s 
 
 CF a 
 
 Oye! 
 ss Me : 
 
 Sy 
 
 ee 
 
 ES 
 
 pac 
 
 
 
F PRIAY 
 
 ~ JAN (vat aie of 
 “B & 
 {O GICAL a> 
 
 
 
 
 Division = 4 6 - 
 

 

 
 
 
 — 
 
 ee, ee 
 o-8: a 
 aa 
 = — 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 & 
 | | m “a 
 SUN Ras en et 
 mn ‘ a / 
 4 ta Py: 
 ‘a 
 al 
 } 
 : : ! 5 
 7 
 t i 
 1 ‘ , te 
 ‘oe ny : t Py ' 
 ; At: Lett ioe 
 wi ‘ 1 
 Cit SRE tm tii |) > 
 we Wihtzeees us) ( hen 
 fa af) es ; a oie v4 
 his at 
 A Uh 
 iP yay 
 me } PE ey ¥ Mt 
 ‘e ! y. 
 4) er b } 
 | aviv? if . se) 
 J ; ‘ i aa f 
 : ‘ ; a, ‘ bail \ ‘ oa ee d ) ‘al : { 
 i 5 t | Oy Pere Serene nae, 7 : % 
 : ) ; A w #; cat A) [ by teri) ei, . an 
 fe ae) Ha ee ia dae ‘dF 
 By ae LE oj ea iar ie i pif 
 tx " } - 5 d oUF “tet . ‘ty oti 
 1 Be : q ait ace! 
 rf 5 tit 
 
 het 
 
 At adee 
 
EPISCOPAL METHODISM 
 
 AND SLAVERY 
 With Sidelights on pane IB, 
 
 Learn 
 
 Mee? 
 
 CHARLES BAUMER ‘SWAN EY 
 
 
 
 Professor of History in Upper Iowa University 
 
 ERED Sart one eee 
 
 
 
 Sr ne er A RY RET LE ERY AR ELE OE AT I OR FEET RE 
 
 
 
 BOSTON 
 RICHARD G. BADGER, PUBLISHER 
 
 THE GORHAM PRESS 
 
} 
 
 ORY 
 ¢ A 
 
 ae } ae | 
 Li 
 } Lari 4 
 
 b 
 | 
 
 ian 
 
 
 
il N49 wet eyo Wi a? 
 
 The union of the various branches of Methodism has been 
 the goal towards which many earnest leaders have been 
 working during the past half century. Too often, however, 
 they have assumed that the faults of the past were to be laid 
 at the door of some other group than that which they 
 represent. No clear understanding of the problem of union 
 can be obtained without a thorough knowledge of the relation 
 of Methodism to slavery prior to 1865. This correct knowl- 
 edge is not to be sought in the prejudices of either section. 
 
 In this volume, the author has sought to present the 
 material on ‘Episcopal Methodism and Slavery” from the 
 organization of the Methodist societies in 1766 to the close 
 of the Civil War. The bibliography will indicate that many 
 books have been written on various phases of this subject; 
 but none of them gives a complete picture of the Church and 
 slavery. Indebtedness to these former writers has been 
 scrupulously acknowledged in the footnotes. 
 
 In the consideration of a subject so filled with controversy 
 it is difficult to avoid the charge of prejudice. Suffice it to 
 say that if the author had any prejudices in the inception of 
 this work they were those common to northern Methodists. 
 However, the work was undertaken, not to sustain a theory 
 but to discover the truth. 
 
 It is probable that many theories as to the past attitude 
 of Methodism towards slavery must be abandoned because 
 they are based upon prejudice and self-interest rather than 
 upon fact. When Methodist leaders are ready to face the 
 facts and admit the wrongs and errors of past decades, real 
 Methodist union is possible. Because such an understanding 
 has its basis in truth it will be eminently desirable. 
 
 Bin 
 Upper Iowa Umversity, 
 March 31, 1926. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 > 
 i) 
 
 + ier 
 2 ee. oO 
 
 ae 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 
 The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to 
 those who assisted him at the following libraries: Virginia 
 State Historical, Drew Theological Seminary, Upper lowa 
 University, Chicago Public, Newberry, Evanston Public, 
 Northwestern University, and Garrett Biblical Institute. 
 Thanks are also due to those who generously placed at my 
 disposal the files of the Nashville Christian Advocate and 
 the Richmond Christian Advocate, and to those having the 
 supervision of the Confederate Museum at Richmona. in 
 particular, Dr. Samuel G. Ayers, of Garrett Biblical Institute, 
 because of his familiarity with’ the sources in other libraries, 
 rendered invaluable assistance. 
 
 For their suggestions, the author is indebted to Professor 
 James A. James of Northwestern; to Professor William D. 
 Schermerhorn of Garrett Biblical Institute; and to Professor 
 J. N. Norwood of Alfred University. The topic was sug- 
 gested by Professor James, who has been a constant inspira- 
 tion during the period required to complete the study. “The 
 Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844’ by Professor 
 Norwood has proved very valuable, especially his chapters 
 on the General Conference of 1844 and the succeeding years. 
 
 At Upper Iowa University, President J..P. Van Horn and 
 Professors Earl A. Roadman, Elizabeth Nichols and Annie ~ 
 L. Corbitt have read the manuscript and offered many helpful 
 criticisms. Miss Nellie Jones, a major student in History, 
 has been especially helpful on chapter VI. 
 
 In addition to these. thanks are due to Dr. D. M. Parker 
 for the loan of his grandfather’s autobiography; to Miss 
 Sarah C. Stevenson for the loan of her grandfather’s journal ; 
 to the Rev. Clyde E. Baker for reading portions of the manu-. 
 script; to the Rev. Roy L. Smith, who made possible the 
 completion of the work; and to Mr. Edwin ‘Garrison of 
 Drew Theological Seminary, who checked almost half of the 
 footnotes. Finally, without the sympathy and encourage- 
 ment of my wife, this volume would not have been completed. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/episcopalmethodi00swan 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Jeph ned Wed) 
 THE FORMING OF PRECEDENTS 
 
 sepapter Page 
 / # 1g ANTI-SLAVERY PRECEDENTS .. 1 
 / CA Anti-slavery principles and action of M Wnpdive Negdev et 
 
 Early Methodist legislation against slavery—Anti-slavery 
 my activities of Methodist publications. 
 
 f At ACOMPROMISING PRECEDENTS . . i) 
 ve om Reaction of the pro-slavery group to the vantont enone 
 
 Slaveholding among early Methodists—The compromise 
 of Methodist leaders—Compromise legislation of the 
 Methodist Church prior to 183I—Conservatism of Meth- 
 odist publications. 
 
 Ill. Pritanturopic PRECEDENTS 27 
 The solution of the question: “What halt be ene ay! 
 negroes’—The importance of the negro’s soul—Colon- 
 ization—The pragmatic test. 
 
 PAR Tt 
 THE PERIOD OF AGITATION 
 
 f1V.¢ CONSERVATIVE METHODISM .. . 39 
 Anti-slavery agitation prior to 183I1—The anti slavery 
 
 A movement after I183I1—The conservatism of the Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church—Attitude of official Methodism 
 towards Garrison—Attitude of Methodism towards 
 Methodist abolitionists. 
 
 V. THe TrousLers oF METHODISM . . 58 
 The first test of strength—Reactionary spirit in nee 
 nati—The fear of anti-slavery agitation—The. address 
 of the British Wesleyan Church—A committee on 
 Slavery ordered—Agitation of the slavery question by 
 radical New Englanders—Scott’s report of the General 
 Conference debates on slavery—Slaveholding and the 
 election of bishops—The “Pastoral Address” on slavery— 
 Reaction to the legislation of the General Conference— 
 Accomplishments of the General Conference. 
 
VI. 
 
 VIL. 
 
 VETTE, 
 
 TX. 
 
 Contents 
 
 THE RULE oF THE BisHops, 1836-1837 . 
 
 New York conference and slavery—Radicalism in the 
 New England and New Hampshire conferences—Anti- 
 slavery agitation in the Erie conference—Georgta and 
 South Carolina conferences on slavery—Attitude of 
 border conferences—The anti-slavery controversy 1m 
 northern conferences—The New England conferences 
 in 1837—Results of the rulings of the bishops. 
 
 THE CRUSHING OF THE ABOLITIONISTS, 1838- 
 
 PSO RF SH NU Le a a 
 Methodism and murder of Elijah P. Lovejoy—The antt- 
 slavery struggle in New England conferences—Proscrip- 
 tion of radicals in other northern conferences—The con- 
 servative New York conference—Triumph of the 
 reactionary element in Michigan conference—Trials of 
 anti-slavery laymen—Proscription of the anti-slavery 
 cause of Methodist leaders—Controversy within the 
 
 anti-slavery ranks—Mcthods of creating abolition senti- 
 
 ment—Attitude of other churches towards the Methodist 
 controversy—Southern opinion of abolitionism in_ the 
 Methodist Church—Charges of unfairness towards the 
 conservatives—Results of the proscription of abolitionists 
 by Methodism. 
 
 THE METHODIST JUGGERNAUT > (2) ie 
 Preparations for the General Conference of [840—The 
 address of the bishops—The address of the British 
 Wesleyan Church—Abolitionism and the appointment 
 of an anti-slavery committee — Bishop Hedding’s 
 grievance against Scott and Sunderland—The report of 
 the “Committee on Itinerancy’—The appeal of Silas 
 Comfort—Slavery no “legal barrier’ to any office in 
 Methodism—Abolitionists and the church at Natchez— 
 The election of bishops postponed—The “Pastoral 
 Address” on slavery—Importance of the General Con- 
 ference of 1840. 
 
 THE CHANGING TIDE Jit 92 ne 
 Submission of annual conferences to the General 
 Conference—Ewvidences of revolt against the General 
 Conference—Position of official Methodist papers— 
 Secessions from the Methodist Episcopal Church— 
 “The Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America’— 
 The attempt to bribe Luther Lee—Attitude of secession- 
 ists towards conservatives—Mutual recrimation—Effect 
 0 f secession upon the Methodist Church—Southern opin- 
 ton of the change of northern Methodism—Importance 
 of the year 1842, 
 
 69 
 
 1 
 
 93 
 
 102 
 
Contents 
 
 (Xx) A REVERSAL OF POLICY 
 
 JA 
 V4 Ne 
 
 XI. 
 
 XIE: 
 
 {XL 
 
 Comparison of the General Ponerentes OF 1840 ane 
 1844—Personnel of the General Conference of I844— 
 Scott’s report of the proceedings of the Conference— 
 Omission of the topic of slavery during the first days— 
 Attitude of the Conference towards slavery—F. A. 
 Harding’s appeal—The pacification of the Church—The 
 case of Bishop Andrew—Attempts at compromise— 
 Influence of New England delegates—Further attempts 
 at compr omise—The status of Andrew—Report of the 
 “Committee on Slavery’—Reasons for the success of 
 the radicals—Coalition’ of abolition and border dele- 
 gates—Resulis of the General Conference of 1844. 
 
 PA Ty 
 THE EVER-WIDENING BREACH 
 
 Tue MetuHopist EpiscopAL CHURCH, SOUTH . 
 Proposals for division prior to 1844 — A _ plan of 
 separation submitted to the General Conference—The 
 declaration of the southern delegates—Report of the 
 “Committee of Nine’—Conference of southern delegates 
 in New York—Decision of southern conferences—T he 
 Lomsville Conventton—The General Conference of 
 [846—The fruits of Asbury’s policy. 
 
 SoME DIFFERENCES OF OPINION 
 
 Conciliatory attitude of Methodist A fstiaie-uHindences 
 of prejudice and ill-uill—Attitude towards the virtual 
 deposition of Andrew—Bishop Soule’s wimvitation to 
 Bishop Andrew—lIll-will developed because of _ the 
 Louisville Convention—Bitterness:' as a result of the 
 General Conference of 1848. 
 
 THE BorpER WARFARE 
 
 Provisions of the “Plan of Sapiro AM EAaE HO 
 of the leaders to the plan—Bishop Soule and the vote 
 on adherence—Elliott’s interpretation of the plan— 
 Bishop Morris on adherence—The official southern 
 interpretation of the plan—The interpretation of the 
 plan by northern bishops—The place of minorities in 
 the plan—Border controversies—The General Confer- 
 ence of 1848. 
 
 XIV: THE” DIVISION “OF THE, ’ BooK’ CoNcERN 
 
 PROPERTY 
 Vote on the “Stxth eer ates WMeticiek: -Redclion af 
 northerners to the outcome—Reaction of southerners to 
 the northern action—Southern attempts to secure a fatr 
 
 117 
 
 137 
 
 148 
 
 158 
 
 172 
 
Contents 
 
 share of the property—An appeal to the Federal Courts— 
 
 The New York Case—The Cincinnati Case—The appeal 
 
 to the Supreme Court—The settlement of the case— 
 
 Northern opinion on the decision of the Court—The 
 _. significance of this controversy. 
 
 XV. THE TREND OF THE TIMES ; 
 
 The Andrew case and slavery—Attitude ey ‘Southern 
 Methodists toward slavery—Attitude of northern Meth- 
 odists towards slavery—Conservatism of official Meth- 
 odist publications—Conclusions on the question of 
 slavery in the two churches. 
 
 XVI. THE ENTERING WEDGE 
 Anti-slavery resolutions in New Baetona C on yerenie ee 
 Suggested changes in the rule on slavery—The General 
 Conference of [852—Radicalism in New England and 
 other northern conferences—The sentiment on slavery 
 in “The Old Northwest’—Proposed changes in the 
 rule on slavery — Attitude of Methodist publications 
 towards slavery—The opinion of Matlack—General Con- 
 ference of I856—Reaction to the legislation of the 
 General Conference—Significance of this Conference. 
 
 XVII.) THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 18600 _.. 
 Growth of abolitionsm in the Methodist Guinea 
 Conservative strength—Suggested alteration of the 
 rule on slavery—The General Conference of I860— 
 Reaction to the legislation of the Conference—The 
 failure of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 XVIII. SLAVEHOLDING IN THE MeEtTHopIst EPISco- 
 PAL CHURCH : 
 
 The fact of slavery in the heed Methodist CMe 
 
 Northern Methodist slaveholding area—Official com- 
 
 mendation of slaveholders—A comparison of the two 
 Churches. 
 
 XIX. SouTHERN METHODISM AND SLAVERY 
 
 Southern conservatives—The ultra party—Legtslation 
 on the slavery question. 
 
 XX. THE NORTHERN INVADERS . . a) Ae 
 Migration of northern Methodists to Couliene Lr ALAe 
 Influence of radical northerners—Attitude of the 
 southern Church towards the newcomers—Purpose of 
 northern preachers and bishops—Attitude of southerners 
 towards northern conferences—Approval of mobs by 
 the southern Methodist Church—Proscription of individ- 
 uals of the northern Church—Significance of the action 
 of the pro-slavery party. 
 
 188 
 
 203 
 
 219 
 
 234 
 
 243 
 
 PAST 
 
Contents 
 
 PART IV 
 LOOKING TOWARDS CIVIL WAR 
 
 XXI. THe ComproMIse oF 1850 
 
 First reaction to the speeches of Clay Gud Webster— 
 Condemnation of Clay and Webster—Simpson’s analysis 
 of the Compromise—General Reaction of northern 
 Methodists—Support of the Compromise by southern 
 Methodist leaders—Theodore Parker and the Nashville 
 Christian Advocate—Southern condemnation of northern 
 disobedience to law—Effect upon the relations between 
 the two Methodisms. 
 
 XXII. First Steps Towarps Civir War . 
 Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom's Cabinet he 
 Kansas-Nebraska Bill—The Dred Scoti Decision. 
 
 ea ave) OF CIVIL WAR WL tN", 
 Methodism and the Lincoln-Douglas Debates rhe ve- 
 opening of the African Slave Trade—John Brown's Raid 
 at Harper's Ferry—The election and inauguration of 
 —<Abraham Lincoln. 
 
 f XXIV. ) METHODISM AND DISUNION . 
 
 eer Olton: of southern leaders in 1844 and 1825" Colhout 
 and Webster on the tendency of Methodist disunion— 
 Southern Methodists on the effects of separation— 
 Northern Methodist opinion—Wesleyan Methodists on 
 disunion—Ecclesiastical disunion equivalent to political 
 disunion—Southern Methodists and war—Responsibility 
 for the Ciwil War. 
 
 PARTY 
 THE PERIOD OF CIVIL WAR 
 
 XXV. THE Loyvatty oF NorRTHERN METHODISTS 
 The pride of Methodism and Lincoln’s statement—Meth- 
 odist agreement with Lincoln’s purpose in the war— 
 Evidences of loyalty in northern conferences—Loyalty 
 of northern bishops—Northern Methodists im western 
 Virginia—E ffect of the northern Church in Missouri— 
 Sequestration of southern Methodist property—The 
 election of I1864—Disloyalty of northern minsters and 
 laymen—The judgment of history. 
 
 XXVI. THE LovaLty oF SOUTHERN METHODISTS 
 Methodist loyalty in the southern states—Loyalty of 
 
 southern Methodist bishops—Support of southern Meth- 
 odist papers— Annual conferences loyal to the Richmond 
 
 263 
 
 272 
 
 ZfG 
 
 287 
 
 299 
 
 311 
 
Contents 
 
 Government—Loyalty of southern Methodist mimisters— 
 Disloyalty of southern Methodists to the Confederacy— 
 The record of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
 
 XX Vie ANSWERED PRAYER.) 04002 ee 
 The cause of the war according to northern Methodtsts— 
 Non-interference with slavery—Advantages of freedom— 
 Fremont’s order—Compensated emancitpatton—Emanci- 
 pation of slaves in the District of Columbia—Sup pression 
 of the African slave trade—Confiscation of the slaves of 
 rebel masters—The demand for unconditional emanci- 
 pation—President Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation— 
 Propaganda in favor of emancipation after July 22, 
 I862—“The Prayer of Twenty Millions’—The committee 
 of Chicago clergymen—Methodism and the Emancipation 
 Proclamation—The employment of negro soldiers— 
 The thirteenth amendment—The Government answers 
 Methodism’s prayer—Slaveholding by Methodists—The 
 General Conference of 1864. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 90) OO OR ISO 
 PER 2 ey ee) Eek GW CRI RS 
 
Episcopal Methodism and 
 Slavery 
 
 PART L 
 THE FORMING OF PRECEDENTS 
 
vi a i 
 Arte 
 
 Aue ty 
 nye yA ‘ny! 
 
 ru 
 
 
 
EPISCOPAL METHODISM 
 AND SLAVERY 
 
 OS os WM dd 0 aE 
 
 ANTI-SLAVERY PRECEDENTS 
 
 American Methodists looked to John Wesley for guidance 
 on the issue of slavery. lt was natural that they should do 
 so, as in other disputed questions, nor did they look in vain. 
 The founder of the Methodist societies had spoken in no 
 uncertain terms against slavery. It is true that in the original 
 rules adopted by Mr. Wesley in 1743 slavery was not con- 
 demned because the societies over which he then exercised 
 authority were not compelled to deal with the question of 
 human bondage. But fifteen years before Clarkson, Wilber- 
 force and Granville Sharp undertook to destroy slavery within 
 the British possessions, Wesley had formed a “Society for 
 the Suppression of the Slave Trade.”! In 1772 he denounced 
 the slave trade as “the sum of all villanies.’” 
 
 The first Methodist society in America was organized in 
 1766.3 Because of the weakness of the new Church and the 
 fact that no general meetings were held until 1773, any 
 antagonism shown towards slavery was manifested by in- 
 dividual ministers and members of the various societies. It 
 was Freeborn Garrettson, one of the earliest Methodist min- 
 isters in this country, who, in 1773, not only freed his own 
 slaves but boldly condemned slavery in North Carolina.° 
 Two years later, he spoke publicly in Virginia against human 
 bondage, the result being that several of his audience freed 
 their slaves. In fact, so strongly was Garrettson opposed to 
 slavery that this, joined with the suspicion in which Method- 
 ists of Revolutionary times were held, created considerable 
 opposition to the work of the denomination.® Philip Gatch 
 of Powhatan County, Virginia, emancipated all his slaves, 
 since he was convinced “that all men are by nature equally 
 free.””" 
 
 The course taken by these earliest Methodist leaders was 
 fully approved by Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury. In 
 North Carolina the former condemned slaveholding, but was 
 unable to convince one man of his error — Coke says because 
 
 i 
 
2 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 the impenitent citizen owned twenty-four slaves.* Occasion- 
 ally, Coke found that some slaveholders would listen respect- 
 fully, but generally they remained obdurate — one even after 
 having read “Wesley’s Thoughts on Slavery” “three tumes 
 over’ ;? some Church members “raged like a lion” ;?° while 
 others unceremoniously shut their doors against the 
 preachers, on one occasion because 'the planter in question 
 possessed eighty slaves.11 After preaching the funeral ser- 
 mon of an influential slaveholder, Coke wrote in his Journal: 
 “On Wednesday 6, I preached the late Colonel Bedford’s 
 funeral sermon. But I said nothing good of him, for he was 
 a violent friend of slavery, and his interest being great 
 among the Methodists in these parts, he would have been a 
 dreadful thorn in our sides, if the Lord had not in mercy 
 taken him away.”8 Coke’s propaganda during April and 
 May, 1785, caused mobs to assemble, and rewards to be 
 offered to those who flogged him.!* Finally, a bill, in which 
 he was charged with sedition, was presented against him 
 before the Grand Jury. When Coke eluded his tormenters, 
 nineteen men offered to pursue him and bring him back.!® 
 Of all the leaders of early American Methodism, Francis 
 Asbury was easily the greatest. Religious fervor, tremen- 
 dous enthusiasm, untiring zeal— together with a genius for 
 organization and leadership — made Asbury the worthy leader 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, even as the 
 same qualities had placed John Wesley at the head of the 
 Methodist movement in England. That Asbury hated slav- 
 ery is fully attested by his journal. In the year of Inde- 
 pendence he wrote: “How will the sons of oppression answer 
 for their conduct, when the great Proprietor of all shall call 
 them to account!’ When he observed the exertions of the 
 Friends in behalf of the slaves, he declared that the Method- 
 ists must follow their example. In reply to those who 
 justified slavery from the biblical record, Asbury asserted 
 that polygamy and servitude were allowed by the ceremonial 
 law of the Old Testament that greater evils might be avoided. 
 But he maintained that the spirit of compromise was not 
 present at the Creation but was the result of the “Fall’’.1® 
 Some of Asbury’s sermons were condemnatory of the 
 system of slavery; in a few instances his auditors gave heed 
 to his exhortations. By conviction, then, Asbury was an 
 abolitionist, one of the last entries in his journal being an 
 
Anti-Slavery Precedents 3 
 
 expression of sympathy for the slaves and of censure for 
 their masters.!* 
 
 With the leaders of the early Methodist societies so 
 strongly opposed to slavery it was inevitable that the con- 
 ferences of the Church should deal with the subject. Al- 
 though annual meetings of all Methodist ministers were 
 held, beginning with 1773,1® it was not until 1780 that official 
 action was taken against slavery.19 The conference required 
 all travelling preachers*° who held slaves to free them; they 
 acknowledged that slavery was “contrary to the dictates of 
 conscience and pure religion,’ and opposed to the principles 
 of the Golden Rule. They censured their slaveholding 
 friends and advised the manumission of the slaves.24_ Three 
 years later, the ministers passed still more stringent rules. In 
 all states which permitted emancipation of slaves, the assist- 
 ant pastors were instructed to deal “faithfully and plainly” 
 with slaveholding local preachers” for another year and re- 
 port to the next conference. They also adopted as a resolu- 
 tion the covert threat that “It may then be necessary to 
 suspend them.”?3 The rules for 1784 were still more drastic. 
 Those who had been warned and yet persisted in holding 
 slaves, or bought them for no other purpose than to hold 
 them in bondage, were to be expelled; travelling preachers 
 who refused to manumit their slaves when it was possible 
 were to be employed no longer.” 
 
 The organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church at 
 the “Christmas Conference”, held in Baltimore in 1784, was 
 a notable event. It marked the separation of American 
 Methodist societies from Wesley’s jurisdiction; Asbury was 
 ordained deacon and elder, and elected to the General Super- 
 intendency — all in the same day;?® and slavery received 
 marked attention. The rule adopted forbade “The buying 
 or selling the bodies and souls of men, women and children, 
 with an intention to enslave them.’”° While they hesitated 
 to make new rules for religious societies already in existence, 
 yet they believed that only the sternest possible action would 
 be adequate.?’ In regard to slavery they said: “We view it 
 as contrary to the golden law of God, on which hang all the 
 law and the prophets, and the unalienable rights of mankind, 
 as well as every principle of the Revolution, to hold in deep- 
 est debasement, in a more abject slavery than is perhaps to 
 
4 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 be found in any part of the world except America, so many 
 souls that are all capable of the image of God.”?? 
 
 Following the Christmas Conference anti-slavery Meth- 
 odists urged the legislatures of some of the southern 
 states to adopt the policy of gradual emancipation. The 
 Virginia conference had declared : “We do hold in the deepest 
 abhorrence the practice of slavery, and shall not cease to 
 seek its destruction by all wise and prudent means.’’8 Con- 
 sistently with this declaration the ministers circulated a 
 petition asking the gradual emancipation of all slaves within 
 the state of Virginia.2® A Mr. Fry, one of the Methodists, 
 was elected to the Virginia legislature. Of him, Coke wrote 
 that he was “ a precious man, and, I trust, will be eloquent 
 in the House of Delegates for the emancipation of the Slaves. 
 He is to present our petition.”?° In North Carolina, also, 
 the Methodists were active in drawing up a petition asking- 
 the General Assembly of the state to permit masters to free 
 their slaves. For a time it seemed that they would be suc- 
 cessful for Coke lent his aid and Asbury won the governor’s 
 support for the measure.*? 
 
 The testimony of the Church relative to the evil of slavery 
 continued to be very similar to that of the Christmas Con- 
 ference of 1784, although changes were made in the rule. 
 Thus, in 1796 the rule adopted forbade “the buying or selling 
 of men, women or children.’’*? It was at this time that the 
 bishops were requested by the General Conference to draw 
 up rules on slavery with annotations on the same. The 
 bishops attempted to show that slaveholding was wrong 
 because it was contrary to biblical teachings. In reply to 
 the question as to what should be done “for the extirpation 
 of the crying evil of African slavery,” they answered that 
 all slaveholders should be excluded from official positions 
 and gave annual conferences power to act in all such cases. 
 Before slaveholders were admitted to membership in the 
 Church, they were to be urged to free their slaves. If a 
 member sold a slave he was to be expelled immediately ; if he 
 purchased a servant, the ensuing quarterly conference®? was 
 to determine the duration of the slave’s servitude. If the 
 master refused to obey the ruling of this body, he was to be 
 expelled. The children of a female slave, obtained by 
 purchase, were to be freed, the females at twenty-one and 
 the males at twenty-five years of age. In conclusion, the 
 
Anti-Slavery Precedents 4) 
 
 ministers and members were “requested to consider the sub- 
 ject with deep attention, till the ensuing General Conference,” 
 so that they might the better “take further steps towards 
 the eradicating of this enormous evil from that part of the 
 Church of God to which they are united.’ 
 
 Following this strong declaration, Asbury required all 
 ministers to be anti-slavery before they were ordained.®° 
 The bishop also assisted Philip Sands in drawing up a 
 statement for the officiary of the Church to sign, setting forth 
 their opposition to slavery. Asbury gave his reason for this 
 action in the following language: “It appears to me, that we 
 can never fully reform the people, until we reform the 
 preachers; and that hitherto, except purging the travelling 
 connexion, we have been working at the wrong end.” Con- 
 sistency demanded that, if the local preachers were permitted 
 to hold slaves, travelling ministers should be allowed to do 
 likewise, and keep overseers upon their quarters.*® 
 
 In 1800 the General Conference voted that annual confer- 
 ences should further the work of emancipation by circulating 
 petitions praying state legislatures to enact laws providing 
 for gradual manumission of slaves, where such laws were not 
 already in existence. Further, they declared that when it 
 was possible to do so, a travelling preacher must free his 
 slaves or “forfeit his ministerial character in the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church.”’* A General Conference “Address” was 
 sent to all members and friends of the Church, in which the 
 evils of slavery were set forth, together with the inconsist- 
 ency of citizens of the United States holding slaves, and the 
 opposition of New Testament teachings to slavery. All 
 members of the Church were urged to aid ministers in carry- 
 ing out the General Conference rules.*® 
 
 In at least two conferences anti-slavery action was taken. 
 Officials of Livingston Circuit in the Western conference 
 voluntarily offered to accept the judgment of the quarterly 
 conference on the manumission of their slaves. The record 
 reads : “We, thereby, had the unspeakable pleasure of decree- 
 ing salvation from slavery in favor of twenty-two immortal 
 souls ; we did not reprobate one of them.’ They 2 asked 
 the Western conference for permission to require slave- 
 holders seeking admission into the Church “to submit their 
 slaves to the judgment of the Conference, who shall deter- 
 mine the time of servitude . . ., and have a bill of manu- 
 
 ? 
 
6 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 mission recorded in the same manner as the form of Dis- 
 cipline requires for buying a slave.”89 Cartwright also cites 
 the South Carolina conference action in 1806. When a 
 slaveholder sought admission into the travelling ministry 
 of the conference he was admitted on trial and assigned 
 to a circuit “provided that he make provision for the eman- 
 cipation of his slaves.’ When the conference met the 
 following year he “had made a settlement of some character, 
 satisfactory to the Conference, and was accordingly ad- 
 mitted.’’4° 
 
 The General Conference of 1808 authorized “each annual 
 conference to form their own regulations relative to buying 
 and selling slaves.’”41 In: the Western conference the 
 preachers were divided but the suggestions of Bishop M’Ken- 
 dree in favor of drastic action against slavery were cordially 
 received.42, Asbury wrote that this conference adopted “a 
 regulation respecting slavery; it was, that no member of (a) 
 society, or preacher, should sell or buy a slave unjustly, 
 inhumanly, or covetously; the case, on complaint, to be 
 examined for a member by the quarterly meeting; and for a 
 preacher an appeal to an annual conference. Where the guilt 
 was proved the offender to be expelled.’’*? In 1812 the 
 Tennessee conference** examined and finally approved Levin 
 Edney’s character, “Learner Blackman being security that 
 he'll set his slave free, when practicable.’45 That Blackman 
 was to be trusted by the anti-slavery faction is evident from 
 the rules adopted under his leadership. The conference 
 decided that the preacher in charge of a local church should 
 cite members who bought and sold slaves before the ensuing 
 quarterly conference which should determine whether the 
 property in question had been bought or sold because of 
 “Justice and mercy”; if a majority decided adversely, the 
 guilty parties were to be expelled immediately. The case 
 might be appealed to the next annual conference.’ ° 
 
 Three years later, the slavery question again troubled the 
 Tennessee conference. In answer to certain questions asked 
 by Thomas L. Douglas, the conference decided that a person 
 was engaging in the slave trade if he bought or sold slaves, 
 even in order to keep husbands and wives, or parents and 
 children together. Though it might be a case obviously 
 “consistent with justice and mercy,” the offender should 
 
Anti-Slavery Precedents 7 
 
 be arraigned before the Church officials as though guilty of 
 a crime.*? 
 
 At its first session, the Ohio conference decided that 
 Joseph Oglesby must free “his negro Girl at the age of 
 25 years together with her posterity if any at the age of 
 21 years.”*8 Rules, providing for the gradual manumission 
 of all slaves purchased, and the expulsion of church members 
 who sold slaves except at the request of the latter or “to 
 prevent a separation in families,” were also adopted. On 
 all other occasions, three non-slaveholders were to decide 
 whether or not the sale was a proper one.*® In 1813 con- 
 sideration of the slavery question was deferred until the 
 following year,°° when the former rules were retained.*! 
 
 Following the General Conference of 1816,°* the Tennessee 
 conference was again concerned with this exciting topic. It 
 was decided that power to deal with cases of slaveholding, 
 among both ministers and laymen, should be vested in the 
 quarterly conferences.5? Peter Cartwright thereupon ar- 
 raigned slaveholding members in the Tennessee portion of 
 his district. So intense was the feeling against him that 
 Cartwright was put on trial at the conference of 1818. For 
 three days a bitter contest was waged. All attempts to 
 silence Cartwright were unavailing and he finally emerged 
 from the attacks of his enemies victorious. The conference 
 supported Cartwright, not only because of his anti-slavery 
 principles but because the right of free speech was involved. 
 Only three votes were recorded against this valiant leader of 
 anti-slavery Methodists.5* 
 
 By 1819 the strife was still more bitter. The anti-slavery 
 faction retained a majority of five, and harmony was an 
 almost negligible virtue. Two slaveholding applicants for 
 admission to the conference were rejected; when others 
 applied for deacon’s®® orders, they met the same fate. Even 
 though Gilbert D. Taylor avowed his purpose to free his 
 slaves, he was excluded until manumission was actually ac- 
 complished.®* Jt was contended that the action of the con- 
 ference was contrary to the Methodist Discipline,5? but 
 Cartwright was able to cite Andrew Jackson to prove that 
 manumission of slaves was permitted by Tennessee. As a 
 result of Jackson’s legal advice, many preachers were com- 
 pelled to free their slaves. Further, the anti-slavery element 
 
8 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 elected delegates to the General Conference of 1820, where, 
 in spite of the work of the pro-slavery party, the action of 
 the Tennessee conference was approved.°® 
 
 By action of the General Conference of 1820 the attack 
 upon slavery was the task of the whole Church rather than 
 of the annual conferences.5® In the Tennessee conference, 
 the old dispute broke out afresh, with James Axley and 
 Enoch Moore® leading the anti-slavery forces. Axley op- 
 posed slaveholders in official positions and sought to prevent 
 them from preaching. Both ministers carried their propa- 
 ganda so far that they refused to allow a slaveholder to 
 lead a public prayer-meeting.®’ Again, in 1824,° the slavery 
 question was brought to the attention of the Tennessee 
 conference through “An Address from the Moral Religious 
 Manumission Society of West Tennessee.” In reply to this 
 address, the conference said: “We concur in the sentiments 
 that slavery is an evil to be deplored, and that it should 
 be counteracted by every judicious and religious exertion. 
 
 The anti-slavery sentiment of the Methodist Church was 
 also reflected in the official and semi-official publications®* of 
 the denomination. In 1819 The Methodist Magazine called 
 slavery “‘the curse of America.”®® The sympathy of the 
 magazine for negroes was also shown by the account of the 
 sudden death of a master who had ill-treated his slave.® 
 The Christian Advocate and Journal was interested in the 
 manumission of slaves in New York.®” Lewis Garrett of 
 the Tennessee conference congratulated New York on this 
 work in behalf of humanity, and his message found a place 
 in the official Church paper.®® 
 
 In succeeding years, the Christian Advocate continued to 
 testify to the interest of the Church in negroes. People were 
 warned against kidnappers who took negro children from 
 free states to southern markets.°® The pity of the editor 
 was further excited by the account of a slave ship which 
 arrived at Havana with three thousand sick slaves, six 
 hundred of whom died. In distress the editor wrote: “Three 
 thousand human beings compressed in the hold of a single 
 ship! Who can imagine the sufferings which these poor 
 creatures endured.””° Attention was also given to the activi- 
 ties of anti-slavery societies. At Smithfield, Ohio, a society 
 was organized to aid in abolishing slavery. At least twelve 
 such organizations, patterned after the Maryland Anti-slavery 
 
Anti-Slavery Precedents by 
 
 Society, had been formed by 1827.7 Memorials from the 
 people of Maine,”* and of the Anti-slavery Society of 
 Washington City,” praying the abolition of slavery in the 
 District of Columbia, were also printed. 
 
 Zion's Herald was still more enthusiastic in its advocacy 
 of anti-slavery principles. The manumission of slaves in 
 New York was especially commended. Under the heading, 
 “A Proud Day for New York,” the editor declared that 
 the action of the state would be a blessing not only to the 
 negroes but also to their owners. The opportunity was 
 seized to urge southern states to provide for gradual emancti- 
 pation within their own boundaries. The editor was certain 
 that other states would find, as New York had already dis- 
 covered, that manumission of slaves was not only morally 
 but financially beneficial.” 
 
 It is apparent that individual leaders, conferences and 
 official publications of the early Methodist Episcopal Church 
 furnished abundant material upon which a partizan could 
 base his contention that Asbury and his contemporaries were 
 abolitionists.*® There can be no question that many of them 
 earnestly strove to accomplish the manumission of all slaves 
 by some gradual and humanitarian process. The fact that 
 the ‘Christmas Conference” of 1784 was so unequivocally 
 opposed to slavery is conclusive evidence that the newly 
 organized Church was uncompromisingly against “the sum 
 of all villanies.’ To what extent they may have swerved 
 from their original purpose and the reasons for their action 
 will be shown in succeeding chapters. 
 
 1. Townsend, New History of Methodism, Volume I., p. 370. The 
 change in the English attitude towards slavery is seen from the 
 fact that Hawkins had as his flagship The Jesus. ‘“‘He ordered his 
 erews ‘to serve God daily’ and ‘to love one another’’’. (Channing, 
 History of the United States, Volume I., p. 116; cf. Thompson, 
 John Wesley as a social Reformer, p. 43). The date was 1562. 
 
 2. Wesley, Journal, Volume V., pp. 445-6; February 12, 1772. 
 
 3. For a contrary claim see, The Christian Advocate, Volume 99, p. 
 1357: November 6, 1924. 
 
 4. In 1773 a meeting of all American Methodist ministers was held 
 
 in Philadelphia. 
 
 Bangs, Life of Freeborn Garrettson, p. 39. 
 
 Ibid., p. 60. Methodists were considered disloyal. 
 
 Townsend, A New History of Methodism, Volume II., p. 80. 
 
 Coke, Journal, Volume I., p. 33. 
 
 wP ibid: , + p..'40. 
 
 a0 EDIGs. ) Deu 41. 
 
 11. Ibid., pp. 42-3. 
 
 12. Ibid., p. 35-6. 
 
 © 06 ITO 
 
10 
 
 13. 
 14. 
 15. 
 16. 
 17. 
 
 18. 
 
 19. 
 20. 
 
 21. 
 
 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Ibid., p. 69. No trial seems to have been held. 
 
 Asbury, Journal, Volume IL., p. 141; June 23, 1776. 
 
 Ibid., p. 214; June 10, 1778. 
 
 Ibid., Volume II., p. 305; January 1, 1798. 
 
 Ibid., Volume [III., p. 373; January 8, 1815. Asbury died in 
 March, 1815. 
 
 Other individuals continued the struggle against slavery. The 
 father of James B. Finley, convinced that slavery was wrong, 
 freed his fourteen slaves and moved from Kentucky to Ohio. The 
 twelve freedmen who accompanied him were supported for a whole 
 year (Finley, Autobiography, pp. 110-11. Finley was at this time 
 —1796—sixteen years of age). At a later time Peter Cartwright 
 did likewise, lest his children marry slaveholders and because of 
 the increasing tendency of the people to justify slavery (Cart- 
 wright, Autobiography, pp. 244-5). Mr. Willis, a follower of As- 
 bury, was so bold as to. preach to five hundred colored people 
 from the text: ‘“‘And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage 
 will I judge, said God: and after that they shall come forth, and 
 serve me in this place.’’ (Asbury, Journal, Volume II., p. 288; 
 June 25, 1797. The text is from Acts 7:7). Equally brave was 
 Jacob Gruber, a Methodist preacher in Maryland. He was arrested 
 and charged with inciting insurrection and insubordination among 
 the slaves. Although he was tried before a slaveholding judge 
 and jury he was acquitted on the ground that he had only exer- 
 cised his right of free speech. One reason for his success may 
 have been that he was ably defended by Roger B. Taney, after- 
 wards Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and famous for the 
 Dred Scott Decision. The attitude of Gruber towards slavery may 
 be seen from the statement which he made at the time of the 
 trial: ‘‘ ‘I hope, while I keep my senses, I shall consider involuntary 
 perpetual slavery miserable injustice, a system of robbery and theft’ ’’. 
 (Tyler, Memoir of Roger Brooke Taney, pp. 124-31; and Zion’s 
 Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXVIII., p. 86, col. 4; 
 June 3, 1857). Cartwright says “‘there can be no doubt that the 
 course pursued by early Methodist preachers was the cause of the 
 emancipation of thousands of this degraded race of human beings.’’ 
 General conferences were held annually until 1796, when quadren- 
 nial general conferences were inaugurated, together with the 
 Lifer pie annual conferences composed of the ministers of a certain 
 section 
 
 This conference was held in Baltimore (Paine, Life and Times of 
 McKendree, Volume I., p. 213). 
 
 A “travelling preacher’ is one, who, in the economy of a church 
 having an intinerant system, travels from place to place under the 
 direction of the appointing power of the annual conference. At 
 present they are fully ordained ministers who, in theory at least, 
 can be sent to any appointment in the conference. 
 
 Eddy, Journal (manuscript), p. 255. See also, Elliott, The Great 
 Secession, pp. 31-2; Sunderland, Anti-Slavery Manual, p. 60; Arm- 
 strong, History of the Old Baltimore Conference, p. 48; Dixon, 
 shee raatt in America, p. 393; Emory, History of the Discipline, 
 Pp. : 
 
 . A “local preacher”? is one amenable to the District and Annual con- 
 
 ferences and under the direction of some ordained minister. He is 
 not a member of the Annual conference. 
 
 . Eddy, Journal, p. 255. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 32; 
 
 Emory, History of the Discipline, p. 19; Dixon, Methodism in 
 America, p.. 393: 
 
 . Eddy, Journal, p. 256. Cf. Emory, History of the Discipline, p. 21. 
 . Asbury, Journal, Volume I., p. 378. Coke was also made a general 
 
 superintendent or bishop at this time. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 33. 
 . Ibid., pp. 33-4. See also, Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and 
 
 State, pp. 27-9. All members of the Methodist Church were required 
 to free their slaves—those between forty and forty-five years by 
 the time they were forty-five years of age; those between twenty- 
 five and forty within five years; those between twenty and twenty- 
 
47. 
 
 53. 
 54, 
 
 Anti-Slavery Precedents 1] 
 
 five by the time they were thirty; all under twenty were to be man- 
 umitted when twenty-five years. of age; and all infants at birth. 
 Assistant pastors were required to keep records of all deeds by 
 which slaves were granted their freedom. Because of the newness 
 of the rule, any member who desired to do so might quietly with- 
 draw from the Church within twelve months. Those who bought or 
 sold slaves except for the purpose of freeing them were to be im- 
 mediately expelled. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, p, 35. Cf. Eddy, Journal, p. 256; 
 
 and Lee, The Life and Times of Jesse Lee, p. 160 
 
 . Coke, Journal, Volume I., p. 39. 
 . Ibid., p. 48. The slaveholders said: ‘‘These Methodists and Bap- 
 
 tists will never rest, till they get their knives into our bellies.’’ 
 
 . Coke, Journal, Volume dS a fie Ge 
 : Elliott, The Great Secession, D. 37. Elliott emphasized the ‘“‘or’’ 
 
 because it was later changed to! ‘and.’’ In consequence the rule was 
 misinterpreted. See post, p. 116, footnote 57. 
 
 . A quarterly conference is composed of the official members of the 
 
 local Church, 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 22-3 (1796). 
 
 See also, Strickland, Life and Times of Francis Asbury, pp. 146-7. 
 
 . Asbury, Journal, Volume Il., p. 269; November 25, 1796. 
 
 ATO Beall oS Was March 25, 1798. 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 40-41 (1800). 
 . Journals, of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 41-2 (1800). 
 
 Cf. Fuller, An Appeal to the Records, pp. 36-8. 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 15-16. 
 
 . Cartwright, Fifty Years a Presiding Elder, pp. 49-50. 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 93 (1808). 
 
 . Paine, Life and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume L., p. 216., Cf. 
 
 Young, Autobiography of a Pioneer, pp. 249-50. 
 
 . Asbury, Journal, Volume III., p. 251; October 1, 1808. See also, 
 
 Sweet, The Rise of Methodism in the West, p. 148; and Cartwright, 
 Fifty ‘Years a Presiding Elder, p. 54. Asbury places the date of 
 the conference on October 1; the other sources say October 7. 
 
 . The Western Conference was divided in 1812, forming the Ten- 
 
 nessee and Ohio conferences (See Sweet, Circuit Rider Days along 
 the Ohio, p. 27.) 
 
 . Price, The Holston Methodism, pp. 474-5. 
 : McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 283- 4. The fol- 
 
 lowing year, one of the local preachers appealed his case to the 
 annua] conference. But after a very acrimonious debate, the con- 
 ference confirmed the decision of the local officials (Paine, Life 
 and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume I., pp. 288-9). 
 
 McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., p. 400. While Price 
 (The Holston Methodism, pp. 213- 14) considers this action an un- 
 warranted assumption of power, it is clear that the General Confer- 
 ence of 1812 gave annual conferences the right to change local 
 rules at pleasure. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 41 
 
 Sweet, Circuit-Rider Days along the Ohio, p. 102. 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 108-9. 
 
 SL oy Co ety opal neds 
 
 MADIG= Dorota 
 
 . The General Conference of 1816 left the rule on slavery unchanged. 
 
 The delegates re-affirmed the opposition of Methodism to slavery, 
 the ineligibility of slaveholders to official positions in the Church, 
 and renewed the requirement that every minister acquiring slaves 
 in any manner emancipate them if it were practicable. As 
 before, the responsibility for carrying out the rules was placed 
 upon the annual conferences (Journals of the General Conference, 
 Volume I., pp. 169-70 (1816). Cf, Elliott, The Great Secession, 
 pp. 41-2; Shipp, Methodism in South Carolina, pp. 474-5; Paine, 
 Life and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume I., p. 366). 
 
 McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 461-8. Cf. 
 Price, The Holston Methodism, Volume II., pp. 240-43. 
 
 Macy Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 114, col. 4; October 
 30, 1 
 
 . A “deacon” is a minister who has not met all the requirements rela- 
 
 tive to study and preaching experience. Generally, one more year 
 
12 
 
 56. 
 57. 
 
 58. 
 
 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 is required to complete the preparation so that he may be an 
 ‘*elder.’’ 
 
 After vainly petitioning the legislatures of Tennessee and Georgia 
 for permission to free them, he succeeded in Pennsylvania. 
 McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 160-61. Cf. 
 Price, The Holston Methodism, Volume II., pp. 253-4; Paine, Life 
 and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume IL. pp. 378-9. Where the 
 laws of the state permitted, ministers were required to free their 
 slaves. 
 
 Cartwright, Autobiography, pp. 195-6. Cf. Price, The Holston 
 Methodism, Volume II., pp. 254-6; and Western Christian Advocate, 
 Volume XIII, p. 114, col. 4; October 30, 1846. 
 
 . Armstrong ,The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 200; and Shipp, His- 
 
 tory of Methodism in South Carolina, p. 475. Cf. Elliott, The Great 
 Secession, p. 42; and Dixon, Methodism in America, p. 396. 
 
 . Presiding elder and minister respectively. \ 
 . McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 494-5. Cf. 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 114, col. 4; October 
 30, 1846. 
 
 . The rule of 1820 remained unchanged (Journals of the General 
 
 Conference. Volume I., p. 294—1824.) 
 
 . McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume III., p. 271. 
 . The Methodist Magazine began publication in 1818, the Christian 
 
 Advocate and Journal in 1826, and Zion’s Herald in 1828. The first 
 two were official, while the last was supported by the conferences 
 of New England. Inasmuch as these publications circulated in all 
 the conferences of the Church, their attitude towards slavery indi- 
 cates rather accurately tne sentiment of the denomination. 
 
