~ 1807 ~

There is no extant original 2nd District map, therefore the placement of the townships is based on the entry of over 2,000 early original 2nd District survey descriptions into a database and then sorting them by Range and Section numbers and then matching those numbers to the common physical landmarks in the various townships.

Additionally, certain “proof” is offered by some Survey Notes, 1807, (TSLA Microfilm roll AC-1511). This microfilm shows some original, single, range and section line surveys done in 1807 when the 2nd District was first surveyed.

In 1805 and early 1806, two treaty cessions, one by the Chickasaw and the other by the Cherokee, opened for white settlement, much of southern Middle Tennessee. Soon after, the United States Congress passed legislation allowing Tennessee control over lands within its bounds. “... the United States, in Congress assembled, on the eighteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and six, passed an act entitled ‘An act to authorize the State of Tennessee to issue grants and perfect titles to certain lands therein described, and to settle claims to the vacant and unappropriated lands within the same . . .’ ”

Then that very year, the Tennessee State Assembly established the first seven of her Surveyor's Districts. A Register’s Office was established in Nashville. The office had jurisdiction over three West (now called Middle) Tennessee Surveyors’ Districts, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. The surveyors’ office for the second District was established in Jefferson, in Rutherford County. Jefferson was located in the 1st District, and was presumably chosen because there was no practical inhabited place within the bounds of the then new 2nd District to locate the office. William P. Anderson was appointed Surveyor General for the 2nd District.

The bounds of the 2nd District were established as “...to begin eighteen miles west of the south-east corner of the last mentioned district [1st] to run south to the true meridian, to the southern boundary of the State, for its eastern boundary, and to be bounded on the west and south, by the Congressional Reservation, and on the north and south, by the first district and the boundary of the State, and shall be known and distinguished by the name of the Second District.”

Perhaps this will be a clearer: the 2nd District was bounded to the east by the 3rd District, to the south by the southern Tennessee state line, to the west by the U. S. Congressional Reservation, and to the north by the 1st District.

Examination of the earliest individual tract surveys and the few remaining range and section line surveys prove the southern Tennessee state line and the Congressional line were in fact erroneously placed.

The Southern Tennessee State Line
and
U. S. Congressional Reservation Line

In 1806, the Congress of the United States created U. S. Congressional Reservation as Indian land. Non-Indian settlement on the reservation was forbidden.“Beginning at the place where the eastern or main branch of Elk River shall intersect the [southern] boundary line of the State of Tennessee; from thence running due north, until said line shall intersect the northern or main branch of Duck River; thence down the waters of Duck River, to the military boundary line, as established by the seventh section of an act of the State of North Carolina...thence with the military boundary line, west, to a place where it intersects the Tennessee River . . .”

We find references to surveying of the Congressional line in old individual tract surveys. The surveying of this line is attributed to James Bright, a Deputy Surveyor in the 2nd District. (Survey #158, “ ....the forty mile measure on Congressional line run by Bright from the State line. ” 10 September 1807; Survey #499, “...on Congressional Line run by Bright.” 9 June 1808.)

Because the state line was located too far north, it intersected with the Elk River too far east. Therefore, the Congressional line was placed too far east. The improper surveying of the state line is also attributed to James Bright. (Survey #503, “...on the State line run by James Bright.” 10 May 1808; Survey #1141, “...on State line run by James Bright.” 12 August 1808)

Soon after the establishment of the state line and the Congressional line, the error was discovered (see dates above). According to noted Tennessee historian, Timothy R. Marsh, the Tennessee Assembly rejected Bright’s surveys. We find the lines were re-surveyed and corrected by Thomas Freeman and others. The state line was moved to the south, the Congressional line was moved to the west. We see references to two state lines. (Survey #1383, “...on the true State line.” 30 February 1809; Survey #1389. This tract is south side “of State the line run by James Bright.” 22 January 1809).

Mr. Marsh stated that from his research, he found that James Bright claimed that he had been influenced (perhaps intimidated?) by an earlier survey that had established the state line too far to the north. In defense of James Bright, we need to point out that it is the custom of surveyors to start from predetermined and accepted surveys. James Bright was a well respected surveyor in the 2nd District.

“Survey Notes, 1807”
Tennessee State Library & Archives Microfilm Roll AC-1511

In the spring of 1807, soon after the original state line and the Congressional line surveys were completed, a team of surveyors were sent out to survey the internal Range and Section lines in the 2nd District. As is the custom of surveyors, they created “field notes” as they went about their business, and later plats of their surveys were created from those notes.

Some of those notes and plats survived and are in the hands of TSLA. They are scant indeed, not complete, do not cover that part of the 2nd District that is north of the Duck River and west of the Congressional Line, yet they show us what that early surveyors did as they worked their way through that new country.

Sometime past, a TSLA Archivist connected the tattered remnants into usable pieces. In 1996, Dr Wayne Moore caused the microfilm to be produced from the various survey plats. The graphic representations presented here were made using the microfilm as the basis.