Leonard Cain was born in North Carolina in 1782 and died in Sullivan County in 1842. He married Margaret Miller in Wythe County, Va in 1807. Three of his sons became potters:
Eli b. 1815 Tn
Wm. M. b. 1822 Tn
Abraham B. b. 1827 Tn

At least two of his grandsons were also potters:
Martin A. b. 1851 Tn
J. E. b. 1854 Tn

Both of these grandsons were the sons of William M. Cain.

Leonard purchased land in Sullivan County in 1814 and tradition strongly suggests that he was a potter. However, no signed pieces of his work are known to have survived. Also, the lack of Sullivan County records prior to 1863 make it extremely difficult to reconstruct the history of the Cain Pottery. (The courthouse burned during the battle of Blountville in 1863.) According to a Washington County, Va. historical publication, a third generation Abraham continued operating the pottery after the potters mentioned above.

There is a certain amount of confusion as to what the early pieces of Cain Pottery look like, since the earliest dated piece known to the writer is 1860. However, census records tell us that pottery was being made in abundance by 1850. Furthermore, a known potter, Jessee Hinshaw, was living just 7 households away from Cain in 1840. This leads one to speculate that Jessee was hired to come to Tennessee and work at the pottery due to multiple factors operating together. They are as follows: (a) Leonard Cain was 58 in 1840 (b) potting is hard work (c) his eldest son Eli was married and potting in Virginia (d) his sons, William and Abraham, were 18 and 13 respectively. William was never listed as a potter in later census records; Abraham was the one who operated the pottery. Add to the above information the fact that Leonard died in 1842. However, this is all pure conjecture at this time.

Pottery attributed to the Cains is found in a variety of colors and shows a wide range of potting skills. Some pieces are very thick and heavy to both the eye and the hand. Others are delicate and skillfully potted. These differences, one would assume, were due to a variety of men actually doing the work over the years. The glazes are as varied as the skill of potting. A range of surface colors from the transparent lead glaze over the red clay body to opaque orange, yellows, olives, browns and black are all due to the presence of various oxides in the glaze. Another point with regard to the Cain glazes is that the common transparent glaze is frequently imperfect. Whole areas of glaze are sometimes missing. Some of these pieces suggest the glaze was somehow lost before or during the firing. Other pieces appear to have eroded over time. Certain Virginia pottery shows these same problems, some Hinkle-Spigle pieces, for example.

The decoration of straight and wavy incised lines is relatively common. However, the most desirable pieces and almost a Cain trademark today are those which show a decorative use of manganese splotches.

The large presentation jug in the exhibit demonstrates the use of incised lines as decoration and exhibits glaze problems. It is seen as a significant object because Abraham Cain made it for his nephew Martin in 1869.[1]  Martin was 18 years old and tradition suggests that the operation of the pottery was turned over to him at that time.

Examples of signed and dated pieces are: a jug with A. B. Cain 1869, a jar with W. M. Cain 1860, a small cream pot with M. A. C/ 1868, and a jar with J. E. Cain 1876.

[1] Incised in script under the handle " To M A Cain jug maid by A B Cain 1869"

Note: The background image is an earthenware jar attributed to Cain. A "C" in glaze is on the bottom.

Napps, Klell Bayne, Ed.D. Traditional Pottery in Washington County, Virginia and
Sullivan County, Tennessee, The Historical Society of Washington County,
Virginia, Publications Series II, No. 10. 1972, pp.3-16.

back