 . The Methodist Magazine, Volume II., p. 185 (1819). 
 . Ibid., Volume III., p. 80 (1820). This story was contained in a letter 
 
 from Alexander Cummins to James Quinn, dated December 9, 1819. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume I., p. 1381, col. 4; April 
 
 21, 1827. An article from the ‘‘Morning Star’’ was quoted, in which 
 the action of the legislature was commended (Ibid., p. 179, col. 3; 
 Sab Nbc Mi ar Co 
 
 . Ibid., Volume II.,)p: 19, col. 2; October, '\5,° 1827: The letter was 
 
 dated August 14, 1827. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal and Zion’s Herald, Volume IV, p. 
 
 55, col. 3; December 4, 1829. The two papers were combined for 
 several years. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Wesleyan Journal and Zion’s Herald, 
 
 Volume IV., p. 107, col. 2; March 5, 1830. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume I., p. 181. col. 4; April 
 
 21, 1827; and Ibid., Volume II., p. 99, col. 8; February 22, 1828. 
 The Maryland Society was responsible for the repeal of a state law 
 authorizing the immediate sale of all colored persons within the 
 state, who were convicted of petty criminal] offenses. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal and Zion’s Herald, Volume IV., p. 
 
 91) col. 3; February 5. 1830. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume II., p. 95, col. 3; February 
 
 15, 1828. 
 
 . The first copy of this paper was published January 9, 1823. The 
 
 first reference to slavery was ‘‘The Negro’s Prayer’ (Volume I., 
 p. 130, col. 1; August 21, 1823). 
 
 - Zion’s Herald, Volume V., pp. 102, col. 5 and 108, col. 1; June 
 
 27, 1827. 
 
 (6. One of the Methodist abolitionists of the period just prior to the 
 
 Civil War declared that the early leaders of the Methodist Church 
 were “Christian abolitionists, and contended for emancipation’? (Long, 
 Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, p. 30.) 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 COMPROMISING PRECEDENTS 
 
 From the opposition aroused by Methodist leaders and 
 conferences it is apparent that there was a formidable pro- 
 slavery party both within and without the Church. The 
 strife which Coke and Asbury and their followers had begun? 
 was responsible for factions in conferences, legislation in the 
 more extreme states forbidding manumission of slaves, and 
 serious embarrassment to the evangelistic work of the Church. 
 
 That Methodists were responsible for much of the adverse 
 action taken by slave states there can be no doubt. In 
 December, 1800, Asbury was informed that the General 
 Conference “address” of that year had been responsible for 
 “a law which prohibited a minister’s attempting to instruct 
 any number of blacks with the door shut; and authorized a 
 peace-officer to break open the doors in such cases, and dis- 
 perse or whip the offenders.’* Ministers were forbidden to 
 hold prayer-meetings for slaves before sunrise or after nine 
 o’clock at night. The preachers themselves seem to have 
 approved these restrictions and become a part of the southern 
 system, for Asbury complained that they were “countrymen, 
 and do not speak as boldly as they ought to speak.’ 
 
 The antagonism of the pro-slavery party may be illustrated 
 by an account which James O, Andrew? contributed in 1830. 
 In the first years of the nineteenth century, two ministers, 
 George Dougherty and John Harper, were stationed at 
 Charleston, South Carolina. Harper received some anti- 
 slavery pamphlets from the North, urging that the South 
 Carolina legislature be memorialized “in behalf of the abol- 
 ition of slavery.” Harper, who deemed it imprudent to 
 engage in the enterprise, showed a copy of the document to 
 a friend. The rumor spread that he was in possession of an 
 abolition document, and Harper was required to make an 
 explanation to a city official. To prevent further difficulty, 
 the pamphlets were burned. Nevertheless, a mob assembled 
 and seized Harper as he left his church. The preacher 
 
 13 
 
41 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 managed to escape. The following evening, the rabble re- 
 turned and, not finding Harper, seized Dougherty and 
 “pumped” him. From this indignity he was rescued by a 
 lady member of his congregation. Within half a century 
 such treatment would have been considered mild for those 
 having in their possession abolition pamphlets of any kind, 
 but Andrew wrote of these two men and their persecutors: 
 “It has stamped indelible reproach on the memory of the 
 persecutors of religion, encircled with additional laurels the 
 brow of an eminent minister of Jesus Christ.’’® 
 
 Not only did the pro-slavery party outside the Church 
 object to prohibitions put upon slavery by the Church, but 
 the slaveholding members did likewise. In North Carolina, 
 Asbury found himself practically helpless in his work among 
 the slaves, not only because of the state laws but also because 
 of the opposition of his own members whom he discovered 
 hiring out their slaves to the highest bidder.” So intense 
 was the hatred of people for Asbury and his principles that 
 the bishop wrote: “Perhaps we shall soon be thought unfit 
 for the company of their dogs.”8 Asbury discovered that 
 southern people were concerned with such topics as “peace 
 with the Creek Indians, the settlement of new lands, good 
 trade, buying slaves, &c.’” 
 
 There is no evidence to prove that slaveholding Methodists 
 attempted to show that leaders of the Church had actually 
 held slaves and justified the practice. Such, however, was 
 the fact. Wesley administered the rite of baptism to a slave- 
 holder without requiring that his slaves be freed, and re- 
 frained from censuring slaveholding Methodists in the United 
 States or West Indies.1° George Whitefield used slaves in 
 connection with an orphanage in Georgia. He defended 
 his practice with Old Testament examples and clinched “his 
 argument with the declaration that ‘hot countries cannot be 
 cultivated without negroes’.”44 It was also asserted — and 
 one writer defied any one to prove the contrary!*— that 
 Coke bought slaves for land which belonged to a mission. 
 {n this instance the purchase of slaves was justified because 
 the gift of land was “providential” and slaves were needed 
 to till the soil. Besides, it was held that slaves would re- 
 ceive better treatment at the hands of Methodists than 
 “unawakened” persons.!* The only reason that M’Kendree 
 
 «ce 
 
 did not buy slaves was because he was advised that “a | 
 
Compromising Precedents 15 
 
 slave would not obey him more readily than if he belonged 
 to another.” 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church may have become a 
 slaveholding institution. The Virginia conference of 1794 
 was much disturbed by the slavery question. Ministers 
 almost unanimously agreed to free their slaves, provided 
 that the laws of the state in which they resided permitted 
 emancipation. Those who refused to free their slaves were 
 to forfeit their ministerial standing. Where state laws did 
 not allow manumission, the slaves were to be paid for their 
 labor, and at the owner’s death were to be left to some 
 “person or persons, or the society, in trust, to bring about 
 their liberty.”1* By such a provision the Methodist Church 
 might have become a slaveholding denomination. 
 
 Leaders of Methodism very early came to the parting 
 of the ways. Anti-slavery sermons, rules and petitions 
 caused the pro-slavery group to refuse Methodists per- 
 mission to impart religious instruction to slaves. It was 
 apparent that something must be done immediately or the 
 work of the Church would be greatly limited. The situation 
 was all the more serious because most Church members lived 
 in slaveholding states. Three paths were open to Asbury: 
 and his contemporaries. First, they might yield completely 
 to the pro-slavery party in the Church. To such a policy 
 probably most of the ministers were opposed. Second, they 
 might hold steadfastly to their original anti-slavery position. 
 If they did it was evident that the Church would become a 
 sectional institution’® Or, they could compromise their 
 principles so as to retain slaveholders in the Church and 
 yet oppose slavery in those states in which manumission 
 was not forbidden. When this attitude towards slavery 
 was once taken, it was inevitable that still greater conces- 
 sions would be made to conciliate southern slaveholders. 
 For good or ill, Methodist leaders made the momentous 
 decision to compromise with a known evil. 
 
 To properly understand the attitude and action of early 
 Methodist ministers it should be borne in mind that the 
 attention of Church leaders of that day was fixed upon 
 spiritual and “other-worldy” interests rather than upon the 
 evils of this life. Religion was individual rather than social. 
 If the social ills could be remedied without endangering 
 what was considered the first duty of ministers and Church, 
 
16 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 it was well; if there seemed to be a conflict of interests, 
 the souls of men were to be saved even though freedom of 
 their bodies were sacrificed in the process. These ministers 
 were the product of the age in which they lived and re- 
 mained in perfect harmony with current opinion. Inwardly, 
 they undoubtedly rebelled against the existence in the 
 Church of an evil so repugnant to them, but in the crises 
 which they faced they succumbed to the spirit of com- 
 promise. Finally, they became the very incarnation of that 
 spirit when they dealt with the slavery issue. 
 
 When Thomas Coke found that his opposition, and that of 
 the Church, to slavery caused the people to turn from the 
 Methodists, he began to suit his addresses and sermons to 
 the wishes of his hearers. While in Virginia he wrote: 
 “Here I bore a public testimony against Slavery, and have 
 found out a method of delivering it without ‘causing a 
 tumult: and that is, by first addressing the Negroes in a 
 very pathetic manner on the Duty of Servants to Masters; 
 and then the Whites will receive quietly what I have to 
 say.” By 1787 his ideas had undergone a still further 
 modification, for he confessed that, while he was probably 
 right in his condemnations of slavery, he showed lack of 
 judgment “to deliver them from the pulpit.27 It was 
 subsequent to this decision that he visited Richmond. While 
 many feared for his life because of his former attitude 
 towards slavery, the governor allowed him to speak in the 
 Court-house and the incident passed off without any dis- 
 turbance. Coke declared that he was “a plain blunt man, 
 that goes directly on,’’28 but it is wholly improbable that he 
 delivered an abolition sermon on this occasion. 
 
 For twenty years after Coke made his discovery, Asbury 
 continued his stubborn opposition to slavery. But in 1807 
 he completely changed the content of his public addresses 
 to slaves and their owners. To slaves he insisted that they 
 should obey their masters “with fear and trembling” “as 
 unto Christ”; then masters listened quietly to messages 
 intended especially for them. As a result of this method, 
 some twenty whites and as many slaves were converted in 
 a single meeting.!® 
 
 Annual and general conferences prior to 1831 illustrate 
 still more fully and conclusively the tendency of the Church 
 to compromise their principles in answer to protests by 
 
Compromising Precedents 17 
 
 slaveholders. So completely did ministers come to share 
 the opinions of slaveholders that the former might, with 
 justice, be charged with being pro-slavery advocates. But 
 the fact is that they compromised their principles with evi- 
 dent reluctance and only gradually came to support the 
 pro-slavery party. 
 
 As has been stated in the previous chapter, the conference 
 of 1780 forbade elders to hold slaves. But no provision 
 was made for the punishment of local preachers or laymen 
 who refused to follow the leadership of ordained min- 
 isters.2° Weak and ineffective as these regulations were, 
 they were nullified by the Virginia conference which re- 
 fused to be governed by them, since they believed they were 
 “calculated to irritate the minds of the people, and by no 
 means convince them of their errors.”*1 Because this annual 
 conference refused to obey the General Conference, further 
 concessions were made to slaveholders. Anti-slavery rules 
 were to be enforced only in states which permitted manu- 
 mission of slaves, and, according to the General Conference 
 action in 1783 local preachers were to be given another year 
 to free their slaves. If they refused they were to be 
 expelled.2* The rules of 1784 were still more drastic, but 
 while local preachers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and 
 Maryland were to be suspended immediately for non-com- 
 pliance, those in Virginia were given another year to com- 
 plete manumission.”% 
 
 When the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized in 
 1784, rules were adopted which, if enforced, would have 
 destroyed slavery within the denomination. But while slave- 
 holders in other states were given one year to obey the 
 rule, those in Virginia were allowed double that period. 
 Further, the incisiveness of the rules was almost entirely 
 destroyed by the provision that they were “to affect the 
 members of our society no further than as they are con- 
 sistent with the laws of the States in which they reside.’”* 
 It was soon apparent that the new rules — even those pro- 
 viding for gradual emancipation— were impracticable. In 
 annual conferences held within six months after the 
 Christmas Conference of 1784 the rules on slavery were 
 suspended “till the deliberation of a future conference,” 
 at which time all members were to be given the same period 
 to consider their future relation to slavery. At the expira- 
 
18 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 tion of the period agreed upon, the rule against slavery 
 was to be enforced.2> The reason for the action of these 
 conferences is explained by Coke, June 1, 1785, just before 
 he sailed to England: “We thought it prudent to suspend 
 the minute concerning Slavery, on account of the great 
 opposition that had been given it, our work being in too 
 infantile a state to push things to extremity.”°° 
 
 In the Discipline of 1792 nothing remained of the section 
 on slavery except a general denunciation of the evil. Since 
 there was no penalty for those who violated the ideals of 
 the Church, the condemnation was an idle thunderbolt. So 
 reactionary was this General Conference that O’Kelley, who 
 had made an unsuccessful attempt to restrict the power 
 of bishops, unfolded to M’Kendree his plans for a secession 
 from the Methodists and the organization of “a republican, 
 . no slavery glorious Church!" 
 
 In 1796 the General Conference instructed annual con- 
 ferences to enforce the rules on slavery.28 Obviously, 
 conferences composed of ministers favorable to slaveholders 
 would not be active in such work. By 1800 the rule was con- 
 sidered so worthless that three proposals were submitted, all 
 of them having as their ultimate purpose the destruction of 
 slavery in the Methodist Episcopal Church. One member sug- 
 gested that no slaveholder should be admitted into the mem- 
 bership of the Church. Another moved that all negro children 
 belonging to Methodists and born after July 4, 1800 should 
 be emancipated at certain ages to be agreed upon. A third 
 proposed that every slaveholding member of the Church 
 should free all his slaves, the quarterly conference to decide 
 the length of time each slave should serve, unless the laws 
 of the state expressly prohibited emancipation.?® The fact 
 that they were all vetoed by the Conference is conclusive 
 evidence that the Church had no intention of abolishing 
 slavery among members who desired to continue the prac- 
 tice. The further fact that travelling preachers were re- 
 quired to free their slaves only when it was “practicable” 
 is additional proof that opposition to state laws was not 
 intended.*° 
 
 The spirit of compromise continued to gain ground in 
 1804. By motion of Freeborn Garrettson, who had formerly 
 been so outspoken against slavery,*! the subject was left to 
 the three bishops to “form a section to suit the southern and 
 
Compromising Precedents 19 
 
 northern states as they in their wisdom may think best.’ 
 Asbury refused to serve and the question was therefore left 
 to the Conference for decision.*”. After discussion, the prob- 
 lem was referred to a committee of seven — one from each 
 conference**— who drew up a report in conformity with 
 Garrettson’s resolution.3+ In addition, two more important 
 sections were made a part of the report. The first read: 
 “The members of our societies in the States of North Caro- 
 lina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, shall be ex- 
 empted from the operation of the above rules.” To further 
 re-assure slaveholders, they required “preachers, from time 
 to time, as occasion served, (to) admonish and exhort all 
 slaves to render due respect and obedience to the commands 
 and interests of their respective masters.” ?4 
 
 The action of the General Conference of 1808 was a re- 
 flection of the surrender made by’ Asbury in 1807.35 It is 
 true that the attempt to take from the quarterly conferences 
 the responsibility for deciding how long a slave should serve 
 in those states permitting such action ended in failure. Fur- 
 ther, a motion to remove the entire section from the Discip- 
 line was defeated. The articles in regard to the great evil 
 of slavery; the caution which should be exercised in ad- 
 mitting slaveholders to official positions; and the require- 
 ment that slaveholders, before they became officials in the 
 Church, should manumit their slaves, if the state laws per- 
 mitted, were retained. Ministers were no longer required 
 to urge slaves to be obedient to their masters, but masters 
 were not required to free their slaves. By article three 
 annual conferences were authorized “to form their own 
 regulations relative to buying and selling slaves’’.*® 
 
 That the sentiment in favor of comprise was practically 
 unanimous among Church leaders seems to be established 
 beyond cavil when we read in the Journal that it was “moved 
 trom the chair that there be one thousand forms of discip- 
 line prepared for the use of the South Carolina Conference 
 in which the section and rule on slavery be left out. 
 Carried.’’?? Lee says that the motion must have been made by 
 Asbury,38 but the evidence is not clear. Some light is thrown 
 on the source of the General Conference resolution by noting 
 the attitude of Asbury and M’Kendree towards anti-slavery 
 legislation in the Tennessee conference of 1808. When they 
 were requested to give their opinions in writing on the sub- 
 
20 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 ject of slavery, Bishop Asbury read a paper in which he sug- 
 gested caution and moderation and discouraged any legislation 
 relative to slavery at that time. His presentation of the 
 conservative viewpoint was received with “dissatisfaction ; 
 indeed, it is said that ‘the audience hissed him’.”8® When 
 the conference expressed a preference for M’Kendree’s 
 anti-slavery principles, Asbury answered with a smile and 
 tore up his paper.39 
 
 Subsequent to the Tennessee conference, Asbury spoke 
 to large numbers of whites and blacks in Tennessee and 
 met with an encouraging response.*° But when he returned 
 to North Carolina and Virginia, the reception by the people 
 was far from cordial.44 Here, the expurgated edition of the 
 Discipline was not in circulation and the effect on the 
 Church gave Asbury much concern. When Asbury met 
 with the Virginia conference he found a deplorable situa- 
 tion. Compared with three thousand new members in 
 southern states and an equal number in the West, an increase 
 of three hundred in Virginia churches seemed meagre in- 
 deed. Although some allowance could be made for losses 
 by removal to the new country, the explanation was still 
 unsatisfactory. Asbury declared: “We are defrauded of 
 great numbers by the pains that are taken to keep the blacks 
 from us — their masters are afraid of the influence of our 
 principles”. Having located the chief reason for the con- 
 fusion of the Church, Asbury asked himself: “Would not 
 amelioration in the condition and treatment of slaves 
 have produced more practical good to the poor Africans 
 than an attempt at their emancipation?’ He declared that 
 the state of society did not allow manumission of slaves; 
 that Methodists were the only ones interested in the welfare 
 of slaves; and that masters would not permit slaves to listen 
 to anti-slavery preachers. Face to face with this condition, 
 Asbury asked: “What is the personal liberty of the African 
 which he may abuse, to the salvation of his soul—how 
 may it be compared?’#* Writing of this conference, Lee 
 asserts: “Their present lameness, therefore, and their ina- 
 bility to reach, with the comforts of religion, the poor slave, 
 was the providential exposition and punishment of their 
 unwise and gratuitous legislation upon the subject.’#% 
 
 At the opening of the General Conference of 1812 As- 
 bury desired that few new rules should be added to the 
 
 Pe 
 
Compromising Precedents 21 
 
 Discipline.** So far as slavery was concerned his wishes 
 were followed. The only mention of slavery in the Journals 
 of this session is a request of D. Young of the Western 
 Conference that the Conference “inquire into the nature 
 and moral tendency of slavery”, but the motion was tabled 
 and never considered.4® Another source declares that the 
 section on slavery was to be enforced where its provisions 
 did not conflict with the civil law, unless it was considered 
 a case of “mercy or necessity.’’46 Elliot says that the third 
 article was introduced by an explanatory clause, specifically 
 stating that each annual conference was authorized to make 
 its own provisions on the subject of slavery because “the 
 laws of some of the states do not admit of emancipating 
 of slaves, without a special act of the legislature.” 47 
 
 In the previous chapter, Learner Blackman was cited as 
 a leader of the anti-slavery faction of Tennessee conference 
 in 1812.48 By the following year, however, he had joined 
 the opposition. When a local preacher appealed from the 
 decision of his quarterly conference, Blackman supported 
 him. Blackman declared that the General Rule did not 
 apply in this case; that it was inconsistent to receive and 
 retain members who owned slaves, and exclude those 
 who bought them; that this preacher had been controlled by 
 the most humane feelings; and that the Nashville quarterly 
 conference had, in other cases, considered it no more evil 
 for ministers to hold slaves than for members to do so. He 
 insisted that great harm had already been done by this 
 meddling with people’s legal and private affairs; and that, 
 since he could see no moral wrong in the transaction, if the 
 slave were treated humanely, he would refuse to conform 
 to the decision of the conference. Bishop M’Kendree re- 
 buked Blackman and reminded him that he “ought to keep 
 the rule or change it.’’4? It is true that the conference sup- 
 ported the quarterly conference rather than Blackman, but 
 this increasing opposition was a constant source of trouble 
 for the anti-slavery party.49 
 
 Reference has been made to radical action taken in Ten- 
 nessee conference in 1815, relative to buying and selling 
 slaves.5° But this was only an attempt to interpret existing 
 rules. That these rules were unsatisfactory to the majority 
 of the conference there is no doubt. On motion of Peter 
 Cartwright, a committee of five was appointed to draft rules 
 
2 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 on buying and selling slaves. The report, which was adopted, 
 affirmed their belief that slavery was a moral evil, but de- 
 clared that, since some states did not permit emancipation 
 except by special act of the legislatures, they could not compel 
 their members to liberate their slaves. Although they ad- 
 mitted that it was impossible to make regulations to meet 
 every situation, they proposed two rules as the judgment of 
 the conference. First, mercenary buying or selling of slaves 
 was prohibited, but this did not apply to any person who 
 bought or sold slaves in order to keep members of families 
 together. Secondly, no person was éligible to the office of 
 deacon unless he assured officials of the conference “senti- 
 mentally, in person or by letter, that he disapproves of slavery 
 and declares his willingness and intention to execute, when- 
 ever it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slave or 
 slaves, conformably to the laws of the State in which he 
 lives.””51 
 
 The delegates to the General Conference of 1816 were 
 much disturbed by the slavery question. A memorial on 
 slavery from some Methodists on Staunton Circuit, Virginia, 
 was referred to a select committee of nine. The committee 
 reported that they had seriously considered the subject and 
 were of the opinion that, “under present existing circum- 
 stances in relation to slavery, little can be done to abolish 
 a practice so contrary to the principles of moral justice. 
 They are sorry to say that the evil appears to be past remedy ; 
 and they are led to deplore the destructive consequences 
 which have already accrued, and are yet likely to result 
 therefrom.” They declared that laws of southern and west- 
 ern states forbade emancipation, and that changing civil laws 
 was not within the province of the General Conference.5? 
 
 The demoralization of the anti-slavery forces is no more 
 clearly seen than in the Tennessee conference of 1816.53 
 Hardy M. Cryer had been required by the preceding con- 
 ference to endeavor to emancipate his slaves, and a report 
 was to be made to the conference. He declared that he 
 could not succeed in the endeavor, and the conference ap- 
 proved his report. He then stated that, within the year, 
 he had bought another slave. An inquiry was immediately 
 made into this new case. The presiding officer, Bishop Rob- 
 erts, decided that the rule had not been violated. Cryer’s char- 
 acter was then passed and he was elected elder. All this 
 
Compronusing Precedents 23 
 
 was accomplished apparently with little debate and less invest- 
 igation.®+ In fact, so discouraged were the anti-slavery fac- 
 tion that several ministers migrated to Ohio during this and 
 succeeding years. 
 
 As a result of this migration, the conservative and pro- 
 slavery faction gained control of the conference. This fact 
 is undoubtedly responsible for the action in 1818, by which 
 all previous rules were repealed and the following resolution 
 adopted: “Resolved, That we receive the printed rule on 
 Slavery, in the form of Discipline as full and sufficient on 
 that subject.”55 Since the General Conference of 1816 em- 
 powered annual conferences to make and enforce rules on 
 slavery, the resolution could only mean that nothing preju- 
 dicial to slaveholding would be done in Tennessee conference. 
 While attempts were made to enforce previous anti-slavery 
 legislation, radicalism in Tennessee and Kentucky was fight- 
 ing a losing battle. After 1820 the extreme anti-slavery group 
 was almost completely robbed of power. 
 
 The Ohio conference was decidedly anti-slavery in 1812.56 
 But in succeeding years opposition to slavery gradually de- 
 clined. In 1813, the report on slavery was carried over 
 until 1814,5% when it was decided to retain the previous 
 regulations.°8 But is is significant that, after 1812, no trial, 
 involving anyone’s relation to slavery, was brought before 
 this conference. In 1817, “the conference rescinded their 
 written rules on the buying and selling slaves.”°9 
 
 During the decade following 1820, the tendency of Meth- 
 odism was against any action which would utterly destroy 
 slaveholding by Church members. The General Conference 
 of 1820 prescribed no penalty for the holding of slaves by 
 members, and the rule, as before, was so worded that it 
 had little or no effect in sections where slaveholding was 
 most extensive.6® The refusal of General and annual con- 
 ferences to enact any legislation which interfered with slave- 
 holding became more and more noticeable.6! One candidate 
 was refused ordination by Virginia conference in 1825 “for 
 disaffection to our government,” the reason for the refusal 
 being an attack upon slavery.62 In 1828 an attempt was 
 made by members of the General Conference to pass a 
 resolution, by which slaveholders who treated their slaves 
 inhumanely, either by refusing them proper care or separat- 
 ing, by means of purchase or sale, members of families, 
 
24 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 should be brought to trial and treated as in cases of immor- 
 ality. But the resolution was tabled and never considered.®% 
 
 While various Church publications printed articles which 
 were anti-slavery in tone,®4 it is to be noted that no writer 
 contended for immediate, unconditional emancipation. It is 
 true that they condemned the African slave trade, but that 
 traffic was under the ban of the law. The domestic slave 
 trade was protected by state and national laws, and with 
 slavery thus protected Methodist leaders did not interfere. 
 There is no shred of evidence to show that any Methodist 
 conference ever condemned — or supported — the Missouri 
 Compromise in 1820. 
 
 The unwillingness of influential preachers to condemn 
 slavery may be shown by two illustrations. Cartwright 
 wrote: I believe, from more than twenty years’ experience as 
 a travelling preacher in slave states, that the most successful 
 way to ameliorate the condition of the slaves, and Christian- 
 ize them and finally secure their freedom, is to treat their 
 owners kindly, and not to meddle politically with slavery.” ®® 
 The editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal, in an 
 article entitled “Slavery”, said: “The question submitted to 
 us by ‘A Female Member of the Methodist Episcopal Church’, 
 on the subject of slavery, involves considerations too weighty 
 for us to decide upon. We are not sufficiently acquainted 
 with local circumstanceés and other peculiarities in this case, to 
 enable us to judge for another. All we can say is, in the 
 language of the apostle, ‘If thou mayest be free, use it 
 rather.’’’®® It seems impossible that any slaveholder would 
 ever cancel his subscription through fear that this editor was 
 attempting to organize a slave insurrection ! 
 
 A review of the first half century of legislation by the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church shows that, while many leaders 
 were personally opposed to slavery, they immediately com- 
 promised their principles that the Church might grow and the 
 slaves be evangelized. It has been demonstrated that con- 
 ences — both General and annual — took different attitudes 
 on the question of slavery. Sometimes they reversed their 
 own action in the same session. With such a bewildering 
 diversity of legislation, it was possible for their successors 
 to prove that the Church was opposed to slavery and slave- 
 holders; and also that it had compromised on the “sum of 
 all villanies.” 
 
Age 
 
 37. 
 38. 
 
 Compromsing Precedents 25 
 
 Supra, pp. 1-3. 
 
 Asbury, Journal, Volume IIl., pp. 8-9; December 21, 1800. 
 
 Ibid., p. 215; February 5, 1807. 
 
 He became a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church and later 
 the first bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. It 
 was over Andrew that the notable contest of 1844 was waged. 
 That is, he was held under a pump while water was pumped 
 into his face. 
 
 Andrew, Rise and Progress of Methodism in Charleston, South 
 Carolina (The Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, Volume 
 XIl.—New Series, Volume I.—1830, pp. 21-2.) 
 
 Asbury, Journal, Volume II., p. 273; December 24, 1796. 
 
 Ibid., Volume III., pp. 13-14; January 30, 1801. 
 
 Asbury, Journal, Volume II., p. 97; March 13, 1791. 
 
 . Norwood, Schism in the Methodist Church, p. 15, footnote 28. 
 
 Townsend, New History of Methodism, Volume L., p. 272. 
 
 . Virginia Sermon Pamphlets, Volume 2—An Address to the People 
 
 of the County of Accomac, by George P. Scarburgh and fifteen 
 others. 
 
 . Southern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 9, col. 1; June 27, 
 
 1845. Cf. South-Western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 7, 
 col. 1; December 138, 1844. 
 
 . Asbury, Journal, Volume II., pp. 208-9. 
 . Even in the North it is to be doubted whether anti-slavery prin- 
 
 ciples would have been accepted with any enthusiasm at this time. 
 
 . Coke, Journal, Volume 'I., p. 37 
 
 H,, D.'.69. 
 
 said. pp, 70-71, 
 
 . Asbury, Journal, Volume IIlI., p. 215; February 4, 1807. 
 
 . Eddy, Journal, p. 255. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, pp. 31-2; 
 
 Sunderland, Anti-Slavery Manual, p. 60; Armstrong, History of the 
 Old Baltimore Conference, p. 48; Dixon, Methodism in America, 
 p. 393; Emory, History of the Discipline, p. 15. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, pp. 31-2; Armstrong, History of the 
 
 Old Baltimore Conference, p. 48. 
 
 . Eddy, Journal, p. 255. Cf. HEmory, History of the Discipline, p. 19- 
 . Eddy, Journal, p. 258. See also, Emory, History of the Discipline, 
 
 21 
 
 D211, 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, pp. 33-4. Cf. Long, Pictures of 
 
 Slavery in Church and State, pp. 27-9. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 35. See also, Eddy, Journal, p. 
 
 256; and Lee, Life and Times of Jesse Lee, p. 160. 
 
 . Coke, Journal, Volume I., p. 46. 
 . Paine, Life and Times of Bishop M’Kendres, Volume I., p. 139. 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 22-3 (1796). 
 
 Cf. Strickland, Life and Times of Francis Asbury, pp. 302-3 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I. pp. 40-41 (1800). 
 . Ibid., p. 44. Cf Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 39; and Emory 
 
 History of the Discipline, pp. 375-6. 
 Supra, p. 1. 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 60 (1804). 
 . Ibid., p. 61 (1804). 
 . Ibid., pp. 62-3. Cf. Shipp, History of Methodism in South Caro- 
 
 lina, p. 474: and Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 40. 
 
 . Supra, p. 16. 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 93 (1808). See 
 
 also, Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 41. Blliott does a rather 
 skillful piece of work in his attempt to gloss over the action of 
 the General Conference. The Journals furnish the needed corrective. 
 Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 93 (1808). 
 
 He contends that the motion must have been made by Asbury, 
 since M’ Kendree had never been south in a ministerial capacity, 
 except in Virginia, and was therefore unfamiliar with that section; 
 while Asbury, who had been in the South for the previous twenty- 
 three years, was fully acquainted with the slavery situation. (Lee, 
 Life and Times of Jesse Lee, pp. 444-5). But Bishop Paine, the 
 biographer of M’Kendree, maintains that the latter was born and 
 reared in the midst of slavery, and that his parents and nearest 
 kindred were slaveholders (Paine, Life and Times of Bishop M’Ken- 
 Gree, Volume I., pp. 212-15). It is to be noted that a semi-official 
 
26 
 
 39. 
 
 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 statement of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, attributes the 
 motion to Asbury (Myers, The Disruption of the M, H. Church, 
 p. 83). Whatever decision may be rendered on this incident, it 
 is perfectly clear that the Conference: was determined that the 
 evil of slavery should not disrupt the Church or impede its work 
 in redeeming the souls of men, even though their bodies were left 
 in subjection (Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 157-8). 
 After such far-reaching compromises it is not strange that Asbury 
 recorded nothing in his Journal regarding the action of the General 
 Conference on slavery (Asbury, Journal, Volume [III., pp. 243-4; 
 May, 1808) 
 
 Paine, Life and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume I., p. 216. 
 From the action of these two bishops at the Tennessee conference 
 I incline to the opinion that Asbury rather than M’Kendree made 
 the motion in General Conference. 
 
 . Asbury, Journal, Volume IIL, p. 254; November 21, 1808. — 
 USED igo oep 25:63 February if 1809. Cf. Paine, Life and Times of 
 
 Bishop M’Kendree, Volume I., pp. 219-20. 
 
 . Asbury, Journal, Volume III, pp. 257-8; February, 1809. 
 . Lee, Life and Times of Jesse Lee, p. 460. 
 . Asbury, Journal, Volume III., p. 326; May 1, 1812. The General 
 
 Conference was held in New York. 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 121 (1812). 
 . Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 166. 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 41. Cf. Henckle, The Life of 
 
 Henry Bidleman Bascom, p. 115. 
 
 OUD as © Dat 6: 
 
 . Paine, Life and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume L, pp. 288-9. 
 ) Supra, pp. 6-7. 
 
 . McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 401-2. Price 
 
 (The Holston Methodism, pp. 215-16) affirms that, for the most part, 
 all provisions for eradicating slavery in the Church remained a 
 dead letter, but that this action was a disturbing element among 
 the ministers. 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 139, 169-70 (1816). 
 . Slaves had to be freed if it were ‘‘expedient.” 
 . McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 461-8. Cart- 
 
 wright (Autobiography, pp. 156-7) proves conclusively that radi- 
 ecalism was not triumphant in Tennessee conference in 1816. ‘‘No 
 question gave us much trouble at that time. It is true slavery was 
 a troublesome matter to legislate on; but the one-eyed creature 
 called Rabid Abolitionism had, at that time, been just born, and 
 had but just cut its teeth, and could not bite hard; and it is a 
 notorious fact that all the preachers from the slaveholding states 
 denounced slavery as a moral evil . 
 
 . McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, ey III., pp. 19-20. 
 
 PDUs. Doe ks 
 . Sweet, Circuit-rider Days along the Ohio, p. 117. 
 PAW ono RIN ap et Ae 
 
 . Ibid., p. 158. More than a quarter of a century was to elapse 
 
 before the Ohio conference took action against slavery 
 
 . Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 300, “Cf. Elliott, 
 
 The Great Secession, p. 42. 
 
 . Within the writer’s knowledge there is no evidence to show that 
 
 any northern annual conference except the Ohio passed a resolu- 
 tion against slavery prior to 1835. 
 
 . Bennett, Memorials of Methodism in Virginia, p. 709. 
 
 : Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 337-57 (1828). 
 . Supra, pp. 8-9. 
 
 . Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 422. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume V,, p. 14, col. 5; September 
 
 24, 1830. 
 
 
 
CHAD RoLul 
 
 PHILANTHROPIC PRECEDENTS 
 
 In preceding chapters we have considered the attitude of 
 Methodist leaders and the legislation of various conferences 
 on slavery. The effect which Methodist rules had on slave- 
 holders was especially emphasized. Further, it was shown 
 that the reaction of slaveholders to anti-slavery legislation 
 of the Church produced very noticeable changes in the rules 
 adopted by official conferences. 
 
 During the period from 1780 to 1831 another question 
 pressed for an answer: namely, “What disposition shall be 
 made of the negro?’ Three solutions were proposed. The 
 first was that slaves should be freed and allowed to remain 
 in the state in which they were then living or remove to an- 
 other state. The second suggestion was that the negroes 
 remain slaves, but that the Church do everything possible, 
 short of emancipation, to ameliorate the condition of slaves. 
 The third, and perhaps the most popular of all, was that 
 slaves should be freed, on condition that they become colon- 
 ists in Africa. 
 
 The first demand of Methodist leaders was that slaves 
 should be freed, either immediately or gradually. Some of the 
 early arguments and sermons of Asbury and Coke can 
 mean nothing else than that they believed emancipation 
 to be the only true and just solution of this problem. Fol- 
 lowers of Asbury, such as Willis and Gruber,! were equally 
 determined in their efforts to secure manumission of slaves. 
 Indeed, if they had been made a half century later, their 
 statements would have been considered incendiary in char- 
 acter. 
 
 The natural result was that slaveholders refused to belong 
 to a Church whose leaders harbored and furthered anti- 
 slavery principles, and Methodist ministers were denied free 
 access to the slave population. At Georgetown, South Ca- 
 rolina, Asbury records that, while there were a hundred 
 negro members, there were only seven or eight white 
 
 27 
 
28 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Methodists, “our doctrine being too close, and our discipline 
 too strict.”2 As has been shown,? many laws were passed 
 and almost insurmountable obstacles placed in the path of 
 the Church which attempted to destroy slavery. The work 
 of Methodists among the slaves threatened to end in failure. 
 It rernained for ecclesiastical leaders to try conciliation and 
 amelioration where uncompromising radicalism had been 
 demonstrated a failure. 
 
 It was in 1778 that Asbury wrote relative to emancipat*on- 
 ists and slaves: “But there is cause to presume, that som¢ are 
 more intent on promoting the freedom of their bodies, than 
 the freedom of their souls; without which they must be 
 the vassals of Satan in eternal fire.”* Most of the Methodist 
 legislation on this phase of the question seems to have been 
 passed for the purpose, first of all, to save the souls of 
 slaves, without regard to the state of their bodies. In 1780, 
 when the first rules relative to slavery were passed, due 
 regard was shown for the interests of both slaves and their 
 owners. They determined that the assistant pastor should 
 “meet the colored people himself, and appoint as his helpers, 
 in his absence, proper white persons, and not permit them 
 to stay late, and meet by themselves.”® Four years later, 
 the Christmas conference specifically ordered that slaves 
 should receive religious instruction. In 1785 ministers were 
 required to “leave nothing undone for the spiritual benefit 
 and salvation” of slaves. Societies were to be organized 
 among those slaves who seemed most religious.?7 In 1790, 
 provision was made for the teaching of “learning and piety” 
 to servants. Sunday schools were to be organized for all 
 negroes who would attend and who showed ability to learn.? 
 Ins 1824 the General Conference required all ministers to 
 urge upon their members the necessity of teaching slaves to 
 read the Bible and of permitting them to attend Church 
 services.® 
 
 The responsibilty of the Church for the salvation of 
 slaves was clearly recognized. The Rev. Stephen Olin deliv- 
 ered an address before the Missionary Society of South Caro- 
 lina conference in January, 1824, in which he declared: “Our 
 forefathers, together with a rich inheritance of moral and 
 political advantages, have left to our sympathies and our 
 piety, the . . . charge of an exotic population, unrighteously 
 introduced amongst us, whose existence is the worst foe 
 
 
 
Philanthropic Precedents 29 
 
 to our prosperity, and whose rapid multiplication looks, with 
 a threatening aspect upon the perpetuity of our happy insti- 
 tutions.” He declared that much was being done for the 
 negroes. “Religion freely admits them to her churches, her 
 instructions, and her sacraments.’® The report of the same 
 society for this year substantiated Olin’s statement. ‘That 
 we hold in the membership of the Church within our Con- 
 ference, thirteen thousand negroes, will be admitted as evi- 
 dence that they are not forgotten among the multitudes whom 
 we serve.” The only boon they asked was “a free, unsus- 
 pected, universal access to them.’’?° 
 
 Not only did the Methodist Church permit negroes to 
 become members but they were occasionally used as 
 preachers. Asbury ordained a negro, probably as a local 
 preacher. He was immediately charged with having ordained 
 a slave. His Journal reads: “A charge had been brought 
 against me for ordaining a slave, but there was no farther 
 pursuit of the case when it was discovered that I was ready 
 to prove his freedom; the subject of the contention was 
 nearly white, and his respectable father would neither own 
 nor manumit him.”!4 In 1824 the General Conference ruled 
 that colored preachers and official members should have the 
 same privileges as whites where the usages of the country 
 did not prohibit the exercise of such privileges. If there 
 were enough negro preachers to justify their organization, 
 separate conferences might be formed. Negro preachers 
 might be employed to travel and preach, if their services 
 were judged necessary, provided that they met all the dis- 
 ciplinary requirements.!? 
 
 What was the nature of messages delivered to slaves? It 
 is probable that most sermons to negroes, like those to whites, 
 dealt with individual salvation from unbelief and immortality. 
 But preachers carefully protected the interests of. slave- 
 holders. When Coke first began to compromise on slavery 
 he was able to secure the good will of masters by first insist- 
 ing that slaves be obedient to their owners.% Asbury gave 
 expression to the same thought when he preached from the 
 text found in Ephesians vi. 5-8: “Servants, be obedient to 
 them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear 
 and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ, 
 doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing 
 service, as to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that what- 
 
30 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 soever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive 
 of the Lord, whether he be bound or free.”!4 In 1804 
 the sentiment of Coke and Asbury was embodied in the law 
 of the Church. The rule read: “Let our preachers, from 
 time to time, as occasion serves, admonish and exhort all 
 slaves to render due respect to the commands and interests 
 of their respective masters.”45 
 
 Church leaders were much gratified over the smallest evi- 
 dences of success among the negroes. Asbury even noted 
 the case of an old negress who was freed by her master 
 “because she had too much religion for him.?® Without 
 doubt, Asbury was overjoyed at the news of wonderful re- 
 vivals in Kentucky and the South, where between four and 
 five thousand negroes were received into the membership of 
 various churches.!* Especially did he rejoice when the West 
 and the South each showed a gain of three thousand new 
 members.1® In 1820 it was stated that “many of the people ~ 
 of colour” had joined the Methodist societies and that many 
 more had “been awakened and converted to God, but from a 
 variety of causes, could not join (the) society.”!® 
 
 While the anti-slavery legislation of the Church continued 
 to hamper the Methodist work among the slaves, yet as a 
 result of the greater consideration given to their needs and 
 the desires of slaveholders, the number of negro Methodists 
 steadily increased. In 1787 the number of negro Methodists 
 was 3,893; by 1790 it had reached 11,682.79 In the decade 
 from 1793 to 1803 about five thousand more were received 
 as members — slightly more than the increase for the period 
 1790 to 1793. Of these five thousand, almost four thousand 
 were added during 1802 and 1803.74 By 1817 negroes in 
 the Methodist Church numbered over 43,000.22 During the 
 succeeding six years only about 1500 more became mem- 
 bers.22 In 1830 the records showed that, of the total 
 membership of 471,791, 69,230 were negroes.*4 
 
 Negro Methodists were largely in the South. In 1797, 
 only 588 negro members were north of Mason and Dixon’s 
 line, and only 99 negro Methodists were west of the Appal- 
 achian mountains.2° Twenty years later there were almost 
 2400 in the West, and 1581 in the Genessee, New York and 
 New England conferences.?? In 1830, the records show that, 
 of the negro Methodists, New England conferences had 
 
Philanthropic Precedents 31 
 
 only 263, while the Philadelphia, Baltimore, Virginia, South 
 Carolina and Georgia conference had 52,975.24 It is obvious 
 that evangelization of negroes was confined largely to the 
 older slaveholding states, and that it was being accomplished 
 by preachers who had the confidence of the planters. That 
 the methods used had the approval of conservatives is evi- 
 denced by the statement of Cartwright: “Let the owners | 
 see and know that your whole mission is the salvation of 
 the slaves as well as their owners, and that you have not 
 established any underground railroad, and that it is not your 
 mission to abduct their slaves. In this way more is to be 
 done for the final extirpation of American slavery than all _ 
 others put together for these ultraists breathe nothing but 
 death and slaughter.”°° 
 
 The third method by which early Methodists sought to 
 improve the condition of slaves was the colonization in Africa 
 of such as owners might be induced to set free. “The 
 National Colonization Society of America’*? had the official 
 endorsement of the Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1824, 
 the General Conference received a communication from the 
 Society, but nothing seems to have been done at that time.?® 
 But four years later, the General Conference heartily ap- 
 proved the work of the Colonization Society because an 
 opportunity would thereby be given for missionary work in 
 Africa.“ The Baltimore and Virginia conferences in the 
 South,®° and the New York conference in the North,*4 
 adopted resolutions in favor of colonizing freedmen. In 
 Tennessee conference, colonization and emancipation so- 
 cieties were formed to counteract the work of radicals.*? 
 
 Methodist publications also indicated that colonizationists 
 had the support of the Church. Zion's Herald urged New 
 Englanders not to condemn southerners for holding slaves, 
 and called attention to the fact that many early New England 
 fortunes had been accumulated through the slave trade. It 
 was also pointed out that New Englanders had attempted to 
 enslave the Indians but had failed because the latter pre- 
 ferred death to slavery. Thus, not from choice, but from 
 necessity, they had surrendered the idea of enslaving the 
 indigenous population. It was further maintained that the 
 Colonization Society did not touch the negro as a slave but 
 only as a freedman. It was believed that American negroes 
 
32 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 would be able to establish a free government in Africa, and 
 that they could evangelize the natives.** 
 
 The opinion that slaves in this country and the natives of 
 Africa would both be benefitted by the work of the Coloniza- 
 tion Society was omnipresent in the minds of many writers of 
 that period. Lewis Garrett of Tennessee conference declared 
 that, although much was being done to enlighten the people 
 in foreign lands, very little was being accomplished in behalf 
 of ignorant and degraded slaves of America, except the 
 establishment of a few Sunday Schools. The Colonization 
 Society seemed to be very important in furthering the inter- 
 ests of slaves.24 In 1830, the New York Colonization 
 Society declared that there were about fifteen hundred freed- 
 men in Liberia,?5 and added: “The advantages which may 
 be expected to result to our own country, from the removal 
 of our free coloured population, are too obvious to require 
 comment.”96 
 
 Official papers also encouraged the work of the Society. 
 _Muinisters were urged to carry out the program of Methodism 
 and the Society in behalf of the freedmen.?* The Society’s 
 statements were published, in which officers told of forward- 
 ing slaves to Liberia,®°& of the appointment of an educated 
 negro as superintendent of Liberia schools,®® and of an article 
 in the “African Repository”, addressed to the women of the 
 United States, in behalf of these schools.*° Addresses to 
 the free colored population, in which an attempt was made 
 to get them to become colonists in Africa,*! accounts of the 
 manumission of many slaves in the South for the purpose 
 of colonizing them,* and statements relative to the Society’s 
 advancement,** were also given considerable space. The 
 ninth report of the Vermont Colonization Society, dated 
 October 17, 1828, was printed, together with the news of 
 the organization of new societies and the raising of money 
 with which to send freedmen to Africa.44 By 1829 it was 
 reported that eleven commonwealths had state colonization 
 societies.* 
 
 Subscriptions for sending negroes to Africa seem to have 
 been very gratifying to colonizationists and Methodist edi- 
 tors. A proposal was made to raise $700,000 annually to 
 remove freedmen to Africa, since southerners were opposed 
 to freeing slaves and permitting them to remain in the 
 South.4¢ The result was far short of the desired amount but 
 
 
 
Philanthropic Precedents 33 
 
 progress was recorded. An audience in New York contrib- 
 uted over $200,4* while Gerritt Smith donated $1000.48 
 Thirty-nine people in New York subscribed thirty dollars 
 each, the latter sum being estimated as the cost of sending 
 one negro to Africa.*® In 1830 the receipts of the Coloniza- 
 tion Society amounted to $27,209.°° 
 
 That Methodist leaders were in earnest in their advocacy 
 of the colonization movement seems apparent.. One writer, 
 who commended the editor of Zion’s Herald for his interest 
 in the transportation of freedmen, asked: “Why is it, that 
 there ts, at this time, in these United States, ONE MILLION 
 and a HALF of our fellow beings held in abject slavery — 
 by Americans contrary to the express declaration of the inde- 
 pendence of these United Colonies, and by Christians — con- 
 trary to the spirit and design of the gospel of the Son of 
 God.”*! Colonization would, of course, solve the problem. 
 
