“On Sunday next there will be a basket picnic at Hollow Rock. The P.T. & A. Ry. will give an excursion rate of fifty cents for the round trip from Paris. The train leaves Paris at 9:45 A.M., and returning, leaves Hollow Rock at 5:00 P.M.” PPP 221.2

The train carrying these Sunday picnicers passed within less than one hundred feet¹⁶⁹ of the cell containing the four Seventh-day Adventists in prison for quiet farm work done on Sunday. A letter dated “Paris Jail, Paris. Tenn., July 15,” written by J. Moon, one of the imprisoned men, to his brother, Allen Moon, Washington, D.C., presents the same fact, i.e,, that these parties are victims of an odious discrimination in the matter of enforcing the Sunday law, as the following extract from the letter will show:— PPP 221.3

“While I am writing to you, it being Sunday, there is a train-load of workmen passing in the streets not thirty feet¹⁷⁰ from the jail, going out to work; and they have done so every Sunday since we have been here, and it apparently does not disturb any one. But if a poor Adventist takes his hoe out in his field and labors on Sunday, it disturbs the people for miles around.” PPP 221.4

Surely “justice standeth afar off, for truth is fallen in the streets, and equity cannot enter.” PPP 222.1

These cases are not the first convictions of the kind under the Tennessee statute. In 1886, W. H. Parker, another Seventh-day Adventist, spent seventy-four days in the same jail for Sunday work. At the same time James Stemm, one of the four men recently imprisoned, and William Dortch, father of the J. H. Dortch recently imprisoned, spent three months in the same jail for doing farm work on Sunday; and in 1890, R. M. King, of Obion county, whose case was carried to the United States Supreme Court, but suddenly terminated by the death of the defendant, was fined seventy-five dollars and costs by the same judge (Judge W. H. Swiggart) for performing his usual farm work on his own premises on Sunday. These persecutions, instead of destroying themselves by their own venom, have steadily increased in frequency and severity; and it now rests with the people of Tennessee to decide whether they will so adjust their laws as to make such persecutions impossible, or allow this outrage on the inalienable rights of God-fearing men and industrious citizens to go on. PPP 222.2

A number of newspaper comments are appended, touching the cases referred to in the foregoing, to show that there is still a sentiment alive in this country in favor of religious liberty and opposed to such persecutions. PPP 222.3