 The author of the above quotation might easily become a 
 follower of Garrison. But that most Methodists entertained 
 no radical anti-slavery views was due primarily to the fact 
 that the negro was considered undesirable in northern as 
 well as. southern states. Cincinnati required free colored 
 people to give bonds if they continued to live in the city. So 
 harshly were negroes treated that an appeal for funds was 
 made so that these people might be sent to Canada.®2 The 
 negro colony of about seven hundred persons finally left 
 Cincinnati and obtained a grant of 25,000 acres of land in 
 Upper Canada, where they were cordially received, and their 
 children permitted to attend the public schools without 
 charge.°? The editor of Methodism’s only official paper 
 made no protest against this action; he was interested. pri- 
 marily in ridding the country of negroes. And the editor of 
 Zion's Herald proved himself at one with the South when 
 he wrote: “Let no one for a moment imagine that the revolt 
 of the oppressed will find one advocate at the north or that 
 every arm will not be raised to protect the precious lives 
 of our dear countrymen.’’*4 
 
 For half a century after the first anti-slavery rules were 
 adopted, Methodist leaders sought to solve the problem of 
 the Church’s duty toward the slaves. Manumission as a 
 practical policy proved a failure and threatened the destruc- 
 tion of the Church; conservatism temporarily saved the 
 denomination from division and promoted the spiritual wel- 
 
34 , Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 fare of the slaves. In a comparatively few instances the 
 freedom of slaves was secured through the Colonization 
 Society. 
 
 It is apparent that precedents had been established by 
 which advocates of any particular theory of the relation of 
 the Church to slavery could prove that the “Fathers” fully 
 sustained them. A study of the evidence indicates that each 
 faction failed, or perhaps refused, to see the strength of 
 their opponents’ position. This is especially true after 
 William Lloyd Garrison issued his challenge to slaveholders 
 and conservatives, in which he demanded the immediate abol- 
 ition of slavery. 
 
 Supra, p. 10, footnote 17. 
 
 Asbury, Journal, Volume II., p. 274; December 28, 1796. 
 
 Supra, pp. 13-14. 
 
 Asbury, Journal, Volume I., p. 214; June 10, 1778. 
 
 Eddy, Journal, p. 255. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, pp. 31-2; 
 
 Sunderland, Anti-Slavery Manual, p. 60; Armstrong, History of 
 
 the Old Baltimore Conference, p. 48; Dixon, Methodism in America, 
 
 p. 393; Emory, History of the Discipline, p. 15. 
 
 6. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 33. Cf. Long, Pictures of Slavery 
 in Church and State, pp. 27-9. 
 
 7. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 36. Cf. Asbury, Journal, Volume 
 IL, p. 25; Harrison, The Gospel among the Slaves, p. 54 (Date 
 Placed at 1787); Finley, Autobiography, p. 389 (Date placed at 
 1786). There is either an error or else the same rule was passed 
 in successive years. 
 
 8. Journal of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 294 (1824). Cf. 
 Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, p. 297; and Elliott, The Great 
 Secession, p. 42. 
 
 9. The Methodist Magazine, Volume VII., pp. 306-7 (1824). 
 
 10. Ibid., p. 198. ‘“‘We know no evil to which the slave is subject, 
 that may be compared with his so frequent, total destitution of the 
 means of grace. We honestly believe that all the circumstances of 
 his condition taken together, as they are known to us, the negro in 
 the Carolinas-and Georgia, might on no temporal account, envy the 
 peasant of some other Christian countries. Yea, more: we believe 
 that many thousands of them are both better fed and clothed—and 
 labour less—and are better attended to in sickness, than many of 
 the white population of this, happiest of all countries.”’ 
 
 11. Asbury, Journal, Volume IIlI., p. 323; February, 1812. 
 
 12. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 294 (1824). 
 
 is. Supra.’ -p: 16. 
 
 14. Asbury, Journal, Volume ITI., p. 215; February 4, 1807. 
 
 15. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 62-3 (1804). 
 Cf. Shipp, History of Methodism in South Carolina, p. 474; Elliott, 
 The Great Secession, p. 40. 
 
 16. Asbury, Journal, Volume II., p. 87; November 4, 1790. Afterwards, 
 Asbury felt constrained to reprove himself for a ‘‘sudden and vio- 
 lent laugh” over the story. 
 
 17. Harrison, The Gospel among the Slaves, p. 63. 
 
 18. Supra, p. 20. 
 
 19. The Methodist Magazine, Volume III., p. 316 (1820). 
 
 20. Lee, Life and Times of Jesse Lee, p. 175. j 
 
 21. Harrison. The Gospel among the Slaves, pp. 61, 64. 
 
 22. Methodist Magazine. Volume L., p. 75 (1818). There were 537 in Ohio 
 
 conference, 73 in Missouri, 410 in Mississippi, 77 in Genesee con- 
 
 ference, and 16,789 in South Carolina. 
 
 23. Ibid., Volume VI., p. 359 (1823). This is the net increase: after 
 
 OUR cobs pi 
 
26. 
 27. 
 
 Philanthropic Precedents 30 
 
 deducting the number of those who had died, been expelled or had 
 removed to another section of the country without joining the 
 Church there. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume IV., p. 207, col. 2; August 
 
 27, 1830. Cf. Ibid., Volume VI., p. 38, col. 5; November 4, 1831. 
 
 . Harrison, The Gospel among the Slaves, p. 61. In 1792 there were 
 
 176 negro members in the West—the largest number during the 
 years from 1787 to 1797. 
 
 Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 422. 
 
 For the organization of the Colonization society, see, Encyclopedia 
 Brittanica—article on ‘‘Colonization Society.’’ The fact that men 
 like William Ellery Channing, Benjamin Lundy, Gerritt Smith and 
 James G. Birney gave their enthusiastic support to this organization 
 shows that slaveholders and anti-slavery advocates were agreed 
 as to the value and practicability of the scheme. Later, when it 
 was thought that the purpose of the society was to further oppress 
 the slaves, radical anti-slavery men withdrew their support and 
 joined William Lloyd Garrison and other extremists. For the latter 
 development, see Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in 
 America, Volume I., pp. 208-22. 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 271 (1824). 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume II., p. 167, col. 3; June 
 
 20, 1828. 
 
 Ibid., Volume I., p. 146, col. 4; May 19, 1827. 
 Pipidswp. 162, col. bs June 15, 1827. 
 _ McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 494-5. Cf. 
 
 yet Christian Advocate, Volume XIll., p. 114, col. 4; October 
 30, 184 
 Zion’s Herald, Volume IV., No. 41, p. 3, col. 2; October 11, 1826. 
 
 i Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume Tepe 19, col. 2; October 
 
 5, 1827. The letter was dated August 14, 1827, 
 
 . In 1823 there were only about 190 free negroes in Liberia. See 
 
 Methodist Magazine, Volume VI., pp. 347-50 (1823). 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume IV., p. 162, col. 2; June 
 
 11, 1830 
 
 Wipids Volume Te Ds Los. COL Ds dUNe wore Seo otal LOG. p Loo. 
 
 col. 1; June 5, 1829 and Ibid., p. 171, col. 2; June 16, 1829. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume II., p. 55, col. 2; December 7, 1827. Cf. Ibid., Volume 
 
 Ill., p. 66, col. 5; December 26, 1828 and Zion’s Herald, Volume 
 IV., No, 41, p. 2, cok 1; October 11, 1826. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume IV., p. 15, col. 4; Sep- 
 
 tember 25, 1829. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume V., p. 160, cols. 4-5; June 3, 1830. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume II., p. 81, cols. 2-4; January 25, 1828. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume V., p. 31, col. 3; October, 1830. 
 
 MAIO ST erald iV OlIMel Vig NOs es Deven, COL Ms January 10. 1827. 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume [IJ., p. 45, cols, 2-2; 
 
 November 21, 1828. 
 
 Be DEC sth ao ‘col, 3; February 6, 1829 
 
 PLDIGet DD: 181, col. 3—182, col. 1; July 17, 1829. 
 
 : Ibid., Volume IV., pp. 30, col. 5-31, col. 1: October 23, 1829. 
 Abid Volume: LLet ps IS TaNcoien ds April 17, 1828. 
 
 Sabid.) Volume ILL; pivi79;col73; June ‘30, 1829. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume VI., p. 51, col. 4; November 25, 1831. Even if the 
 
 $700,000 had been raised annually, it would have been less than 
 half the amount which England appropriated for the abolition of 
 slavery in the British possessions. 300,000 pounds was annually 
 appropriated by Parliament for that purpose. See Ibid., Volume 
 Til., .p..1385; col. 4; April 24; 1829. 
 
 . Zion’s Herald, Volume IV., No. 44, p. 1, cols. 1-2; November 1, 1826. 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume III., p. 203, col. 3; Aug- 
 
 ust 21, 1829. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume V., p. 107, col. 4; March 4, 1830. 
 . Zion’s Herald, Volume IV., No. 41, p. 3, col. 2; October 11, 1826. 
 
(ie rh 
 ay 
 
 1a: 
 Per? 
 ‘ 
 
 UD 
 
 Lath) ii 
 af 
 
 Waa, 
 
 
 
PART II 
 THE PERIOD OF AGITATION 
 

 
CHAPTER, 
 
 CONSERVATIVE METHODISM 
 
 For almost a century prior to the era of William Lloyd 
 Garrison, anti-slavery advocates had used their influence to 
 secure manumission of slaves. The Friends, the Revolu- 
 tionary patriots who subscribed in a practical way to the 
 idéals of the Declaration of Independence, and some southern 
 leaders of the first part of the nineteenth century, attempted 
 to destroy slavery in the United States. Of anti-slavery 
 leaders just before 1831 may be mentioned Benjamin 
 Lundy, John Rankin, and James G. Birney.1 By that date, 
 however, the anti-slavery movement seemed to be almost 
 dead.? 
 
 Several factors were responsible for the anti-slavery move- 
 ment after 1831. The manumission of slaves in the West 
 Indies, the new sympathy for unfortunates in public institu- 
 tions, the development of manufacturing, and the conviction 
 of some, even in slave states, that slavery was wrong, all 
 aided in creating public sentiment in favor of the manumis- 
 sion of slaves.2 But undoubtedly the most important factor 
 of all was William Lloyd Garrison. From January 1, 1831, 
 when the first number of The Liberator was published, a 
 hatred hitherto unknown divided the people into two increas- 
 ingly hostile camps. To the North, the tirades of Garrison 
 constituted a call to repentance; to the South, his denuncia- 
 tions were warnings that the southern “institution” was in 
 danger. As for the churches, Garrison’s propaganda meant 
 the schism of several of them, and the weakening of the 
 bonds which bound others together. 
 
 The influence of Garrison upon the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church was not immediately apparent. Undoubtedly, there 
 were many members and ministers’ who were personally 
 opposed to slavery, yet until the outbreak of the Civil War 
 the conservative party was very powerful. Conservatism was 
 the watchword of the Church; and bishops, conferences and 
 
 39 
 
40 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 official papers conformed to the wishes of the vast majority 
 of the people of the Church and Nation. 
 
 Two events in 1832 illustrate this tendency against radical- 
 ism. In January, Bishop Hedding presided over the 
 Georgia conference. In Augusta, he witnessed the sale of 
 a slave, and expressed his indignation to another northerner 
 who was present.t A few days later, a minister informed 
 him that the conversation had been reported and had caused 
 considerable excitement. The bishop was advised to be 
 more prudent in his remarks upon the subject of slavery. 
 And, according to his biographer, Hedding “did not consider 
 it unwise to follow the counsels of his brother preacher.’ 
 
 In May of the same year the General Conference met at 
 Philadelphia. May 2, a motion was made which provided 
 for a committee of seven who should “take into consideration 
 the conditions, privileges, and rights of our people of color.” 
 They were also empowered to review the section on slavery 
 in the Discipline and “report what (if any) alterations ought 
 to be made in the same.” Another resolution was offered 
 instructing this committee “to inquire into the proper mean- 
 ing of the clause in the General Rules concerning the buying 
 or selling of men, women and children, with an intention to 
 enslave them.” On the following day, Wilbur Fisk moved 
 that consideration of the latter resolution be indefinitely 
 postponed. May 16, the “Committee on the Rights and 
 Privileges of the People of Color” reported—and the report 
 was tabled.“ Nine days later, the Committee was given per- 
 mission to withdraw their report. Later in the Conference, 
 the chairman of the committee returned the papers which 
 had been referred to them, and made a statement that it was 
 considered inexpedient to act upon them at that time. He 
 also re-submitted the report, and it was again tabled.§ It 
 was never considered. 
 
 The conservatism of Methodist leaders is also apparent in 
 their attitude towards missionary work among the slaves. 
 Under the able leadership of Dr. William Capers, these 
 missionaries continued their unselfish service. In order to 
 secure the fullest co-operation of masters, preachers began 
 to hold their meetings on each plantation.2 The need of co- 
 operation was fully recognized by a conference in the South 
 to consider the missionary work among negroes. It was 
 
Conservative Methodism 4 1 
 
 believed that southern ministers could most successfully carry 
 on the work on the plantations.1° The Christian Advocate and 
 Journal published many reports of revivals among slaves, and 
 of the better moral conditions among the colored people of 
 the South. The Ohio!! and Tennessee!” conferences gave their 
 enthusiastic approval. Indeed, so effective was this mission- 
 ary endeavor that Judge Cranch of Washington, D. C. de- 
 clared that negroes of the Methodist Church were “seldom 
 or never brought before the criminal courts for misconduct.” 
 So successful was the missionary enterprise that Bishop 
 Andrew wrote: “I would only say, in reference to the great 
 work before us, we greatly need more men and more money.’”?4 
 
 In the preceding chapter it was shown that, prior to 1831, 
 the Colonization Society had the approval of the Methodist 
 Church. Until abolitionists became very powerful, this 
 organization continued to receive Methodist support. In 
 1832 a mission was established in Liberia by action of the 
 General Conference and representatives of the Society were 
 commended to Methodist ministers and people. At the 
 annual meeting of the American Colonization Society, held 
 in January, 1833, the Rev. William Hammet declared that 
 the General Conference action was unanimous, and that the 
 Methodist Church with almost six hundred thousand mem- 
 bers and nearly ten thousand ministers, approved the Society’s 
 -purpose.7® Annual conferences adopted resolutions, pledging 
 their support to the colonizationists.17 The resolution of the 
 Kentucky conference, “That we continue to repose entire 
 confidence in the rectitude, policy, and operations of the 
 American Colonization Society, and that we commend it to 
 all who are likely to regard our opinions as in any way 
 worthy their approval and patronage,’’!8 is typical of those 
 adopted by other conferences. 
 
 Methodist publications also supported the Colonization 
 Society. By one writer it was endorsed because it pointed 
 “the path to peace in America, and regeneration to Africa.”1® 
 The editor of the Christian Sentinel, the official publication 
 of Virginia conference, appealed to his readers to encourage 
 plans for colonizing negroes in Africa.*° The Christian Ad- 
 vocate and Journal published letters from Liberia; reports 
 from local and state colonization societies ;2! and memorials 
 
42 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 and addresses of the Society.2* In one of these it was set 
 forth that the negro was desired in neither South nor North, 
 and that the only practicable plan was to rid the country of 
 the presence of the negro.*? In 1834, the editor, in behalf 
 of the Colonization Society, requested all Methodist ministers 
 to speak relative to the work of the Society on July 4 and 
 take a collection for the same.** 
 
 The conservatism of the Methodist Episcopal Church was 
 especially pronounced in its relation to abolitionists and anti- 
 slavery societies. Garrison’s announcement that he would be 
 heard, proved to be no idle threat. Every failure of churches 
 ‘to show themselves opposed to slavery was held up to aboli- 
 tion scorn, and the Methodist Church undoubtedly furnished 
 its full quota of copy. One anonymous writer, “Onesimus,”?* 
 declared that not a single person had ever been arraigned by 
 any Methodist conference and expelled because of his con- 
 nection wtih slavery.*® Methodist papers were said to be as 
 “still as midnight and as silent as death,” except those which 
 openly apologized for slaveholding. He further asserted that 
 those members who refused to obey Church officers would 
 not be tolerated, but that so long as a man rendered un- 
 questioning obedience to his ecclesiastical superiors, he could 
 do as he pleased in regard to slavery.27 This attack was 
 immediately challenged, and Garrison apologized to the extent 
 of saying that “the Methodists here, so far as we know, are 
 as favorable to the Abolition cause as any other denomina- 
 tion,’’*8 but the history of the anti-slavery movement in the 
 Methodist Church for the succeeding thirty years proves 
 beyond cavil that there was enough truth in the accusation 
 to merit the censure which was heaped upon the time-servers 
 in the Church. 
 
 May 18, 1833, Garrison called upon all churches immedi- 
 ately to exclude slaveholders of every rank from their or- 
 ganizations." In reply, one defender of Methodism, “B. K. 
 Jun.,” asserted that his Church would become abolitionist as 
 fast as members and clergy received light. But “Onesimus” 
 declared that Methodists did not desire light, and did not use 
 what light the Discipline afforded. He also affirmed that the 
 effectiveness of the Discipline on the question of slavery had 
 been practically destroyed.2° A week later, he boldly charged 
 
Conservative Methodism 43 
 
 that the reason for the conservatism of the Church and es- 
 pecially of the Christian Advocate and Journal was that an 
 uncompromising stand against slavery would cost that paper 
 12,000 of its 30,000 subscribers ina single month and entail 
 an annual loss of $25,000.41 This attack called forth a 
 protest from La Roy Sunderland,** but that the Church was 
 not abolitionist seems fully established by the fact that A. J. 
 N. Danforth was refused permission to speak on the slavery 
 question before a Methodist conference held at Boston. Only 
 two members of this conference voted to hear him. Further, 
 although both editor and business agent of Zion’s Herald 
 were personally opposed to slavery, they refused to carry 
 the statements of Garrison and other abolitionists in their 
 columns because the paper was owned by the Boston Wes- 
 leyan Association, which presumably was not abolitionist.®* 
 
 Throughout the period to 1836, most of the conferences 
 were opposed to abolitionists. New York conference re- 
 gretted the radical propaganda because of the evil effects on 
 negroes in Africa and the United States, and because they 
 anticipated only the “most unfavorable results from such 
 operations to the progress of Christian principles.”°* The 
 Ohio conference of 1835 deprecated the excitement caused in 
 slave states by abolitionism and disclaimed “all connection 
 and co-operation with, or belief in the same.” The “junior 
 preachers, local brethren, and private members” within the 
 bounds of the conference were urged to abstain from all 
 participation in the work of anti-slavery societies. They 
 further affirmed that northern ministers and citizens who op- 
 posed the anti-slavery crusade “with firmness and modera- 
 tion” were the real friends of the Church, the slaves of the 
 South, and the Constitution of the Nation. They were 
 especially antagonistic to foreign abolition lecturers, and to 
 all publications which had for their purpose the immediate 
 abolition of slavery, and to encourage such radicalism was 
 considered “injurious to Christian fellowship, dangerous to 
 our civil institutions, unfavorable to the privileges and 
 spiritual interests of the slaves, and unbecoming any Christ- 
 lan, patriot, or philanthropist, and especially any Metho- 
 dist.”85 Only four votes were cast against the resolutions 
 and these were for other reasons than that the members 
 
44 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 favored abolitionists. Summing up the situation in the Ohio 
 conference, the editor of the Western Christian Advocate 
 declared his belief that the conference was unanimous on the 
 following propositions: “Slavery is an evil. 2. It ought 
 to be abolished in a gradual, constitutional manner. 3. The 
 remedy proposed by ‘abolitionists’ is worse than the evil 
 itself.”’36 
 
 The Kentucky conference of 1835 condemned the activities 
 of abolitionists as “an abuse of the rights of citizenship.” 
 They discountenanced the propaganda of foreign lecturers 
 and favored arresting “at once the mischievous tendency of 
 their seditious intermeddling and officious insolence.” ‘They 
 further suggested that it was dangerous to accept the leader- 
 ship of those “whose measures and movements tend directly 
 to subvert the Constitution and dissolve the Government.’’%? 
 In the same year, the Tennessee?’ and Holston®® conferences 
 approved the sentiments of the Ohio and Kentucky con- 
 ferences, while the South Carolina conference declared that 
 the principles of abolitionists were “utterly erroneous and 
 altogether hurtful.’4° Even the Maine conference adopted 
 resolutions, pledging themselves to prudent measures for the 
 eradication of slavery.*} 
 
 Not only conferences but also Church papers were conser- 
 vative. While the Christian Advocate and Journal printed 
 an account of a slave uprising in Virginia,** there was no 
 suggestion of sympathy for the lot of the slaves, but only 
 the statement that “prompt and efficient measures had been 
 taken to quell the insurrection.”4* In the North, mobs at- 
 tempted to break up anti-slavery meetings. In New York, 
 four African churches were raided by mobs in 1834,** while 
 in Philadelphia, some boys were responsible for a riot in 
 which twenty negro dwellings were stripped of their contents 
 and several people killed.*° The editor of the Advocate dis- 
 countenanced both anti-slavery meetings and riots. He 
 declared that ministers should keep aloof from all such 
 agitation, for the salvation of souls was “their only business, 
 and should engage all their time.’’4 
 
 The Christian Advocate and Journal condemned abolition- 
 ists unsparingly. In an article entitled “Abolitionists no 
 Friends to Slaves” it was declared that the Anti-slavery So- 
 
Conservative Methodism 45 
 
 ciety deserved “the reprobation of every sober friend either of 
 the whites or blacks.’4* That abolitionists were extremely 
 radical is undoubtedly true. All southerners who held slaves 
 were declared to be pirates in name and character, while 
 slave states were “Sodoms” and “every kitchen a brothel.” 
 The New York editor declared that abolitionists desired 
 political and social equality between the black and white 
 races.48 He assured the South that the anti-slavery party in 
 New York was an almost negligible factor and would soon 
 disappear.*® In another article, he said he was opposed to 
 slavery but also against the imprudent methods advocated by 
 abolitionists. The national government could free only those 
 slaves in the District of Columbia. Since slaveholding was 
 a question with which the states must deal, he advised philan- 
 thropists to send their lecturers into the South.°° He 
 considered the anti-slavery propaganda as “at variance with 
 the vested interests and constitutional rights and obligations 
 of the country.” Since he feared that the question might be 
 forced upon Congress and bitterness result, he urged that 
 all churches be extremely conservative, and, as organizations, 
 keep free from politics.°4 
 
 The Western Christian Advocate was likewise conservative. 
 The editor declared that he was opposed to slavery but that 
 he had “quite as little fellowship with the few persons who 
 have espoused the violent project of immediate abolition.’’? 
 He affirmed his interest in colonization, and assured his 
 readers that he would “rejoice in abolition, when it comes 
 about according to the established constitutions of the coun- 
 try, and the conventional and vested rights of its citizens.”’5?. 
 The third official Methodist publication was the Methodist 
 Magazine and Quarterly Review. Garrison affirmed that 
 this magazine was also opposed to abolitionists, and cited in 
 proof the statement of a contributor to the Review that “if 
 a colored man were admitted to an association to which he 
 belonged, he would withdraw,’*? Reference to this magazine 
 confirms the opinion of Garrison that the publication was not 
 anti-slavery.** 
 
 Outside the bounds of New England, the Virginia Sentinel 
 was the only Methodist publication which printed anything 
 which had the abolition of slavery as its objective.®*® The 
 
46 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 editor declared that he had always been “mentally and practi- 
 cally opposed to involuntary slavery.” He favored freedom 
 of speech, and asserted that he, and everyone else, had the 
 right to think as he pleased on the subject of slavery. But 
 he deprecated the interference of Christians in the political 
 affairs of the country for the purpose of freeing slaves. He 
 considered that “designing and interested individuals” were 
 “striving to produce confusion, hatred, and deep animosity 
 between different sections of the country.” In his opinion, 
 the question was one which should be handled with “extreme 
 delicacy,’ and by the political powers only.°® The editorial 
 closed with a strong appeal in behalf of the Colonization 
 Society. 
 
 As long as abolitionism had not secured a foothold among 
 ministers of the Methodist Church, the excitement resulting 
 from Garrison’s propaganda could be viewed with compara- 
 tive equanimity. But discussion of this exciting subject could 
 not long be avoided. By at least one writer, it was held that 
 “Father Bonney” should be credited with starting the anti- 
 slavery movement in New England conferences by writing 
 several articles for the New England Christian Herald.®* 
 Whether or not they are to be credited to him, several ar- 
 ticles did appear in this paper in 1830 and 1831. In one 
 account, the ill-treatment of slaves and the anti-slavery work 
 of Methodists in Jamaica was set forth.°2 When F. Todd 
 won one thousand dollars in a damage suit against Garrison, 
 it was shown that the North Carolina Manumission Society 
 had defended the abolitionist.°® Later, other articles appeared 
 which unsparingly condemned slaveholding.® 
 
 Bonney may have been the originator of the New England 
 anti-slavery movement in the Methodist Church but he utter- 
 ly failed to stir the Church against slavery. It remained for 
 Orange Scott®! to do for the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 what Garrison had already done for the Nation. For, with 
 Scott’s entrance into the struggle in behalf of the slaves, it 
 was impossible for the Church to ignore the slavery issue. 
 Scott was unquestionably the most powerful of Methodist 
 abolitionists.°* Previous to 1833 he does not seem to have 
 even thought about slavery. But at that time, when he was 
 thirty-three years of age, his attention was first called to the 
 
Conservative Methodism 47 
 
 objectives of abolitionists. He immediately began to inform 
 himself on the abolition side of the controversy, The Libera- 
 tor being his chief. text. For almost a year he meditated as 
 to his future course, then as presiding elder of Providence 
 District he began to address camp-meetings and other as- 
 semblies on his new theme. At the invitation of D. H. Ela, 
 publisher of Zion’s Herald, he began a series of articles in 
 that paper against slavery. So influential was Scott that, at 
 the New England conference of 1834, he was able to have 
 tabled a motion in favor of the Colonization Society.® 
 
 Thus far, Scott had worked alone and achieved marked 
 success. Now he conceived the idea of a movement which 
 had for its purpose nothing less than the destruction of 
 slaveholding in the Methodist Episcopal Church! Scott him- 
 self tells how he started this crusade: ‘‘At that time I sub- 
 scribed for one hundred copies of the Liberator for three 
 months, to be directed to one hundred preachers of the N. E. 
 Conference.** The result was as I anticipated. Before the 
 three months expired a majority of the N. E. Conference 
 (150 members in all,) was converted to Abolitionism.”&? 
 Scott’s propaganda bore fruit at the New England confer- 
 ence, which convened at Lynn, Massachusetts in June, 1835. 
 An anti-slavery society was formed, which had for its object 
 the “immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery.” Un- 
 doubtedly, the fact that George Thompson addressed the 
 ministers added to their zeal and courage. So powerful was 
 the anti-slavery faction that an attempt to censure the course 
 of Zion’s Herald, which had printed Scott’s articles, was 
 defeated. And the crowning achievement of abolitionists at 
 this session of the conference was the defeat of all conser- 
 vative candidates, with the exception of Wilbur Fisk, in the 
 election of delegates to represent them at the General Con- 
 ference of 1836. 
 
 The abolitionists were checked in their triumphant progress 
 at only one point. Anti-slavery resolutions were introduced 
 on Saturday and consideration of them deferred until Mon- 
 day. While the debate was in progress, a memorial from 
 New Bedford, signed by many laymen and deprecating the 
 discussion of slavery by preachers, was read and laid on the 
 table. Then the bishops, Hedding and Emory, who were 
 
48 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 present, lectured the ministers on the errors of abolitionism. 
 On the closing day of the conference, the preachers formally 
 apologized to the bishops for their radical action.*® The 
 preachers had yielded to their superiors but a beginning had 
 been made. The anti-slavery tendency of this conference 
 was hailed with delight by Garrison who exclaimed: “The 
 primitive spirit of Methodism is beginning to revive with all 
 its holy zeal and courage, and it will not falter until the 
 Methodist Churches are purged of slavery, and the last slave 
 in the land stands forth a redeemed and regenerated being.”’® 
 In the same year, New Hampshire conference proposed 
 strong resolutions against slavery but Bishop Hedding re- 
 fused to put them to a vote. 
 
 Soon after the adjournment of these conferences, Hedding 
 and Emory prepared an address to New England ministers.® 
 In this document they unqualifiedly condemned the agitation 
 which had been carried on in the two conferences as inimical 
 to the highest interests of the Church, and particularly of 
 the colored people of the South. It was asserted that a 
 “deep political game” was “involved in the present agitation 
 of this question,” and ministers were urged to keep them- 
 selves clear of the controversy. In order to make doubly 
 sure that ministers did not engage in anti-slavery discussions, 
 it was suggested that presiding elders and laymen discounte- 
 nance all attempts of ministers to speak on this subject.® 
 It is to be noted that neither bishop was personally favorable 
 to slavery but simply followed the precedent established by 
 
 Asbury who was interested first of all in the spiritual life 
 of negroes.®® 
 
 These two bishops were not alone in their desire to 
 check the abolition movement in the Church. Dr. Wilbur 
 Fisk, who refused, in October, 1835, to sign a petition for 
 the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,’? was 
 likewise for moderation. He feared the ultimate results of 
 the abolition movement if it were permitted to continue un- 
 checked. He declared that the tendency of the movement 
 was towards the dismemberment of both Church and 
 Nation. As might be expected, there were replies to the 
 bishops” and to Fisk, who, with Professor Whedon, was 
 accused of catering to slaveholders. Fisk was president of 
 
Conservative Methodism 49 
 
 Wesleyan University and was advised to move the college 
 if he expected to strengthen the institution by aligning him- 
 self with the pro-slavery element.” 
 
 The immediate result of the abolition struggle in New 
 England conferences was the concentration of Methodism’s 
 conservative forces against refractory ministers who set at 
 defiance the wishes and commands of Church officers. The 
 cause for the defection is unknown, but the management of 
 Zion's Herald decided not to print the arguments of ultra- 
 abolitionists. ‘That the latter might have a medium for the 
 the dissemination of anti-slavery doctrines, Z1on’s Watchman 
 was established at New York, and the first copy issued, 
 January 1, 1836. The founding of this new abolition paper 
 by La Roy Sunderland and George Storrs was commended 
 by Garrison who declared that official Methodist papers 
 possessed excessive power." 
 
 Various conferences outside of New England set them- 
 selves resolutely against these disturbers of the Church’s 
 peace. New York conference regretted the work of abol- 
 itionists since they believed the best interests of the negro, 
 slave or freedman, were injured rather than helped by their 
 propaganda.“ Ohio conference resolved: “That as friends 
 of peaceable, gradual emancipation, we have no cause to 
 regret the course which has been pursued by the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church on the subject of slavery, as set forth in 
 the Discipline, but retain undiminished confidence in the 
 same.”*?6 And the conferences, to whose resolutions refer- 
 ence has already been made,’? were emphatic in their de- 
 mands that ministers and laymen should refrain from any 
 connection with radicalism, The support of the bishops and 
 Dr. Fisk, as well as all measures against anti-slavery min- 
 isters, is incontrovertibly proved by the final resolution of 
 Tennessee conference that they approved “of the course 
 pursued by the Maine, Ohio, and Kentucky conferences, and 
 also the efforts of Dr. Fisk in opposition to abolitionism, 
 and especially of the letter recently addressed by Bishops 
 Hedding and Emory to the New England and New Hamp- 
 shire conferences.’ 
 
 Opposition to abolitionism was reflected in the official 
 Christian Advocate and Journal. When a group of aboli- 
 
50 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 tionists, of whom La Roy Sunderland was one, signed an 
 address in which they said: “We shall show you that the 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, the official organ of this 
 Church, apologizes for the crimes of the enslaver of human 
 species, and attempts to justify the system,” the editor denied 
 the accusation and said that he recognized the disease but 
 objected to the medicine prescribed by abolitionists. He 
 asserted that he was carrying out the will of New York 
 conference and the General Conference,”? and assured his 
 readers that those who espoused the cause of immediate 
 abolition of slavery set themselves in opposition to the wishes 
 of the General Conference.®® 
 
 Another result of abolition excitement in New England, 
 showing the conservatism of the Church, was the tendency 
 of southern Methodists to sustain the pro-slavery party in 
 their opposition to northern radicals. As a direct result of 
 the New England controversy, the Rev. Mr. Postell, a Metho- 
 dist preacher, in an address to slaveholders of South Caro- 
 lina, advised: “Shun abolition as you would the DEVIL. Do 
 your duty as citizens and Christians; and in heaven you will 
 be rewarded, and delivered from abolitionism.’”®! In 1835, 
 when the Post Office at Charleston was sacked and all anti- 
 slavery papers in it destroyed, a public meeting was called, 
 at which all ministers were present to show their approval of 
 the act.22 At Jackson, Mississippi, copies of the Emanctpa- 
 tor were withheld by the postmaster because they were ad- 
 dressed to “The Methodist Clergymen” of the state, The 
 editor of a local paper affirmed that it was inconceivable that 
 Methodist ministers would countenance abolition propaganda 
 but declared that some “lazy scoundrels” did. He expressed 
 the hope that all such might be caught and lynched.®* 
 
 A further result of the agitation for immediate abolition 
 of slavery was the attempt of apologists for slavery to prove 
 that the Church should not seek to destroy slavery. Two 
 arguments were used: (1) That the abolition of slavery 
 was a political question and not a religious one: therefore, 
 the Church should not concern itself therewith; (2) that 
 slavery was justified by the Scriptures. In regard to the 
 first contention, South Carolina conference held that only 
 when a slave was abused was the Church to interfere, and 
 
Conservative Methodism 51 
 
 then, not because the negro was held in slavery, but only 
 because of ill-treatment. The conference was equally certain 
 that the Scriptures authorized the holding of slaves.84 At 
 the request of the conference, a statement written by the 
 Rev. Samuel Dunwody, one of their number, was published, 
 in which he asserted the principle of slavery was justified by 
 the Decalogue.™ 
 
 During the period from 1831 to 1836, bishops, confer- 
 ences and ministers were studiously conservative. Towards 
 the work among the slaves they maintained a very cordial 
 interest ; while the Colonization Society received their heart- 
 iest commendation. When Garrison began his attacks on 
 slavery, and incidentally on the churches, all the power of 
 Methodism was mustered in opposition. So long as the move- 
 ment was outside the Church, the peace of the organization 
 was not a question of great concern; but when Scott 
 attacked slavery in the Church, peace was impossible until 
 either the pro-slavery or the abolition forces were driven 
 from the Methodist fold. For the present, the conservative 
 group controlled the counsels of the Church. From 1832 to 
 1836 there was not a single decision given in favor of aboli- 
 tionists, while no decision was rendered without the sanction 
 of the pro-slavery party. The Church’s unwillingness to 
 accede to demands of abolitionists caused the storm to rage 
 still more fiercely. Ministers left their regular work to lec- 
 ture against slavery ;°° reason fled ; and bitter anathemas were 
 many times substituted for logic and fact. 
 
 1. Hart, Slavery and Abolition, pp. 152-69. Writers disagree on the 
 question as to who should have the credit for starting the anti-sla- 
 very movement. Hart believes that Lundy was the great leader, 
 while Henry Ward Beecher considered John Rankin the reali leader 
 of the movement (See Birney, James G. Birney and his Times, 
 pp. 168-9). If the choice is to be made between these two men, 
 the former should be selected since his Genius of Universal Emancipa- 
 tion antedates the reform work of Rankin, begun in 1827, by six 
 years. Relative to an opinion commonly held at the time that 
 “abolitionism dates with Arthur Tappan and William Lloyd Gar- 
 rison,’’ Weston says: “There is not an intelligent man born in 
 America, who has reached or past middle life, who does not know 
 that there is not one particle of truth in any of these statements, 
 or the least color, or pretense of color, for them’’ (Weston, Prog- 
 ress of Slavery in the United States, p. 176). He says that the 
 Quakers should have the honor since in 1754 they issued a state- 
 ment against slavery and gave ag their reason ‘‘that custom and 
 familiarity with evil of any kind have a tendency to bias the judg- 
 ment and deprave the mind’”’ (Ibid., p. 189). 
 
 2. Hart, Slavery and Abolitionism, pp. 165-6, 173. 
 
 3. Ibid., pp. 170-80. 
 
52 
 
 om T 
 
 15. 
 16. 
 
 wes 
 
 18. 
 
 19. 
 
 20. 
 21. 
 
 22. 
 
 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Hedding was from New England. He said: ‘Don’t that make your 
 Yankee blood boil?’’ 
 
 Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 399-400. 
 
 Journals of the General Conference, Volume JI., p. 367 (1832). 
 EDI ep ibibo 
 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume IV., p. 14, col. 3; Sep- 
 tember 25, 1829. The information is contained in a letter from 
 Dr. Capers, dated September 7, 1829. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume VIII., p. 62, col. 3; December 13, 1833. Dr. Capers 
 
 presided at this missionary meeting. 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume II., pp. 77-8; September 11, 
 
 1835. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 131. 
 . Andrews, Slavery and the Domestic Slave-Trade in the United 
 
 States, p. 121. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume VII., p. 142, col. 3; May 
 
 3, 1833. It is significant that Capers felt constrained to disclaim 
 any connection between southern negro missions and either the 
 anti-slavery societies or the Colonization Society. (Christian Advo- 
 cate and Journal, Volume VIIL., p. 190, col. 5; July 25, 1834) Capers 
 was probably not opposed to colonization but only trying to allay 
 suspicion. 
 
 As to the nature of the instructions imparted to slaves, the 
 South Carolina conference furnishes a complete answer. Said 
 these ministers: ‘‘Our missionaries inculcate the duties of servants 
 to their masters as we find those duties in the Scriptures. They 
 inculeate the performance of them as indispensibly important. We 
 hold that a Christian slave must be submissive, faithful, and 
 obedient, for reasons of the same authority with those which oblige 
 husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, to fulfill 
 the duties of these relations. We would employ no one in the work 
 who might hesitate to teach thus, nor can such a one be found in 
 the whole number of the preachers of this Conference’’ (Shipp, The 
 History of Methodism in South Carolina, pp.497-8.) 
 alice Advocate and Journal, Volume VI., p. 159, col. 4; June 
 Ibid., Volume VII., p. 105. col. 6; March 1, 1823. The speaker 
 declared that ‘‘All the other leading denominations of the country, 
 sir, do the same.’’ 
 
 I have examined the reports of the following conferences: New 
 York (Christian Advocate and Journal. Volume VIII., p. 155, col. 
 2; May 238, 1834); New Jersey (Ibid., Volume XI., p. 164, col. 
 4; June 2, 1837): Ohio (Western Christian Advocate, Volume II., 
 pp. 77-8; September 11, 1835); Kentucky—yYear, 1832 (Redford, 
 Western Cavaliers, pp. 71-2.) 
 Redford, Cavaliers, pp. 148-9 (1835). That there was some opposition 
 to the Colonization Society on the part of southerners is apparent 
 from the following statement: ‘‘There is a general aversion, on the 
 part of the colored people of this state (Maryland), both bound 
 and free, to the plan of colonization in Africa. This dislike Mr. A. 
 attributes principally to the publications of the Anti-Slavery Soci- 
 ety, which are extensively circulated here among the free blacks. 
 He even regrets that the Methodist Church has given its sanction to 
 the plan of the Colonization Society, since it prejudices the colored 
 people against its members and teachers. The Methodist church, 
 in this state, includes a great number of colored members, among 
 whom are many slaves.” (Andrews, Slavery and the Domestic 
 Slave-Trade in the United States, pp. 36-7). The statement was 
 made in 1835. 
 Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, Volume XVII., p. 137. 
 The statement is contained in the ‘‘Third Annual Report of the 
 New York Colonization Society.’’ 
 Christian Sentinel, Volume II., p. 94, cols. 4-5; November 15, 1833. 
 See especially the issues of this paper for the months of January, 
 February and March, 1836. 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume V., p. 165, col, 1; June 17, 
 1831; Volume VI., p. 123, col. 2; March 30, 1832; Volume VII., p. 
 sail anes July 26, 1833; and Volume VIII., p. 70, col. 5; Decem- 
 er 27, 3 
 
23. 
 
 28. 
 29. 
 
 30. 
 31. 
 
 32. 
 
 33. 
 34. 
 
 35. 
 36. 
 37. 
 
 38. 
 
 Conservative Methodism 53 
 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume VI., p. 97, col. 5; February 
 17, 1832. The statement is as follows: ‘‘According to the last cen- 
 sus, there were no fewer than 339,360 free blacks within the limits 
 of the United States. Their numbers are constantly increasing, in a 
 formidable ratio. At the south they are looked upon with suspicion, 
 and almost with abhorrence. At the north they are regarded as an 
 inferior caste, and consequently deprived of every incentive to vir- 
 tuous action. Wealth cannot bring them within the sphere of 
 social intercourse; nor merit (however great or justly earned,) 
 elevate them to the privileges and association of white men.’’ 
 
 . Ibid., Volume VIII., p, 179, col. 5; July 4, 1834. 
 
 . See the Biblical epistle to Philemon. 
 
 . L believe this statement is untrue. Cf. Chapter I. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume III., p. 69, cols. 2-3; May 4, 1833. His 
 
 charge is that ‘‘while a Methodist member would not be tolerated 
 one day, who dared to think differently from the heads of the 
 craft; a man who will call certain persons, Rabbi, and obsequiously 
 admit and accomplish all that he is ordered to execute, can kidnap 
 as long as he lists, and be esteemed in exact proportion to the 
 atrocity of his wickedness, and the accumulation of his plunder.’’ 
 Ibid., p. 75, cols. 2-83; May 11, 1838. We may be sure that this was 
 not intended as a compliment to the Methodist Church 
 
 The Liberator, Volume III., p. 78, col. 4; May 18, 1833. 
 
 Ibid, p.. 82, -coly 33) May, 25,1833. 
 
 Ibid., p. 85, cols. 1-2; June 1, 1833. ‘I asked one of the Metho- 
 dist brethren very recently what was the reason that their New 
 York Advocate and Journal which weekly distributes 30,000 sheets, never 
 even hinted at the question of slavery; especially as their own so 
 highly eulogized discipline declares that every slaveholder is in 
 ‘the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity?’ My friend replied, 
 ‘they are afraid, they dare not—a good conscience and faithfulness 
 to duty would cost too much. One such paper of sound doctrine, such 
 as this Firebrand No. III., which I shewed him, would lop off 12,000 
 subscribers in one month.’ 
 
 “This reminded me of the time-serving politician who always 
 shifted with the course of events; alleging, that a good conscience 
 was too valuable an article for him; he could not afford to possess 
 such a jewel. It seems that the editors of the Advocate are of the 
 same opinion. What! denounce man-stealing, when they should lose 
 the fingering of $25,000 per annum? No, no. Brother Capers may 
 drive his slaves until they caper! and brother Watson may kidnap 
 men’s wives, and sell them as often as he chooses; and brother 
 Rives may exchange women for sheep!—and but we forbear the 
 dire detail. Philanthropists, however, these editorial Doctors can 
 calumniate, and the friends of humanity are reviled with applause; 
 but no Methodist Advocate, no Quarterly Review, no Zion’s Herald 
 BANGS away at the felonious confederacy of man-stealers, which 
 constitute the Methodist Episcopal Church, south of the Pennsyl- 
 vania line and the Ohio. No, no! ‘IT WOULD COST TOO MUCH.’ ”’ 
 Ibid., p. 96, cols. 4-5; June 15, 1833. Sunderland later seceded 
 from the Methodist Church because it was not abolitionist, 
 
 The Liberator, Volume III., p. 155, col. 5; September 28, 1833. 
 aucun Advocate and Journal, Volume VIII., p. 155, col. 2; May 
 8, 1834, 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume II., p. 77, cols. 1-3; Sep- 
 tember 11, 1835. 
 
 be dana Christian Advocate, Volume II., p. 77, cols, 1-3; September 
 
 y Lsabe 
 Redford, Western Cavaliers, pp. 148-9. Cf. Redford, Life and Times 
 of Bishop Cavanaugh, pp. 171-2 and Elliott, The Great Secession, 
 col, 130. Another source—Parker, Autobiography, pp. 155-6—gives 
 some corroborative material. Parker says: ‘On another occasion 
 in Augusta, Ky. the seat of a Methodist college; where I had been 
 delivering a temperance lecture; a number of young men, students 
 
 . from the south, were standing in the street. One of them observed 
 
 that John Rankin ought to have his throat cut.’”?’ Rankin was 
 accused of helping negroes to escape to Canada. 
 
 Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 131. This conference condemned 
 the course of the abolitionists as ‘‘fraught with danger to the peace, 
 
o4 
 
 39. 
 40. 
 
 49. 
 
 50. 
 
 52. 
 54. 
 
 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 union, and very existence of this republic, unsustained by Scripture, 
 and at variance, both with the letter and spirit of the Gospel.’”’ 
 The Liberator, Volume VI.. p. 5, col. 2; January 9, 1836. 
 
 Shipp, The History of Methodism in South Carolina, pp. 497-8. The 
 second resolution read: ‘‘We denounce the principles and opinions 
 of the abolitionists in toto, and do solemnly declare our conviction 
 and belief that, whether they originated as some business men have 
 thought, as a money speculation, or aS some politicians think, for 
 party electioneering purposes, OF, aS We are inclined to believe in a false 
 philosophy, overreaching or setting aside the Scriptures through a vain conceit of a 
 higher moral refinement, they are utterly erroneous and altogether hurt- 
 ful.” This was in 1836. 
 
 . Allen and Pilsbury, Methodism in Maine, p. 105. The ree 
 
 are given in full. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Bday Vie pi LS. ous ae 5; Sep- 
 
 tember 23, 1831. See also, Ibid., SeHCOLeas September 2, 1831 and 
 Tpid., 'p: 7. col. 4; September Ly 1831, 
 
 . Ibid., p. 3, col. 3; September 2, 1831. 
 pbid.)) Volume) iVIll:.);p. 187; col. 23 -July 118, 1834. 
 . Ibid., p. 207, col. 2; August 22, 1834. For a similar. occurrence 
 
 see Ibid., Volume IX., p. 7, col. 5; September 5, 1834. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume VIII., p. 27, cols. 1-2; October 11, 1833. 
 , Lbid.,,’ pp. 190, ‘col.’ 5; July 25, 1834. 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, p. 154, col. 6; May 23, 1834. His 
 
 statement follows: ‘‘Such is the spirit and temper of men who claim 
 to be philanthropists, and who urge immediate abolition, and perfect 
 equality, political and social as well as moral, and as a specimen 
 of their practical designs, not only insist that the children of 
 our black population shall be educated in the same schools with our 
 own, but invited the ‘colored ladies and gentlemen,’ to be seated 
 promiscuously on the platform and through the house, without dis- 
 tinction of color, an invitation which was accepted by hundreds of 
 them and has been since followed up at their other public meetings.”’ 
 “They may be assured that the anti-slavery party here is so small 
 in number, and so inconsiderable in influence, that their glory is 
 at an end, their downfall certain.’’ (Ibid.) 
 
 Ibid., p. 202, cols. 4-5; August 15, 1834. Commenting on the coming 
 of George Thompson, an ardent English lecturer on slavery, the 
 editor said: “If he has a special mission to masters and slaves, why 
 not go to the country where slavery exists, and try the strength 
 of his arguments there instead of lending his force among a com- 
 munity where reciprocal rights of freemen are respected. The 
 physician is needed only in the chamber of the sick, and not at the 
 firesides of the healthy.’ (Ibid., Volume IX., p. 116, col. 6; March 
 13, 1835) D. M. Reese said Thompson purposed to “‘split the great 
 Methodist prop by which the slavery of this country is supported.” 
 (Ibid.) Because the Christian Advocate and Journal Was so ultra con- 
 servative, Garrison declared that it was ‘‘mainly under the influ- 
 ence of so vindictive, selfish and loathsome a creature as David 
 M. Reece.’”’ The Advocate was considered deaf, blind and dumb to 
 the cries of the slaves, and was condemned for refusing to print 
 anti-slavery material sent in to it. (The Liberator, Volume VL, 
 Duldscol. 37, January, 16; 18386). 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume VIII., p. 27, col. 1; October 
 
 11, 1833. ‘‘The Church, as a body, should not be political in any 
 sense, nor on any question.’’ 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume I., p. 18, col. 5; May 30, 1834. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume III., p. 71 col. 4; May 4, 1833 
 
 Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, Volume XVII—New 
 Series, Volume VI (1835), p. 186. ‘‘You would convince the south, 
 while the south is one mass of adamant, against every syllable you 
 send upon her, and every movement you make but confirms the 
 solidity. Your main success is in defeating yourselves; your advance 
 is—backward; and when the bonds of the slave shall be finally 
 broken, it will be not in consequence, but in spite of your sadly 
 mistaken efforts.’’ 
 
 . Christian Sentinel, Volume I., p. 71, col. 3; October 5, 1832. The 
 
 article referred to was quoted from the Staunton Spectator and 
 reads as follows: ‘‘Memorials in favor of abolition, and in the 
 event that the Legislature will not pass a general law on the sub- 
 
63. 
 
 70. 
 71. 
 
 81. 
 $2. 
 
 Conservative Methodism AY) 
 
 ject, praying for the passage of an act prohibiting any slave from 
 being brought into Western Virginia after the first day of June 
 next, and providing for the gradual abolition of slavery in this 
 portion of the State, are printed at this office for gratuitous dis- 
 tribution. All persons friendly to the cause are respectfully in- 
 vited to call or send for copies and aid in procuring signatures.” 
 
 . Christian Sentinel, Volume II., p. 94, cols. 4-5; November, 15, 1833. 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 173, col. 6; 
 5 
 
 October 31, 1855. 
 
 . New England Christian Herald, Volume II., p. 32, col. 1; November 
 
 24, 1830. Cf. Ibid., p. 44, cols. 2-3; December 15, 1830. 
 
 . ibid., p. 62, col. 4; January 19, 1831. 
 . Ibid., p. 177, col. 1; August 10, 1831. Cf. Ibid., p. 150, col. 3; June 
 
 22, 1831 and p. 154, cols. 3-4; June 29, 1831. 
 
 . Scott died in 1847. 
 . Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 31-5 and 70-71. 
 . Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 31-5. Cf. Crawford, Centen- 
 
 nial of New England Methodism, pp. 209-10; Mudge, The History 
 of the New England Conferences, p. 279. Of the last two, the 
 latter is the better history. 
 
 . “N.E.’?’ means the New England conference. 
 . Crawford, The Centennial of New England Methodism, p. 210. 
 . This controversy resulted in a struggle over ‘‘conference rights’”’ 
 
 and was one of the milestones in the growth of democracy in the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 . This address was chiefly the work of Bishop Emory. 
 . Emory, The Life of Bishop Emory, pp. 279-84. Concerning the 
 
 radicalism of New England conferences he wrote a member of 
 Genesee conference, September 11, 1835: ‘ ‘The ultraism of im- 
 mediate abolitionism has given us much trouble in two of the 
 conferences, and but two. I am persuaded it has done immense 
 injury to the cause of the blacks themselves.” (Ibid., p. 278). 
 
 Ibid., p. 257. Bishop Emory, while in East Tennessee in 1832, saw 
 droves of negroes being taken to the West. He wrote one of his 
 sons: “The principal droves on this road are negroes, whom their 
 despicable drivers are driving westward. There is now before my 
 eyes a drove of about a hundred. The current of movers westward, 
 on this road, is also very great; and there are generally with them 
 five or six blacks to one white. So this root of evil is planted and 
 transplanted, and what will the end be?’’ 
 
 Crawford, The Centennial of New England Methodism, p. 211. 
 Holdich, The Life of Wilbur Fisk, p. 326. Cf. Elliott, The Great 
 Secession, cols. 126-‘. Fisk’s statement, a3 a forecast, is interest- 
 ing and valuable. Said he, writing in 1835: “I think its ultimate 
 tendency, nay, the aim of some of the leaders of this business, is 
 the dismemberment of the political union and of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church . . . What other result can possibly follow, if all 
 the North gets excited in opposition to the South?’ 
 
 . Crawford, The Centennial of New England Methodism, p. 210. 
 . The Liberator, Volume V., p. 62, cols. 5-6; April 18, 1835. 
 . Ibid., Volume VI., p. 11, col. 3; January 16, 1836. Cf. Elliott, 
 
 The Great Secession, col. 187. 
 
 ; rae ee eat Advocate and Journal, Volume VIII., p. 179, col. 5; July 
 
 ? 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume II., pp. 77-8; September 11, 
 
 1835. The report was introduced by a committee of which T. x 
 Morris and L. L. Hamline, both of whom were later chosen as 
 bishops of the Church, were members. 
 
 . Supra, pp. 43-4. 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 131. 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume IX., p. 102, col. 3; Febru- 
 
 ary 27, 1835. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 182, col. 4; July 10., 1835. This policy was in accord 
 
 with the statement issued over a year previously that the paper 
 ‘is and must be conducted on the positive principles established 
 by the General Conference, and is essential to our peace and unity 
 as a Church.”’ (Ibid., Volume VIII.,. p. 106, col. 6; March 3, 1834.) 
 Jay, Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery, p. 412. 
 
 Ibid., p. 476. The Charleston Courier reported that ‘‘the clergy 
 
 of all denominations attended in a body lending their sanction to 
 
56 
 
 83. 
 84. 
 
 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 the proceedings, and adding by their presence to the impressive 
 character of the scene.’’ The meeting declared that the “‘thanks of 
 this meeting are due to the reverend gentlemen of the clergy in 
 this city who have so promptly and SO effectually responded to the 
 public sentiment, by suspending their schools, in which the free 
 colored population were taught; and that this meeting deem it a patri- 
 otic action, worthy of ali praise and proper to be imitated by the 
 teachers of similar schools throughout the South.’’ 
 
 The Liberator, Volume V., p. 157, col. 1; October 3, 1835. 
 
 Shipp, The History of Methodism in South Carolina, pp. 497-8. The 
 resolutions bearing on this topic are as follows: ‘1. We regard the 
 question of abolition of slavery as a civil one, belonging to the 
 State, and not at all a religious one, Or appropriate to the Church. 
 Though we do hold that abuses, which may sometimes happen, 
 such as excessive labor, extreme punishment, withholding food and 
 clothing, neglect in sickness or old age and the like, are immorali- 
 ties to be prevented or punished by all possible means, both of 
 Church discipline and the civil law—each in its sphere.” 
 
 “3. We consider and believe that the Holy Scriptures, so far 
 from giving countenance to this delusion (abolitionism), do unequiv- 
 ocally authorize the relation of master and slave: (1) By holding 
 masters and their slaves alike as believers, brethren, and beloved; 
 (2) by enjoining on each the duties proper toward the other; (3) by 
 grounding their obligations for the fulfillment of their duties, as 
 of all others, on their relation to God. Masters could never have 
 had their duties enforced by the consideration, ‘Your MASTER also is 
 in heaven,’ if barely being a master involved in itself anything im- 
 moral.” The Scripture upon which the conference based their 
 argument is the sixth chapter of Ephesians. It unquestionably 
 authorizes slavery. 
 
 It is evident that the sentiments expressed by members of 
 South Carolina conference were identical with those proclaimed by 
 five southern legislatures which adopted resolutions calling upon 
 northern states to ‘‘crush the traitorous designs of the abolitionists.’” 
 
 ' The five states were South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, 
 
 85. 
 
 86. 
 
 Georgia and Alabama. (Elliot, The Great Secession, cols. 154-5.) 
 Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, p. 88. In 
 part, Dunwody said: ‘I am not an advocate for slavery, and with. 
 my present views, I never will be, while I draw the breath of life. 
 But this I confess, that I am an advocate for those genuine Gospel doctrines, 
 in which the principle of slavery is JUSTIFIED in a variety of 
 instances! !! 
 
 “Another error, into which the anti-slaveholders have fallen is 
 the confounding slavery as it exists in the Church, with slavery as 
 it exists in the State; whereas, there is a wide difference between 
 them. What may be moral evil in the State, may not be moral evil in the Church, 
 because they are placed in different circumstances. 
 
 “The Scriptures already quoted, and a variety of others that 
 might be quoted, all combine to prove that the PRINCIPLE of slavery 
 has been recognized by the appointment of God under the Old 
 Testament dispensation. But another argument of considerable 
 strength, to show that God himself has SANCTIONED THE PRIN- 
 CIPLE of slavery, may be found in the moral law itself. In the 
 tenth commandment it is expressly declared, that the Israelites were 
 possessed of servants, and their right to hold such property was 
 recognized even by the moral law itself, which is acknowledged 
 by all Christians to be of perpetual obligation, even down to the 
 end of the world.’’ 
 
 Cartwright (Autobiography. p. 364) says: ‘‘Prior to the General 
 Conference of 1836, the run-mad spirit of rabid abolitionism had 
 broken out in some of the eastern and northern conferences; and 
 Methodist preachers were found by the dozen to quit their appro- 
 priate fields of labor, and their holy calling of saving souls, and 
 turn out, and become hired lecturers against slavery. So zealous 
 were they, that they forgot their pastoral duties; and they went 
 so far as violently to oppose colonization as a slaveholding trick.” 
 Fisk opposed and vanquished them ‘“‘seeing that this rabid aboli- 
 tionism would rivet the chains of slavery the tighter, rouse the 
 jealousies of the slaveholders, and disrupt the Methodist Church.’’ 
 
Conservative Methodism 57 
 
 It may be noted that some of this radical material was a reprint 
 of Wesley’s “Thoughts on Slavery’’ (The Wesleyan Extra. Vol- 
 ume I., No. 1—found at the Evanston, Illinois, Public Library); 
 and some anti-slavery resolutions from Windsor, Maine, favoring 
 prayers for the enslaved (The Liberator, Volume VI., p, 66, col. 5; 
 
 April 23, 1836). 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE TROUBLES OF METHODISM 
 
 The first real test of strength between Methodist abolition- 
 ists and their opponents came at the General Conference 
 of 1836. In 1832, Garrison had had little or no influence 
 upon the General Conference proceedings. But five years 
 of agitation‘and the enlistment of a few leading Methodist 
 ministers in the cause of human freedom made it inevitable 
 that slavery would be the most exciting topic considered by 
 the: quadrennial conference. 
 
 Cincinnati, the seat of the Conference, was in perfect 
 accord with the spirit of Methodism. The city was so 
 friendly towards the southern viewpoint and so opposed to 
 abolitionism that James G. Birney was compelled to deliver 
 an anti-slavery lecture in a Presbyterian church at Fulton, 
 a suburb of Cincinnati.! Later, his life was threatened and 
 his office wrecked by a mob. The attitude of Cincinnati is 
 further shown by the action of the trustees of Lane Sem- 
 inary, concurred in by the president,? by which the students 
 were forbidden to organize, or belong to anti-slavery so- 
 cieties, or “hold meetings or speak on the subject.” As a 
 result, most of the students and several professors withdrew 
 in a body. When Oberlin College voted to receive negroes 
 as students, three professors and thirty students from Lane . 
 Seminary joined the new college in 1835.5 
 
 Previous to the convening of the General Conference, 
 there had been an insurrection of slaves in Virginia. The 
 result was that most southerners were more than ever in- 
 censed at abolitionists.© Perhaps because of this antagonism, 
 which was shared by most northern Methodists, no change 
 in the attitude of the Church towards slavery was anticipated. 
 William Smith of Virginia said: “The days spent on this 
 question will be days of excitement and anxiety; but they 
 will pass away; and when over, there will be one reflection 
 prominent in many minds — we have wasted time, talked 
 
 D8 
 
The Troubles of Methodism 59 
 
 long, and loud, and gained nothing. The voice of the church 
 will speak the same language that it speaks now.””? 
 
 Most of: the delegates to the General Conference would 
 gladly have avoided the slavery question, but an address from 
 the English Wesleyan Church, and a number of petitions 
 from abolition conferences and local anti-slavery societies 
 made it impossible to longer delay meeting the issue.2 The 
 British address stirred the Conference profoundly. English 
 Methodists regretted, so it was affirmed, that a former appeal 
 had excited American Methodists and caused them embar- 
 rassment, but they continued to hope that the emancipation 
 of slaves in the United States might be consummated. They 
 disclaimed any intention of meddling in American affairs, 
 and declared that they were advocating nothing for Ameri- 
 cans that they had not adopted for themselves. ‘They closed 
 their address by expressing the hope that Americans might 
 “adopt such measures as” might “lead to the safe and speedy 
 emancipation of the whole slave population of their great 
 and interesting country.” 
 
 Nothing could have been better calculated to give the few 
 abolitionists of the Conference an opportunity to present 
 their anti-slavery arguments. During the debate on the ad- 
 dress, which lasted through almost the entire session of 
 May 5, abolitionism was called an ‘‘unhallowed flame that 
 has burned to the destruction of both whites and blacks.” In 
 reply, Spicer of Troy conference remarked that a great deal 
 of attention had been given to the trouble that abolitionism 
 had caused, while calamities caused by slavery had not been 
 so much as mentioned. In answer to the charge that south- 
 erners were not interested in the welfare of slaves, Dr. 
 Capers declared that southern preachers were willing to give 
 their lives for the salvation of negroes. John Early, another 
 spokesman for the South, called upon the members of the 
 _ Methodist Episcopal Church throughout the country to de- 
 nounce abolitionists. Orange Scott sought to have the 
 British address printed but his motion was defeated. When 
 it was renewed on the following day by Nathan Bangs, the 
 vote was a tie. Bishop Soule was the presiding officer, so, 
 as Matlack says, “the document was not ordered printed.’’?° 
 
 When the reply to the British address was finally adopted, 
 neither slavery nor abolitionism was directly censured. The 
 Conference stated that British Methodists did not under- 
 
60 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 stand conditions in the United States; that slavery was so 
 interwoven with the affairs of the nation that it could not 
 be readily removed; and that abolitionism had been the cause 
 of considerable trouble to American Methodists.!° 
 
 An exciting struggle was precipitated on May 3, when 
 Stephen G. Roszel of Baltimore conference moved the ap- 
 pointment of a committee on slavery, who should consider 
 all documents bearing on the topic. The motion was tabled.™ 
 But a week later, a committee was appointed to consider 
 addresses of New Hampshire and New England conferences 
 on the subject of slavery. Of the seven ministers who 
 composed this committee only two were abolitionists.1* May 
 14, a petition from~certain persons in New England con- 
 ference dealing with slavery was presented by Orange Scott 
 and referred to the proper committee. Nathan Bangs, 
 editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal, attempted to 
 hinder the abolition advance by moving that the Conference 
 receive no petition “unless subscribed by the memorialists 
 in their own proper signatures.” An amendment to substitute 
 “authorized” for “proper” was lost. Bangs then withdrew 
 his motion but it was renewed by Roszel, and after being 
 debated by several delegates, the vote was taken and the 
 motion lost. Following this action, memorials from New 
 Hampshire, Troy and Oneida conferences, and from many 
 other smaller groups, were presented to the conference and, 
 on motion of Nathan Bangs, referred to the committee on 
 slavery.8 7 | 
 
 The report of the Committee on Slavery, presented on 
 May 21, was clearly the handiwork of the pro-slavery and 
 conservative majority. The committee declared that they 
 had seriously considered the subject referred to them and 
 were of the opinion that “the prayers of the memorialists” 
 could not be granted. They believed that “it would be highly 
 improper for the General Conference to take any action 
 that would alter or change” the rule on slavery. They there- 
 fore submitted for adoption a resolution which stated that 
 it was inexpedient to change the Discipline on the subject 
 of slavery, and that further agitation of the subject in the 
 General Conference was considered “improper.” 13 
 
 There had been plenty of agitation. During the first days 
 of the Conference, one of the weekly meetings of the Cin- 
 cinnati anti-slavery society was held, and two General Con- 
 
The Troubles of Methodism 61 
 
 ference delegates from New England, Storrs and Norris, 
 briefly addressed the meeting. The result was that fifteen 
 new members were added to the society. May 12, Roszel 
 introduced a preamble and two resolutions dealing with the 
 “crime” of these abolitionists. The preamble recited that 
 the country had been profoundly stirred by the activities of 
 abolitionists ; that it was reported that two members of the 
 Conference had increased the excitement in Cincinnati by 
 lecturing in favor of abolitionism ; that such a course probably 
 would bring upon the Conference the suspicion and distrust 
 of the community; and that the situation demanded a full 
 statement of the position of the Conference. The resolutions 
 declared that the Conference disapproved the conduct of the 
 two members who had so disgraced their brethren; and that 
 the Conference not only opposed abolitionists, but disclaimed 
 “any right, wish or intention to interfere in the civil and 
 political relation existing between master and slave as it 
 exists in the slaveholding states of this Union.’’!* 
 
 The excitement produced by these resolutions was in- 
 tense,’ two days being devoted to the debates which followed 
 their introduction.1® Scott proposed an amendment by which 
 the Conference would go on record against slavery as well as 
 against abolitionism, but the delegates refused to accept, by, 
 a vote of 123 to 15, even the language of the Discipline on 
 the subject.17 It was during the debate on these resolutions 
 that Scott declared that abolitionism could not be crushed. 
 Said he: “When you can put your foot on one of the burning 
 mountains and smother its fires — when you can roll back 
 the current of the thundering falls of Niagara — or stop the 
 sun in its course, you may then begin to think about ‘crushing 
 abolitionism! Sir, the die is cast —the days of the cap- 
 tivity of our country are numbered! ITS REDEMPTION 
 IS WRITTEN IN HEAVEN!!48 But the warning of 
 Scott availed nothing. The first resolution was adopted, 122 
 to 11. The first part of the second was agreed to, 120 to 
 14, and the whole adopted, 137 to 0.19 
 
 One writer has pointed out that the introduction of these 
 resolutions really defeated the purposes of the southerners 
 because abolitionists were given an opportunity to defend 
 themselves and expound their doctrines. As a consequence, 
 northerners were more than ever convinced that slavery was 
 wrong. Luther Lee believed that the Conference had sought 
 
62 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 to abridge the right of free speech, and that the abolitionists 
 were right. He acted upon his convictions and joined the 
 anti-slavery ranks.2® The Garrisonian school viewed with 
 scorn the attempt to crush the abolition movement in the 
 Church. The fourteen who “would not bow the knee to 
 slavery in any shape” were commended; while the South 
 was bitterly condemned as belonging with those who had 
 crucified the Christ.”? 
 
 If it were expected that these attacks on abolitionism 
 would result in checking the discussion of the slavery ques- 
 tion, the hope was vain. Orange Scott again disturbed the 
 Conference by circulating a pamphlet among the members, 
 which gave an account of the debates on the question at 
 issue. May 24, Mr. Winans proposed a resolution which 
 condemned the “Address” as “palpably false, and calculated 
 to make an impression to the injury of the character of some 
 of the members engaged in the aforesaid discussion.” It 
 was also declared that the pamphlet was an “outrage on the 
 dignity of this body,” and merited “unqualified reprehen- 
 sion.’22. Scott asked that, since he was the author of the 
 address, his name be inserted in the resolution, but his 
 request was denied. Winans spoke at length in support of 
 his measure, and this gave Scott another opportunity to 
 expound the doctrines of the radicals.22 The motion to 
 refer the resolution to a select committee was defeated, and 
 the adoption of the Winans resolution ordered, 97 to 19. 
 That all might know the position of the General Conference, 
 it was ordered that their action in this instance should be 
 published in the Western Christian Advocate and the Christ- 
 tan Advocate and Journal.?2 
 
 That Church leaders, North as well as South, were in 
 complete accord with the action taken, may be gathered from 
 a letter which Nathan Bangs wrote to the Christian Advocate 
 and Journal, May 26. He agreed with Winans that Scott’s 
 address contained “unfair, and even false statements.” He 
 affirmed that the abolition agitation was irritating and “much 
 to be dreaded as a troubler of our Israel.” That unfairness 
 and misrepresentation had been resorted to, proved to Bangs 
 that the movement was unsound and unworthy of the 
 people’s confidence. He urged that, while charity might make 
 allowance for the motives of abolitionists, yet no one should 
 be deceived by the “garbled statements” made by Scott.?4 
 
 ye 
 
The Troubles of Methodism es 
 
 In justice to Scott it should be said that, while the accusa- 
 tion was freely made that there had been unfairness and 
 untruthfulness in Scott’s statement, absolutely no proof was 
 presented to sustain the assertion. 
 
 So irritating was the course of the abolitionists in the 
 General Conference that some southern leaders advocated 
 that the rule on slavery be expunged from the Discipline, 
 and some even favored a division of the Church. In fact, 
 the southern delegates held a caucus for the purpose of 
 devising a plan of separation from the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, unless the North so modified “the Discipline as 
 to tolerate slavery, or make it no bar to membership in the 
 Church.” Cartwright declares that William Smith was the’ 
 leader of this movement. But the southern extremists were 
 too few in numbers to accomplish separation.2° The time 
 for division had not fully come. 
 
 Slaveholding seems to have been a factor in the choice 
 of new bishops. Southern delegates nominated William 
 Capers, John Early and Thomas A. Morris as those who 
 would be most acceptable to the South. Morris was elected 
 on an early ballot.2® Capers refused to be a candidate be- 
 cause he was “from necessity, not from choice, a slaveholder,” 
 and because “it would prejudice a bishop at the north to 
 be connected with it.”*7 Brunson asserts that “it was under- 
 stood and agreed even in the South at that time, that no 
 slaveholder should fill the Episcopal office.”?5 
 
 But if this point were perfectly understood in the South 
 in 1836, it does not seem to have been so well apprehended 
 in the North. James B. Finley wrote a letter, October 1, 
 1839, in which he said that he wanted a “Southern man for 
 our Episcopate and Editors, that will come out in opposition 
 to this lot of all demon-abolitionism.” He said he had been 
 charged with voting for William Capers for bishop in 1836; 
 and with the saying that if he were elected as a delegate again, 
 he would do the same. Finley refused to deny the indictment 
 against him.?® Even Cartwright met with the southern dele- 
 gates and declared his entire willingness to vote for Capers, 
 Winans or Early — or for any other Southerner, satisfactory 
 to the South.*° 
 
 Early in May, plans were made to discourage all discussion 
 of slavery after the adjournment of the General Conference. 
 May 11, Roszel proposed that the committee which had 
 
64 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 been appointed to draft the “Pastoral Address” to the mem- 
 bers and friends of the Church, should especially consider 
 the subject of abolitionism and make it perfectly clear that 
 the Conference was opposed to the radical program.** 
 Orange Scott suggested an amendment to the motion, pro- 
 viding for a section on slavery in the address. As a result 
 of this interference, Roszel’s motion was withdrawn.*2 
 
 Evidently the Committee who wrote the address knew the 
 sentiment of the Conference, for the document was an un- 
 sparing condemnation of abolitionism and the tactics of 
 abolitionists in the General Conference. They declared that 
 they were convinced that abolitionists were harming rather 
 than helping the slaves, because planters had become alarmed 
 and were refusing to allow Methodist missionaries to have 
 free access to the slaves. Mutual forbearance was urged 
 upon both abolitionists and southerners. No doubt, the 
 message was meant especially for anti-slavery agitators, for 
 the Committee asserted: “From every view of the subject 
 which we have been able to take, and from the most calm 
 and dispassionate survey of the ground we have come to the 
 solemn conviction, that the only safe, scriptural, and prudent 
 way, for us, both as ministers and people, to take, is wholly 
 to refrain from this agitating subject.’ 
 
 Neither of the three parties — conservative, abolition, pro- 
 slavery — was entirely calm as a result of these exciting 
 debates. Nathan Bangs may be considered a representative 
 of the conservative party. Writing on June 17, just after 
 the adjournment of the General Conference, he warned his 
 readers against the reports of Conference debates as pub- 
 lished in the Philanthropist and the pamphlet of Scott.34 The 
 fact that Bangs did not find a single instance in which a 
 southerner had made a misstatement or been guilty of an 
 exaggeration indicates that he and those he represented were 
 in hearty sympathy with the South. 
 
 Naturally, Garrison was greatly incensed at the action of 
 the Conference. He affirmed that he had seen the growing 
 corruption of the churches until he had “ceased to be 
 astonished at any degree of infatuation or depravity which 
 they may exhibit.” Again he said: “Here we have, as a 
 gazing stock for infidels, the highest ecclesiastical body of 
 a large church, whose ‘dignity is outraged’ by a persecuted 
 member calmly and heroically defending himself and his 
 
The Troubles of Methodism 65 
 
 brethren. Proclaim it not in Tammany Hall, publish it not 
 among the heathen.” He asserted that abolitionists outside 
 the Methodist Church had been attacked in General Confer- 
 ence debates, and that James G. Birney had been called “the 
 vilest muscreant.”®> Garrison declared that the Methodist 
 Church needed a prophet to deliver the message of Micah.*® 
 So disappointed was the great abolitionist that he called the 
 General Conference of 1836 a “cage of unclean birds and 
 a synagogue of Satan.” For this utterance he was roundly 
 rebuked by Zion’s Herald, which reminded him that four- 
 teen of the “unclean birds” were abolitionists.57 
 
 Methodist abolition papers were as radical as Garrison 
 and Birney. The editor of the Pittsburg Conference Journal 
 declared that “MODESTY and PRUDENCE should dictate 
 to Southern men not to attempt to force themselves as Am- 
 bassadors of Christ upon those who can not receive them as 
 such.’’38 He affirmed that many northerners were dissatisfied 
 with the General Conference because of the attitude on slav- 
 ery and abolitionism. He asserted that the whole North was 
 abolitionist “in a qualified sense,” and that these had the 
 power in the General Conference to pass any legislation they 
 pleased. The only reason they refrained from radical action 
 was that the country was in a ferment of excitement.*® 
 Another radical paper, Zion’s Watchman, condemned the 
 Virgina Sentinel for openly advocating “a division of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church because its editors and corres- 
 pondents think they have been proscribed in not having a 
 slaveholding bishop to preside over them.”#° 
 
 The pro-slavery faction also had able apologists. In refu- 
 tation of the statements which had been quoted from the 
 Pittsburg paper, the editor of the Virginia Sentinel simply 
 called attention to the vote of the General Conference on the 
 subject of abolitionism and suggested that the northern paper 
 was untrustworthy.4! The suggestion that southerners show 
 due modesty and prudence in their demand that they should 
 not be barred from becoming bishops because they were 
 slaveholders, stirred the South profoundly.4# The assertion 
 that Southerners were angry because no slaveholders had 
 been elected to the Board of Bishops was declared to be 
 false. Southerners only objected to the proscription of their 
 section. The editor declared that they had not demanded a 
 slaveholding bishop but had asserted that being a slaveholder 
 
66 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 ought not to be a barrier to the highest office in the gift 
 of the Church.?° 
 
 But there was also a more radical note. William Smith, 
 publisher and one of the editors of the Sentinel, called upon 
 the South to support his paper, rather than allow it to 
 continue simply a branch of the Christian Advocate and 
 Journal. Another writer resented the proscription of the 
 South because of slavery and urged that delegates be no 
 longer sent to another General Conference, except to “fix 
 the boundary between northern fanatics and southern 
 rights.”48 Another inveighed against sending “delegates 
 longer to an assembly where a bigoted and reckless majority 
 silence all their appeals for justice and right, by their fan- 
 atical clamors; and even trample upon their feelings as men 
 and ministers.’”*4 In reply to the last correspondent, the 
 editor attempted to allay the feeling that had been aroused.*® 
 
 The troublers of Methodism, led by the intrepid and capa- 
 ble Orange Scott, had succeeded even in their failure. The 
 introduction of memorials, resolutions and documents of 
 different kinds had stirred the antagonism of various groups 
 towards each other as perhaps nothing else could have done. 
 Abolitionists had been condemned, sometimes without an 
 adequate opportunity to defend themselves, but on every 
 occasion they were able to strike one more blow for freedom. 
 On the other hand, conservatives and pro-slavery delegates 
 had been able to overwhelm anti-slavery delegates on every 
 occasion. When it was inadvisable, from a pro-slavery view- 
 point, that a document be printed, it was not done; when 
 it would seem to further the desires of the South to have 
 any document published, there was no lack of votes to make 
 the action valid. So far as the immediate results were con- 
 cerned, Long was undoubtedly right when he said that slavery 
 was triumphant in the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1836.*6 
 
 . Birney, James G. Birney and His Times, p. 258. 
 
 . Hart, Slavery and Abolition, p. 193. 
 
 . The president was Dr. Lyman Beecher, father of Henry Ward 
 Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe. The latter ‘‘made some 
 observations during her residence which were later incorporated 
 into Uncle Tom’s Cabin.’’ (Ibid., p. 190.) 
 
 . Macy, The Anti-Slavery Crusade—A Chronicle of the Gathering 
 
 Storm, p. 74, Cf. Hart, Slavery and Abolition, p. 191 
 
 Hart, Slavery and Abolition, pp. 192-3. 
 
 . Brunson, A. Western Pioneer, Volume I., pp. 390-91. 
 
 . Virginia Conference Sentinel, Volume I., p. 39, col. 1; May 13, 1836. 
 
 . Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 85. 
 
 wre 
 
 BART & 
 
The Troubles of Methodism 67 
 
 9. Elliot, The Great Secession, cols. 916-18. 
 
 10. 
 
 Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 87. The result would 
 probably have been the same if any other bishop had been presid- 
 ing. Soule was especially disliked because of his later connection 
 with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 430 (1836). 
 . Ibid., p. 442. 
 Pdbid.. pr 7448 “(183695 
 
 Cf. Virginia Conference Sentinel, Volume I., pp. 85, col. 6—86, col. 
 1; August 5, 1836. 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 447. Cf. Matlack, 
 
 The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 88-9. The resolutions follow: ‘‘Re- 
 solved, by the delegates of the annual Conferences in General 
 Conference assembled: 1. That they disapprove, in the most un- 
 qualified sense, the conduct of the two members of the General 
 Conference, who are reported to have lectured in this city recently, 
 upon and in favour of immedate abolitionism. 
 
 “Resolved, 2. That they are decidedly opposed to modern aboli- 
 tionism and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to 
 interfere in the civil and political relation existing between master 
 and slave as it exists in the slaveholding States of the Union.’’ 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 445-7 (1836). 
 . Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 90. 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 96-99. 
 
 TOI): D.k'95. 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 446 (1836). Cf. 
 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume X., p. 181, cols. 4-5; 
 July 8, 1836. 
 
 . Lee, Autobiography, pp. 134-5. 
 . The Emancipator (May 26, 1836) was quoted by The Liberator, Volume 
 
 XII., p. 170, col. 5; October 28, 1842. The comment of the Emancipator 
 was as follows: ‘‘Fourteen would not bow the knee to slavery in 
 
 any shape .. . .. So much for the slaveholding Christianity of 
 the Methodist church! If we mistake not, the proceedings in the 
 General Conference .. . . will show up the Christianity of the 
 
 South in no very enviable light. No doubt it can be very devout 
 at times—make very pathetic speeches at religious anniversaries— 
 and so could the religion of those who crucified the Son of God. 
 We shall see whether the religion of the South is any better.’’ 
 So far as the vote indicated, the North might have been included 
 in the denunciation. 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 479 (1836). 
 . Ibid., p. 486. Cf. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 99-106. 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume X., p. 167, col. 1; June 
 
 10, 1836. 
 
 . Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 361. Cf. The Liberator, Volume 
 
 MEL pr 93s colt: June sais) 1836. 
 
 . Peck, The Life and Times of George Peck, pp. 173, 188. 
 . Ibid., pp. 173-4. Cf. Peck, Slavery and the Episcopacy, p. 53. 
 
 When Capers was urged, in 1832, to become a candidate for the 
 episcopacy, ‘‘on the ground that he was irretrievably a slaveholder’ he 
 refused to permit his name to be used in this connection. It 
 may be observed that it was Capers, even according to the hostile 
 Peck, who raised the objection and not a northerner. 
 
 . Brunson, A Western Pioneer, Volume I., p. 394. 
 oo. 
 30. 
 
 Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 36; July 4, 1845. 
 (Nashville) Christian Advocate, Volume XXI:; March 12, 1857. 
 The statement of the editor is as follows: ‘‘The first time we 
 ever saw him (Cartwright) was at the General Conference in the 
 vear 1836. He then and there met the delegates from the Southern 
 Conferences, and, in a speech made before them, asserted that 
 the South was entitled to a bishop, and should not be proscribed 
 because of slavery. That he himself was with the South in 
 feeling and sentiment; that he was willing and anxious to vote 
 for a Southern man for bishop; that his owning slaves was no 
 objection to him; he was willing to vote for Capers, Winans, 
 Early—any one on whom the South might concentrate; that to 
 use his own elegant figure, ‘the negro was no impediment in his 
 
68 
 
 31. 
 
 32. 
 
 33. 
 
 34, 
 
 35. 
 
 36. 
 
 45. 
 46. 
 
 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 way; he was ready to pin back his ears, grease him, and swallow 
 him whole, wool and all.’ ” 
 
 Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 443. The reso- 
 lution was that ‘“‘the committee appointed to draft a pastoral 
 letter to our preachers, members and friends be, and they are 
 hereby instructed to take notice of the subject of modern abolition, 
 that has so seriously agitated the different parts of our country, 
 and that they let our preachers, members, and friends know that 
 the General Conference are opposed to the agitation of that sub- 
 ject, and will use all prudent means to put it down.”’ 
 
 Matlack, The Life of’ Orange Scott, p. 88. 
 
 Elliot, The Great Secession, cols, 915-16. Cf. Matlack, The Life 
 of Orange Scott, p. 109; Lee, Autobiography, p. 135; Crawford, 
 Centennial of New England Methodism, p. 211. Dr. Parkhurst 
 comments: ‘Spirit of John Wesley! what would he have said 
 at such language? Thus did those men seek to quiet and restrain 
 an aroused Christian conscience.’’ 
 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume X., p. 170, col. 6; June 
 17, 1836. The passage reads: “I think it proper to warn our 
 readers against receiving the reports of the speeches in the Gen- 
 eral Conference on the subject of abolitionism, as published in 
 the Philanthropist and the Address to the General Conference 
 by a member of that body (Scott). In some parts they are mere 
 caricatures, and greatly colored.” 
 
 The Liberator, Volume VL. p. 95, cols. 4-5; June 11, 1836. Birney 
 does not seem to have despaired of the situation. Said he: ‘‘We 
 assure the friends of liberty, that our cause has been greatly 
 advanced in this city, by the infatuated conduct of the slaveholders 
 and their abettors in the General Conference. God is evidently 
 fighting against them, by distracting their counsels and permitting 
 them to foam out their own shame.” (Ibid.) 
 
 The passage in Micah is as follows: ‘‘Thus saith the Lord con- 
 cerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their 
 teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, 
 they even prepare war against him: Therefore night shall be unto 
 you that ye shall not have vision; and it shall be dark unto you, 
 that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the proph- 
 ets, and the day shall be dark over them.’’ (Micah 38: 5-6). 
 
 . Virginia Conference Sentinel, Volume I. p. 94, col. 5; August 19, 
 
 1836. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 119, col. 2; September 30, 1836. 
 . Ibid., p. 115, col. 2; September 23, 1836. 
 . Ibid., p. 1380, col, 4; October 21, 18386. Sunderland was editor of 
 
 Zion’s Watchman. 
 Ibid., p. 115, cols. 2-3; September 23, 1836. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 119, col. 2; September 30, 1836. 
 . Elliot, The Great Secession, cols. 144-5. See also, Virginia Con- 
 
 ference Sentinel, Volume I., p. 119, col. 3; September 30, 1836. 
 
 . Virginia Conference Sentinel, Volume I., p. 127, col. 2; October 
 
 14, 1836. The editor’s statement reads: ‘‘With the wild notions and 
 mal-practices of the Abolitionists, we have no affinity, either in 
 our own principles or feelings; and we have looked to the proba- 
 ble rupture of all the bonds of union, ecclesiastical and civil, as 
 a result of their practices, and not as a matter to be desired or 
 sought after. It will be seen that our correspondent expresses 
 the hope that the next General Conference may be for the pur- 
 pose of running boundary lines between the Northern and South- 
 ern portions of our Church. We hope for a different issue.” He 
 concluded his editorial with a thrust at abolitionists: ‘‘One thing 
 is clear, that the Methodist Episcopal Church in the Southern 
 States has not been unmindful of the souls of the colored popula- 
 tion. In every period of her history, she has directed her efforts 
 to the promotion of their salvation, and was in the full career of 
 usefulness when her course was stayed by the Abolitionists.’’ 
 ahha Conference Sentinel, Volume I., p. 127, col. 2; October 
 14, 1836. 
 
 Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, p. 31. 
 
Cire Uik V1 
 
 THE RULE OF THE BISHOPS, 1836- 1837 
 
 To the bishops of the Church the General Conference 
 had given the not unwelcome task of protecting Methodism 
 from the ravages of abolitionism. In conformity with the 
 “Pastoral Address” New York conference adopted reso- 
 lutions in which they disapproved of any of their number 
 aiding abolitionists, censured Zion's Watchman because 
 it was anti-slavery,” and refused to elect any candidate dea- 
 con or elder unless he pledged himself to réfrain from 
 agitating the slavery question.® Finally, the conference 
 “affectionately advised and admonished” their members 
 to refrain from attending any abolition meetings of any 
 kind, “either in or out of the church,” or disturbing “the 
 peace of the Church.” Against none of these resolutions 
 were more than three votes recorded.* 
 
 New England and New Hampshire conferences were not 
 so tractable. The former, which convened July 13, 1836, 
 was involved in a number of serious difficulties, upon which 
 action must be taken. The first concerned the veracity 
 of Orange Scott, who had been accused at Cincinnati of 
 making untruthful statements on the subject of abolition- 
 ism and slandering members of the General Conference. 
 With a majority of his own conference supporting him, 
 Scott was assured a complete and enthusiastic endorsement 
 of everything he had said at Cincinnati® Then La Roy 
 Sunderland was brought to trial, the charge being “slander 
 or misrepresentation in repeated instances.” He was re- 
 quired to correct his misstatements and cautioned to be 
 more guarded henceforth in his utterances, but his character 
 was approved.® 
 
 Two important episodes marked the close of the confer- 
 ence. The first was the result of the controversy between 
 Bishop Hedding and Orange Scott. On the real question 
 at issue there could be no compromise. Hedding had the 
 power to suppress Scott and proceeded to exercise it. 
 
 69 
 
70 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Using his appointing power as a means of disciplining Scott, 
 Hedding refused to re-appoint the abolitionist to his pos- 
 ition as presiding elder, simply because he refused to stop 
 lecturing against slavery.’ The second was a tardy at- 
 tempt to adopt a report on slavery. The report was read 
 on the last night of the conference. Bishop Hedding 
 refused to put the motion for adoption to a vote, alleging 
 that there was a strong majority who wished to debate 
 the question before voting upon it. One of the conser- 
 vatives made a motion to adjourn but this was easily 
 defeated. Whereupon, the bishop read the list of appoint- 
 ments for the ensuing year and closed the conference.® 
 Elliott asserts that this conference was opposed to aboli- 
 tionists,? but the struggle between the ministers and the 
 bishop does not support his statement. Nevertheless, 
 Hedding had succeeded in preventing a motion hostile to 
 slavery from being passed by the conference. 
 
 The agitation in New Hampshire conference centered 
 around Hedding and George Storrs. Here again, the 
 bishop ‘used his power to discipline a refractory member. 
 Many friends of Storrs urged Hedding to appoint him to 
 a vacant presiding eldership. When Storrs asserted that 
 he would speak against slavery, Hedding replied: “My obli- 
 gation to the Church, then, will not allow me to appoint 
 you presiding elder; for I should only be putting you in 
 a more prominent place that you might do more mischief.”?° 
 The following morning, Storrs read a statement to the 
 conference in which he said that he could not accept an 
 appointment “under an officer of the General Conference 
 in view of the action of that body on the subject of slavery.” 
 He requested that he be given a “location”. As a result of 
 the action of Hedding relative to Scott and Storrs, and his 
 refusal to put to a vote a motion against slavery, many of 
 the bishop’s best friends became his bitterest enemies. So 
 intense was the feeling against him that he felt compelled to 
 change his place of residence. In the Fall of 1836 he moved 
 from Lynn, Massachusetts to Lansingburgh, New York.1° 
 In only one conference outside of New England were the 
 abolitionists numerous enough to constitute a disturbing ele- 
 ment. Between anti-slavery advocates and conservatives of 
 Erie conference an exciting debate took place. But the con- 
 
The Rule of the Bishops, 1836-1837 71 
 
 servatives won, for the final action of the conference was in 
 support of the commands of the General Conference. Elliott 
 declares that this result was obtained because a majority of 
 the preachers and people belonged to the two chief political 
 parties, both of which were under the control of the South.4 
 Thus in every conference held in 1836 in which abolitionists 
 were at all numerous, the work of the radicals was defeated, 
 in two instances at least, because Bishop Hedding had used 
 his power to weaken the abolitionists as much as possible. 
 Outwardly, the Methodist Episcopal Church presented a 
 united front against’ the radicalism of Garrison, Scott, Sun- 
 derland and Storrs ;!? beneath the surface, however, there 
 might have been discovered the disappointed hopes, and the 
 unwavering determination of those who saw the vision of a 
 Church free from the taint of slavery. 
 
 By 1837 the discussion of the question of slavery in the 
 Church had become more widespread than ever before. 
 The Georgia conference declared that the intention of the 
 rule on slavery had been perverted so that slavery was pro- 
 claimed a moral evil. . This was denied and the declaration 
 made that ministers had nothing to do with the institution 
 of slavery except to make the condition of the slave as satis- 
 factory as possible, and to bring to both slave and master the 
 influences of the Christian religion. The course of the 
 bishops was unqualifiedly approved. This action was heartily 
 approved by South Carolina conference. 
 
 The border conferences were divided in their attitude 
 towards slavery. Kentucky conference required a member 
 of that body to free some slaves who had come to him by 
 the will of his father..4 Philadelphia conference refused to 
 receive Matlack as a traveling preacher because he had 
 assisted in the organization of an anti-slavery society. One 
 member declared that even if the applicant were “as pious as 
 St. Paul and as talented as an angel, he should never enter 
 this conference as an abolitionist” if he were able to prevent 
 it.1® The action of Baltimore conference caused considerable 
 excitement. The ministers adopted a resolution, making 
 the wrong of buying, selling or holding slaves to depend upon 
 “the attendant circumstances of cruelty, injustice, or inhu- 
 manity on the one hand, or those of kindness or good inten- 
 tions on the other, under which the transaction shall have 
 been perpetrated.” In all such cases, the charge of immorality 
 
72 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 was to be brought against the minister or layman, and the 
 decision governed by the conference interpretation.’® 
 
 At Genesee conference, a committee of five was appointed 
 to receive all petitions dealing with slavery and report what 
 course would be proper for the conference to pursue in 
 respect to that topic.17 Hedding would permit a vote on 
 the motion for the appointment of this committee only on 
 condition that he would not be expected to allow a vote on 
 any report which he considered contrary to the Discipline or 
 the advice of the General Conference of 1836. The motion 
 was carried with this provision.1® So favorable to slave- 
 holders was Hedding’s statement that even the conservative 
 Nathan Bangs declared that if he were Hedding he would 
 not permit his address to be published, because, said he, 
 “T would not dare to make such a use of my influence; that 
 address, if published, will be understood, all through the 
 South, as a defense of slavery.’’!® 
 
 To this committee were referred the petitions of over 
 seven hundred members of the Church within the bounds 
 of the conference. These petitioners asked: (1) for an of- 
 ficial expression of the conference on the question of slav- 
 ery; and (2) that the conference memorialize the next 
 General Conference for a change in the rule on slavery, 
 making it more stringent. The report of the committee was 
 in keeping with the circumstances under which the members 
 were appointed. The second request of the petitioners was 
 considered premature: since there would be two sessions of 
 the conference before 1840. In regard to the first request, 
 the committee declared that the Discipline, in affirming that 
 slavery was a ‘great evil’, referred not so much to its civil 
 and political, but to its moral character. They believed 
 further that the rule applied to the internal as well as the 
 foreign traffic. In dealing with the whole subject, the com- 
 mittee urged that reason rather than sympathy be employed. 
 
 Three conclusions were recommended as the best judgment 
 of the conference: (1) It was agreed that the subject might 
 be investigated and that one might speak on slavery, but, 
 considering its connection with the politics of the country, 
 it was deemed inadvisable and improper to employ the 
 Sabbath in that manner. (2) No part of the ministry 
 should be neglected to call attention to this or any other 
 subject which was of secondary importance to the real work 
 
The Rule of the Bishops, 1836-1837 73 
 
 of the ministry. (3) The stirring up of hatred against those 
 in authority in the Church was deplored, because it opened 
 up the way for the denunciation of any member of the 
 Church by another member. Such a course was especially 
 deplored among ministers, who were the religious and moral 
 leaders of the people.?° 
 
 In spite of this equivocal action, an anti-slavery society 
 was formed with sixty charter members. Forty more min- 
 isters joined soon after. The constitution of the society 
 was in conformity with the report on slavery, so that no 
 radical action could be expected immediately. A beginning 
 had been made, however, and the abolitionists might look - 
 forward with confidence to eventually winning the battle 
 for freedom. The development of even this much anti- 
 slavery sentiment was probably due to Orange Scott, who 
 seemed to attend every conference of which Bishop Hedding 
 was the presiding officer.** 
 
 Scott was also present at Erie conference and was instru- 
 mental in forming an anti-slavery society, made up of almost 
 half the members of the conference.** But for this year, the 
 conservatives were victorious. The conference disclaimed, 
 by a vote of 31 to 25, all connection with the society.”* 
 They also sustained the interpretation of the rule made by 
 Baltimore conference, when, in spite of the heroic efforts of 
 Scott, a motion condemning the resolutions of the southern 
 conference was defeated, 32 to 29. This reverse did not 
 dishearten the abolitionists but only spurred them on to 
 greater efforts during the ensuing year.?4 
 
 When Oneida conference convened some two weeks later, 
 Bishop Hedding and Scott again found themselves opposed 
 to each other. The question of slavery was introduced early 
 in the session and the bishop addressed the conference at 
 considerable length, setting forth his views. Scott lectured 
 in the Baptist church to a large audience, among whom were. 
 most of the Methodist ministers, George Peck then presented 
 resolutions against Scott for presuming to lecture against 
 slavery. Previous to this time, Hedding had refused to 
 introduce Scott to the conference lest the ministers think 
 that their bishop was in favor of anti-slavery principles. 
 But Peck’s resolution made it incumbent upon Hedding to 
 permit Scott to defend himself. The debate never occurred: 
 the resolutions were withdrawn, and Peck even refused to 
 
74 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 furnish a copy of them to Scott when requested to do so. 
 Due to the opposition to Scott in the conference, the other 
 churches were closed to abolition meetings, and Scott was 
 compelled to lecture outside, using the steps of the Baptist 
 Church as a platform.”° ° Again, the abolitionists must place 
 their hope in the future. 
 
 Three conferences— New England, Maine and New 
 Hampshire — constituted the abolition territory of the Meth- 
 odist Church. All sessions of these conferences were excit- 
 ing. So prominent an advocate of abolitionism had Scott 
 become that Hedding, who had come to New England confer- 
 ence for that purpose, spent half a day dealing with him. 
 Scott, who was absolutely fearless, took an equal time to 
 reply. He was charged with “slander, unchristian conduct, 
 and misrepresentation.” He was prevailed upon to retract 
 most of what he had said of a personal nature, and his char- 
 acter was then passed.2® Bishop Waugh, the presiding officer, 
 then attempted to prevent Scott from speaking against slav- 
 ery. The latter wished to be left without appointment but 
 he was assigned to a charge and the presiding elder instructed 
 not to release him. Later in the year, however, nine ministers 
 signed a statement in which they asserted their belief that 
 Scott should be permitted to travel as much as possible for a 
 year “for the benefit of his health.” It seems that his health 
 was not the best, but the fact remains that he did travel for 
 the Anti-slavery Society a great deal of the time.?? 
 
 By far the greatest excitement, and the most far-reaching 
 results, sprang from the struggle over the radical anti-slavery 
 program. Memorials from 3,403 Methodists were received, 
 but a motion to refer the same to a select committee was 
 declared inadmissable by the bishop.28 As a consequence of 
 these arbitrary methods, a call, signed by about seven hun- 
 dred preachers and laymen, and directed by Orange Scott 
 and a fellow-abolitionist named Merritt, was made in Zion’s 
 Herald, October 13, 1837, for the first Methodist Anti-slavery 
 convention, to be held at Lynn, Massachusetts. The purpose 
 of the meeting was two-fold: (1) to strengthen abolition 
 sentiment; (2) but more especially to express themselves 
 on the right of petition and the powers of the annual 
 conference.?° 
 
 Maine conference convened June 28, and the abolitionists 
 immediately began their attacks. Orange Scott and George 
 
 oe 
 
 ee ee ee ee ee ee, ee eee 
 
 
 
The Rule of the Bishops, 1836-1837 75 
 
 Storrs lectured; and anti-slavery pamphlets were freely dis- 
 tributed among the preachers. Many petitions against 
 slavery were in the hands of the ministers although they 
 were not presented for fear of a collision with Bishop 
 Waugh.” But the real strength of the abolitionists is 
 shown by the fact that an anti-slavery society, with over 
 seventy-five ministers as members, was organized. Scott . 
 reported that the conference had a decided majority in favor 
 of the abolition of slavery and that the rest were not antag- 
 onistic to the radical program. He predicted that these 
 ministers would take a strong stand against slavery the 
 following year.29 
 
 Ministers of New Hampshire conferences were determined 
 to pass anti-slavery resolutions or none, but the opposition 
 of Hedding was still more stubborn than that of Waugh.*° 
 Scott and Storrs were present to stir the anti-slavery party 
 to the highest pitch of excitement.*! Hedding repeated what 
 he had said at the other New England conferences — that 
 whatever could be sanctioned according to the Golden Rule 
 should be done, but that all else should be forbidden. His 
 Golden Rule policy became the target of abolition scorn in 
 the northeastern conferences. The bishop prevented the 
 appointment of a committee on slavery,®? by refusing to 
 put the motion for such a committee unless it was understood 
 that all conference business prior to the appointment of 
 preachers to their charges must be properly cared for before 
 the committee’s report was considered, and this report should 
 not be opposed to the expressed will of the General Con- 
 ference — the bishop to be the judge in both instances. The 
 conference refused to comply with Hedding’s wishes and 
 the committee was not ordered.?? Further, when an attempt 
 was made to pass a motion condemning the resolutions of 
 Baltimore conference relative to the interpretation of the 
 rule on slavery, the bishop refused to entertain the motion.** 
 
 By their rulings in New England conferences, Hedding and 
 Waugh had hoped to destroy the rising power of abolitionists. 
 The result was far different from what they probably antici- 
 pated, and certainly the opposite to what they desired. 
 Anti-slavery Methodists increased their efforts. La Roy Sun- 
 derland published his “Testimony of God against Slavery,’’®° 
 and by his lectures far and wide aided the cause. Orange 
 Scott was especially prominent in building up anti-slavery 
 
76 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 sentiment in a number of northern conferences until aboli- 
 tionists became the controlling element.2® At Cazenovia, New 
 York, a layman offered a resolution that they would refuse to 
 receive a preacher appointed by a bishop who had rejected 
 resolutions such as had been presented in New England con- 
 ference. Gerritt Smith here charged that the Methodist Church 
 was a “rum-drinking, pro-slavery Church.” This caused a con- 
 troversy between Smith and Peck,. who replied in the Auburn 
 Banner. Peck maintains that his opponent retracted what 
 he had said about the Church,” but even on the question of 
 slavery, Smith had the support of at least one Methodist 
 minister.38 Another result of the proscription of conferences 
 by these bishops was the increase in the number of anti- 
 slavery societies. Many books, pamphlets and circulars — 
 amounting, for the year 1837, to 718,267 copies — were pub- 
 lished by the Anti-slavery Society.®? 
 
 Several observations may, with full justice, be made on 
 the action of the bishops of the Methodist Church during 
 these two years. In the first place, there is not one iota 
 of evidence to show that any bishop raised the slightest 
 objection to any resolution passed by a southern conference 
 on slavery and abolition. On the contrary, Bishop Hedding 
 refused to entertain a motion condemning Baltimore con- 
 ference for their interpretation of the rule. The second 
 observation is that the action of Hedding and Waugh, pro- 
 scribing conferences and individuals, was a blow at the right 
 of free speech. For ministers less bold than Scott and his 
 followers there could be no liberty of speech without jeopard- 
 izing their standing in the conference. Finally, it may be 
 affirmed that, while the immediate result of. the bishops’ 
 rulings was wholly favorable to the South, the abolition 
 propaganda had been spread tremendously in these two years. 
 The Church was on the defensive, and the abolitionists, with 
 all the zeal of Crusaders, launched their attacks with the 
 greatest energy and skill. 
 
 1. They declared that it was ‘‘the duty of the members of this confer- 
 ence wholly to refrain from all abolition measures and movements 
 as being incompatible with their duty as ministers of the Lord 
 Jesus Chist, and as promoters of the peace and welfare of the 
 Church to which they belong.’’ 
 
 2. Zion’s Watchman was condemned because it tended to ‘disturb the 
 peace and harmony of the body, by sowing dissensions in the 
 Church.”’ 
 
 3. They said that, while a man might have his own opinions on 
 
13. 
 
 The Rule of the Bishops, 1836-1837 77 
 
 slavery, ‘‘none ought to be elected to the office of a deacon or elder in our 
 CHURCH UNLESS he gives 2 PLEDGE to the conference that he 
 will refrain from agitating the church with the discussions of this 
 subject.” It is to be noted that all young men who sought ad- 
 Been into the ranks of the ordained clergy gave the required 
 pledge. 
 
 Elliot, the Great Secession, cols. 141-2. Cf. Christian Advocate 
 and Journal, Volume X, p. 179, col. 4; July 1, 1836. The resolution 
 read that “in the judgment of this conference, it is incompatible 
 with the duty which the members owe to the church, as ministers 
 for them to be engaged in attending anti-slavery conventions, de- 
 livering abolition lectures, or forming anti-slavery societies, either 
 in or out of the church, or in any way agitating the subject so 
 as to disturb the peace and harmony of the Church and that they 
 be, and hereby are affectionately advised and admonished to 
 refrain from all these things.’’ 
 
 Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 107. The resolution reads: 
 “That in view of all the facts, Brother Scott’s character for truth, 
 and veracity, stands fair and unimpeached.’’ 
 
 The decision of the conference was as follows: ‘‘Resolved, That 
 bro. Sunderland’s writings have sometimes been unguarded and 
 as a matter of course, have had a tendency to mislead the judg- 
 ment; and that he be required to correct the misstatements made 
 in reference to the General Conference, Doctor Bangs, and the 
 New York Conference, and that he be advised to be more guarded 
 in future, and that his character pass.”’ 
 
 Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 109-10. Cf. Norwood, The 
 Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 40; Clark, The Life and 
 Times of Hedding, p. 494; and Crawford, The Centennial of New 
 England Methodism, p. 210. Parkhurst says that Hedding ‘actually 
 exercised his prerogative as the appointing power to discipline 
 and humiliate Orange Scott; and only because that man of con- 
 science will not promise to close his lips on the subject of aboli- 
 tionism.’’ f 
 
 Clark, The Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 495-6. 
 
 Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 142-3. 
 
 . Clark. The Life and Times of Hedding, pp, 496-8. 
 . Gregg, The History of the Erie Conference, Volume I, pp. 3387-9. 
 . The statements from the Emancipator are scarcely exaggerated: ‘‘We 
 
 aver, without qualification, that so far as the three great denomi- 
 nations (Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Methodist) are con- 
 cerned, the AMERICAN CHURCH IS, AT THIS MOMENT, A 
 SLAVERY-COUNTENANCING, A SLAVERY-PROTECTING, AND 
 A SLAVEHOLDING CHURCH.” (Emancipator, September 8, 1836) 
 “Tf Jesus Christ himself were to come here to preach deliverance 
 to the captives, they (the Methodists) would turn him out of the 
 church. Yet Dr. Fisk will have it, there is no pro-slavery party 
 in the Methodist Episcopal Church.’’ (Emancipator, November 24, 
 1836) Both extracts are quoted in the Liberator, Volume XII, 
 p. 170, col. 5; October 28, 1842. 
 
 Western Christian Advocate; Volume XV, p. 2, cols. 5-6; April 12, 
 1848. The minutes of Georgia conference of 1837 are quoted as 
 follows: 
 
 “Whereas there is a clause in the Discipline of our Church which 
 states that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil 
 of slavery; and whereas the said clause has been perverted by 
 some and used in such a manner as to produce the impression 
 that the Methodist Episcopal Church believed slavery to be a 
 moral evil, 
 
 Therefore, Resolved, That it is the sense of the Georgia annual 
 conference, that slavery as it exists in the United States, is not a 
 moral evil. 
 
 ‘Resolved, That we view slavery as a civil and domestic institu- 
 tion, and one which, as ministers of Christ, we have nothing to 
 do with, further than to ameliorate the condition of the slave, 
 by endeavoring to impart to him and his master the benign 
 
78 
 
 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 influences of the religion -of Christ, and aiding them both on 
 their way to heaven. 
 
 “On motion, it was Resolved, unanimously, That the Georgia annual 
 conference regard with feelings of profound respect and appro- 
 bation the dignified course of the several superintendents or bishops 
 in suppressing the attempts that have been made by various 
 individuals to get up and protract an excitement in the Churches 
 and country on the subject of abolitionism.’’ 
 
 Some explanation of this action is offered by a correspondent 
 of Zion’s Herald, who wrote that conference members held a very 
 high place in the society of the state. “It is this fact, which 
 produces the extreme sensitiveness on some matters of domestic 
 policy and political doctrines. No man not similarly situated, 
 can tell how HE would act, All judicious men would require some 
 time for reflection, before they would be willing to array them- 
 selves openly against all the leading men in the community, on 
 matters of a political nature.’’ (Matlack, History of American 
 Slavery and Methodism, pp. 69-70.) 
 
 . Redford, Western Cavaliers, pp. 202-3. 
 
 . Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, pp. 39-40. 
 
 . Gregg, The History of the Erie Conference, Volume II, p. 45. 
 
 . Conable, The History of the Genesee Conference, Dp. 405. 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 407-10. Cf. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 157-8. 
 Lee, Autobiography, p. 137. 
 
 . Conable, History of the Genesee Conference, pp. 407-10. ‘‘Such 
 
 practice tends, by necessary consequence, to the destruction of 
 mutual confidence, and virtually says to any and every member 
 of the Church who is under temptation to gratify a private pique 
 against a fellow-member, ‘Go, and do thou likewise.’ Such a 
 practice and especially among ministers, cannot but open the sluices 
 of such indiscriminate detraction in the Church as will not so 
 certainly purify it from the acknowledged evil of slavery, as it 
 will provoke a holy God to take his Spirit from us and leave us 
 to be the ‘hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean 
 and hateful bird.’’ ‘The editor of Zion’s Herald wrote: ‘‘We most 
 solemnly believe that a continual controversy on these topics 
 will be blasting in its effects to the best interests of the church 
 with which we are connected, and which we so ardently love.” 
 (Elliot, The Great Secession, col, 177). 
 
 . Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 133-4. 
 
 MEDIC.) pel b28: 
 
 . Gregg, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II, pp. 46-7. 
 
 . Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II, pp. 499- 
 
 500. Cf. Gregg, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II, p. 46. 
 
 . Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 128-31. 
 
 . Mudge, "The History of the New England Conference, p. 286. 
 . Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 118. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 179. 
 
 & Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 124-6. 
 
 PeLOIe Dou l4 7. 
 
 tebbids pl) 126: 
 
 i Matlack, History of American stevens and Methodism, pp. 57-60. 
 
 . Clark, The Life and Times of Hedding, p. 504. 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 504-65. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume VII, p. 204, col. 5; December 15, 1837. 
 
 . Elliot, The Great Secession, cols. 172-3. It is to be noted that, 
 
 of Scott’s one thousand members at Lowell, Massachusetts in 
 1836-7, seven-eighths were abolitionists, as were all but one of 
 his official members. 
 
 . Peck, The Life and Times of G. Peck, p. 193. 
 . Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, p. 31. 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 180-81. It is to be noted that 
 
 an official statement of the American Anti-Slavery Society for 
 1836 gives the number of documents as _ 1,095,800. (The Mis- 
 sionary Herald, Volume XXXII, p. 263—Year 1836). 
 
GHAPIER Vil 
 
 THE CRUSHING OF THE ABOLITIONISTS 1838-1839 
 
 The greatest excitement characterized Methodist papers 
 and conferences in 1838 and 1839. That which created as 
 much bitterness as any other event was the murder of Elijah 
 P. Lovejoy at Alton, Illinois Luther Lee, who, until this 
 time, had done very little in behalf of the abolition cause, 
 preached a sermon in which he condemned the mob and 
 vindicated the principles for which Lovejoy had been killed. 
 He admitted that he might be censured as an abolitionist, and 
 added: “If this is abolitionism, then I am an abolitionist, and 
 I would be glad, were it possible, to give my abolitionism a 
 thousand tongues, and write it in letters of flame on the 
 wings of every wind, to be seen and read of all men.’” 
 Scott wrote an article in which he defended Lovejoy and 
 urged that the press at Alton be set up again and the fight 
 for free speech and a free press continued. Scott was a 
 non-resistant but contended that Lovejoy had the right to 
 protect himself, by force, if necessary. For this statement 
 he was bitterly condemned by the Christian Advocate and 
 Journal, which charged that he favored force to protect abol- 
 itionism —a charge which was untrue — and attempted to 
 show that he was not to be trusted as a leader? Fisk pub- 
 lished a statement on the same subject, which condemned the 
 abolitionist more than those who murdered him, and put the 
 blame on Lovejoy, because he had disregarded the excited 
 state of public opinion. The South itself was scarcely more 
 bitter against Lovejoy and those who supported him.* 
 
 In almost every northern conference, an exciting struggle 
 occurred between abolitionists and conservatives. Due to 
 statements which Scott had made relative to the power exer- 
 cised by some of the bishops, Hedding preferred charges 
 against Scott for lack of Christian sincerity, and using 
 “Bishop Hedding and other bishops in an unbrotherly and 
 disrespectful manner, unbecoming a Methodist preacher.” 
 
 79 
 
80 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 But the conference refused to censure Scott, and his char- 
 acter was passed. Sunderland was likewise supported by the 
 conference. Hedding considered that he had been unjustly 
 treated, but he was unable to secure redress until the ensuing 
 General Conference, when he hoped that his administration 
 would be fully vindicated. : 
 
 The real danger to abolitionists came as a “result of the 
 proposal to appoint a committee composed of six abolition- 
 ists and six conservatives to consider a “Plan of Pacification” 
 which had been outlined by a member of Maine conference.® 
 According to this plan, which had the approval of Fisk and 
 Bangs, and bishops Soule and Hedding, members of the 
 conference would have been completely muzzled’. Garrison 
 declared that it was a “cunningly devised scheme, to ensnare 
 abolitionists, and induce them to lay their heads in the lap of — 
 Delilah, while they could be shorn of their strength by the 
 razor of ecclesiastical authority.” The scheme almost suc- 
 ceeded. The first vote was 64 to 21 for adoption. Scott 
 now exerted himself, and some, who had not voted before, 
 voted against the plan, while others changed their votes. 
 Finally, the motion for adoption was lost, 64 to 54.8 
 
 On the seventeenth and last day of the conference, Hedd- 
 ing announced that he had finished all the business required 
 of him, except reading the journal and closing the conference. 
 He informed the ministers that he must leave soon in order 
 to reach Maine conference in time for the opening session 
 and that, if they desired, they might meet for a longer period 
 under the presidency of Bishop Soule. The conference 
 voted to have the journal and appointments read immed- 
 iately.® It was at this juncture that Scott offered resolutions 
 on slavery that had already been passed at other conferences. 
 Hedding refused to permit a motion for their adoption, al- 
 leging that there was insufficient time to consider them. He 
 declared that he had promised to read the appointments in 
 half an hour and he must keep his word. Three-fourths of 
 an hour elapsed before the appointments were read. Then 
 he asked the pardon of the conference for not keeping his 
 word, and one member “proposed to grant him pardon for 
 that, and for taking time enough to adopt the resolutions ; but 
 he declined to admit them.’2° Such wrangling accomplished 
 
The Crushing of the Abolitionists, 1838-1839 81 
 
 no immediate result except to arouse the animosity of abo- 
 litionists and conservatives for each other, but it did aid in 
 keeping the question of slavery and abolition always in the 
 - forefront of discussion. 
 
 Scott’s prediction in 1837 that Maine conference would 
 take a strong stand against slavery was doomed to disappoint- 
 ment. Immediately after the adjournment of New England 
 conference, Scott had an account of his trial and Bishop 
 Hedding’s administration during the New England confer- 
 ence printed as “Zion’s Herald extra.’ Copies of his state- 
 ment were distributed freely among preachers and laymen 
 at Maine conference. But Hedding took no notice of his 
 propaganda, and abolitionists seem to have accomplished very 
 little? On the contrary, the conservatives controlled the 
 conference. Much to Garrison’s surprise and grief, the “Plan 
 of Pacification” was adopted, 86 to 6. 
 
 When the intractable New Hampshire conference con- 
 vened, Scott and Storrs, with other abolitionists, were 
 present to use their influence against any compromise on 
 slavery. The conference business ran smoothly until it came 
 time to examine the character of each minister. At this 
 juncture, an abolitionist quietly moved the appointment of 
 a committee of five, who should consider the case of each 
 minister who had attended the anti-slavery convention at 
 Lowell, Massachusetts in October, 1837. This was done to 
 give abolitionists an opportunity to speak, which they did for 
 about two hours. Every minister who had participated in 
 the anti-slavery convention was challenged by another abolit- 
 ionist and, after a short discussion, his character was passed. 
 When this procedure became tiresome, a resolution was 
 adopted, 81 to 1, “That it is the sense of this conference that 
 an attendance, on the part of any of its members, on abolition 
 conventions, delivering abolition lectures, or circulating 
 abolition periodicals, does not involve immorality, or militate 
 against his ministerial character.” This resolution was 
 agreed to by Bishop Morris so far as the first part was. con- 
 cerned, but the second section was pronounced out of order 
 “on the ground that it approved what the General Conference 
 had condemned”, An appeal was taken from his decision, 
 and Morris agreed to put the motion on the appeal, provided 
 
82 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 his exceptions was entered in the journal. Another motion, 
 to publish the resolution, was agreed to by Morris, provided 
 his decision and exception were also published.13 
 
 Abolitionists from other conferences seem to have been 
 responsible for the strong anti-slavery sentiment in the con- 
 ference. July 9, the anti-slavery society of the conference 
 condemned plans to stop anti-slavery agitation.* Although 
 the “Plan of Pacification” was not brought forward at this 
 conference, the society declared: (1) that the pacification 
 proposed in other conferences would lead to contention rather 
 than peace; (2) that abolitionists who had agreed to the plan 
 had sacrificed their principles; and (3) that all Methodists 
 should leave the proposed compromise alone.’ From an abo- 
 lition viewpoint this was one of the most successful of the 
 conferences of that year. 
 
 The slavery issue came before Troy conference through 
 the attempt of conservatives to try a brilliant young abolition- 
 ist named Spooner. Conservatives rejected all overtures to 
 settle the dispute without a trial. It was then that Cyrus 
 Prindle, one of the most able men of the conference, an- 
 nounced that he would defend Spooner and that the opposi- 
 tion might proceed as soon as they desired. Confronted by 
 such an advocate, the cowards immediately dropped the case 
 and the accused minister’s character was passed.1® 
 
 In Black River conference, Luther Lee was the abolitionist 
 marked for slaughter. An anti-slavery convention, held at 
 Utica, New York, had appointed Lee to represent anti- 
 slavery Methodists at the Conference of the Canada Wes- 
 leyan Church. The Conference refused to receive him 
 officially inasmuch as he was not the delegate of the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church. Jesse T. Peck and two other official 
 delegates assured the Canadians that it would greatly offend 
 their Church if Lee were officially recognized.!? 
 
 It was for making these statements in Zion's Herald — 
 for the Christian Advocate and Journal refused to admit 
 them — that Lee was accused in Black River conference, and 
 the approval of his character delayed. He was given until 
 the following morning to prepare his defense and he deter- 
 mined to fight to the bitter end. But when the trial was 
 ready to start, Peck withdrew his charges and Lee’s char- 
 acter was passed. Peck declared that “he had been pressed 
 
The Crushing of the Abolitionists, 1838-1839 83 
 
 and overborne by the leading members of the Conference, 
 who had urged him to this course.” Since this attempt to 
 cripple Lee had failed, martyrdom must be sought in another 
 direction. In spite of the fact that Lee had a large family 
 to support and, was one of the ablest preachers of the con- 
 ference, Bishop Morris appointed him to Oswego, where both 
 Church and people were in financial straits as a result of 
 the panic of 1837. Lee refused to go and obtained a 
 location.1® 
 
 The resolutions of Oneida conference seem to have 
 favored the radicals; at least no action was taken to “vindi- 
 cate the Church” or denounce abolitionists.1® The sessions 
 of Genesee conference at Elmira, New York, were more 
 exciting. On the second day, the anti-slavery society met for 
 the anniversary program, but the preacher in charge at 
 Elmira informed the abolitionists that a public meeting to 
 discuss slavery would give great offense to trustees and 
 members of his church. The society therefore adjourned to 
 Clinton Island, near by. Village authorities warned them 
 not to hold a second meeting, and when they persisted, a 
 mob attacked the ministers. On the following day, the con- 
 ference condemned the mob but also adopted a resolution in 
 which they censured the anti-slavery meeting as “unjusti- 
 fiable and highly improper” since they had been advised and 
 warned by the village authorities not to carry out their 
 program. They also declared that this act on the part of 
 the abolitionists was “calculated to dishonor the character of 
 the gospel ministry in general, and to lower the dignity of 
 this Conference in particular.’’° 
 
 Intense excitement also marked Erie conference which 
 convened at Painesville, Ohio. The conference disclaimed 
 “all intention of interfering with any man’s opinions,” and 
 quoted the Discipline to show their opposition to slavery; 
 but they declared “it incompatible with the duties and obli- 
 gations of Methodist preachers to spend their time delivering 
 abolition lectures, contributing to the getting up of abolition 
 conventions, or in circulating abolition papers.” John J. 
 Steadman won the approval of conservatives, of whom the 
 bishop was one, by his powerful advocacy of the resolution. 
 The conservatives were entirely successful, the resolution 
 being adopted, 36 to 30.7! 
 
84 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Two ministers were brought to trial under this ruling. 
 J. S. Barris was charged with insubordination to the consti- 
 tuted authorities of the Church, and with participation in 
 anti-slavery programs. He had been disobedient to the ad- 
 vice of the General Conference of 1836; and had arranged 
 for, and presided at an abolition meeting, and given an aboli- 
 tion sermon in a Congregational church. He was also tried 
 because he had given the preachers of New Castle Circuit 
 permission to attend an abolition convention at Utica, New 
 York. A compromise was effected, after which Barris was 
 admonished by the bishop, by order of the conference, to 
 refrain from agitating the question. His character was then 
 passed.22. The second preacher was much more defiant. 
 Benjamin Preston was charged with having compared the 
 proceedings of New York conference to a Roman inquisi- 
 tion; with saying that he would lecture and circulate aboli- 
 tion papers as much as possible and “the conference might 
 help itself if it could;”’ with aiding an anti-slavery society 
 in Monroe Village, although he was urged not to do so; and 
 with “desecrating the Sabbath by delivering abolition lectures 
 thereon.” Preston admitted all the charges except that 
 deliverance of abolition lectures on Sunday was a desecration 
 of the Sabbath. He was pronounced guilty and deprived of 
 his parchment and suspended for one year. The following 
 evening, a large audience assembled to hear Preston’s de- 
 fense. He denounced the action of the conference and 
 compared it with a Roman inquisition.** 
 
 As has been intimated, New York conference was decidedly 
 conservative. Scott preferred charges against Dr. Bangs for 
 attacks upon him in the press to the injury of his character 
 and influence but Bangs’ character was passed.24 On the 
 other hand, three members of the conference were suspended 
 because of their connection with the anti-slavery program. 
 The indictment was that they had attended the anti-slavery 
 convention at Utica, which was deemed “unauthorized, 
 schismatic, and revolutionary,” and that they had acted con- 
 trary to the advice of the General Conference to all preachers 
 “wholly to refrain from all abolition movements and associa- 
 tions.” They were also censured for writing for abolition 
 papers. Luther Lee was their counsel, but it was apparent, 
 even before the trial began, that they were to be convicted. 
 
The Crushing of the Abolitionists, 1838-1839 85 
 
 They were re-instated only when they promised to cease 
 agitating the slavery question. Two others conformed to the 
 wishes of the conference and were not suspended. The 
 determination of the conference to destroy all remnants of 
 abolitionism was also shown in the attempt to send David 
 Plumb to a poor circuit because he was an abolitionist. He 
 refused to go and the following year was expelled from the 
 conference. The conference also condemned Zion’s Watch- 
 man and prohibited ministers acting as its agents. Finally, 
 resolutions were adopted recommending the Colonization 
 Society to the people, and forbidding ministers to attend 
 anti-slavery meetings, form anti-slavery societies, or give 
 lectures against slavery. The resolutions concluded by 
 stating ; “It is ardently to be hoped, therefore, that within the 
 bounds of the New York Annual Conference, the churches 
 will have peace.’’?° 
 
 Just what some Methodists thought of these proceedings 
 may be surmised from the statement of one writer, “Disciple 
 of Wesley.” After declaring that the large churches were 
 rapidly becoming more iniquitous in character than ever be- 
 fore, he cited the action of the Presbyterian General Assem- 
 bly which refused to permit the discussion of slavery. Then, 
 turning to the Methodists, he asserted that the New York 
 conference of 1838 had emulated their “man-stealing con- 
 federates in their usurpation over the rights of conscience, 
 and their unrighteous opposition to their own avowed doc- 
 trines and discipline.’’”6 
 
 The frontier Michigan conference was established in 1836. 
 For two years the slavery question was not discussed because 
 abolitionists were few in number, and the majority were not 
 prepared to censure them. But in 1838 the abolitionists in 
 the Church were condemned; action was taken against aboli- 
 tion lectures; and Zion’s Watchman was declared “anti- 
 methodistical in its general course.” Pressure was also 
 brought to bear upon those members who urged their people 
 to subscribe for abolition papers rather than for those which 
 had the Church’s official sanction.?? 
 
 Not only were there trials of ministers, but anti-slavery 
 laymen were also condemned. The case of one Brown of 
 Auburn, New York, is typical. In February, 1839, he was 
 charged with misrepresentation, slander and falsehood. The 
 
86 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 specifications under the first charge will indicate the char- 
 acter of the whole. “Specification 1: Saying that the meet- 
 ing at the organization of the Wesleyan Anti-slavery Society 
 was numerously attended. Specification 2: Saying that the 
 doctrine had recently been set up that when ministers become 
 members of an Annual Conference they surrender the keep- 
 ing of their consciences to that body, and that members yield 
 to the Church or minister the keeping of that sacred trust.” 
 All members who had attended the anti-slavery prayer-meet- 
 ing in which the statements were made, were declared dis- 
 qualified to try this case.» Even then, Brown was acquitted 
 on all the charges brought against him except the second 
 specification given above, but this was sufficient to secure his 
 expulsion from the Church.?°, 
 
 Conservatives also did everything possible to prevent aboli- 
 tionists from speaking against slavery. At Auburn, New 
 York, the Methodist minister refused to permit Luther Lee 
 to preach, although he had formerly been a pastor there. 
 Thereupon, the Presbyterian minister invited him to speak in 
 his church against slavery. Very few attended the Methodist 
 services. At Warsaw, in the same state, he encountered a 
 presiding elder who refused him permission to speak except — 
 at two o'clock in the afternoon. Lee humorously declares 
 that the elder, Mr. Alverson, “sung long meter, prayed long 
 meter, administered the sacrament long meter, and by the 
 time he got through with all these long meters it was two 
 o’clock.”” Alverson had undoubtedly hoped that the audience, 
 wearied with his pious “long meters’ would depart and thus 
 leave Lee without an audience, But in spite of the disad- 
 vantages of the hour, a large number remained to hear him. 
 That evening Lee had his revenge. All the people who 
 attended church, with the exception of nine, heard Lee at 
 the Congregational church on the subject of slavery. Of the 
 nine who attended divine worship at the Methodist church, 
 one had been sent by Lee to count the rest.27? At Middle- 
 town, Connecticut, the Methodist minister refused to permit 
 the bell of his church to be rung to announce an anti-slavery 
 meeting in the Congregational church. The people became 
 so indignant at this lack of courtesy, which had always been 
 extended on other occasions, that enough money for a new 
 bell for the Congregationalists was quickly subscribed. The 
 
The Crushing of the Abolitionists, 1838-1839 87 
 
 Methodist minister, Mr. Hodgson, then challenged Lee to a 
 debate on slavery, but at the time set, Hodgson failed to 
 appear.°° 
 
 Lee and Scott also encountered considerable opposition 
 from within the abolition ranks. Some anti-slavery advo- 
 cates, including Garrison and Wendell Phillips, advocated 
 women’s rights and non-resistance, Lee endeavored to get 
 control of the anti-slavery meetings in order to guide the 
 organization’s policy.2! His attitude towards the new doc- 
 trines of Garrison and Phillips was the same as that of 
 Orange Scott. The latter once declared that he hoped no 
 Methodist would “sustain that rotten-hearted, no-human 
 government, women’s rights institution, called the Massa- 
 chusetts Anti-slavery Soctety.’?? 
 
 Favorite instruments of abolitionists were anti-slavery con- 
 ventions and the press. One of the most important of these 
 conventions was held at Utica, New York. Here, the dele- 
 gates asserted that countenancing a known sin was dishonor- 
 able to ministers and to the cause of Christ; and that the 
 ““Deace of the church’ cannot be endangered by an inflexible 
 adherence to the great principles of righteousness.” They 
 believed that a minister’s acts were public property, and said 
 they would not refrain from criticism. They declared that 
 they respected ministers, but repudiated the “idea that they 
 are the church—infallible in judgment,—or authorized to 
 suppress any portion of God’s truth.” Finally, they resolved 
 that “the aspect of the times indicates the necessity at an 
 early day, of a convention of lay members of the M. E., 
 Church, at some central point, to take into consideration the 
 course proper to be pursued by them in order to secure the 
 freedom of speech and an untrammeled ministry.”*? 
 
 Zion's Watchman, the abolition organ, was viciously at- 
 tacked from all sides. Conferences passed resolutions of 
 condemnation; the editor was hailed before the Court of 
 General Sessions in Lexington County, New York, but was 
 acquitted; and four times was he compelled to stand trial 
 before New England conference. In most instances, the 
 prosecution was conducted by a member of New York con- 
 ference. Perhaps the extraordinary liberality with which the 
 Watchman was sent, gratis, to members of this conference 
 may account for resolutions against Sunderland, the editor, 
 
88 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 and Merritt, his associate. Sunderland declared that never 
 had official Methodist papers supported him or his cause.*4 
 
 At least one other Church viewed the struggle of Metho- 
 dist abolitionists and conservatives with the most intense 
 interest, but there was no sympathy expressed for radicals. 
 The Boston Olive Branch believed that the Methodist Church 
 was resting on a mine which might explode at any moment. 
 Church leaders who sought to stem the abolition tide, which 
 seemed about to sweep everything before it, were very highly 
 commended, Sunderland, Scott and other abolitionists were 
 condemned for having caused all the trouble and for desiring 
 a schism in the Church. It was even proclaimed that these 
 men were seeking a division of the Church so that they 
 might be bishops in the new organization. The writer said 
 he would rather go to Russia than live under their adminis- 
 tration. He claimed, concerning Sunderland’s work in New 
 England, that “his track was desolation,” and that abolition- 
 ists were “scattering arrows, firebrands and death. We will 
 hope and pray that such madness may never seize on Protes- 
 tant Methodists.’’® 
 
 The southern attitude towards Methodist abolitionists may 
 be imagined. One southern correspondent advised the editor 
 of Zion’s Watchman to take care of poor whites in the North 
 and leave negroes alone. He warned Sunderland not to come 
 into southern territory with abolition missionaries. He 
 asserted that political disunion was threatened unless the 
 propaganda of abolitionists ceased.25 Another writer urged 
 the advisability of a separation of the South from the North. 
 He also protested against the sending of “accursed fire 
 brands,” “infernal publications” and “hellish productions” to 
 the South.3® - William Capers raised his voice against the 
 abolitionism of such papers as Zion’s Herald as tending to 
 infidelity, and at the same time defended slavery because it 
 promoted the welfare of slaves.27 Capers was fully sup- 
 ported by the southern pro-slavery party. It was about this 
 time that a meeting of slaveholders in Mississippi declared 
 that any person who circulated abolition papers in the state 
 was “justly worthy, in the sight of God and man, of 
 IMMEDIATE DEATH.”. They also demanded that clergy- 
 men of the state take a stand on slavery. In answer to this 
 ultimatum, a Methodist publication of the commonwealth 
 
The Crushing of the Abolitiontsts, 1838-1839 89 
 
 “announced that it would ‘recognize the right of man to 
 hold property in man.’ 38 
 
 It has been abundantly proved that conservatives and 
 southerners were not very considerate of the feelings of 
 anti-slavery Methodists. But conservatives affirm that aboli- 
 tionists also overstepped the bounds of propriety again and 
 again in their zeal to destroy the power of their opponents. 
 Clark, writing of the period just before the General Confer- 
 ence of 1840, says that “generally a cloud of lecturers hung 
 about the path of Bishop Hedding, perverting and misrep- 
 resenting his acts and character.” He adds that Hedding 
 became “the butt of their ridicule; and in some of their 
 lectures a mock slave-auction was enacted, and Bishop 
 Hedding and his wife in burlesque sold as slaves.’’*9 
 
 During these two years, the most persistent attempts had 
 been made to crush abolitionists. The full power of the 
 Church had been called out to destroy all opposition to the 
 program which had been agreed upon at the General Confer- 
 ence of 1836. Official Methodist papers were always against 
 abolitionism; conferences, with a few notable exceptions, 
 supported the General Conference program; and bishops 
 sought to weaken the abolitionists at every opportunity. 
 They refused to permit anti-slavery motions to be voted 
 upon, and attempted to send many an abolitionist to an 
 undesirable appointment. When these methods failed, they 
 resorted to trials and compelled refractory ministers to sub- 
 mit or had them expelled from their conferences.4? The 
 most serious charge that can be brought against bishops and 
 conferences, however, is not that they discountenanced aboli- 
 tionism and supported either the conservative or the pro- 
 slavery program, but that they denied to American citizens 
 their constitutional rights of free speech and peaceable as- 
 sembly. Undoubtedly, the abolitionists had greatly multiplied 
 since 1836. Temporarily, the Church forces were highly 
 successful ; ultimately, conservative and pro-slavery partizans 
 must fail because they denied the “satellites of Hedding’* 
 and their followers the fundamental rights of American 
 citizens.** 
 
 1. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 181. Lovejoy was murdered, 
 November ACTER E 
 2. Lee, Autobiography, pp. 137-8. 
 
90 
 
 a CO 
 
 17. 
 
 18. 
 19. 
 20. 
 21. 
 
 Eptcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 150-53. 
 
 The Southern Christian Advocate printed an article on Lovejoy, the 
 conclusion of which reads: ‘‘Mobs and riots are the veritable 
 daughters of abolition. Fruits which no other tree produces, or 
 can produce, in the slaveholding states. And whoever he be that. 
 has suffered in these states by them, he has suffered under a 
 strong conviction in the public mind that he was an incendiary, 
 plotting against the peace of society, and unworthy of the protec- 
 tion of the laws. A Martyr indeed!” (The Liberator, Volume 
 Vill, p.. 17, col. 1; February 2, 1838). 
 
 Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 522-7. Hedding charged 
 Sunderland ‘‘(1) with treating him in a scurrilous manner; (2) 
 with publishing against him an injurious falsehood; (3) with pub- 
 lishing a false conjecture respecting the bishops; (4) with report- 
 ing a falsehood; and (5) with misrepresentation.”’ 
 
 Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 159. 
 
 The provisions of the “‘Plan’’ were as follows: (1) ‘‘Never attack 
 an officer, clergyman, or private member” in public journals or 
 in lectures. Everything was to be left to the regular procedure 
 of the Church. It would be proper to have a ‘‘courteous investi- 
 gation of principles and opinions.’’ (2) Ministers must not leave 
 their proper work to lecture on this or any other subject without 
 the sanction of the proper authorities of the Church; (3) No 
 paper was to be established ostensibly to aid the anti-slavery 
 movement, which used a name peculiar to the Church. (4) They 
 were opposed to anti-slavery organizations using names peculiar 
 to Methodists. (5) Ministers and laymen might connect themselves 
 with anti-slavery societies if such action were not contrary to 
 the terms of this agreement. (6) Prayers might be offered for 
 master and slave. ‘“‘But we recommend that Apostolic language 
 be used, so far as may be, in such devotions.’ (7) Preachers 
 could read and explain the rules of the Church. (8) Members 
 were granted the right to petition the General Conference on the 
 subject of slavery. (9) ‘‘Nevertheless, in all circumstances relat- 
 ing to the above, we recommend to our preachers and people to 
 exercise ‘the wisdom of the serpent and the harmlessness of 
 the dove.’ ”’ (The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 123, cols. 1-2; 
 August 3, 1838. 
 
 The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 123, col. 2; August 3, 1838. 
 Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 527-8. 
 
 . Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 157-8. 
 
 . Clark, The Life and Times of Hedding, p. 528. 
 
 . Allen and Pilsbury, Methodism in Maine, pp. 110-11. 
 
 . Clark, The Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 528-30. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, pp. 195-6. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 123. col. 2; August 8, 1838. 
 
 . Lee, Autobiography, pp. 156-7. The conference was divided into 
 
 two hostile camps, of which the conservative was the stronger. 
 The Rev. Guy Beckley, writing to Zion’s Herald, declared that one 
 of these conservatives asserted that ‘‘abolitionism was ‘to take a 
 nigger ON your back, and run over the Advocate and Journal — the 
 Bishops and General Conference, trampling them all under foot.’ ”’ 
 (The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 123, col. 3; August 3, 1838). 
 
 In regard to what happened at the Conference, the statements of 
 Lee and Peck disagree. Peck says that Lee arrived and departed 
 before the former came; Lee denies this assertion and insists 
 that he made a speech representing all of the Americans. Lee 
 also says that Peck and the other ‘‘orthodox’’ Methodists were there 
 two days before he arrived and poisoned the minds of the Canad- 
 ians against him, 
 
 Lee, Autobiography, pp. 162-6. 
 
 Peck, The Life and Times of G. Peck, p. 195. 
 
 Conable, History of the Genesee Conference, pp. 427-30. 
 
 Gregg, Methodism within the Bounds of the Erie Conference, Vol- 
 ume Il, pp. 75-6. The resolution reads: ‘‘That while it (the con- 
 ference) does disclaim all intention of interfering with any 
 man’s opinion’s and while, as the Discipline says, ‘We are as 
 
22. 
 23. 
 
 24. 
 25. 
 
 The Crushing of the Abolitionists, 1838-1839 91 
 
 much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery’: we judge it 
 incompatible with the duties and obligations of Methodist preachers 
 to spend their time in delivering abolition lectures, contributing 
 to the getting up of abolition conventions, or in circulating aboli- 
 tion papers.’’ 
 
 Gregg, Methodism within the Bounds of the Erie Conference, 
 Volume II, pp. 76-8. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 78-80. The indictment was as follows: 
 
 “First, For saying that the proceedings of the New York Con- 
 ference at its last session was unrighteous and unjust, and equal 
 to a Roman inquisition, and he would as leave see the persecu- 
 tions under the reign of Queen Mary revived as such proceedings, 
 and that the devil was at the bottom of it. 
 
 “Second, For saying that in reference to his abolition movements 
 he would lecture as much as he pleased, and circulate ‘Zion’s 
 Watchman’ as much as he could, and the conference might help 
 itself if it could. 
 
 “Third, For making exertions in favor of an abolition meeting 
 in Monroe Village, to the injury of the Methodist society in that 
 place, although earnestly requested not to do so. 
 
 “Fourth, For desecrating the Sabbath by delivering abolition 
 lectures thereon.’’ 
 
 The proceedings of Erie conference were very displeasing to 
 many laymen of the conference, but few severed their connection 
 with the Church at that time. Barris withdrew from the Church 
 after the adjournment of conference, as did Isaac Winans. These, 
 together with Ensign Hill and Benjamin Preston, organized the 
 “Congregational Consociation.” When that organization fell to 
 pieces, some of the members united with the Wesleyan Methodists. 
 (Ibid., pp. 96-8. Cf. Fradenburgh, History of the Hrie Conference, 
 Volume II, pp. 502-4) The ‘Congregational Consociation’’ was 
 probably similar to the Congregational Church, but, so far as is 
 known, there was no connection between them. 
 
 Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 139. 
 
 The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 91, col. 2; June 8, 1838. Cf. 
 Faulkner, The Methodists, p. 166. Garrison called the conference 
 a “popish conclave’ and ‘“recreants to the cause of God and 
 humanity,’ and censured unsparingly those who had basely for- 
 saken the abolitionists. He declared that there would be “no rest 
 or peace for the wicked, whether ecclesiastical or civil despots.”’ 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 91, col. 2; June 8, 1838. 
 . Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, pp. 194, 
 
 197-9. Matlack states that the abolitionists did not number a 
 single itinerant minister in their ranks. ‘‘When Zion’s Watchman 
 was first published and sent gratis to many of the northern 
 preachers, a few of this class in this State professed to be aboli- 
 tionists, and blustered a little in its support, but at their annual 
 conference of 1838, the anti-abolition screws were brought to 
 bear upon them, and they basely submitted, and that has been 
 the last of the abolition in this body of ministers. From that day 
 to this (1849), not‘one member of the Michigan Annual Conference 
 of the M. E. Church has been known, in any public manner, to 
 identify himself with the abolitionists of this State.” 
 
 . Lee, Autobiography, pp. 179-88. 
 . Ibid., pp. 190-91. 
 . Ibid., pp. 212-14. Lee gives many examples of the work of mobs 
 
 and their refusal to permit free discussion if they couid prevent 
 it. Many times they showed themselves very cowardly when face 
 to face with Lee. (Ibid., pp. 224-5.) 
 
 Ibid., pp. 217-18. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col, 201. 
 . The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 118, cols. 4-5; July 27, 1838. 
 _ Zion’s Watchman, Volume IV, p. 206, col. 4; December 28, 1839. 
 
 Said Sunderland: ‘We say, during the whole of this time, not a single 
 Methodist E. paper has attempted to advocate our cause, or expressed, so far 
 as we know, a word of sympathy for the paper that has been the object of such 
 
92 
 
 35. 
 36. 
 
 37. 
 38. 
 39 
 
 40. 
 
 41. 
 42. 
 
 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF ECCLESIASTICAL CEN- 
 SURE AND OPPOSITION!”’ 
 
 The Liberator, Volume VIII., p. 73, col 1; May 11, 1838. 
 
 Ibid., p. 74, col. 4. The extract is taken from the Emancipator: ‘‘You 
 will please do us the particular favor to send no more of your 
 accursed firebrands to this place. Brother Roach has sent several] 
 of your infernal publications back to you; so that you must know 
 his wish on the subject. Brother Mont. Oldham has returned 
 several of these hellish productions.’’ The Emancipator commented: 
 “The anxiety of such men to dissolve the Union reminds us of 
 the anxiety of the drunkard who has the horrors, to die. They 
 feel so bad, that they don’t consider what will be their condition 
 after a change.’’ 
 
 Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 203. 
 
 Jay, Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery, p. 412. 
 
 Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, p. 533. While it is a fact that 
 no abolitionist, so far as I am aware, admits doing anything of 
 this kind, yet it is not difficult to believe that such indignities 
 were perpetrated. 
 
 It seems impossible that northern conferences would have been so 
 zealous against abolitionists had it not been for the active support 
 of the bishops. For an example of the influence of a bishop ona 
 conference, see supra, p. 83. 
 
 The phrase was suggested by a student, Miss Nelle Jones. 
 
 It is significant that the attempt to deny free speech and the right 
 of assembly to Methodist abolitionists came at the same time that 
 a similar attempt was made to deprive the people of the country : 
 of the right to petition Congress against slavery. (See Hart, 
 Slavery and Abolition, pp. 270-71). 
 
 The effect of slavery on the churches is set forth by a keen 
 observer from the Halcyon Church as follows: ‘‘And moreover, 
 slavery in southern churches exerts a deleterious influence upon 
 those connected with them in the north, and prevents the latter 
 from bearing testimony against it, for fear of division: pro-slavery 
 clergymen in both sections, using their moral power and talents, 
 to prove it a divine institution; attempting to make it identical 
 with Jewish servitude, and sanctioned by Apostolic precept. All 
 these and many other reasons were assigned by the abolitionists to 
 justify agitating the subject in free States.’’ (Parker, Autobio- 
 graphy, p. 161). He says that the Methodists in an earlier time 
 ‘‘were like all new sects; persecuted by the more popular churches; 
 but now they are ‘rich and increased in goods, and have need of 
 nothing.’ *’ (ibid., p. 47). The Halcyon Church was a small band 
 in Ohio with tenets similar to those of the Unitarian Church. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE METHODIST JUGGERNAUT 
 
 Months before the delegates assembled at Baltimore, it 
 was apparent to all competent observers that there would be 
 a struggle on the slavery issue in the General Conference 
 of 1840. Previous to the Conference, two very important 
 considerations were before annual conferences:! (1) the 
 proposal to change the General Rule on Slavery; and (2) 
 the choice of delegates to the General Conference. Results 
 in both instances indicated the sentiment of conferences and 
 the Church as a whole, perhaps more accurately than any 
 other action that was taken. 
 
 In 1838, New England conference proposed to change the 
 Rule on Slavery so that it would forbid “The buying or 
 selling; or holding men, women or children as slaves, under 
 any circumstances, or giving them away unless on purpose 
 to free them.” The bishops were requested to present the 
 resolution to all the conferences for their concurrence.2, New 
 Hampshire conference approved the proposed change,’ but 
 all other northern as well as southern conferences, rejected it. 
 In fact, only two conferences - Genesee* and Ohio® - gave 
 more than five votes in favor of the resolution, Ohio 
 conference non-concurred by a vote of 130 to 10,5 while 
 the equally reactionary Erie conference rejected the change, 
 86 to 3.8 
 
 In 1838, Kentucky conference declared their opposition 
 to the change of the Rule suggested by New England con- 
 ference. Bishop Waugh asserted that, while he was 
 opposed to slavery, he was also opposed to abolitionism 
 and the resolution under consideration because he believed it 
 to be “revolutionary and injurious.” He rebuked New 
 England conference as he submitted the resolution, and 
 expressed the opinion that “the union of the Church would 
 be imperilled.”* Undoubtedly, conferences further south 
 would have agreed to the statement of Dr. Capers, in the 
 Southern Christian Advocate, when he said that the change 
 
 93 
 
94 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 proposed by northern abolitionists was an “offensive alter- 
 ation of our General Rule. It is very doubtful, to our 
 minds, though we would not interfere with our General 
 Rules, whether it is not absolutely necessary for the south- 
 ern portion of the Church to expunge every word of 
 ection SAanibart te ve 
 
 Southern conferences could be depended upon to send 
 anti-abolition delegates to the General Conference of 1840. 
 In northern conferences there was some opposition to the 
 conservative party, but in only two conferences — New Eng- 
 land and New Hampshire — were anti-slavery delegations 
 sent to Baltimore. So strong was the opposition to abolition- 
 ists that Orange Scott and other radicals predicted that the 
 General Conference would cut off abolition conferences, as 
 well as members of the General Conference who were of the 
 anti-slavery party. Scott wrote: “I have no expectation 
 that the Church will all remain together after the next 
 General Conference. There will either be a split between 
 the North and South, or such measures will be adopted as 
 will render it inconvenient and inconsistent for the aboli- 
 tionists to remain in the Church.’® That the fears of 
 abolitionists were not groundless is demonstrated by the 
 fact that Fisk and Bangs asserted the right of the General 
 Conference to cut off an annual conference from the 
 Church.19 The anti-slavery party insisted that if such a 
 separation were decreed, the blame would rest with pro- 
 slavery and conservative leaders rather than with abolition- 
 ists.19 | 
 
 At the very beginning of the General Conference, two 
 addresses immediately made the slavery issue of para- 
 mount interest. In their Quadrennial Address, the bishops 
 singled out the New England conferences for censure be- 
 cause of their radicalism, and commended the conservative 
 conferences. It was asserted that many ministers who were 
 personally abolitionists refused to approve the radical pro- 
 gram because they “clearly perceived that the success of 
 the measures would result in the division of the Church.” 
 It was held that the position of the Church on this question 
 was that of the founders of American Methodism, and that 
 exceptions had always been made in case of a slaveholder 
 who was unable to free his slaves because of the laws of 
 the state in which he resided. The bishops advised that 
 
The Methodist Juggernaut 95 
 
 no change in the General Rule on Slavery be made, and 
 appealed to the members of the Conference to consider 
 the nation’s welfare and stop the agitation of the slavery 
 question. They asked for an interpretation of the rule so 
 that uniformity might result in all sections of the country; 
 and they also requested the Conference to define the rights 
 of bishops in annual conferences." 
 
 Another important address at the beginning of the Con- 
 ference was that of Dr. Watson, who represented the 
 British Wesleyan Methodist Conference. In this document 
 the British Church asked that the General Conference con- 
 tinue to be anti-slavery.17. The reply of the Conference 
 was practically the same as the statement of the bishops. 
 They closed, however, by quoting the instructions of the 
 English Methodist Missionary Society to its workers in the 
 West Indies before slavery was abolished. English mission- 
 aries were told that their only business was to “promote 
 the moral and religious improvement of the slaves’ without 
 regard to “their civil condition.” The vote for adoption was 
 114 to 18.8 
 
 The counter-attack of abolitionists began on May 2 when 
 Orange Scott presented the first anti-slavery petition. Im- 
 mediately there was a call for the appointment of a committee 
 to whom all such memorials should be referred. Of the 
 twenty-eight members, only four were abolitionists.14 Dur- 
 ing the Conference, Scott presented petitions from New 
 England conference, New York City, and some thirty other 
 places. That from New York City threw the delegates into 
 the greatest excitement. It was signed by eleven hundred 
 fifty-four members of the Methodist Church of that city. 
 Dr. Bangs immediately started an investigation and even sent 
 the petition to New York, where a committee of thirty 
 conservatives made a canvas and reported that the memorial 
 contained many frauds and forgeries, and that eight hundred 
 thirteen signers were women.’* The attempt seems to have 
 been made to prove that Scott was untrustworthy, but he 
 immediately disavowed all intention to deceive, and declared 
 that he was given the petition by one whom he thought could 
 be trusted. He affirmed that while some of the names might 
 not be those of members, yet probably most of them were 
 and these ought not to be discarded with the rest. Scott 
 declared that if there were fraud and corruption connected 
 
96 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 with the New York petition he wanted it fully known, and 
 moved that all documents bearing on the question at issue be 
 published in the Christian Advocate and Journal. The Bishop 
 ruled that the motion was not in order and refused to put it 
 to a vote.16 
 
 Bangs hoped that the “foul stigma’ against the good name 
 of New York had been removed and asked that the document 
 which Scott had presented might be referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Slavery. William Smith moved that the report 
 on slavery be re-committed because of the morning’s dis- 
 closures so that the cothmittee might “impart a different 
 complexion to that report.” An attempt on the part of Scott 
 to get possession of the New York petition failed, Smith 
 assigning as a reason that Scott could not be trusted with it. 
 Pierce of Georgia urged the expulsion of Scott from the 
 Generali Conference.}* 
 
 The Committee on Slavery reported on May 14 and asked 
 that they be discharged from the consideration of the question 
 referred to them, but the request was denied. Five days 
 later the Committee, of which Nathan Bangs was chairman, 
 made the following report asthe judgment of the Conference: 
 
 “Ist. That it is inexpedient to express any opinion, or 
 to adopt any measure to control or modify slavery as 
 it exists in the United States, other than those now 
 recognized in our book of Discipline. 
 
 “2d. That the General Conference, in its legislative 
 capacity, has no authority to expound the general rules 
 of the Discipline. 
 
 “3d. That it is to be regretted that annual conferences 
 have, in some instances, expressed conflicting opinions 
 on the item of slavery in the general rules, and on 
 the subject generally, and considering the great deli- 
 cacy of this subject, as well as the necessity of union 
 among ourselves, it is the will of the General Con- 
 ference that the annual conferences, in their action 
 upon this subject in the future, should closely adhere 
 to the language of the Discipline as it now stands.”}® 
 
 A spirited debate followed the introduction of this report. 
 Even the hostile Christian Advocate and Journal acknowl- 
 edged that Scott presented his side of the case with great 
 ability and power. Likewise, leading southerners eloquently 
 set forth their position. But conservatives met with the 
 
The Methodist Juggernaut 97 
 
 scorn, not only of abolitionists but also of pro-slavery dele- 
 gates. So lukewarm were most northern delegates that Smith 
 of Virginia demanded that they go on record as to whether 
 slavery was moral evil. He affirmed that if it were, Scott 
 was right and that he would defend him. While the Con- 
 ference was undoubtedly favorable to the sentiments ex- 
 pressed by the Committee, no motion to adopt the report 
 seems to have been carried.1? 
 
 As a result of the refusal of New England conference to 
 condemn Scott and Sunderland at the request of Bishop 
 Hedding, the latter reported his grievance to the General 
 Conference. These two abolitionists were accused of ill- 
 ‘treating the bishop in the New England conferences, and 
 through the columns of Zion’s Watchman, The case was, 
 on motion of Nathan Bangs, referred to a special committee 
 of five, at least three of whom were northern men, and all 
 friendly to the course of the bishops. Two weeks later, the 
 committee reported that everything had been “amicably 
 settled.’’2° 
 
 The report of the Committee on Itinerancy*! was presented 
 a few days after the settlement between Hedding and the 
 abolitionists. Scott, Sunderland and New England con- 
 ference were severely handled. Horton, of New England 
 conference, moved that this section be tabled, but the motion 
 was lost. On the following day, however, the whole pre- 
 amble, in which New England conference was censured, was 
 stricken out. This may have been due to the proposal of 
 Dodge that the report be amended so that exception would be 
 taken to the resolution of Georgia conference that slavery 
 was not a moral evil. A debate ensued, and his motion was, 
 as a matter of course, tabled. The administration of the 
 bishops during the previous four years was heartily com- 
 mended. In connection with the request of the bishops that 
 their rights in annual conferences be defined, the Committee 
 recommended that they be given absolute power to make 
 any decision, subject only to the will of the General Confer- 
 ence. They might even adjourn an annual conference when- 
 ever they pleased. This extraordinary grant of power was 
 made by a vote of 98 to 5. 
 
 Two special cases engaged the attention of the General 
 Conference. The first was that of Rev. Silas Comfort of 
 Missouri conference. He was charged with mal-administra- 
 
98 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 tion because, in a church trial, he had received the testimony 
 of a negro. He had been convicted by Missouri conference 
 and, on appeal, his case came before the General Conference. 
 Bishop Soule introduced resolutions in which it was asserted 
 that the Conference were of the opinion that the mistakes 
 of Comfort were simply errors of judgment, and advised 
 that his character be passed and that the decision of Missouri 
 conference be reversed. These resolutions were agreed to, 
 97 to 27. 23 May 18, I. A. Few proposed a resolution which 
 read: “Resolved, That it is inexpedient and unjustifiable, 
 for preachers among us, to permit colored persons to give 
 testimony against white persons, in any State where they 
 are denied that privilege in trials at law.” The adoption of 
 this resolution, by a vote of 74 to 46, drew a protest from 
 the negroes in Baltimore churches,?* but a statement of 
 Bishop Soule seems to have satisfied them.”® 
 
 The second case was that of Westmoreland district of 
 Baltimore conference. This district was in Virginia and the 
 annual conference had refused to elect to ordination local 
 preachers from that section simply because they were slave- 
 holders. A special committee, of which H. B. Bascom?® was 
 a member, reviewed the case and set forth the peculiar condi- 
 tions in Virginia which did not permit emancipation except 
 in very rare instances. They declared that the Discipline pro- 
 tected ministers under such conditions.27 The committee 
 proposed a resolution, which was readily adopted, that the 
 holding of slaves in a southern state constituted “no legal 
 barrier to the election or ordination of ministers to the va- 
 rious grades of office known in the ministry of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, and cannot, therefore, be considered as 
 operating any forfeiture of right in view of such election 
 and ordination.’’28 
 
 One incident during this General Conference shows the 
 spirit of anti-slavery delegates. Delegates from Mississippi 
 conference appealed for funds for the Methodist church at 
 Natchez which had been partially destroyed by a storm. In 
 response, members of the Conference contributed about one 
 thousand dollars to aid in the restoration of the building. 
 But abolitionists refused to assist in this enterprise lest they 
 should appear to be supporting slavery. Cartwright says 
 that this demonstrated “a wrong and fanatical spirit” on their - 
 
The Methodist Juggernaut 99 
 
 part, and added that “their consciences, for solidity and 
 rotundity, very much resembled a ram’s horn.’’® 
 
 One of the most interesting and important items of bus- 
 iness in any General Conference is the election of bishops. 
 In 1840, the Committee on Episcopacy recommended the 
 election of two new bishops. The majority of the delegates 
 were strongly in favor of the southern viewpoint that slavery 
 should be no bar to any office in the Church, while Scott and 
 his followers were opposed to the election of a slaveholder 
 to any office in the gift of the Conference or even to member- 
 ship in the Church. Cartwright feared that this election 
 would cause a further struggle between the various factions. 
 With the help of conservatives, he was able to defeat the 
 plan to elect bishops at that General Conference. Cartwright 
 credits his work with having prevented a division of the 
 Church in 1840 rather than in 1844.°° 
 
 The action of the Conference on slavery, together with 
 the “pastoral Address” furnished the rules by which bishops, 
 conferences and people were to be guided for the ensuing 
 four years. This document, which was written by George 
 Peck, strongly advised ministers and laymen — and the ad- 
 vice was equivalent to a command — to leave the anti-slavery 
 controversy entirely alone.*!| The Conference rejoiced that 
 Methodists were so strongly in favor of remaining “one 
 and indissoluble.” It was admitted that some leaders had 
 entered into controversies over slavery but it was asserted 
 that the people were largely faithful to the Church. They 
 affrmed that there seemed “far less occasion to fear from 
 the causes of dissension than there was at the last meeting 
 of this conference. Indeed, brethren, we have no doubt but 
 if we all continue to ‘walk by the same rule, and to mind 
 the same things,’ in which in the order of God we have been 
 instructed, ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against us,’ 
 and the enemy who would divide and scatter, in order to 
 destroy us, will be disappointed.” The action of the Con- 
 ference was referred to as indicating the sentiment of the 
 nation on that subject.®? 
 
 The General Conference of 1840 marks the end of an era 
 in Methodist history. In the strenuous controversy which 
 had begun in 1831, those who favored abolitionism had at- 
 tempted by a process of education, radical though it may have 
 been, to change the thinking of the Methodist Episcopal 
 
100 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Church on the question of slavery. Until 1840 they had 
 fervently hoped that each General Conference would approve 
 their action. It was too much to expect such a change in 
 1832; in 1836 abolitionists were met with repression; and 
 in 1840, northern radicals considered their case hopeless. For 
 some radicals it meant submission to the constituted authori- 
 ties of the Church, even though they must stifle their con- 
 sciences ; to others, a break with the Church seemed the only 
 possible escape. The disappointment of abolitionists may be 
 imagined. Decisions had been made by the Conference, bar- 
 ring the testimony of negroes in church trials in the South; 
 forbidding a southern annual conference to deny the advance- 
 ment of ministers because they were slaveholders; and giving 
 bishops absolute power for four years in the administration 
 of annual conferences. To the South, the results of the 
 General Conference must have seemed the fulfillment of the 
 rashest dreams of their leaders ; to time-serving compromisers 
 it probably appeared that their policy had wrought the sal- 
 vation of the Church; to abolitionists it was a period of 
 gloom. Both southerners and abolitionists had shown the 
 courage of their convictions; the compromisers had thrown 
 their full strength against the abolitionists, and the theories 
 of the South were accepted as the will and law of the Church. 
 If slavery were triumphant in 1836, it was supremely so 
 
 in 1840. 
 
 
 
 1. The usual debates on slavery were held, but the subject matter 
 was substantially the same as has been considered in previous 
 chapters. 
 
 2. The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 128, cols. 1-3; August 3, 1838. The 
 resolutions were again adopted in 1839, by a vote of 80 to 81. 
 (Mudge, History of the New England Conference, pp. 286-8). 
 
 8. Clark, The Life and Times of Bishop Hedding, pp. 528-30. 
 
 4. Mudge, The History of the New England Conference, p. 288. 
 
 5 ier Christian Advocate, Volume VI, p. 94, cols. 4-5; October 
 4, 1839. 
 
 6. Gregg, The History of the Erie Conference, Volume II, pp. 101-3. 
 
 7. Redford, Western Cavaliers, pp. 268-9. 
 
 8. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 198. 
 
 9. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 160-64. 
 
 10. Ibid., pp. 155-6. 
 
 11. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 20-24. Cf. Sutton, 
 The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 50-52. 
 
 12. Their statement indicated the English Methodist desire rather 
 than actual fact. The Church had not been anti-slavery. 
 
 13. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 24-6, 
 
 14. Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, p. 206. 
 
 15. Scott must have been considerably embarrassed because of his 
 attitude on women’s rights. 
 
 16. If the petition were as represented by conservatives, and the 
 latter were standing on unassailable ground it seems strange 
 that they should be uhwilling to publish the documents, 
 
We 
 18. 
 
 The Methodist Juggernaut 101 
 
 Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 166-73. Cf. Matlack, 
 History of American Slavery and Methodism, p. 206. 
 
 Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 173. A minority report was 
 presented by abolition members of the committee but the Con- 
 ference refused to receive it. (Ibid., p. 174). 
 
 . Smith said: ‘“‘We, at the South, do not believe siavery a moral 
 
 evil. If you from the free States think with us, say so. But 
 if you think it is a moral evil, hands off that brother’’ (Scott). 
 (Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, p. 206). 
 
 . Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 175-6. No suggestion 
 
 has been found as to what the settlement really was. 
 
 . This committee dealt with exceptions taken to the administration 
 
 of the bishops in the various conferences, 
 
 . Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 176-80. 
 . Journals of the General Conference, Volume II, pp. 60 and 109. 
 
 Cf. Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, pp. 
 215-16; and ‘Pullen, Blast of a Trumpet in Zion, p 
 
 aca 
 ‘ Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, pp. 218-20. 
 ’ Journals of the General Conference, Volume II, p. 109. 
 
 . Bascom, who was considered a very brilliant preacher, later 
 
 became a bishop of the Methodist. Episcopal Church, South. 
 
 . The address of the bishops at the beginning of the Conference 
 
 contained the same opinion. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 27-9. Cf. Sutton, 
 
 The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 55-7, 
 
 . Cartwright, Autobiography, pp. 375-6. 
 WEDIdeh pDinijioulo=4e 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 26. See also, 
 
 Peck, The -.Life and Times of G. Peck, p. 230. 
 
 . The Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, Volume XXII. 
 
 (New Series, Volume XI,) pp. 352-3; Year 1840. It is my opinion 
 that the General Conference misjudged the situation. The indi- 
 cations were that the laity were more anti-slavery than the 
 ministers. The sentiment expressed at the General Conference of 
 1844 supports me. j 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE CHANGING TIDE 
 
 The General Conference decisions of 1840 were responsi- 
 ble for momentous changes in Methodism’s attitude towards 
 slavery. But for the succeeding three years the dominant 
 note of annual conferences was submission to ecclesiastical 
 authority. New England conference seems to have furnished 
 the only excitement for.the first year. Sunderland was 
 convicted on the charge that “he had behaved inconsistently 
 with the character of a Christian minister.’ It was the 
 bishop’s plan to transfer the rebel to New York conference, 
 where abolitionists were very few in number, and where 
 his conviction and expulsion from the conference would be 
 more certain. Sunderland saved himself by obtaining a 
 location. Neither Scott nor Sunderland received much sym- 
 pathy from Garrison, who declared that they had received 
 their proper punishment for abandoning him in former years. 
 
 No more radical were the conferences of 1841. At least 
 six of them said nothing at all against slavery.2 Kentucky 
 conference commended the American Colonization Society, 
 but apparently nothing was done to bring about universal 
 emancipation.» In only two conferences does there seem to 
 have been even the semblance of a struggle. Pittsburgh 
 conference tried and suspended one member for agitating 
 the slavery question. Elliott says that the conference also 
 took action on slaveholding. They treated as “brethren 
 those who were involuntary slaveholders, but refused to 
 fellowship all others.” Concerning this latter class, the min- 
 isters were of the opinion that there were “few of this 
 description in the pale of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 even at the extreme south.” Elliott also affirms that aboli- 
 tionists caused all the trouble in this conference. He added: 
 “A few months will bring a calm of entire peace to the entire 
 Church within the bounds of the Pittsburg conference.’’* 
 In Erie conference there was a sharp contest between aboli- 
 tionists and conservatives, but the struggle soon resulted 
 
 102 
 
The Changing Tide 103 
 
 in favor of the latter. Elliott predicted this result for the 
 whole Church.* 
 
 In 1842 the attempt was again made to maintain the status 
 quo. Philadelphia conference had no report on slavery.® 
 Bishop Hedding presided over six conferences and, if his 
 biographer may be trusted, he was completely satisfied with 
 the action of each conference on slavery and abolitionism.® 
 As in 1841, so in 1842 there were two conferences in which 
 radicalism showed itself. In New Hampshire conference 
 Hedding put forth the doctrine that a bishop could transfer 
 ministers from one conference to another to “correct” them. 
 An abolitionist moved that, since southern ministers were not 
 executing the Discipline in regard to slavery, they should 
 be transferred to northern conferences. The bishop replied 
 that if southern ministers were brought north, northern 
 preachers must be transferred to southern conferences. He 
 therefore proposed that the mover of the resolution be sent 
 to New Orleans, where they greatly needed a pastor. The 
 expected happened. The abolitionist’s ardor rapidly waned 
 as he considered the prospect of proclaiming his doctrines 
 to slaveholders. By an almost unanimous vote, the reso- 
 lution was indefinitely postponed.’ Only Providence con- 
 ference succeeded in passing resolutions which favored 
 the destruction of slavery and the elimination of “the pol- 
 lution” of this great evil from the Church.® 
 
 Channing and other writers charged that American 
 churches were throwing their influence, for the most part, 
 on the side of those who apologized for slavery.2 This was 
 true of the Methodist Church. Abolitionism had been driven 
 under ground. Radicals had fought against the forces of 
 slavery, and the equally formidable power of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, which had been brought to bear upon 
 them and, apparently, the battle had ended disastrously for 
 the anti-slavery cause. The statement of Bennett that the 
 action of the General Conference on colored testimony in 
 church trials “sent a thrill of indignation far and wide, and 
 awoke many to a realization of the growing evil that had 
 crept into our Zion,”!® seems to have little basis in fact, 
 prior to 1843, so far as Church officials were concerned. 
 
 Evidences of revolt were not lacking. Unofficial Metho- 
 dist publications sought to inform the people in regard to 
 the evils of slavery and the “despotism” of the Church. In 
 
104 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 1841, the New England Christian Advocate, with Luther Lee 
 as editor, began publication at Lowell, Massachusetts. 
 Orange Scott heartily commended this paper and declared 
 that the four anti-slavery conferences of New England 
 needed more than one Methodist anti-slavery organ.t Lee 
 sought to arouse the North with accounts of slavery in the 
 South.!* Zion's Herald commended two men for their activi- 
 ties in behalf of freedom. Governor Seward was praised 
 because he refused to surrender to the governor of Georgia, 
 three men who were charged with having stolen or liberated 
 slaves.18 John Quincy Adams, who was at that time in 
 the House of Representatives, was acclaimed because of his 
 brave stand against those who wished to deny the people the 
 right to petition Congress.1* 
 
 That which stirred abolitionists to the highest pitch of 
 excitement was the General Conference action on colored 
 testimony, and the power of the bishops, and the results of 
 these resolutions in annual conferences. Zion’s Herald con- 
 demned unsparingly the General Conference action on colored 
 testimony.’*> But the most radical of Methodist papers seems 
 to have been the Utica Wesleyan Methodist. The editor 
 censure impartially both General Conference resolutions. 
 It was held that despotism in the Church had been develop- 
 ing ever since the beginning of the anti-slavery struggle. 
 This was especially noticeable in every section of the country 
 where effectual methods for ridding the Church and Nation 
 of slavery had been suggested. As has already been nar- 
 rated, bishops, conferences and official papers had shown 
 their arbitrary tendency by refusing abolitionists the right 
 of free speech and the privilege of stating their side of the 
 controversy in official papers. The final and crowning 
 achievement of the Church had been the decision of the 
 General Conference on colored testimony.!® 
 
 Zion's Watchman ridiculed the idea that slavery could be 
 driven from the Methodist Church, and pointed to the records 
 for the years following the General Conference of 1836 as 
 proof of the failure of the Church. Even the professedly 
 abolition conferences of New England had been gagged and 
 preachers compelled to submit to the bishops or withdraw 
 from the Church. So they professed fidelity to the Church 
 and the highest regard for the episcopacy which was “ruling 
 them as with a rod of iron.” The editor declared that he 
 
The Changing Tide 105 
 
 had ceased to hope that the Church, as such, would do any- 
 thing to destroy slavery, and cited in proof Hedding’s state- 
 ment that abolitionists could be scattered among other 
 conferences where they would be helpless.’ 
 
 It is apparent from the statement of the Utica Wesleyan 
 Methodist that, in the minds of abolitionists, the arbitrary 
 rule of officials was closely associated with the suppression 
 of the anti-slavery party. It was claimed that bishops had 
 it in their power to appoint to office whomsoever they desired. 
 They believed that bishops, presiding elders and preachers 
 were pro-slavery men. Bishops were able to accomplish 
 the suppression of abolitionists by noticing who belonged to 
 the anti-slavery party, and then appointing their opponents 
 to the more lucrative positions. Presiding elders and the 
 most prominent preachers were all of the conservative party, 
 and abolitionists were compelled to serve under these favor- 
 ites. The result was that preachers were compelled to oppose 
 radicalism or have their influence practically nullified.1® 
 
 Aboltionists sought to arouse as much as possible the 
 anti-slavery sentiment among Methodists. In New England, 
 Elliott’s observation is that the Church and particularly the 
 bishops and preachers were pronounced pro-slavery by ultra- 
 abolitionists. At every opportunity the latter discussed 
 slavery and sought to keep the Church in a turmoil.1® In 
 two directions, at least, radicals accomplished little, except to 
 show that Methodism was opposed to abolitionists. The two 
 official papers refused to print the statements of radicals. 
 Both the Christian Advocate and Journal and the Western 
 Christian Advocate took the position that they had no right 
 to oppose the will of the General Conference. In answer 
 to subscribers who refused to renew their subscriptions be- 
 cause he would not discuss the existence of slavery in the 
 Methodist Church, the editor of the latter paper asserted that 
 the decision had been made by the General Conference and 
 the people should obey it. But the editor opposed abolitionists 
 for personal reasons. He declared that they were so divided 
 that, no matter which party he joined, he would be con- 
 demned by other groups of radicals. He condemned the 
 anti- slavery party because their program was revolutionary 
 and had a “bad effect on the piety of those who espouse 
 it.” Further, he feared the evil results of agitation on the 
 work among the slaves.?? 
 
106 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 In view of the opposition which confronted them in 1842, 
 ultra-abolitionists of the Methodist Church followed the 
 only possible course. Mention has already been made of 
 ministers who withdrew from the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church.*! These were only the forerunners of a movement 
 which thoroughly alarmed reactionaries of the Church. Se- 
 cessions had begun in Ohio by 1839, and in Michigan and 
 New York conferences within a year after the General 
 Conference of 1840.22 Most of the abolitionists, however, 
 had remained in the Church, hoping that the General Con- 
 ference of that year “would do something to clear the skirts 
 of the church from the blood of slavery.” But by 1842 
 opinion was rapidly changing. Zion’s Watchman believed 
 that all who considered it their duty should withdraw from 
 the Church and form a new organization.2* Many of these 
 did organize as “Wesleyan Methodists.’’?? 
 
 As early as 1841 Orange Scott and Luther Lee had 
 seriously contemplated withdrawal from the Church.** But 
 Scott’s health failed and the proposed secession languished 
 for lack of a leader.** During the years 1841 and 1842 
 Scott received many requests to lead in the establishment 
 of a new organization. In answer to this persistent demand, 
 he wrote, September 2, 1842, that he had decided to leave 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church and stand for “a new anti- 
 slavery, anti-intemperance, anti-everything wrong, church 
 organization.”*® Scott’s action was heartily approved by the 
 venerable Seth Sprague,?* who called upon his fellow-mem- 
 bers to throw off “the abominable despotism of Methodist 
 Episcopacy, and no longer sustain any institution that is 
 steeped in blood and tears.’*8 Finally, he announced his own | 
 withdrawal from the Church.” 
 In October, 1842, it was rumored that secessionists were . 
 about to form a new Church.°° The rumor was confirmed by 
 a meeting at Albany, New York, November 2 and 3, for the 
 purpose of starting the organization. Five ministers and 
 several laymen were present.*! Luther Lee was not informed 
 of the movement until after this initial meeting. For some 
 unknown reason, Scott feared that he might be opposed to 
 some features of the plan and desired to place his statement 
 before the public before critics could destroy his program.*? 
 
 A second meeting to perfect the organization of the new 
 Church was held, February 1, 1843, at Andover, Massachu- 
 
The Changing Tide 107 
 
 setts. Out of this grew a General Convention, which met 
 at Utica, New York, May 31, of the same year. Nearly 
 one hundred preachers were present. At this convention the 
 delegates proposed many ideas as “fundamental,” but four 
 principles were accepted: (1) No Slaveholding. The rule 
 of their Discipline forbade “The buying or selling of men, 
 women or children, with an intention to enslave them, or 
 holding them as slaves; or claiming that it is right to do so.”38 
 (2) They decided to have no bishops. (3) The Church was 
 for temperance. This action was especially significant be- 
 cause the Methodist Episcopal Church was supposed to 
 have evaded the temperance issue. (4) After an exciting 
 debate, the Convention decided against lodges and other 
 secret societies. This last decision cost the new Church many 
 members.*4 Thus was begun the “Wesleyan Methodist 
 Connection of America,” or, as it was often called in derision, 
 the “Scottite’” church. 
 
 That the secessions were alarming is indicated by the 
 report that one hundred fifty ministers and from six to 
 eight thousand members had withdrawn from the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church on account of slavery and joined with 
 other aboltionists to strengthen the Wesleyan organization.*° 
 All Liberty Party editors who were members of the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church — Smith, Colby and Beckley — joined 
 the new Church.*¢ 
 
 The first result of the secession movement was an attempt 
 to bribe Luther Lee. The Boston Preachers’ Meeting au- 
 thorized one of their number to write him as follows: “If 
 your principles and convictions of right will allow you to do 
 so, I know what I say when I tell you that you shall have 
 any position in the Church you desire if you will come out 
 and wield your vigorous pen against secession.’’3? 
 
 But Lee was not so easily bought, and determined to act 
 with the seceders. His reasons for so drastic an action may 
 be accepted as those of abolitionists generally. First, he 
 declared that slavery was a great evil. Second, he said that 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church “appeared to indorse, . . . 
 defend and maintain slavery as it existed in the Church, 
 while” he “was unable to see any essential moral difference 
 between slavery in the Church and slavery out of the Church.” 
 He presented as his proof that ministers were allowed to say 
 slavery was morally right, without condemnation; while abo- 
 
108 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 litionists were not permitted to denounce the sinfulness of 
 slavery without impairing their ministerial character. Fur- 
 ther, in annual conferences, bishops showed that the Church 
 was against abolitionism by permitting a vote on resolu- 
 tions justifying slavery and condemning abolitionists, but 
 refusing to permit any action on a motion in which slavery 
 was condemned as a sin. He also condemned the General 
 Conference of 1836 for censuring the two abolitionists who 
 spoke at the anti-slavery meeting in Cincinnati, and refusing 
 to act against slavery. 
 
 The General Conference of 1840, according to Lee, de- 
 served an even greater amount of censure, for not only were 
 three northern conferences condemned, and Georgia con- 
 ference, which had stood for slavery, given the approval of 
 that body, but the “colored testimony resolution” was adopted 
 as the will of the Church — “an act which was undeniably 
 in the interest of slavery, and was antichristian, and not to 
 be justified on moral ground. This involved the whole 
 Church in the disgrace and guilt of denying to a class of 
 Christians the rights of membership in the Church.” The 
 Church also permitted both ministers and laymen to keep 
 slaves but “waged what was intended to be an exterminating 
 war upon abolitionism and abolitionists, intending to silence 
 or drive them out of the Church.’38 
 
 Lee also protested against the rule of bishops and presiding 
 elders, and declared that their whole policy was based upon 
 the idea that abolitionists must be suppressed. He afhrmed — 
 and his statement has been amply proved — that abolitionists 
 were sent to undesirable charges, while an abolition church 
 was given to an “orthodox” minister “to annoy and wear 
 them out.” He cited one instance in which a church asked 
 for a certain anti-slavery preacher, then for one out of five 
 whom they named, then to be left without a minister, and 
 finally that the bishop would send any preacher except one man 
 whom they did not want. From the last proposal the people 
 got action, for the preacher against whom they had protested 
 was sent to them. The congregation refused to accept the 
 preacher, the latter pronounced them all expelled from the 
 Church, and the minister was upheld by another bishop who 
 declared: “There is energy in Methodism.” Lee contended 
 that the action of officials had crippled the anti-slavery 
 movement.%9 
 
The Changing Tide 109 
 
 Mutual recrimination was the order of the hour. Zion’s 
 Herald, condemned the new movement for the establishment 
 of another Church as work in the dark.4° The Christian 
 Advocate and Journal proclaimed that Luther Lee was “a 
 metaphysical tadpole, always wiggling to stir up the muddy 
 waters of strife.’”41 The Pittsburg Christian Advocate, aiter 
 censuring those members “who clandestinely co-operate with 
 the seceders in their efforts to destroy” the Methodist 
 Church, asserted that Scott approved their work and would 
 “conceal whatever of hypocrisy said members may please to 
 practice.”4* William Hosmer, editor of the Northern Chris- 
 tian Advocate, affirmed that certain, abolitionists were “mor- 
 ally and mentally deficient; and hence totally incapable of 
 conducting a process of thought.” He also maintained that 
 the radicalism of abolitionists was producing discord and 
 that they thus became “a scourge and a burlesque to common 
 sense.’48 And Peter Cartwright, writing at a later time 
 of this excitement, expressed the prevailing contempt of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church for this movement when he 
 said that “the fog and smoke of run-mad clerical abolitionism 
 ended in a feeble secession under O. Scott & Co., and a 
 few of the same cloth and kidney.’”# 
 
 Abolitionists repaid their traducers in kind. The official 
 publication of the Wesleyans was “The True Wesleyan,” 
 which had for its motto “First Pure, then Peaceable.’’4 
 This paper published everything of interest in building up 
 the new Church at the expense of the old organization, a 
 favorite heading being “The glorious work of secession goes 
 on.”46 Of Dr. Bond, editor of the Christian Advocate and 
 Journal, the Wesleyan editor said that he was “so much below 
 the common standard of ‘Christian courtesy in all his assaults 
 upon the Wesleyans,” and copied “so closely in style, the 
 blackguardism of the grog shop,” that it was considered 
 unnecessary to reply to him.#? 
 
 That which the agitation of a decade had failed to accom- 
 plish, the secession of those who formed the Wesleyan 
 Methodist Church brought to pass. For the policy of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church changed immediately when the 
 secession movement began to gather momentum.*® Even 
 before the Utica Convention was held, three “orthodox” 
 Methodist conventions were called — one at Boston, one at 
 Hallowell, Maine, and the third at Claremont, New Hamp- 
 
110 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 shire. At Boston, resolutions were adopted against slavery,*® 
 while at Hallowell, the delegates asserted that “every slave- 
 holder is a sinner and ought not to be admitted to the pulpit 
 or communion.” They declared that they had reliable evi- 
 dence to show that “there were within the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church 200 travelling ministers holding 1600 slaves, 
 about 1000 local preachers holding 10,000, and about 25,000 
 members holding 207,900” slaves.°° 
 
 The change in the policy of the Church is most clearly 
 seen in the action of bishops and annual conferences. No 
 bishop — not even Hedding®!— attempted to obstruct any 
 resolution on the sinfulness of slavery and slaveholding. 
 “All were free to talk against slavery; lips which had always 
 been closed, or opened only to execrate abolition and traduce 
 abolitionists, were now opened wide to denounce slavery, and 
 one wild anti-slavery shout was heard, which nearly drowned 
 the vociferations of the few seceders.”°* And yet the action 
 of these conferences was a complete reversal of that per- 
 mitted by the General Conference of 1840. 
 
 In New England conference, petitions were sent out to be 
 signed by members of the Church, which asked for three 
 things: (1) that the next General Conference admit colored 
 testimony; (2) that slaveholders should not be elected 
 bishops; and (3) that the church be freed from the evil 
 of slavery.°> One of the most significant and dramatic 
 incidents of this conference was the appearance of Dr. Bond 
 at the anti-slavery meeting. While New England conference 
 refused to follow Scott and Sunderland into the Wesleyan 
 Church, yet the conference anti-slavery society pledged its 
 support to the Massachusetts Abolition Society and paid in 
 cash over one hundred dollars to aid in its work.°4 Other 
 New England conferences passed resolutions of similar 
 import.*° 
 
 Two conferences — Genesee and New York — proposed 
 certain changes 1n the General Rule on Slavery. The former 
 desired a revision of the rule so that no slaveholder could 
 be a member of the Church if it were possible to free his 
 slaves.°6 New York conference asked for the restoration 
 of the early form of the rule.®” With the Genesee proposal, 
 Erie conference refused to agree by a vote of 61 to 33, but 
 the change suggested by New York conference was adopted 
 unanimously.°? Further south, the proposed changes do 
 
The Changing Tide | 111 
 
 not seem to have met with a favorable reception. While 
 Baltimore conference, in 1843 and 1844, required some 
 members to free their slaves and suspended F. A. Harding 
 until he should agree to manumit some slaves which belonged 
 to him and his wife, they refused to agree to any change 
 of the rule on slavery.5® Similar action was taken by South 
 Carolina conference against the northern proposals.® 
 
 To the South, northern conferences seemed very radical. 
 Dr. Bond was looked upon with suspicion. One incident 
 which caused friction between the two sections was the at- 
 tempt on the part of slaveholders in Maryland to pass laws 
 which would either drive free blacks from the state or reduce 
 them to servitude. Methodists thereupon took action against 
 the proposed law.®! The slaveholders’ scheme was condemned 
 by Bond as unsparingly as abolitionism had previously been.® 
 This notice of the southern “institution” by a notoriously 
 conservative Methodist paper excited no little alarm in the 
 South. One writer asserted that such a discussion “in that 
 paper must close all access to the colored people of the south, 
 and send home our missionaries, or compel the southern 
 Church, from a love of souls, to a separation.”® It was also 
 held that the northern paper would not circulate in the South 
 when it agitated “questions so justly considered dangerous.’ 63 
 
 The suggestion that the Christian Advocate and Journal 
 would not circulate in the South if it attacked slaveholders 
 may have been responsible for an article by Dr. Bond.* 
 Two propositions were discussed: (1) whether or not the 
 General Conference should exclude all slaveholders from 
 the Church, under all circumstances; and (2) if it were 
 granted that there were instances in which slavery was justi- 
 
 fied, could a rule be made which would punish the guilty 
 and spare exempt cases? 
 
 Both propositions were answered in the negative. It 
 was held that there was no justification in the Scriptures 
 for secession on account of slavery, or for a rule destroying 
 slavery in the Church, and that the work among slaves would 
 be effectually stopped if such a rule were enacted. Besides, 
 none of the larger Churches had such a rule — not even the 
 British Wesleyan Church, which tolerated slavery until the 
 time of general emancipation. He believed that the Church 
 should not exclude slaveholders in the nineteenth: century 
 any more than in the time of the apostles. Finally, he 
 
112 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 declared: “The sinfulness of slaveholding depends upon the 
 circumstances of the case, and no general rule can meet their 
 circumstances.”®5 That southern Methodists were mollified 
 by this position may be seen from the resolution of North 
 Carolina conference that they heartily approved “the very 
 prudent, independent, and able manner in which the Rev. 
 Dr. Bond has conducted the Christian Advocate and Journal ; 
 and that we regard him as being peculiarly well qualified 
 for the important post which he occupies as senior editor 
 of that General conference paper.’’®® 
 
 The extreme radicalism of the North brought protests 
 from the South. Southerners considered that abolitionists 
 were interfering in matters of which they were totally igno- 
 rant. The North was charged with arguing the abstract 
 question of freedom or slavery as though servitude were to 
 be introduced into the country for the first time, and not 
 a system already present. It was also maintained that north- 
 ern oratory was directed against the abuses of slavery rather 
 than the system as a whole. The practical question was how 
 to rid the country of slavery if it were incurably bad, and 
 what should be done with freedmen. In answer to the 
 suggestion that slaves should be freed and permitted to 
 remain in the South, as they were in the North, one writer 
 contended that the condition of northern negroes was not 
 superior to that of those in the South.®? Further, the same 
 editor declared the position of the South to be that, “as a 
 church, we have no authority from heaven or of men, to 
 disturb or change the civil relations which are authorized 
 and established by the State.’® 
 
 The quadrennium following the General Conference of 
 1840 witnessed a remarkable change in Methodism’s official 
 attitude towards slavery. Before 1842, ministers had been 
 expelled from conferences, and members from the Church 
 for the alleged sin of being avowed abolitionists; such an 
 event would never occur again. Before that date, bishops, 
 official papers and most conferences had sought to prevent 
 the growth of abolition propaganda; never more would a 
 conference be coerced and cowed into obedience on this 
 question. In 1840, the General Conference had passed 
 resolutions which were perfectly satisfactory to the slave- 
 holding South; henceforth, no quadrennial conference of 
 the Church would dare openly to support slavery. But it 
 
The Changing Tide 113 
 
 must not be presumed that these gains, slight as some of them 
 were, came because of a change of heart among Church 
 officials. Fear was the controlling factor in this sudden 
 change of policy. Threatened by a secession of unknown 
 proportions, leaders of Methodism sought to retain as many 
 members as possible. This could be done only by making 
 concessions to the radical northern conferences. Curiously 
 enough, after this had been done, the concessions which 
 were granted during the succeeding twenty years were made, 
 not to keep abolitionists but pro-slavery members within 
 the Methodist fold! 
 
 1. For Troy conference, see the Minutes for 1840. For New York, 
 New England, Michigan, Ohio and North Ohio conferences, see 
 Clark, The Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 560-61. For Erie 
 conference, see Gregg, History of Methodism in the Erie Con- 
 ference, Volume II, p. 128. 
 
 2. For Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey, Providence, New Eng- 
 land and Maine conferences see Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, 
 p. 566. 
 
 8. Redford, Western Cavaliers, pp. 397-8. 
 
 4. Western Christian Advocate, Volume VIII, p. 66, col. 3; August 
 13, 1841. Concerning Pittsburg conference, Elliott says: ‘‘They 
 distinguish between the system and those who hold slaves. The 
 holders of slaves, who are such, not voluntarily, but by con- 
 straint, they receive and treat as brethren. For those who hold 
 slaves, without constraint of law, they entertain no brotherly 
 approbation. They believe, however, there are few of this des- 
 cription in the pale of the Methodist Episcopal Church, even at 
 the extreme south.’? Concerning abolitionists, Elliot wrote that 
 “disaffection and opposition to the Church is now the watchword 
 of most Methodist abolitionists; or at least this is the case with 
 that class with whom the Church has to contend. With others 
 there is no controversy.’’ 
 
 5. See the Minutes of the conference for 1842, 
 
 6. Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, p. 572. 
 
 7. Ibid., pp. 573-4, 
 
 8. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 82. 
 
 9. Channing, Works, p. 837. Cf. Birney, James G. Birney and His 
 Times, pp. 367-8. 
 
 10. Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 186. 
 
 aml! a ae Christian Advocate, Volume I, p. 2, col. 2; January 
 
 12. Ibid., p. 206, cols. 1-3; December 9, 1841. 
 
 13. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XII, p. 14, col. 2; 
 January, 1841. 
 
 14. Ibid., Volume XIII, p. 26, cols. 3-4; February 16, 1842. The editor 
 wrote: “‘The ruffian rabble who have made the capitol the kennel 
 of the nation have found in him the strange anomaly of a veteran 
 politician who. seems to be perfectly unconscious that party 
 interests are paramount to national ones, that honor is opposed 
 to. honesty and slavery is freedom ; 
 
 Full of talents, honors and years, he seems to have 
 ants by the appointment of Providence, from the first age 
 and the highest seat of the nation, to stand in its popular assem- 
 bly, a living rebuke to its folly and anarchy, and an impersonation 
 of the patriotism of the older times. Let the nation prize and 
 honor him, for it will never see his like again.”’ 
 
 15. Ibid., p. 152, col. 4; September 21, 1842 and Ibid, p. 156, cols. 2-3; 
 September 28, 1842. 
 
114 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 16. 
 
 shyt 
 18. 
 
 19 
 
 120; 
 
 23. 
 
 25. 
 26. 
 27. 
 28. 
 29, 
 30. 
 
 31 
 
 32. 
 33. 
 
 The Liberator, Volume XI., p. 61; col. 6; April 16, 1841. The 
 following article on ‘‘Methodist Episcopacy’’ was quoted from the 
 Utica Wesleyan Methodist: 
 
 “The despotism of the Methodist Episcopacy has been developing 
 itself more and more from the commencement of the anti-slavery 
 struggle, not only in Utica but all over the country where there 
 has been any effectual means taken to remove the ‘great evil of 
 slavery’. But the overwhelming proof of the arbitrary character of 
 this system was furnished in the resolution of the last General 
 Conference, and now stands as a law of the Church.’ ‘That it is 
 inexpedient and UNJUSTIFIABLE for a colored person to TESTIFY 
 AGAINST A WHITE PERSON IN CHURCH TRIALS in those 
 States where such testimony is not admitted by courts of law.’ 
 If the ‘highest judicatory can pass such a vresluotion, and a 
 preacher, at his own WILL, can reinstate in the church an expelled 
 member, does it need any farther proof that ‘the government of 
 the M. E. Church, from its highest judiciary downwards is essentially and 
 radically DESPOTIC’ ’’? 
 
 Quoted in The Liberator, Volume XII, p. 89, cols. 2-3; June 
 10, 1842 
 
 Ibid., Volume XI., p. 1388, col. 3; August 27, 1841. 
 
 Quoted in Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 31-2. 
 Elliott concludes: ‘‘Hence slavery was talked, and preached, and 
 prayed about, and little else, making a watchword of the party 
 the theme of the class-meeting, the love feast, and the prayer- 
 meeting, as well as of the rostrum and the periodicals.’’ 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 3, cols. 1-2; April 
 23, 1841. In regard to abolitionism, the editor said: ‘‘There is a 
 dangerous schismatic spirit, a practice, and principles in this recent 
 abolitionism, which we cannot conscientiously adopt. 
 
 “Politically, it is revolutionary, and tends to anarchy, rebellion, and 
 treason. As a Christian, we respect the powers that be, though 
 they may be even in political error.’’ Abolitionism was ‘fa system 
 of agitation, rather than discussion.’’ Relative to the methods of 
 abolitionists he said that they had ‘“‘taken part with a foreign 
 power against the United States. Their accredited agents in Great 
 Britain denounce and misrepresent this country, in a manner which 
 we believe to be libelous and infamous.’’ Indicating his future 
 policy he concluded: ‘This is our final chapter on these points, 
 and no ruthless array of words will, we presume, draw us from 
 this intention.’’ 
 
 Sh Supra, p. 91, footnote 23. 
 
 Professor Norwood includes Pennsylvania (Norwood, The Schism 
 in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 48). Cf. Myers, The Disruption 
 of the M. E. Church, pp. 31-2. 
 
 me in the Liberator, Volume XII, p. 89, cols. 2-3; June 10, 
 i} { 
 
 . At this time Scott was serving the Methodist church at Lowell, 
 
 Massachusetts, where the congregation had taken the revolutionary 
 step of choosing their own preacher instead of accepting 
 the appointee of the bishop. For this, Scott was promised that 
 every effort would be made at the ensuing annual conference 
 to expel him from the Church. Strangely enough, no action 
 was taken. 
 
 Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 47. 
 Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 187-206. 
 
 A member of the Methodist church at Duxbury, Massachusetts. 
 The Liberator, Volume XIL., p. 150, cols. 5-6; September 23, 1842. 
 Ibid., p, 170, cols. 4-5; October ‘28, 1842. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIII., p. 156, col. 3; 
 October 26, 1842. 
 
 Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 262-3. 
 
 Lee, Autobiography, p. 237. 
 
 Discipline of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America, 
 p21 
 
34. 
 
 36. 
 
 37. 
 38. 
 
 39. 
 
 40. 
 41. 
 
 42 
 
 43. 
 44. 
 
 49. 
 
 56. 
 
 The Changing Tide 115 
 
 Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 209-22. Cf. Lee, Autobi- 
 ography, pp 247-50. 
 
 5. The Liberator, Volume XIII., p. 114, col. 5; July 21, 1843. For 
 
 examples of secessions from conferences, see Conable, History of 
 the Genesee Conference, pp. 497-8; and Western Christian Advo- 
 cate, Volume X., p. 102, col, 4; October 13, 1843. 
 
 The True Wesleyan, Volume II., p. 19, col. 3; February, 1844. 
 The significance of several thousand Wesleyans in the election of 
 1844 has not been suggested by any historical writer. Many of 
 the Scottites resided in New York, the state which determined 
 the election, and therefore are to be credited, in part at least, with 
 the result. 
 
 Lee, Autobiography, p. 237. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 241-6. Cf. Scott, Grounds for secession from the 
 M. E. Church, pp. 4-8; The True Wesleyan, Volume I. p. 1; 
 COlMsL UL aNUALY 1 11 643% 
 
 Lee, Autobiography, pp 241-6. Cf. Scott, Grounds of Secession 
 from the M. E. Church, p. 4; The True Wesleyan, Volume I., 
 p. 1, col. 1; January 7, 1843 and Ibid., p. 5, cols. 1-4; January 
 14, 1843. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIII. p. 174, col. 3; 
 November 30, 1842. 
 
 Lee, Autobiography, pp. 241-6. 
 
 Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 45, col. 4; April 16, 
 1844. 
 
 The Liberator, Volume XIII., p. 149, col. 1; September 22, 1843. 
 Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 414. In another place he says: 
 “O. Scott and his co-adjutors formed themselves into a separate 
 party organization, calling themselves the ‘True Wesleyans’; but 
 long since they have found, to their sorrow, that they misnamed 
 the brat, for the secession that they produced was a very feeble, 
 little and illegitimate child. But they nursed it till it took the 
 rickets; and the last I heard of it, it was fast wasting away, and 
 ‘the last state of it was worse than the first.’’’ (Ibid., p. 364). 
 
 . The first number was published January 7, 1843. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 31-2. 
 
 . The True Wesleyan, Volume I., p. 143, col. 2; September 9, 1843. 
 . Alexander (A History of the Methodist Church, South, p. 13) states 
 
 the situation exactly: ‘‘Prior to 1843 no Annual Conference was 
 allowed to say that all slaveholding was sin. Subsequently no 
 form of expression was objected. to by the presiding officer of an 
 annual conference.”’ 
 
 The True Wesleyan, Volume I., p. 14, cols. 2-4; January 28, 1843. 
 Lee was convinced that this was done for effect, in order to block 
 the Wesleyan movement. He predicted that several members of 
 New England conference would secede in 1844 or earlier. 
 
 . Mudge, History of the New England Conference, p. 294. Cf. 
 
 Townsend, A New History of Methodism, Volume II., pp. 182-3. 
 
 . Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, p. 582. The conferences pre- 
 
 sided over by Hedding were the Philadelphia, New Jersey, New 
 York, Providence, New England and Maine. 
 
 . Lee, Autobiography, pp. 251-2. 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 251. 
 . Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIII., p. 128, col. 3; 
 
 August 10, 1842. 
 
 . For Maine conference, see Minutes of the Maine conference, 1843, 
 
 p. 13; and The True Wesleyan, Volume I., p. 169, col. 5; October 
 28, 1843. For Providence conference, see Elliott, The Great Seces- 
 sion, col, 243. For New Hampshire conference, see Ibid., cols, 205-6. 
 The Genesee conference desired a change of the rule “so as not 
 to admit or continue any person a member who holds a slave or 
 slaves in any State, Territory, or District, where the laws of the 
 State, Territory, or District will admit of emancipation and per- 
 mit the emancipated slave to enjoy freedom.’’ (Zion’s Herald and 
 Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIV., p. 108, col. 2; July 5, 1843). 
 
116 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 57. 
 
 68. 
 
 It was sometimes contended that, according to the rule (supra, 
 p. 6) there must be “buying or selling of men, women and child- 
 ren” at the same time, or the law of the Church was not broken. 
 The New York conference therefor asked for the restoration of 
 the word “‘or’’ instead of ‘‘and’’ so that a wrong interpretation of 
 the rule would be impossible. 
 
 . Gregg, History of Methodism in the Erie Conference, Volume IL, 
 
 pp. 204-5. 
 
 . Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 269-70, 272-3. 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 186, col. 6; March 8, 
 
 1844. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 237-8, 964-6. 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XVI., p. 119, col. 5; March 
 
 9, 1842. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 238-9. * 
 . For his previous conservatism, Bond had been called ‘“‘pro-slavery 
 
 —a charge which was indignantly denied. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 34-6. 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 270. i 
 . Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VI., p. 172, cols. 1-2; April 14, 
 
 1843. Said the editor: ‘““‘What-rights and immunities have they in 
 common with their white brethren (of the Nofth)? Are the high 
 places of honor and profit open to them as they are to other 
 men? Who ever heard or dreamed of a governor, judge, or 
 congressman, of African descent, in Massachusetts? Has there 
 ever been one of the race in a New England legislature, or even 
 captain of a white militia company? Have the equality-loving 
 citizens of the Old Bay State, shaken off all the prejudices of 
 caste; are their drawing rooms, and the hands of their fair 
 daughters accessible to merit independent of the hue of the skin? 
 Why the fact is, regarding them as a class, the negroes of the 
 free States have made no perceptible advance toward this sort of 
 respectability, beyond their brethren of the South, if they have 
 even gone so far.’’ 
 
 Ibid., p. 176, col. 2; April 21, 1848. The relation of the North and 
 the South, as seen from a_ southern viewpoint, was ad- 
 mirably set forth by the editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate: 
 “The former (South Carolina and Georgia) calm and placid as the 
 surface of a mountain lake; the latter (New England) like the 
 ocean in the uproar and rage of the storm. The one pursuing 
 the legitimate and appropriate duties of the gospel in the old 
 Methodist way; the other seeking extraneous objects by novel and 
 pernicious means . . . The Methodist preacher at the North 
 denouncing everything connected with slavery, and actually binding 
 the fetters of the slaves with the greenest withes of prejudice 
 and power, and contributing the whole of his moral influence to 
 shut up the slave in the darkness of this life; and the Methodist 
 preacher at the South intent upon his work, penetrating swamps, 
 visiting the negro’s cabin, breasting and braving the persistent 
 malaria, if haply he may preach Jesus and Him crucified.’’ (Quoted 
 in the Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VII., p. 154, col. 3; 
 March 8, 1844). Perhaps the love of southern preachers for the sal- 
 vation of slaves was overdrawn, but we have the record of the reso- 
 lution of North Carolina conference, favoring religious instruction of 
 slaves. (See, Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 161, 
 col. 2; December 14, 1843). As for New England, probably the 
 description was not exaggerated, although abolitionists there were 
 no doubt as conscientious in their advocacy of abolitionism as a 
 cure for the ills of the Church and State as were the southerners 
 in their opposition to the anti-slavery program. 
 
Che ROX 
 
 A REVERSAL OF POLICY 
 
 In 1840, all factions believed that conservatism had won 
 and that the unity of the Church had been preserved. -In 
 1844, the Church was hopelessly divided. Garrison, Scott, 
 Storrs and Sunderland, in the role of prophets of a new era 
 of freedom, had changed the current of Methodist history. 
 When the General Conference of 1844 convened at New 
 York, two powerful groups — southern and anti-slavery — 
 faced each other in a struggle which ended in Methodism’s 
 greatest catastrophe. Between these was the conservative 
 faction which had formerly thrown its strength with the 
 South. For more than a year, however, those who made up 
 this fast vanishing minority had been rapidly assuming an 
 attitude of antagonism to the South. A clash on the future 
 policy of the Church was inevitable. 
 
 Crises call forth leaders. In 1844 the Methodist Church 
 faced one of the greatest of the many crucial periods through 
 which the denomination has been compelled to pass. And to 
 sustain the opinions. of their sections, there were gathered 
 in New York some of the most influential leaders that the 
 Church has ever had — men gifted in debate and oratory, in 
 the controversies of the press, on mission fields in the South 
 and West, in marshalling the nation’s spiritual forces. These 
 men with mature convictions — men who in after years were 
 to lead the two branches of Methodism as bishops, editors 
 and influential pastors — sought the solution of one of the 
 most important domestic questions ever before the people of 
 this country. 
 
 Keenly interested in all the proceedings of this Conference 
 were the Wesleyan Church leaders. Especially was this true 
 of Orange Scott who watched from the gallery the struggle 
 in which he had formerly been a leading participant. In- 
 deed, so intrusive were the Wesleyans that the editor of the 
 Western Christian Advocate considered it his duty to warn 
 his readers in advance against errors that were, as a matter 
 
 117 
 
118 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 ia 
 
 of course, to be published in The True Wesleyan. For the 
 management of this radical paper sought to give the widest 
 publicity to the proceedings of the Conference by offering 
 the publication for six weeks for twenty-five cents. The 
 editor of the Western even suggested that the General Con- 
 ference “‘sit with closed doors” and exclude the “Scottites” 
 and those of similar beliefs.* 
 
 Experience had taught the bishops the futility of condemn- 
 ing abolition, or advising that ministers refrain from agitating 
 the subject of slavery. Perhaps as a result of this knowledge, 
 no mention of slavery was made in the bishops’ address to 
 the Conference. Further, the reply of the Conference of 
 1840 to the British Wesleyan Church had apparently been 
 very effective, for no mention was made of slavery in the 
 address of that Church in 1844. The same is true of ad- 
 dresses of the Canada Wesleyan Church and of the Evangeli- 
 cal Association.» And when the Conference replied to these 
 fraternal greetings, they carefully refrained from exciting 
 passions which were soon to be unloosed.® 
 
 Probably as a result of the omission of the subject from 
 the Address of the bishops, no committee on slavery was 
 appointed at the beginning of this conference.“ But on the 
 third day, this committee, on motion of John Early, was 
 finally ordered. Orange Scott wrote that this measure car- 
 ried by a very large majority, and that if full liberty of 
 discussion were given in the Committee and on the floor of 
 the Conference, abolitionists would give a good account of 
 themselves. He was convinced that that was the purpose 
 and disposition of many members of the Conference, but he 
 was also certain that no effective measures would be adopted 
 against slavery, because of the influence which it had over the 
 Church. “But,” said he, “if the subject can be freely and 
 fully discussed, SLAVERY MUST, EVENTUALLY, 
 DIE RY 
 
 For three days the Conference was fairly deluged with 
 petitions and resolutions on slavery.4° As has already been 
 related, northeastern conferences asked for a change of the 
 General Rule on the subject; Ohio and other western con- 
 ferences presented their memorials; while southern confer- 
 ences contented themselves with resolutions against any 
 radical change. As had previously maintained, southern 
 conferences were unanimous in maintaining the status quo. 
 
A Reversal of Policy 119 
 
 Formerly, no effective action had been taken in response to 
 demands from New England and the West; now the whole 
 situation was to be definitely met and a decision reached. 
 
 Two cases came before the Conference for settlement. The 
 first was the appeal of F. A. Harding of Baltimore confer- 
 ence. He had been suspended from his position in the 
 conference for refusing to manumit some slaves which he 
 had acquired by marriage. There was some difference of 
 opinion as to whether the Maryland laws permitted manu- 
 mission, but the fact that, according to the laws of that 
 state, the slaves did not belong to Harding but to his wife, 
 was fully established. Further, Harding had agreed to send 
 the slaves to Liberia, or to a free state, if he could obtain 
 his wife’s and the slaves’ permission. Not only was Harding 
 charged with holding slaves, but, as a result of this sin, it 
 was also maintained that it would be impossible to send him 
 to a non-slaveholding congregation. Therefore, the “itin- 
 erant system” of the Church would be destroyed. 
 
 In many respects this case was similar to that involving 
 Bishop Andrew, and it was consequently debated and the 
 decision reached with the greater issue always in mind. 
 After a week of debate, the General Conference refused to 
 reverse the decision of Baltimore conference by a vote of 
 117 to 56.42. Of the majority, only two votes — one from 
 Missouri and one from Texas— were from southern con- 
 ferences. Baltimore conference voted unanimously with the 
 North. On the other hand, southerners had the support of 
 all other border conferences, and also of nine delegates from 
 northern conferences.1% Two results came from this southern 
 defeat. Supporters of Andrew were alarmed because they 
 saw that he was in danger. Abolitionists were apparently 
 much encouraged, for there was another shower of anti- 
 slavery petitions.1* 
 
 Southern concern was shown in the preamble and resolu- 
 tion offered by Dr. Capers and Dr. Olin.4® They asked that, 
 in view of the agitation on the question of slavery and 
 abolitionism, and the embarrassment under which members 
 worked in the Conference because of sectional feeling, a 
 committee of three from each section “be appointed to confer 
 with the bishops and report within two days, as to the 
 possibility of adopting some plan, and what, for the perma- 
 nent pacification of the church.’?!® Dr. Olin, in support of 
 
120 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 the resolution, declared that he feared a breakup of the 
 Church, and he was of the opinion that the only way to 
 avoid a rupture was through mutual moderation. All seemed 
 to feel that the Church was facing a crisis,!7 and an hour 
 of the following day was set aside as a time for fasting and 
 prayer. Two days later, delegates of the two sections 
 were requested to meet separately to discuss the question of 
 compromise.49 May 17, Bishop Soule reported for the 
 “Committee on Pacification” that they had found it im- 
 possible to reconcile the opinions of the two groups.” This 
 “pacification scheme” is supposed by Elliott to have been 
 an attempt on the part of southerners to break down all 
 resistance to the pro-slavery South,?! but a study of the 
 Journal and Debates of the Conference, together with much 
 collateral evidence in the papers of the time, seems to show 
 only a very sincere desire of the friends of peace to prevent 
 a rupture of the Church. 
 
 More important than the case of Harding was that of 
 Bishop Andrew. For the latter was to settle the question 
 whether a bishop could hold slaves and continue to perform 
 the duties of his office. It has been successfully maintained 
 that some bishops had actually held slaves, while others had 
 no scruples against the practice; and that delegates, not only 
 from the South but also from the North, had, on several 
 occasions, supported slaveholders for the office of bishop. 
 Coke was charged with being a voluntary slaveholder, while 
 Asbury and Whatcoat became involuntary slaveholders when 
 slaves were bequeathed to them by the wills of Methodists. 
 Even McKendree was not opposed to siaveholding, and 
 urged the election of Logan Douglas as a bishop, even though 
 he was known to be a slaveholder.22, As we have already 
 noted, northern delegates, including Finley and Cartwright, 
 were very enthusiastic in their support of Dr. Capers in 
 1832 and again in 1836 for the office of bishop.22 And 
 in 1840 the General Conference had declared that the mere 
 holding of slaves should not be a barrier to any office in 
 the gift of the Church. | 
 _ Previous to the General Conference of 1844, there had 
 been considerable discussion on slaveholding in the episco- 
 pacy. New England conferences petitioned that slaveholders 
 be not elected to the office of bishop.2° When Capers sug- 
 gested that the South wanted a southerner for bishop, the 
 
A Reversal of Policy 12} 
 
 editor of Zion’s Herald said that this would cripple the work 
 of the Church and he was not in favor of a cripple for 
 bishop.*® The Pittsburgh Christian Advocate also opposed 
 slaveholding bishops. He suggested that a slaveholder might 
 be elected to the office and then change his residence to a 
 northern state where manumission could be accomplished. 
 “Such a movement should not subject him to the charge 
 of profanity.’?" A southern writer held the same view as 
 Capers and other leaders did, that bishops should be elected 
 without regard to their connection with slavery, and that 
 only merit should determine their selection.?® — 
 
 The fact that Bishop Andrew was a slaveholder seems to 
 have first become known through a controversy between Dr. 
 Curry of Georgia conference and some northern leaders. 
 By the time the delegates arrived in New York, abolitionists 
 had succeeded in stirring northerners and a few delegates 
 from slaveholding states to an uncompromising oP nae 
 to Bishop Andrew.?? 
 
 The committee on episcopacy began the Miatuoation of 
 Andrew’s case almost as soon as it was appointed. The 
 very fact that an abolitionist, Crandall of New England, con- 
 ducted part of the negotiations was enough to warn Andrew. 
 Before the full committee “he made a complete statement” 
 of his connection with slavery.2° The bishop became appre- 
 hensive of the outcome, and this, together with the state of 
 his health and the needs of his motherless children, deter- 
 mined him to resign. Southern delegates were assembled and 
 the bishop’s decision announced. But the delegates protested 
 so strongly that such action would “spread general discontent 
 through the whole south,”?1 that he promised not to resign.?2 
 Thereafter, when a committee of five, with Dr. Bangs as 
 chairman, came to acquaint him with northern sentiment, 
 he refused to communicate with them except in writing.?? 
 
 May 20, ten days after Andrew met the southern delegates, 
 J. A. Collins of Baltimore conference offered a preamble by 
 which the Committee on Episcopacy was requested to investi- 
 gate the report that one of the bishops held slaves.2° The far- 
 reaching consequences of the resolution seem to have been im- 
 - mediately apparent for Bishop Hedding considered it his duty 
 to call “the attention of the conference to a rule in their 
 Discipline, requiring them to remember, in all their discus- 
 
122 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 sions that the eye of God was upon them and he hoped, at 
 present especially, they would remember this.”’%* 
 
 The report of the Committee was really the evidence sub- 
 mitted by Bishop Andrew himself. He stated that he had 
 in his possession two slaves —a girl who had been left him 
 by the will of an old lady in Augusta, Georgia, and a boy 
 left him by his wife. In both instances, he was willing to 
 send them to Liberia if they desired to go, or to a free 
 state if they preferred, if he could be assured that provision 
 would be made for their needs. In January, 1844, he mar- 
 ried the second time. His wife held slaves whom she had 
 inherited from the estate of her former husband, but Andrew 
 declared that they were the property of his wife alone and 
 that he had no interest in them.*® 
 
 An exciting debate on the Committee’s report was begun, 
 May 23,96 when Alfred Griffith and John Davis, both of 
 Baltimore conference, offered a resolution requesting Bishop 
 Andrew to resign his office in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, because of his connection with slavery. It was 
 asserted that this “embarrassment”? made it impossible for 
 him to preside in certain conferences of the Church.8? Mr. 
 Griffith spoke at considerable length in support of his reso- 
 lution, the rules being suspended which permitted each 
 delegate only fifteen minutes in which to address the Con- 
 ference.*8 Northerners contended that it was entirely a 
 question of expediency. They believed that it was expedient 
 for the bishop to resign, and that the Conference had the 
 power to depose a bishop at any time. Southern delegates 
 argued that Bishop Andrew had done nothing for which, 
 according to the Discipline, he could rightly be required to 
 resign his office.2® The speeches on this resolution indicate 
 that those ministers who sought the removal of Bishop 
 Andrew failed utterly in their argument that he had done 
 anything for which he could be held responsible, or had 
 entered into any relation with slavery which he was able 
 to remedy.*® 
 
 That this observation is correct may be seen from the 
 fact that northerners shifted from their original position 
 as to the reason for deposing Andrew. According to 
 Griffiths resolution, emphasis was placed on the fact that 
 Andrew was a slaveholder and that the Church had always 
 been opposed to slavery in the Episcopacy. Only incidentally 
 
A Reversal of Policy 123 
 
 was allusion made to the effect which the relation of the 
 Bishop to slavery would have upon the itinerant system 
 of the Church. But the resolution offered by James B. 
 Finley and J. M. Trimble of Ohio conference as a substitute 
 for Griffith’s merely mentioned that Andrew had ‘‘become 
 connected with slavery by marriage and otherwise,” while 
 the result upon the “itinerant general superintendency” was 
 especially emphasized.44_ The resolution provided that 
 Andrew should not act as bishop as long as he was in any 
 way connected with slavery, on the ground that he would 
 not be received in some sections of the country. Apparently, 
 it had been forgotten that he had been the presiding officer 
 of conferences in Arkansas, lowa, Illinois, Indiana and 
 Missouri in 1843, and that he had given entire satisfaction 
 to all concerned.** Dr. Drake suggested that bishops be 
 assigned particular areas during the succeeding four years, 
 but the proposition met with little favor and the debate 
 continued.#* The northern attitude was well stated by Cass 
 of New Hampshire conference, who declared that northerners 
 would refuse to receive Bishop Andrew as their president, 
 and that whole conferences would secede if Andrew re- 
 mained a bishop.** 
 
 For the South, Dr. George Pierce of Georgia conference, 
 one of the most eloquent speakers of his section, put forth 
 two propositions. First, he declared that the General Con- 
 ference proceedings had brought the whole “Methodist 
 Episcopal Church in a position of antagonism to the laws 
 of the land.” As he expressed it, the attitude had been 
 assumed — “the Church, the Bible, the Discipline, and the 
 laws of the land to the contrary notwithstanding, — that we 
 have a right to make a man’s membership depend upon the 
 conditions of his doing a thing which, as a citizen of the 
 state, he has no power or right to do.’’4 
 
 Pierce was equally emphatic on the inexpediency of the 
 proposed action. The argument that it was “expedient” 
 for Bishop Andrew to resign was refuted, it being shown that 
 the consequences would be worse by compelling southern 
 conferences to set up for themselves than by permitting 
 New England conferences to separate from the Church. In 
 reply to the threat of New England that that section would 
 withdraw from the Church, he asserted that New England 
 had “been for the last twenty years a thorn in the flesh — 
 
124 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 a messenger of Satan to buffet us! Let her go, and joy go 
 with her, for peace will stay behind.’’*® ! 
 
 With the feeling of delegates stirred to the highest pitch, 
 it was but natural that measures of compromise should be 
 proposed. J. A. Collins moved that Andrew be requested 
 to get rid of his slaves within four years.4% When the 
 delegates were about to vote on Finley’s resolution, Bishop 
 Hedding suggested that the Conference should not meet in 
 the afternoon, so that the bishops might “consult together”’ 
 and bring in some plan which would solve the problem before 
 them. This proposal was agreed to by the delegates “with 
 general and great cordiality.’ The bishops’ report was 
 presented by Bishop Waugh on, May 31. They recited the 
 familiar details of the excitement in the Conference and 
 expressed their deep solicitude as to the result. Finally, they 
 recommended that further consideration of Bishop Andrew’s 
 case be postponed until 1848. They believed that, if this 
 were done, the people would be better able to judge as to the 
 action that should be taken. They were of the opinion that 
 a division of the bishops’ work might be made so that no 
 conference or bishop would be embarrassed in any way. 
 The bishops justified themselves in their recommendation 
 because of. their “strong desire to prevent disunion, and to 
 promote harmony in the Church.’’48 
 
 Meanwhile, New England abolitionists were not idle. 
 Greatly alarmed lest plans for compromise might be success- 
 ful, they met and unanimously agreed that, if Bishop Andrew 
 were permitted to continue his work, they would secede and 
 request Hedding to become their bishop. The latter was in 
 conference with the other bishops and the New Englanders 
 feared to call him out, lest their whole program should be 
 defeated. But on June 1, before the bishops’ report was 
 considered, Hedding met an abolitionist in the vestry of the 
 church, where the former was given an account of the action 
 of the delegates from New England. Hedding agreed that 
 New England conferences would secede if Andrew were not 
 disposed of. When the Conference began the consideration 
 of the report, Hedding stated that he wished to withdraw his 
 name from the document. He said he had signed it because 
 he thought it would be a peace measure, ‘“‘but facts had come 
 to his knowledge since, which led him to believe that such 
 would not be the case.” Waugh immediately weakened and 
 
A Reversal of Policy 125 
 
 said if the report occasioned a long debate he might withdraw 
 his name. Morris desired that his signature should remain 
 on the paper “as a testimony that he had done what he 
 could to preserve the unity and peace of the Church.” Soule 
 had no desire to withdraw his name from a document which 
 had already gone forth to the country “through a thousand 
 mediums.’#® That the influence which was brought to bear 
 upon Bishop Hedding was responsible for the defeat of the 
 plan to postpone final action on Bishop Andrew’s case until 
 1848 seems probable. For the motion of Nathan Bangs that 
 the bishops’ address be tabled prevailed by the narrow mar- 
 gin of 95 to 84.°° 
 
 Abolitionists had passed one more point of danger. They 
 had defeated a plan for compromise and delay, and the 
 possible destruction of their program. The next step was 
 to return to Finley’s resolution. This was adopted, June l, 
 by a vote of 110 to 68.5! One delegate from each of the 
 Ohio, Michigan and Rock River conferences; three from 
 Illinois, five from Baltimore, four from Philadelphia,’ and 
 two from New Jersey, voted with the South; while only one 
 southern delegate, Clark of Texas, cast his vote with the 
 North.®? 
 
 But abolitionists were not yet safe. June 3, two Baltimore 
 conference delegates, Slicer and Sargent, moved that the 
 action of June 1 be considered nothing more than advisory, 
 and “that the final disposition of the case of Bishop Andrew 
 be postponed until the General Conference of 1848.’ This 
 was in harmony with the bishops’ address which had already 
 been considered. Again the attempt at compromise failed, 
 
 75 to 68.54 
 
 One more question concerning Bishop Andrew remained 
 to be decided. The bishops asked what the status of Andrew 
 was to be during the ensuing four years. The Conference 
 replied that his name should be retained in the Minutes, 
 Hymn-book and Discipline,®® and that he should be supported 
 equally with other bishops.°® The Conference also decided 
 that Bishop Andrew should be given work when he freed 
 himself from all connection with slavery.®? 
 
 The difference between the General Conferences of 1844 
 and 1840 is no more clearly seen than in the report of the 
 Committee on Slavery, June 7, in. favor of rescinding the 
 action of the General Conference of 1840 against receiving 
 
126 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 colored testimony in church trials in slave states.58 When 
 the resolution was presented, Bishop Soule was the presiding 
 officer. George Peck, the chairman, says the bishop dis- 
 approved the action, scowled and shook his head and 
 shrugged his shoulders. When he put the motion “he 
 characterized it as a proposal to rescind the ‘Bishops’ reso- 
 lutions’ adopted by the last General Conference.” But the 
 protest of Soule was without avail, for the resolution was 
 adopted, 115 to 40.°9 
 
 As one reviews the legislation of this General Conference 
 on slavery, he can find no question upon which abolitionists 
 were not entirely successful. To analyze the reasons for 
 this complete reversal of policy, the evidence of northern 
 and southern writers must be considered. Some northern 
 leaders claimed that the Methodist Church itself was 
 responsible for this remarkable change. Long gives the 
 credit to New England and the West.®° Mudge affirms that 
 the victory came because of the educational propaganda 
 begun in New England and New Hampshire conferences 
 and gradually carried to a few other groups of ministers.®! 
 And Gilbert Haven, writing many years afterward, con- 
 sidered the result simply the culmination of the work of 
 the Church on that subject from the beginning of the 
 organization.® 
 
 But the real reason for the success of abolitionists seems 
 to have been the fear that radical northern conferences 
 would join the Wesleyan Church, Capers declared that, 
 since Scott and others seceded, leaders who remained in 
 the Methodist Church had sought to convince the people 
 “that they could be as ultra as they pleased, and continue 
 in the church.”®* In the General Conference it was asserted 
 that northern leaders were “pushed on by the people,’’® 
 and that if nothing were done, “the people will go off in 
 troops to our enemies.’” “Already,” said Brewster, “the 
 organization of the Wesleyan Church has produced more 
 action in the M. E. Church than could otherwise have been’ 
 secured in ten years.’’® 
 
 But one situation is not explained by these writers: namely, 
 the coalition of Baltimore and abolition ministers. It is true 
 that Baltimore conference had suspended ministers for 
 slaveholding but a charge of being abolitionists had never 
 been brought against this body of ministers. James Porter, 
 
A Reversal of Policy 127 
 
 a delegate from New England conference, supplies the reason 
 for this union of conservatives and radicals. He emphasizes 
 very strongly the fact, to which Capers and Brewster had 
 called attention, that the “Scottite” secession had caused a 
 veritable panic among those who remained. Ministers of 
 Baltimore conference were apparently willing to do their 
 share to keep New England conferences from seceding. 
 When Porter arrived in New York, he was invited to confer 
 with one of the leaders of Baltimore conference, whom 
 Porter considered the greatest of the conservative group. 
 Porter was asked what New England wanted. He replied 
 that his section desired what we have seen they obtained; 
 and besides he demanded that abolitionists should not be 
 further condemned. He also asked for a stronger stand 
 against slavery in the Church.6 The bargain was made that 
 Baltimore conference would support New England in the 
 first four demands. Other northern delegates were called 
 into conference and an agreement reached that all that 
 abolitionists absolutely demanded should be done.®’ Since 
 abolitionists felt that their cause would be prejudiced if 
 they themselves conducted the proceedings, conservatives of 
 Baltimore and other conferences agreed “‘to take the laboring 
 oar into their own hands’’® and permit delegates from New 
 England to use their influence in other ways. This agree- 
 ment was carried out in every particular; every attempt on 
 the part of southern delegates to stir abolitionists to denounce 
 slavery ended in failure.® 
 
 As the work of this Conference is surveyed, several con- 
 clusions seem to be entirely justified. First, that the under- 
 lying cause of the reversal of the policy of former General 
 Conferences was the fear that abolition conferences of New 
 England would withdraw from the Church and that this 
 dissatisfaction would become general throughout the North. 
 Second, when the cases of Harding and Andrew are con- 
 sidered, one can not but feel that these men were the victims 
 of an unjustifiable attack for politico-religious purposes.” 
 This is especially true of Andrew. It is significant that his 
 own statement was not challenged. As one reads the docu- 
 ment it is apparent that he was not a slaveholder of his own 
 volition. Third, while New England had been saved to 
 the Church, the attack on Andrew made the situation intol- 
 erable for southern delegates. One does not need to speculate 
 
128 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 as to who was right and who was wrong ;"! the fact remains 
 that northern and southern delegates were diametrically 
 opposed to each other. Continued unity was impossible. 
 
 
 
 1. Professor Norwood (The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, 
 pp. 59-60) mentions a number of these leaders. George Peck 
 probably should be included. 
 
 2. McTyeire, A History of Methodism, p. 640. 
 
 3. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 3, col. 1; April 19, 1844, 
 
 4. Journal of the General Conference, 1844, pp. 151-71. 
 
 5. The Evangelical Association was a German organization. 
 
 6. Journal of the Genera] Conference, 1844, pp. 171-86. 
 
 7. Ibid’, pp. 8=12. 
 
 So DIG bape: 
 
 9. American Wesleyan Observer, Volume I., p. 55, col 1; May 7, 
 1844. This paper was published solely to give the news of this 
 conference. 
 
 10. Journal of the General Conference, 1844, pp. 13-28. Professor Nor- 
 
 wood cites the report of the Committee on Slavery that there 
 were ten thousand people who petitioned the Conference against 
 slavery. (Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, p. 60). 
 
 11. According to this ‘‘system,’’ ministers could be sent to any point 
 in a conference and, if the contention of some leaders, that a 
 minister might be transferred at will be allowed, a minister could 
 be sent to any appointment within the whole Church. In this 
 instance, the fact that Harding was unacceptable to a single town 
 or village militated against his worth as a minister anywhere in 
 the whole Church. Cf. Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist 
 Church, 1844, pp. 61-2. 
 
 12. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XV., p. 78, col. 4; 
 May 15, 1844. ‘‘Thus the great question has been decided in favor 
 of Northern principles by more than two to one.’”’ The vote to 
 confirm the action of Baltimore conference was 111 to 53. (Nor- 
 wood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, p. 62, note 11). 
 
 13. Debates in the General Conference, 1844, p. 29; May 7, 1844. Cf. 
 Journal of the General Conference, 1844, p. 240 (Appendix). The 
 votes of the northern conferences were: Rock River, 1; Illinois, 
 3 (a majority); New Jersey, 2; Philadelphia, 3. 
 
 14. Myers, The Disruption of the M E. Church, p. 42. 
 
 15. Dr. Olin was from New York conference but had lived in the 
 South. 
 
 16. Journal of the General Conference, 1844, pp. 42-3. Cf. Norwood, 
 The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 68; and Myers, The 
 Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 48. A suggestion that three © 
 members from the border states be added to the committee was 
 defeated. (Debates in General Conference, 1844, p. 54). 
 
 17. Debates in General Conference, 1844, pp. 54-7. 
 
 18. Journal of the General Conference, 1844, pp. 43, 46. 
 
 19. Ibid., pp. 49-50. 
 
 20. Ibid., p. 54. The report reads: ‘‘The Committee of Conference, 
 have instructed me (Bishop Soule) to report that after a calm and 
 deliberate investigation of the subject submitted to their consid- 
 eration, they are unable to agree upon any plan of compromise to 
 reconcile the views of the northern and southern Conferences.’’ 
 
 21. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 292-6. 
 
 22. Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 7; December 13, 
 1844. Grisley Rush wrote: ‘‘From the spirit of the gospel of our blessed 
 Saviour, the Northern delegates seem to have been very sure that 
 a Bishop of the Methodist E, Church had never been connected 
 with slavery, but in this perhaps they are mistaken. Upon close 
 examination, perhaps, it will be found that Dr. Coke, that great 
 and good man, while in a foreign island, was connected with 
 slavery; and I am sure that Bishops Asbury and Whatcoat were 
 
23. 
 24, 
 
 25. 
 
 26. 
 
 27. 
 
 A Reversal of Policy 129 
 
 both connected with it; and I doubt whether there has been a 
 Bishop in America, since their death, but has been connected with 
 slavery—and whether the North, with the South to help them, can 
 make a Bishop without connecting him with slavery, for this 
 reason:—In 1828, I was searching the Records, in Hillsborough, 
 N. C. and in Clerk’s office at that place I found on Record the 
 will of Francis Moreland, who died sometime before that date— 
 the time not remembered; and in the will of said Moreland, he 
 gave to Francis Asbury and Whatcoat, Bishops of the Methodist 
 E. Church, and their successors, his negro slaves, over a certain 
 age; and all not that age he left to his wife, during her life, and 
 at her death to go to said Asbury and Whatcoat, Bishops of the 
 Methodist E. Church, and their successors forever.’’ 
 
 Cf. Virginia Pamphlets, Volume 2—An Address to the People of 
 the County of Accomac by George P. Scarburgh and 15 others. 
 “It was even said that no slaveholder had ever been a Bishop of 
 the Methodist Ep. Church. Dr. Coke was a Bishop, and Dr. Coke 
 was a slaveholder—made so by voluntary purchase. We assert 
 this upon authority which cannot be doubted, and challenge con- 
 tradiction. Bishop McKendree at one time fully made up his mind 
 to become a slaveholder; but afterwards declined doing so, not 
 because of any incompatibility of Slavery with his office of Bishop; 
 but because he was advised by his friends that a slave of his own 
 would not obey him more readily than if he belonged to another. 
 At one time a slave-holder came within one vote of being elected 
 a Bishop; and it is believed that Dr. Capers could_have been 
 elected in 1832, if the South had united upon him. Bishop Mc- 
 Kendree openly manifested his desire that Thomas Douglas be 
 elected Bishop, although he knew him to be an extensive slave- 
 holder, in a State where emancipation was impracticable. Now 
 ‘Southern men, holding slaves, have at different times, been 
 supported for the Episcopacy, by Northern votes,’ ever since the 
 organization of the Church.’ None but the wilfully blind, therefore, 
 can fail to see that this uncompromising hostility to a slaveholding 
 Bishop, of which we have lately heard so much, is of modern 
 origin.’’ 
 
 Supra, pp. 67-8, footnotes 28-31. 
 
 Supra, p. 98. Bishop Andrew makes it perfectly clear that 
 slaveholding was never broached to him when he was elected 
 Bishop in 1832. ‘‘But I was nominated and elected. No one asked 
 me if I was a slaveholder; not one asked me my principles on the 
 subject; and no one dared to ask a pledge of me, or it would have 
 
 been met as it would have deserved.’ (Lee and Smith, The 
 Debates of the General Conference of the M. E. Church, May, 1844, 
 p. 206). 
 
 For New England conference, see Elliott, The Great Secession, 
 col, 251; and Myers, The Disruption of the M..E. Church, p. 32. 
 For Maine conference, see The True Wesleyan, Volume IL, p. 169, 
 col. 5; October 28, 1843. For Providence conference, see Zion’s 
 Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIV., p. 108, col, 1; July 
 5, 1843. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIV., p. 170, cols. 
 3-4; October 25, 1843. Abolitionists and other northerners seemed 
 to lose sight of the fact that if their position were accepted by 
 the Church, northern bishops would be no more acceptable to the 
 South than slaveholding bishops would be in the North. 
 Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XL, p. 18, cols. 6-7; Febru- 
 ary 21, 1844, ‘Dr. Capers will pardon the liberty we take in 
 suggesting, that tho’ no man is’ worthy of the office who liberates 
 his slaves to be elected a bishop, yet we think it can well be 
 supposed, a brother elected to that office might avail himself of 
 the position to liberate his slaves by changing his residence from 
 South to North, when his relations to the Church should not 
 render a Southern residence necessary. Such a movement should 
 not subject him to the charge of profanity. Our individual opinion | 
 
130 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 28. 
 29. 
 
 30. 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 302; and Debates in General] 
 
 32. 
 33. 
 
 34. 
 30. 
 
 is, that the South needs the residence of some of our bishops, and 
 that they should be Southern men. But as slaveholders would 
 not be received in that office with undivided cordiality in Northern 
 Conferences, and as our superintendency is general as well as itine- 
 rant, it is a question the approaching conference will not fail to 
 consider, whether it would be expedient to elect any one to that 
 office, however otherwise worthy, who holds slaves.’’ 
 
 ayers Christian Advocate, Volume VI., p. 192, col. 5; May 19, 
 Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 42. Elliott says 
 that the fact that Andrew held slaves was not known in the 
 middle and northern conferences until it was noised about by 
 preachers on the way to General Conference. (Elliott, The Great 
 Secession, col, 295). 
 
 Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 69. 
 
 Conference, 1844, pp. 112-15. Dr. Longstreet’s account is as fol- 
 lows: ‘‘When he (Andrew) reaches here he finds the conference 
 in commotion; he is pained and agonized; he convenes the dele- 
 gates from the slave-holding conferences, and, for the sake of 
 peace, proposes to resign; but we to a man, without a dissenting 
 voice, declared to him ‘that, if he sought the peace of the Church 
 by that course, he would be disappointed of his object; for that 
 his resignation to appease the clamor of the abolitions would but 
 spread general discontent through the whole south. We can not 
 lie down and see you deposed. If it has come to this, that being 
 connected with slavery disqualifies you, we too are disqualified.’ ”’ 
 Cf. Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, p. 67. 
 Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 68. 
 Journal of the General Conference, 1844, p. 58. These read: 
 
 “Whereas it is currently reported, and generally understood, 
 that one of the Bishops of the M. E. Church has become connected 
 with slavery; and whereas it is due to this General Conference to 
 have a proper understanding of the matter; therefore, 
 
 ‘Resolved, That the Committee on Episcopacy be instructed to 
 ascertain the facts in the case and report the results of their 
 investigation to this body to-morrow morning.’”’ 
 
 The fact that the investigation had already been made is con- 
 clusively shown by Professor Norwood. (See his Schism in the 
 Methodist Church, 1844, p. 69). 
 
 Debates in General Conference, 1844, p. 68. 
 Ibid., p. 73. Bishop Andrew’s very important statement is given 
 in full: 
 
 “In reply to your inquiry, I submit the following statement of 
 all the facts bearing on my connexion with slavery. Several 
 years since (Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 26, 
 col. 2; fall of 1844, says about 1837) an old lady, of Augusta, 
 Georgia, bequeathed to me a mulatto girl, in trust that I should 
 take care of her until she should be nineteen years of age; that 
 with her consent I should then send her to Liberia; and that in case 
 of her refusal, I should keep her, and make her as free as the 
 laws of the State of Georgia permit. When the time arrived, she 
 refused to go to Liberia, and of her own choice remains legally my 
 slave, although I derive no pecuniary profit from her, (An inter- 
 view was held with the slave girl by A. B. Longstreet and George 
 W. Lane, to determine her wishes. This was on December 4, 1841. 
 See Smith, Life and Letters of Andrew, pp. 312-13) she continues 
 to live in her own house on my lot; and has been, and still is at 
 perfect liberty to go to a free State at her pleasure; but the laws 
 of the state will not permit her emancipation, nor admit such a 
 deed of emancipation to record, and she refuses to leave the State. 
 In her case, therefore, I have been made a slaveholder legally, 
 but without my own consent. 
 
 ‘“2dly. About five years since, the mother of my former wife 
 left to her daughter, not to me, a negro boy; and as my wife died 
 
36. 
 
 37. 
 
 38. 
 
 39. 
 
 A Reversal of Policy 131 
 
 without a will more than two years since, by the laws of the 
 State he becomes legally my property. In this case, as in the 
 former, emancipation is impracticable in the State; but he shall 
 be at liberty to leave the State whenever I shall be satisfied that 
 he is prepared to provide for himself, or I can have sufficient 
 security that he will be protected and provided for in the place 
 to which he may go. 
 
 “3dly. In the month of January last I married my present wife, 
 she being at the time possessed of slaves, inherited from her 
 former husband’s estate, and belonging to her. Shortly after my 
 marriage, being unwilling to become their owner, regarding them 
 as strictly hers, and the law not permitting their emancipation, 
 I secured them to her by a deed of trust. 
 
 “It will be obvious to you, from the above statement of facts, 
 that I have neither bought nor sold a slave; that in the only two 
 instances in which I am legally a slaveholder, emancipation is im- 
 practicable. As to the servants owned by my wife, I have no legal 
 responsibility in the premises, nor could my wife emancipate them 
 if she desired to do so. I have thus plainly stated all the facts 
 in the case, and submit the statement for the consideration of the 
 General Conference.’’ 
 
 How a member of the General Conference misstated the facts 
 may be seen from the following: ‘In January, 1844, Bishop An- 
 drew married a widow lady, who owned slaves by a former hus- 
 band. He took no step toward setting them free, but rather took 
 steps to have their freedom placed entirely beyond his power.’’ 
 (Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 295). Rather it was a case of 
 Andrew not permitting slaves to come to him when he might 
 have become their owner. Elliott omits the fact that it was 
 legally impossible to free slaves in Georgia. 
 
 Debates in General Conference, 1844, pp. 74-5. The purpose of the 
 delay was to give delegates from each section an opportunity to 
 meet separately. Dr. Bond took occasion to emphatically deny 
 that northerners were attempting to force the South into secession. 
 He considered that such a scheme was far from the minds of 
 northerners. (Ibid., p. 74). 
 
 Ibid., p. 82. Their statement is as follows: 
 
 “Whereas, the Rev. James O. Andrew, one of the Bishops of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, has became connected with slavery; 
 and whereas it has been, from the origin of said Church, a settled 
 policy and the invariable usage to elect no person to the office of 
 Bishop who was embarrassed with this ‘great evil,’’ as under 
 such circumstances it would be impossible for a Bishop to exercise 
 the functions and perform the duties assigned to a General Super- 
 intendent with acceptance in that large portion of his charge in 
 which slavery does not exist; and whereas Bishop Andrew was 
 himself nominated by our brethren of the slaveholding States, and 
 elected by the General Conference of 1832, as a candidate who, 
 though living in the midst of a slaveholding population, was never- 
 theless free from all personal connection with slavery; and whereas 
 this is, of all periods in our history as a Church, the one least 
 favorable to such an innovation upon the practice and usage of 
 Methodism as to confide a part of the itinerant General Super- 
 intendency to a slaveholder; therefore, : 
 
 “Resolved, That the Rev. James O. Andrew be, and he is hereby, 
 affectionately requested to resign his office as one of the Bishops 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church.’’ 
 
 Ibid., 1844, p. 84. This was done in spite of the protest of Slicer 
 who said if the rule were suspended they might ‘‘all write home 
 that they would be home ‘on or about’ the 4th of July.’’ 
 
 “We do not believe that the connection of Bishop Andrew with 
 slavery was criminal, if tried by the rules and common sentiments 
 of the M. HE. Church.’ Bishop Andrew had not disobeyed the 
 General Rule “‘for he has neither bought nor sold’’ slaves. (Lee 
 
132 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 40. 
 
 41. 
 
 42. 
 43. 
 
 and Smith, Debates of the General Conference, 1844, p. 337). ‘No 
 one can deny that if there are any circumstances in which it is 
 impracticable to emancipate slaves, those are the very circum- 
 stances in which the Bishop found himself a slaveholder.” (Ibid., 
 p. 338). In regard to the claim that it’ was the settled policy of 
 the Church not to elect slaveholders as bishops, Lee and Smith 
 said: ‘‘There is no such written policy, and every one knows that 
 if it exists it has not been settled, for the South have been all the 
 while contending and striving for a slaveholding Bishop, while 
 hundreds of Northern men petitioned this very conference against 
 the election of a slaveholder to the Episcopacy.”’ (Ibid., pp. 343-4). 
 Lee and Smith were Wesleyans. 
 
 James Porter says: ‘“‘This resolution was directly to the point and 
 should have been adopted. But it was a little too explicit for the 
 Conference and the times.’’ (The Methodist Quarterly Review, 
 Volume LIII., p. 245; April, 1871). 
 
 Debates in General Conference, 1844, p. 100. Finley’s resolution 
 was as follows: ‘‘Whereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids 
 the doing of anything calculated to destroy our itinerant general 
 superintendency, and whereas, Bishop Andrew has become con- 
 nected with slavery by marriage and otherwise, and this act having 
 drawn after it circumstances which, in the estimation of the 
 General Conference, will greatly embarrass the exercise of his 
 office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in some places 
 entirely prevent it; therefore, 
 
 “Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that 
 he desist from the exercise of this office so long as this impedi- 
 ment remains.”’ 
 
 Smith, Life and Letters of Andrew, pp. 322-30. 
 
 Debates in Generali Conference, 1844, p. 106. ‘‘Hrastus,’’ a southern 
 correspondent, made the same suggestion in 1843: ‘I would pro- 
 pose then, that the whole work be divided into districts or dioceses, 
 I care nought for the name; and that, to each district a Bishop 
 be assigned by the General Conference, such appointments to be 
 permanent, or subject to the revision of each General Conference. 
 These Bishops may be nominated or elected by the delegates of 
 each district.’? (Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VI., p. 192, 
 
 “col. 5; May 19, 1843): 
 44, 
 45. 
 46. 
 
 Ibid., 1844, p. 109. 
 Thiduap sy 10: 
 Ibid., pp. 110-11. Pierce said: ‘‘The southern Church has nothing 
 to fear, and she has nothing to ask on this subject. As far as 
 we are concerned, sir, the greatest blessing that could befall us 
 would be a division of this union, There, sir, at the south, we 
 dwell in peace, and the good Shepherd watches the flock and 
 guards us from all harm. There are no jarring strings, no dis- 
 cordant sounds, no incarnate emissaries of the evil one going about 
 seeking whom they may devour ged 
 
 Other important addresses were given by Capers (Shipp, History 
 of Methodism in South Carolina, pp. 479-92); and Henry Bascom, 
 whom George Peck characterized as a ‘‘wonderful man’’ and a 
 “prince of orators, endowed with an affluence of thought and 
 language unsurpassed by the greatest names of this age.’’ (Peck, 
 Life and Times of G. Peck, p. 252). For the North, several names 
 stand out prominently. When George Peck addressed the General 
 Conference on May 25. the New York Post said ‘‘that he spoke in 
 a strain of eloquence seldom equalled on that floor. His panegyric 
 on New England was as beautiful as just.’”’ (Pittsburg Christian 
 Advocate, Volume XI., p. 80, col. 4; June 5, 1844) Roche (Life of 
 John Price Durbin, p. 140) singles out Durbin and L. L. Hamline 
 as two of the most important northerners. That the latter was 
 one of the most’ powerful debaters in the Conference is fully at- 
 tested by the fact that Myers takes so much trouble to refute his 
 arguments. Hamline considered especially the power of the Gene- 
 ral Conference to depose a bishop. Southern delegates took the 
 
63. 
 
 64. 
 
 A Reversal of Policy 133 
 
 negative view but Hamline affirmed that the power rested with 
 the General Conference. (Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. 
 Church, pp. 68 ff.) The address of Hamline has assumed an im- 
 portance which none of the other speeches did because his argu- 
 ments have been used to justify deposing bishops since that time. 
 The limitation of the power of bishops constitutes another chapter 
 in the growth of democracy in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 
 . Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume LIII., p. 246; April, 1871. 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1844, pp. 75-6. See also, Sutton, 
 
 The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 64-5. 
 
 . Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume LIII., p. 247; April, 1871. 
 
 Cf. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 65. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 44-5. Myers says: 
 
 “the South’ resisted ‘‘this section as one man. It saw then that 
 the last hope for Southern Methodism, in that General Conference, 
 had fied.’’ A . 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1844, pp. 838-4. 
 . Smith, History of Methodism in Georgia and Florida, p. 381. It 
 
 is interesting to note that Clark was contemplating moving from 
 Texas to the North because of his family’s health! 
 
 . Debates in General Conference, 1844, p. 192. Cf. Methodist 
 
 Quarterly Review, Volume LIII., p. 247; April, 1871. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M, E. Church, p, 45. 
 
 . This was carried, 155 to 1%. 
 
 . The vote was 152 to 14. 
 
 . The vote was 103 to 67. 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1844, p. 123. This had been de- 
 
 manded by some northern conferences. For Providence conference 
 see Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIV., p. 108, col. 
 1; July 5, 1848, For Maine conference, see The True Wesleyan, 
 Volume I., p. 169, col. 5; October 28, 18438. 
 
 . Peck, Life and Times of G. Peck, pp. 243-4. 
 . Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, p. 31. 
 
 Mudge, History of the New England Conference, p. 295. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 52, col. 4; March 29, 1861. He 
 
 says: ‘“‘The Church has contended ceaselessly and mightily for the. 
 great reform. In 1844, after ten years of faithful labor by a portion 
 of her ministry and laity, she staid the proud march of the Slave 
 Power, sacrificing her, at that time, most influential section, rather 
 than allow one, whose wife held slaves, to preside in her Confer- 
 ences. It was a great victory, and resulted in the secession of 
 the slavery loving section.’’ 
 
 Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VII., p. 198, col. 3; May 
 24, 1844. The statement of Capers was made May 18, and is as 
 follows: 
 
 “Tt appears, that since the secession of Scott, Sunderland and 
 others, on the rabid principle of ultra-abolitionism, many of the 
 preachers have leaned that way, for the purpose of persuading the 
 people who are sympathizing with the seceders, that they could 
 be as ultra as they pleased, and continue in the church.’’ 
 
 Lee and Smith, Debates of General Conference, 1844, p. 33. These 
 writers also made this comment on the General Conference: ‘‘The 
 appeal of Mr. Harding and the case of Bishop Andrew compelled 
 the Conference to act on the subject, and to do it so as to give 
 satisfaction to the North, who had been. promised that every 
 thing should be done, and, at the same time, satisfying the South, 
 who had been assured that nothing would be done, was not an 
 
 _easy task.” (Ibid., p. 328). 
 
 65. 
 66. 
 
 The True Wesleyan, Volume II., p. 96, col. 6; June 15, 1844. 
 
 Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume LIII., pp. 234-43; April, 1871. 
 The demands were: ‘“‘That Bishop Andrew should be required to 
 purge himself of slavery or vacate the episcopal office, 2. That 
 Baltimore should be sustained in the case of Mr. Harding. 3. That 
 the infamous Few resolution against allowing colored members to 
 testify against white persons in Church trials should be rescinded. 
 
134 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 68. 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 ~- 
 
 oa 
 
 iP 
 
 0. 
 
 pH 
 
 4. That no further abuse of abolitionists shall be perpetrated. 5. 
 We added that we wanted several other things more decidedly 
 antislavery in their character, but could hardly expect them under 
 the circumstances.”’ 
 
 . That is, the conviction of Andrew was determined upon before 
 
 the trial started. That corruption was not absent from this Con- 
 ference is shown from the record of the election of bishops. On 
 the first ballot, no candidate had a majority. On the second, 
 more votes were cast than there were delegates and Bishop Hedd- 
 ing ‘pronounced the election of E. S. Janes and L. E, Hamline 
 void, on account of the illegal votes cast, and directed another 
 balloting.’’ The result was no better. ‘‘Prior to the third ballotting, 
 the Secretaries were ordered to call the list; and each man, as 
 his name was called, was directed to come up, and deposit his 
 vote for two Bishops.’’ ‘“‘During this ballot two tickets were found 
 together, and ordered to be reserved until the tickets were counted. 
 When the count was completed, it was ascertained that there 
 were 177 tickets (the full number) without them, and they were 
 cast aside.’”’ (Journal of General Conference, 1844, p. 128). 
 
 For a similar conclusion, see Norwood, The Schism in the Metho- 
 dist Church, 1844, p. 77. Professor Norwood relates that a south- 
 erner asked an abolishment why the radicals said so little. The 
 reply was: “Oh! we have nothing to do now. The Baltimore Con- 
 ference is doing our work for us. And they will get all the odium; 
 and we all the benefit.’”” The subsequent history proved that the 
 statement was a correct appraisal of the situation in both Balti- 
 more and New England conferences. 
 
 Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume LIII., pp. 242-3; April, 1871. 
 Cf. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 42. The first 
 is a northern view; the second is a southern statement. Inasmuch 
 as Myers is cited several times as an authority, it may be ad- 
 visable to state that he uses Porter’s account and proves his 
 contention from the statements of the New Englander. 
 
 In 1850, Webster said: ‘“‘That separation (of the Methodist Church) 
 was brough about by differences of opinion upon this particular 
 subject of slavery . . . The result was against my wishes 
 and my hopes. I have read all their proceedings and all their 
 arguments; but I have never yet been able to come to the con- 
 clusion that there was any real ground for that separation; in 
 other words, that any good could be produced by that separation. 
 I must say I think there was some want of candor and charity.” 
 (Webster, Writings and Speeches, Volume X., p. 63) This was a 
 part of Webster’s famous speech on the Compromise of 1850, 
 March 7, 1850, which contributed to the defeat of Webster for 
 the presidency in 1852. ; 
 
 See Professor Norwood’s attempt to decide the question, whether 
 or not Bishop Andrew should have married a woman who held 
 slaves and whether or not he should have resigned, voluntarily, 
 his position as bishop. (Schism in the Methodist Church, pp. 70- 
 72). It seems to me that he is in serious error in holding that 
 he was ‘“‘to blame for connecting himself with slavery,’’ inasmuch 
 as the legislation of the General Conference of 1840, if not that 
 of the entire period of the history of the Methodist Bpiscopal 
 Church, attached no immortality to the holding of slaves by 
 bishops. The proceedings of the General Conference of 1844 bear 
 the marks of expediency and the worst of politics rather than of 
 
 justice and fair dealing. 
 
PART III 
 THE EVER WIDENING BREACH 
 
wal baie! 
 
 ia Avy tate ty ss Me by 
 j ‘ 
 res 4, Wy 7" 
 
 ‘ oi! 
 ORO a AOU ran 8 
 x! Raat ir ry ie cs ‘ 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH 
 
 Division of the Methodist Episcopal Church was not a 
 new topic. Wilbur Fisk. had predicted it as early as March, 
 1835.4 Some delegates to the General Conference of 1836 
 also favored a separation from the Church unless abolitionists 
 could be silenced ;? while, after the Conference, a number 
 of southerners insistently called for a new Church.? In the 
 bishops’ address to the. General Conference of 1840 it was 
 stated that many abolitionists had refrained from extreme 
 action because they knew it would lead to “the division of 
 the Church.”* And previous to the General Conference of 
 1844, William Capers had written that division was possible 
 though undesirable unless northerners forced the issue.® 
 
 As might readily be imagined, the debates in the General 
 Conference of 1844 renewed the thought of division. Not 
 only southern delegates but those from the North as well 
 admitted that the Church faced secession or division. In 
 none of the statements of southern delegates is a desire for 
 division expressed; on the contrary, it was with evident 
 regret that they contemplated the division of the Church 
 into two independent bodies. But the action in regard to 
 Bishop Andrew made it impossible for southern ministers to 
 remain in the old organization.® 
 
 The Finley resolution relative to Bishop Andrew was 
 adopted June 1; two days later, Dr. Capers submitted a 
 plan of separation,’ which provided for two General Con- 
 ferences, but left the Book Concern and the Mission work the 
 common possessions of the two bodies. June 5, Capers re- 
 ported that the committee of nine, to whom the proposal 
 had been submitted, were unable to agree upon any recom- 
 mendation which they considered would be acceptable to the 
 General Conference. 
 
 The failure of this plan of compromise resulted in a dec- 
 laration by southern delegates? which was presented by 
 A. B. Longstreet. In this document it was stated that the 
 
 137 
 
138 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 action taken in Bishop Andrew’s case and the “agitation on 
 the subject of slavery and abolition in a portion of the 
 Church” made it impossible for southern conferences to 
 longer submit to the General Conference of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. This declaration was not presented as 
 a resolution; it was simply a statement of the southern 
 position and asked nothing. But the General Conference, 
 after considerable debate, refused to admit that the action 
 in the case of Andrew was “extra-judicial”, and reprimanded 
 the southern delegates for their action.1® Dr. Elliott moved 
 that the declaration of the southern delegates be submitted 
 to a “Committee of Nine,”? the personnel of which was almost 
 the same as that to which Capers’ suggestion had been re- 
 ferred.14 On the same day, J. B. McFerrin of Tennessee 
 conference and Tobias Spicer of Troy conference offered 
 the following resolution: “Resolved, That the committee ap- 
 pointed to take into consideration the communication of the 
 Delegates from the Southern Conferences be instructed — 
 provided they cannot, in their judgment, devise for an ami- 
 cable adjustment of the difficulties now existing in the Church 
 on the subject of slavery — to devise, if possible, a constitu- 
 tional plan for a mutual and friendly division of the 
 Church.”!?. Crowder moved that the word “constitutional” 
 be stricken out, but his sugestion was not adopted.!* 
 
 The ‘‘Committee of Nine’ reported June 7. On the 
 following day the report was considered and, on motion of 
 Dr. Elliott, adopted.1* By the first resolution, the delegates 
 agreed to a peaceable division of the membership of the 
 Church. Adherence to one Church or the other was to be 
 determined by a majority vote of the members of “societies, 
 stations, and Conferences,” and the territory north or south 
 of the division line was to be inviolable. By the second 
 resolution, ministers were permitted to choose between the 
 two churches, “without blame” in either case. The succeed- 
 ing nine resolutions provided for a just and equitable div- 
 ision of the Church property, while the last requested the 
 bishops to submit the third resolution, providing for a_ 
 change of the sixth restrictive rule, to annual conferences 
 for their concurrence. 
 
 In view of the later action of northern conferences, it is 
 advisable to note the votes on the resolutions. The first 
 carried, 146 to 16, the delegates of non-slaveholding states 
 
The Methodist Episcopal Church, South 139 
 
 registering ninety-five of the majority vote. The second 
 resolution passed, 139 to 17; while the third, which provided 
 for the reference to annual conferences of the question of 
 changing the sixth restrictive article, had only ten votes 
 in the negative. The fifth proposition passed, 151 to 13. 
 All other resolutions were adopted, but the result is not 
 recorded. It is to be noted that these changes, radical as 
 they undoubtedly were — were approved by majorities of 
 from twenty-eight to thirty-eight from northern delegates 
 alone, over the combined vote of southern and ultra-abolition 
 delegates.15 In regard to the third resolution, which was 
 to be voted upon by annual conferences, the General Con- 
 ference needed to give a two-thirds majority in order to make 
 such a change valid. As Myers shows, “the Northern 
 members alone gave within nine votes of the two-thirds 
 majority required for said change.’’!® 
 
 Between the delegates of the two sections, goodwill and 
 mutual forbearance seemed much in evidence. That they 
 separated is not strange; that they did it peaceably seems 
 incredible. True, the actual separation was contingent upon 
 the necessity which southern conferences might find for such 
 action, but no one in the General Conference of 1844 ex- 
 pected to see southerners sitting as delegates in the General 
 Conference of 1848. 
 
 On the day following the adjourment of the General Con- 
 ference, the delegates of southern conferences held a meeting 
 in New York. Their purpose was to secure uniformity of 
 action in their annual conferences, and to forestall hasty 
 procedure. They recommended to the conferences which they 
 represented that a convention be held in Louisville, Ken- 
 tucky, May 1, 1845; and that conferences choose delegates 
 who would represent as far as possible the sentiment of the 
 people in their territory on the question of the division of the 
 Church.1* They also issued an “Address” to southern Metho- 
 dists,18 in which they reviewed the action of the General 
 Conference, made a defense of their opposition to the North, 
 and called attention to the situation faced by the South. 
 The Plan of Separation was approved as the best that could 
 then be devised. They emphatically stated that the Plan 
 did not make the decision as to whether or not division should 
 take place, but that the decision was left to the southern 
 conferences. They pointed out that division seemed inevit- 
 
140 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 able, and the question which must be decided was whether it 
 should take place at once or at a later time. Excitement in 
 the consideration of the question was discouraged, while a 
 fair weighing of all the evidence on both sides was urged. 
 
 While the decision was to be made by southern confer- 
 ences, the delegates believed that they had had exceptional 
 opportunities to reach the proper conclusion. Since they 
 were of the opinion that the South would expect them to give 
 their best judgment on the situation, they stated that the 
 continued agitation of the subjects of slavery and abolition 
 would render it impossible for southerners to remain in the 
 Church and still have access to the slave population for the 
 purpose of giving them religious instruction. It would also 
 be impossible to deal with the slaveholders. They affirmed 
 that they had sought to have the decision in Bishop Andrew’s 
 case deferred until 1848 but had met defeat on that 
 proposition. 
 
 It will be noted that, according to the “Plan of Separation,” 
 the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church depended 
 upon the action of conferences in slaveholding states.1% In 
 accordance with this provision and the suggestion of southern 
 delegates, southern conferences took up the question as to 
 whether or not they should send delegates to the Louisville 
 Convention. The answer was almost unanimous in favor 
 of the proposal. Much was said about the illegality of the 
 proceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew and the necessity 
 of a separate organization. That the conferences expressed 
 the views of the lay members may be judged by the fact 
 that the resolutions of local church organizations were almost 
 entirely in favor of the southern contention.”° 
 
 With public opinion so solidly behind them, the delegates 
 met May 1, 1845, at Louisville, Kentucky, not primarily to 
 debate the issue but to arrange the form of the new church 
 organization. The Convention was called to order by William 
 Capers, while Lovick Pierce acted as temporary president.?} 
 On the first day, attending bishops were invited to preside.” 
 Bishops Andrew and Soule readily agreed to do so. The 
 latter said he realized that a separation was inevitable and — 
 that his influence had been used to bring about the division 
 as peaceably as possible. He advised moderation in all their 
 deliberations and a strict compliance with the “Plan of 
 Separation.”2° Morris, who had spent two months just 
 
The Methodist Episcopal Church, South 141 
 
 prior to the Convention lecturing in Kentucky in an attempt 
 to prevent disunion, and had come to Louisville for the same 
 purpose, refused to comply with the request.**- His refusal 
 may have been due to the fact that he considered the pros- 
 pect of continued union hopeless; it may have been due to 
 his sensitiveness on a charge of slaveholding which had been 
 brought against him.*° At any rate, his endeavors at Louis- 
 ville were entirely fruitless, except to involve him in trouble 
 with leaders of his own Church.*4 
 
 The real’ work of the Convention was the division of the 
 Church. A committee, consisting of two delegates from each 
 annual conference, was ordered to consider the whole ques- 
 tion and report to the Convention. They were later ordered 
 to consider whether anything had transpired during the 
 preceding year to make separation unnecessary ; and whether 
 a resolution should be adopted which would provide for 
 reunion of the two branches of Methodism, should the 
 northern Church meet the demands of the South. Finally, 
 if the Committee believed that there was no probability that 
 the northern Church would change its attitude towards slav- 
 ery and the South, they were ordered to report in favor 
 of division.*® None of these resolutions seems to have 
 excited much comment and they were adopted with almost 
 no opposition. 
 
 The report of the “Commitee on Organization” was in 
 conformity with the sentiments expressed in the instructions 
 of the Convention. They declared that it was “right, 
 expedient, and necessary” to organize a new Church, which 
 should be entirely separate from the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church; and that the control of southern conferences by 
 the General Conference of that Church was at an end. 
 They favored retaining the same doctrines and Discipline 
 . by which they had previously been governed, except for 
 verbal changes that might be necessary for another organi- 
 zation. They also provided for reunion with the northern 
 Church, “whether such proposed union be jurisdictional or 
 connectional.”** Without discussion, apparently, these reso- 
 lutions were adopted; the first with only three dissenting 
 votes, and the second unanimously.?8 
 
 On the first day of the Convention, Bishops Soule and 
 Andrew had been invited to preside over the body; May 19, 
 they were requested to join the southern Methodists and act 
 
142 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 as bishops of the newly organized Church.*® In reply, Soule 
 said he felt it his: duty to carry on his work as it had been 
 arranged by a meeting of bishops in New York. But he 
 considered that he would be at perfect liberty to unite with 
 the southern Church after the meeting of the first General 
 Conference of that organization. The letter of Andrew to 
 the Convention was an enthusiastic endorsement of all that 
 had been done by that body, and an acceptance of the invita- 
 tion which had been extended him.?? 
 
 Since Andrew was the only bishop of the Southern Church 
 at this time, it was his duty to issue the first “Pastoral 
 Address” to the people of that section. The Address noted 
 the fact that the new organization had been demanded by 
 ninety-five per cent of the Methodists of the South, and 
 affirmed that most of the minority were not opposed to the 
 majority, but lived in sections of the country where the 
 conflict between slavery and abolitionism was not so acute. 
 The work of the Convention was reviewed and declared 
 very satisfactory. Attention was called to the trouble which 
 might ensue on the border. This was deprecated as un- 
 desirable and un-Christian; and ministers and people were 
 urged to restore as completely as possible the good fellowship 
 which had obtained before the division took place. Only in 
 organization, not in spirit, should there be a division between 
 the two sections of Methodism.®° 
 
 The necessity of a separation of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church had been shown to the satisfaction of southern 
 Methodists. That the organization of the new Church had 
 been in accordance with the Plan of Separation is evident 
 from the fact that the bishops of northern Church proceeded 
 to re-arrange their “plan of visitation” so that Bishop Morris 
 presided over northern conferences which had previously 
 been assigned to Bishop Soule, while the latter took southern 
 conferences over which Bishop Morris was to have pre- 
 sided.*!_ At the same meeting, which was held in New York, 
 July 2, 1845, northern bishops declared that the report of 
 the Committee of Nine was binding on them so far as their 
 administration was concerned ; and they proceeded to arrange 
 for the border societies to declare their church preference.*” 
 Thus, separation was recognized as “an accomplished fact.’’>* 
 
 The Louisville Convention had also made provision for the 
 first General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 
The Methodtst Episcopal Church, South 143 
 
 South, to be held at Petersburg, Virginia, May 1, 1846.28 
 Since Bishop Soule had not yet formally joined the southern 
 Methodist Church, he did not preside at the opening ses- 
 sions. But on the second day he expressed himself as 
 greatly pleased with the course events had taken, and affirmed 
 his adherence to the Church, South, in accordance with the 
 right granted by the Plan of Separation. May 7, he was 
 recognized as a bishop of the southern Church.?5 
 
 The problem which had been disposed of was as old as 
 the Church itself. In the early years of Methodism, Asbury 
 had been compelled to make a choice between an uncompro- 
 mising stand against slavery and the consequent loss of 
 southern support, on the one hand; and compromising with 
 that which he considered, in the words of Wesley, “the 
 sum of all villainies” and thereby keep the South within the 
 fold of the Church. His decision was in favor of the latter 
 course, and for half a century thereafter the South absolutely 
 dominated the official action of Methodism. With the 
 agitation which was begun by Garrison, Scott and other 
 abolitionists, it became increasingly evident that Asbury’s 
 compromise could not endure. The Methodist Church began 
 to disintegrate. The Wesleyans seceded, and in 1844 south- 
 ern conferences were, by almost unanimous votes, given 
 permission to organize a separate Church. This was done 
 at Louisville and at Petersburg; and northern bishops not 
 only made no objection but actually sanctioned what had 
 been done. In all these arrangements, that which stands 
 out most clearly, is the apparently genuine Christian spirit 
 which actuated leaders on both sides of the line of division. 
 
 Holdich, Life of Wilbur Fisk, p. 326. 
 Supra, p. 63 
 Supra, p. 66. 
 Supra, p. 94. 
 Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 249-50. Capers wrote: ‘‘As to 
 secession or division, they are words which I have never per- 
 mitted to come into my vocabulary. I almost feel like I am 
 committing treason to write them here in my study. No calamity 
 could so afflict me as to separate from the great body of our 
 common Methodism. Life itself is not half so dear as is this 
 union. If our brethren cut us off we must submit to it as the 
 last of evils; but the sin shall be on their heads, not ours.” 
 6. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 88-92. 
 7. Debates in General Conference, 1844, pp. 192-3; Myers, The Dis- 
 ruption of the M. E. Church, p. 96; Sutton, The Methodist Church 
 .Property Case, p. 67; and Shipp, Methodism in South Carolina, 
 pp. 492-3. 
 
 The plan was as follows: 
 
 oR OS BS 
 
144 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 ‘Be it resolved by the delegates of all the annual conferences 
 assembled: 
 
 “That we recommend to the annual conferences to suspend the 
 constitutional restrictions which limit the powers of the General 
 Conference so far, and so far only, as to allow of the following 
 alterations in the government of the Church, namely:— 
 
 “That the Methodist Episcopal Church in these United States 
 and territories, and the republic of Texas, shall constitute two 
 General Conferences, to meet quadrennially, the one at some place 
 south, and the other north of the line which now divides between 
 the States commonly designated as free States and those in which 
 slavery exists. 
 
 “2. That each one of the two General Conferences thus consti- 
 tuted shall have full powers, under the limitations and restrictions 
 which are now of force and binding on the General Conference, 
 to make rules and regulations for the Church, within their terri- 
 torial limits respectively, and to elect bishops for the same. 
 
 “3. That the two General Conferences aforesaid, shall have 
 jurisdiction as follows:—-The Southern Conferences shall compre- 
 hend the States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and the 
 States and Territories lying southerly thereto, and also the re- 
 public of Texas, to be known and designated by the title of the 
 ‘Southern General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 of the United States.’ And the Northern General Conference to 
 comprehend all those States and Territories lying north of the 
 States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, as above, to be known 
 and designated by the title of the ‘Northern General Conference 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States.’ 
 
 “4. And be it further resolved, That as soon as three-fourths 
 of all the members of all the annual conferences voting on these 
 resolutions, shall approve the same, the said Southern and North- 
 ern General Conferences shall be deemed as having been consti- 
 tuted by such approval; and it shall be competent for the Southern 
 annual conferences to elect delegates to said Southern General 
 Conference, to meet in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, on the 
 first of May, 1848; or sooner, if a majority of two-thirds of the 
 members of the annual conferences composing that General Con- 
 ference shall desire the same. 
 
 “5. And be it further resolved, as aforesaid, That the Book 
 Concerns at New York and Cincinnati shall be held and conducted 
 as the property and for the benefit of al] the annual conferences ag 
 heretofore:—the editors and agents to be elected once in four years 
 at the time of the session of the Northern General Conference, 
 and the votes of the Southern General Conference to be cast by 
 the delegates of that Conference attending the Northern for that 
 purpose. 
 
 “6. And be it further resolved, That our Church organization 
 for foreign missions shall be maintained and conducted jointly 
 between the two General Conferences as one Church, in such manner’ 
 as shall be agreed upon from time to time between the two great. 
 branches of the Church as represented in the said two Conferences.’ 
 It is to be noted that certain features of the plan have, in prin- 
 ciple, been adopted by the two Methodist branches in the plans 
 for reunion. 
 
 8. Debates in General Conference, 1844, p. 200. This declaration 
 reads: ‘‘The delegates of the conferences in the slaveholding states 
 take leave to declare to the General Conference of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, that the continued agitation on the subject of 
 slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church—the frequent 
 action on that subject in the General Conference,—and especially 
 the extra-judicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, which re- 
 sulted, on Saturday last, in the virtual suspension of him from 
 his office as superintendent,—must produce a state of things in 
 the south which renders a continuance of the jurisdiction of that 
 General Conference over these conferences inconsistent with the 
 
13. 
 14. 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church, South 145 
 
 success of the ministry in the slaveholding states.’’ See also, 
 Norwood, Schism in the Methodist Church, p, 84 for an explana- 
 tion of the origin of the declaration. 
 
 Debates in General Conference, 1844, pp. 201-3. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 96-7. 
 . The personnel was: Paine, Winans, Crowder, Porter, Filmore, 
 
 Akers, Hamline, Bangs and Sargent. The first three were south- 
 erners. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. HE. Church, p. 98 See also, 
 
 Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 68. 
 
 Sutton, Methodist Church Property Case, p. 68. 
 
 Journal of General Conference, 1844, pp. 135-7. So important are 
 these provisions that they are given in full: 
 
 ‘Whereas, a declaration has been presented to this General Con- 
 ference, with the signatures of fifty-one delegates of the body, 
 from thirteen Annual Conferences in the slaveholding states, 
 representing that, for various reasons enumerated, the objects 
 and purposes of the Christian ministry and church organization 
 cannot be successfully accomplished by them under the jurisdiction 
 of this General Conference as now constituted; and 
 
 ‘Whereas, in the event of a separation, a contingency to which 
 the declaration asks attention as not improbable, we esteem it the 
 duty of this General Conference to meet the emergency with 
 Christian kindness and the strictest equity; therefore, 
 
 “Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences in 
 General Conference assembled. 
 
 ‘1, That should the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding 
 states find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical con- 
 nection, the folowing rule shall be observed with regard to the 
 northern boundary of such connection:—Al] the societies, stations, 
 and Conferences shall remain under the unmolested pastoral care 
 of the Southern Church; and the ministers of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church shall in no wise attempt to organize churches or 
 societies within the limits of the Church South; nor shall they 
 attempt to exercise any pastoral oversight therein; it being 
 understood that the ministry of the South reciprocally observe the 
 same rule in relation to stations, societies, and Conferences, ad- 
 hering, by a vote of a majority, to the Methodist HBpiscopal 
 Church; provided also, that this rule shall apply only to societies, 
 stations and Conferences bordering on the line of division, and not 
 to interior charges, which shall in all cases be left to the care of 
 that church within whose territory they are situated. 
 
 “2. That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and 
 office in the Methodist Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, 
 remain in that church, or without blame, attach themselves to 
 the Church South. 
 
 “3. Resolved, by the delegates of all the Annual Conferences in 
 General Conference assembled, That we recommend to all the 
 Annual Conferences, at their first approaching sessions, to author- 
 ize a change of the sixth restrictive article, so that the first 
 clause shall read thus: ‘They shall not appropriate the produce 
 of the Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any other 
 purpose other than for the benefit of the travelling, supernumerary, 
 
 . guperannuated, worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and 
 
 children, and to such other purposes as may be determined by 
 the votes of two-thirds of the members of the General Conference.’ 
 
 “4. That whenever the Annual Conferences, by a vote of three- 
 fourths of all their members voting on the third resolution, shall 
 have concurred in the recommendation to alter the sixth restric- 
 tive article, the Agents at New York and Cincinnati shall, and 
 they are hereby authorized and directed to deliver over to any 
 authorized agent or appointee of the Church South, should one’ 
 be organized, all notes and book accounts against the ministers, 
 church members, or citizens within its boundaries, with authority 
 to collect the same for the sole use of the Southern Church; and 
 
146 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 said Agents shall also convey to the aforesaid agent or appointee 
 of the South all the real estate, and assign to him all the property, 
 including presses, stock, and all right and interest connected with 
 the printing establishments at Charleston, Richmond, and Nash- 
 ville, which now belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 “5. That when the Annual Conferences shall have approved the 
 aforesaid change in the sixth restrictive article, there shall be 
 transferred to the above agents of the Southern Church so much 
 of the capital and produce of the Methodist Book Concern as will, 
 with the notes, book accounts, presses, etc., mentioned in the 
 last resolution, bear the same proportion to the whole property of 
 said Concern that the travelling ministers in the Southern Church 
 shall bear to all the travelling ministers of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church; the division to be made on the basis of the number of 
 travelling preachers in the forthcoming Minutes. 
 
 “6. That the above transfer shall be in the form of annual 
 payments of $25,000 per annum, and specifically in stock of the 
 Book Concern, and in Southern notes and accounts due the estab- 
 lishment, and accruing after+the first transfer mentioned above; 
 and until the payments are made, the Southern Church shall share 
 in al] the net profits of the Book Concern, in the proportion that 
 the amount due them, or in arrears, bears to all the property of 
 the Concern. : 
 
 “7. That Nathan Bangs, George Peck, and James B. Finley be, 
 and they are hereby appointed commissioners to act in concert 
 with the same number of commissioners appointed by the South- 
 ern organization, (should one be formed,) to estimate the amount 
 
 ‘which will fall due to the South by the preceding rule, and to have 
 
 full power to. carry into effect the whole arrangements proposed 
 with regard to the division of property, should the separation 
 take place. And if by any means a vacancy occurs in this board 
 of commissioners, the Book Committee at New York shall fill 
 said vacancy. 
 
 “8. That whenever any agents of the Southern Church are 
 clothed with legal authority or corporate power to act in the 
 premises, the Agents at New York are hereby authorized and 
 directed to act in concert with said Southern agents, so as to 
 give the provisions of these resolutions a legally binding force. 
 
 “9. That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
 meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, Conference funds, 
 cemeteries, and of every kind within the limits of the Southern 
 organization, shall be for ever free from any claim set up on the 
 part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution 
 can be of force in the premises. 
 
 “10. That the church so formed in the south shall have a com- 
 mon right to use all the copy-rights in possession of the Book 
 Concerns at New York and Cincinnati, at the time of the settle- 
 ment by the commissioners. 
 
 “11. That the Book Agents at New York be directed to make 
 such compensation to the Conferences, South, for their dividend 
 from the Chartered Fund, as the commissioners above provided 
 for shall agree upon. 
 
 ‘12. That the Bishops be respectfully requested to lay that part 
 of this report requiring the action of the Annual Conferences, 
 before them as soon as possible, beginning with the New York 
 conference.’’ 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 98-101. 
 . Ibid., p. 102. 
 
 . Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 90. 
 . Ibid., pp. 90-92. Cf. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, 
 
 pp. 129-34; and, History of the Organization of the M. E. Church, 
 South, pp. 104-9. 
 
 . Supra, p. 145. footnote 14; the first resolution. 
 . Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 92-8. Papers of 
 
 both sections printed these resolutions. For the Holston confer- 
 ence, see South-western Christian Advocate, Volume I[X., No. 1; 
 
The Methodist Episcopal Church, South 147 
 
 November 1, 1844. For the Virginia conference see Ibid., No. 6; 
 December 6, 1844. For Tennessee conference, see Ibid., No. 2; 
 November 8, 1844. For South Carolina conference see Shipp, His- 
 tory of Methodism in South Carolina, pp. 496-7. For Kentucky 
 conference see Redford, Life and Times of Bishop Kavanaugh, 
 pp. 286-7. 
 
 For resolutions of local meetings see the following: The Lib- 
 erator, Volume XIV., p. 118, cols. 3-4; July 19, 1844 and Ibid., p. 
 134, col. 2; August 23, 1844. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, 
 Volume XYV., p. 154, col. 4; September 25, 1844. Western Christian 
 Advocate, Volume XI., p. 70, cols. 2 and 5; August 16, 1844—Ibid., 
 p. 74, cols. 5-6; August 238, 1844 and Ibid., p. 78, cols. 4-5; August 
 30, 1844. Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., pp. 14-15, 
 29, 31, 33; dates, July 5, August 2, August 2 and August 9, 1844, 
 respectively. South-western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 
 7; December 13, 1844. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XII., 
 pp. 95 to 141; August 15 to November 7, 1844. 
 
 . History of the Organization of the M. E. Church, South, p, 169. 
 . Ibid., pp. 170-71. 
 . Ibid., p. 175. Cf. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, 
 
 pp. 99-100. 
 
 . Marlay, Life of Bishop Morris, pp. 220-21. Morris wrote: “I> 
 
 accomplished nothing, except, perhaps, to involve myself in sus- 
 picion on the part of my brethren of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. Party prejudice proves often too strong for logic or 
 facts. You may reason with a man’s judgment, but not with his 
 passions, either in the North or the South.’’ 
 
 mAbnids, py 213: 
 . Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 100. 
 . History of the Organization of the M. E Church, South, pp. 186-7. 
 
 Cf. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 100-101, 
 123-37. 
 
 . Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 101. 
 MeL bids ps1 20: 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 121-23. 
 
 . Marlay, Life of Bishop Morris, p. 221. 
 
 Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 102. 
 
 . Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, pp. 99-100. The argument of 
 
 Ridgeway is for the most part a defense of the southern Church. 
 He seems to see in the documents nothing which is not present. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col, 545. 
 . Ibid., cols. 546-7. 
 
CHAPTER) XII 
 
 SOME DIFFERENCES OF OPINION 
 
 The division of the Methodist Episcopal Church had been 
 accomplished with a minimum of official friction. Leaders 
 of both churches had studiously avoided inflammatory 
 speeches, and had sought to secure the division of Methodism 
 without disturbing the cordial relations which had been main- 
 tained between the two sections of the Church for over half 
 a century. Had it been a-question for officials of the two 
 churches to decide and administer, it seems entirely probable 
 that a peaceable settlement would have been reached upon 
 every point upon which there was a difference of opinion. 
 
 But evidence is not lacking that, while bishops and many 
 ministers, both North and South, sanctioned a division of the 
 Church as the best possible solution of an impassé, most 
 ministers and people of both sections listened to appeals 
 from those who voiced the opinions of their part of the 
 country, or appealed to their prejudices rather than their 
 reasons. One had only to mention Bishops Andrew and 
 Soule, the Louisville Convention, or the General Conference 
 of 1848, to precipitate a most exciting argument, which 
 served only to increase ill-will | 
 
 The southern view of the General Conference action in 
 the case of Bishop Andrew was an unequivocable condemna- 
 tion of the body which had deposed him. From the session 
 of Kentucky conference in September, 1844, to that of 
 Alabama conference the following Spring, the chorus of 
 censure proved beyond cavil that the South was a unit in 
 their attitude towards slavery and abolition. Mississippi 
 conference approved the “conciliatory spirit” of the bishops 
 who had attempted to compose the differences between the 
 two sections ;? while Virginia conference declared that Bishop 
 Andrew had “taken a noble stand upon the platform of 
 constitutional law, in defense of the episcopal office and the 
 tights of the South.’4 
 
 It has been held by northern apologists that the people 
 of the South were unduly influenced by their delegates to 
 
 148 
 
Some Differences of Opinion 149 
 
 the General Conference of 1844 and by their preachers in 
 annual conferences which voted on the question of division. 
 Without doubt, there is a measure of truth in the conten- 
 tion —delegates and ministers could not have been worthy 
 to represent their constituents if they had not been leaders. 
 But it is important to remember that, before the decision 
 on the anticipated division of the Church had been made by 
 the General Conference of 1844, resolutions had been adopted 
 by many communities in the South which indicated that, if 
 separation did not take place because of Andrew, southern 
 preachers would lose their congregations, In the Southern 
 Christian Advocate, accounts of thirty meetings were found, 
 many of them held before the decision of the General Con- 
 ference was reached, and all of which condemned the Gen- 
 eral Conference action and advocated the separation of the 
 Church. The Richmond Christian Advocate also recorded 
 resolutions of many: assemblies which met for the same 
 purpose. Extracts from resolutions of two such meetings 
 will indicate the character of all. One group in Alabama 
 said the action relative to Bishop Andrew was “unconstitu- 
 tional, inexpedient, revolutionary in its tendency.”? while 
 another in Texas affirmed that he had been suspended “for 
 no other cause than the gratification of the rabid appetite, the 
 wild frenzy, and the infatuation of the prevailing epidemic 
 of frantic abolitionism.”® 
 
 In direct opposition to the opinions of southern ministers 
 and people were those of northern conferences. New Eng- 
 land conference commended their delegates for “resisting the 
 encroachments of Slavery upon our episcopacy and other 
 ministry” and expressed the hope that this new stand fore- 
 told the time when the denomination would “be freed from 
 all questionable connection with the ‘great evil’, and stand 
 forth in its original purity in this respect.”® Maine con- 
 ference approved the General Conference action relative to 
 Harding and Andrew,?? while Ohio conference declared that 
 delegates who supported the Finley resolution which virtually 
 deposed Bishop Andrew were deserving of the highest praise. 
 The action of southern conferences and societies relative to 
 - Bishop Andrew was reviewed, and the people of the North 
 urged to be patient in their dealings with the South. As 
 for the separation of the southern conferences from the 
 
150 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, that was considered “a conse- 
 quence for which they alone” were “responsible.’’™ 
 
 The second event which was capitalized by the North in 
 the attack upon the South was the invitation sent to Bishop 
 Andrew by Bishop Soule. September 26, 1844, Soule wrote 
 Andrew, inviting him to join him at Virginia conference, and 
 also visit other southern conferences which had been assigned 
 to Soule. In this letter he shows that he is in sympathy with 
 the South on the slavery question, for he commended the 
 General Conference action of 1836, by which both ministers 
 and laymen were advised to refrain from discussing the 
 slavery issue. November 4, 1844, Bishop Andrew replied. 
 He cited the fact that the General Conference had indicated 
 that he should not continue his work as bishop until he freed 
 himself from slavery, and that the “plan of episcopal visita- 
 tion was later drawn up and published without his name 
 being subscribed thereto.” He concluded that the other 
 bishops considered it most prudent not to invite him to pre- 
 side at any of the conferences and, not desiring to cause any 
 unpleasantness, he had decided to absent himself from all 
 such meetings. At the urgent request of many ministers 
 of Kentucky conference, he agreed to attend the session of 
 ‘ that body but was unable to reach the seat of the conference 
 in time. Subsequent to that failure, he decided to return 
 to his original purpose and refrained from attending 
 Missouri and Holston conferences. It was his earnest desire 
 that southern conferences should act on the question of 
 division without being influenced by his presence, and he there- 
 fore determined to spend his time in slaveholding states in 
 evangelistic endeavor. However, the letter of Bishop Soule 
 induced him to change his mind, and he agreed to visit 
 southern conferences in company with the former.” 
 
 The agreement between the two bishops was bitterly con- 
 demned by northern Methodist papers, especially the Western 
 Christian Advocate and the Christian Advocate and Journal. 
 It was contended that the bishops had acted contrary to the 
 decision of the General Conference of 1844.% This was 
 undoubtedly true, for the action of that Conference relative 
 to Andrew was mandatory and not advisory. But, on the 
 other hand, it may be said that Andrew decided to visit 
 Kentucky conference only after he had been invited to do 
 so, and that he did not actually meet with any group of 
 
Some Differences of Opinion 151 
 
 ministers except in states where the result was unquestioned. 
 The infraction of the “Plan of Separation” was therefore 
 a sin against the letter of the law rather than its spirit. 
 
 The debate over Andrew soon degenerated into a wordy 
 and acrimonious war between editors of the church papers. 
 One southern paper accused Dr. Bond of seeking to stir up 
 dissension in the Methodist Church,14 while another called 
 him the New York “dictator.’”?> That ultra-abolitionists 
 of the North considered that the New York editor was re- 
 ceiving condign punishment for his former compromising 
 attitude towards slavery is apparent from Garrison’s state- 
 ment: “We are glad to see Dr. Bond getting his just deserts. 
 He has long licked up the spittle of slavery with abject 
 servility of spirit, and is now discarded with contempt by his. 
 old employers as no longer to be trusted.”?6 
 
 Dr. Elliott was also condemned for his attitude towards 
 the separation of the Church. One writer referred to him 
 as “our Cincinnati Cardinal.”47_ And a contributor to another 
 southern paper suggested a solution for the wavering of 
 Elliott on the attitude his Church should assume towards the 
 new Church. He declared that the vacillation of Elliott 
 was due to the precarious situation of the Western Book 
 Concern, should the southern conferences form a separate 
 organization. For, if Elliott should declare for the South, 
 the North would forsake him; if he went with the West, then 
 he would be spurned by both North and South; and in any 
 event, the Book Concern would lose the patronage of many 
 Methodists of the middle states. Finally he affirmed that 
 Elliott was losing his mind.” 
 
 The bitterness between leaders of the South and those of 
 the North was further kindled by the Louisville Convention 
 of 1845. Naturally, southern delegates and their supporters 
 were entirely satisfied with the work of the Convention. 
 They were also fully convinced that they had scrupulously 
 observed the terms and spirit of the Plan of Separation. 
 Only one event marred the good feeling of delegates towards 
 the North. Dr. Elliott attempted to interfere in the delibera- 
 tions of that body and consequently the wrath of the south- 
 erners descended upon him.!® 
 
 On the other hand, the action of the Louisville Convention 
 and the part which Soule had taken therein were condemned 
 by many in the North. Bond contended that, since Soule 
 
152 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 presided over the southern Convention and showed himself 
 in perfect accord with the plans and purposes of southerners, 
 he had withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church.”° 
 Representatives of many northern conferences asserted that 
 they would not receive Soule as their presiding officer.?} 
 One of these spokesmen for the North was Peter Cartwright. 
 He asserted that, while his conference would receive Soule as 
 a man and a Christian minister, they would not welcome him 
 as a bishop. Relative to the action of the Louisville Con- 
 vention, Cartwright wrote: “Goodby, my dear sirs, and may 
 joy go with you, till you shall have reaped all the blessings of 
 ‘dividing’ the Methodist Episcopal Church, which, indeed, is 
 not a ‘division’ but an APOSTACY FROM THE GOOD 
 AND RIGHT WAY OF OLD METHODISM. The mem- 
 bers of this convention went home shouting, ‘Victory’ and 
 crying, they were a ‘co-ordinate branch of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church,’ and if they were not this, they were ‘the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church proper.’ But, my dear sirs, 
 you will have to christen the brat again.”?? 
 
 The bitter feeling between the two sections was accent- 
 uated by the action of the General Conference of 1848 on 
 several questions which came before that body. May 10, 
 Bishop Soule addressed a letter to the Conference, in which 
 he complained of treatment accorded him by Dr. Elliott. The 
 latter had written in the Western Christian Advocate that 
 the bishop had withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church “under grave charges, or liable to them.” Elliott 
 asserted that these charges “were officially laid in against 
 him previous to the (Louisville) Convention.”** Soule 
 called on Elliott in the presence of four ministers and asked 
 who had preferred the charges and who gave the informa- 
 tion against him. Elliott replied that it was James B. Finley 
 and that Finley had furnished Soule with a copy of the 
 charges. This Soule denied and asked Elliott to retract his 
 statements but the latter refused to do so. Soule requested 
 a copy of the “grave charges”, but failed at this point, also. 
 Soule declared that he had never discovered the nature of 
 the alleged charges. He therefore came to the General Con- 
 ference to answer any indictment that might be preferred 
 against him.*4 But the General Conference refused to accept 
 the challenge and simply passed a resolution in which they 
 asserted that they had “no jurisdiction over the Rev. Bishop 
 
Some Differences of Opinion 153. 
 
 Soule” and therefore could “exercise no ecclesiastical au- 
 thority over him.’ 
 
 One of the important events of this General Conference 
 was the action taken relative to the proposal of the Church, 
 South, to establish fraternal relations with the northern 
 Church. Dr. Lovick Pierce, the official delegate of the 
 former Church, presented his credentials to the General 
 Conference and asked the wishes of that body. The Con- 
 ference replied that, while they would be pleased to receive 
 him as an individual, they could not receive him as a fraternal 
 delegate, lest they should be understood to approve what the 
 southern Church had done.” But Pierce refused to attend 
 the Conference sessions except as the official delegate of the 
 Church, South, and sent his final message in which he said 
 the southern Church could never renew the offer of fraterni- 
 zation. The olive branch was extended, however, when he 
 said that the northern Church might secure the restoration 
 of fraternal relations at any time it desired, if it were done 
 on the basis of the Plan of Separation.*” After the rejection 
 of Pierce, no southern minister crossed the bar of the Con- 
 ference.?8 
 
 The resolution, rejecting Pierce, was of New England 
 origin, and the West supported the radical section.?? Gilbert 
 Haven later declared that the southern Church was not 
 recognized as a Christian Church “simply because of its 
 submission to the Slave Power.’%° The attitude of the 
 North was probably identical with that of Cartwright who, 
 while paying a high compliment to Pierce as a man and a 
 “Christian gentleman,” also declared that the northern Church 
 had been “‘caricatured, abused, slandered, and in every sense 
 maltreated by the South” to such an extent that northerners. 
 could not be expected to vote in favor of fraternization. If 
 the South would duly repent “and bind themselves to a 
 Christian course in future,” the northern Church would 
 entertain the suggestion for fraternization.*+ 
 
 But if Cartwright considered that the Church, South, 
 should repent in sackcloth and ashes, southerners maintained 
 the same attitude towards the North. Over three years be- 
 fore, Kentucky conference had declared that if the “northern 
 brethren” would “make suitable reparation for the past and 
 afford satisfactory security for the future” then they would 
 be glad to “hail them as brethren beloved, with whom we hold 
 
154 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 it a privilege to live and die.”82 And the conviction of the 
 South that the northern Church needed to repent was not 
 weakened, but rather strengthened by events in the General 
 Conference of 1848. After the rejection of Pierce, the editor 
 of the Richmond Christian Advocate wrote that “the grave of 
 the Plan of Separation and of the Property Question was 
 dug when the body refused fraternal intercourse.’** 
 Having dug the grave of the Plan of Separation, the 
 General Conference proceeded to the burial. In 1844, the 
 General Conference provided for a peaceable division of 
 the Church; in 1848, the action of the previous Conference 
 was reversed. The Committee on the State of the Church, 
 of which George Peck was chairman, presented a report in 
 which they attempted to prove that the Church, South, had 
 broken its agreement and that consequently the Plan of 
 Separation was no longer binding upon the northern Church. 
 They asserted that the southern Church existed as a separate 
 body solely by its own acts. They cited the fact that fifty- 
 one members of the General Conference of 1844 had met 
 in New York without any authority from the General Con- 
 ference, and they also asserted that southern conferences 
 had voted to hold the Louisville Convention without any 
 sanction from the Methodist Episcopal Church. They added 
 that Bishop Soule had invited Bishop Andrew to meet south- 
 ern conferences — a proceeding which was declared to be con- 
 trary to the “Plan”. In the second place, the committee 
 contended that southerners had not shown the necessity of a 
 division of the Church, and that three-fourths of the mem- 
 bers of the conferences had not voted in favor of a division of 
 the Church funds. Further, they asserted that the southern 
 Church had violated the territory of the northern Church 
 and that southern leaders had given an interpretation of the 
 Plan of Separation which was unwarranted by the document 
 itself. Finally, since the southern Church had violated the 
 Plan of Separation, those who had withdrawn from the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church were considered secessionists, 
 and the whole Plan declared null and void.*4 When the 
 vote on the resolutions was taken, the report of the com- 
 mittee was overwhelmingly adopted.*> Concerning this action, 
 the attitude of the South was undoubtedly similar to that of 
 Lee who wrote: ‘““We had no tears to shed. The abuse of the 
 
Some Differences of Opinion 155 
 
 day before (relative to the rejection of Pierce) had dried up 
 our sympathies.’’6 
 
 Concerning the topics treated in the present chapter, several 
 conclusions seem to be warranted. As might be expected, 
 the two sections were diametrically opposed to each other 
 on the action of the General Conference of 1844 relative 
 to Bishop Andrew. Concerning the invitation of Bishop 
 Soule to Bishop Andrew to accompany him on his visits to 
 southern conferences, one is forced to the opinion, after a 
 careful reading of both letters, that northern editors were 
 looking for an opportunity to attack the southern Church 
 and its leaders, rather than to put the best interpretation 
 upon the correspondence. And when one reads the tirade 
 of Cartwright on the Louisville Convention, he seeks in vain 
 the motive for so brutal an onslaught. The same is true 
 in relation to the General Conference of 1848, when the 
 action of the previous Conference on the plan of separation 
 was completely nullified. In all these controversies, due 
 allowance must be made for the truth and for honest inten- 
 tions. But, as will appear more clearly in succeeding chapters, 
 one of the chief motives for the northern action was the 
 retention of northern radicals, and especially New England 
 conferences, within the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 1. These topics will be considered in the present chapter, while other 
 problems, concerning which the discussion was still more acri- 
 monious, will be reserved for succeeding chapters. 
 
 2. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 92-120. 
 
 3. Ibid., pp. 108-9. 
 
 4. Ibid., pp. 110-11. 
 
 5. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 129-34. 
 
 6. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XII., pp. 95-141, passim. 
 
 7. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 70, col. 2; August 16, 
 1844. 
 
 8. South-Western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 7; December 
 13, 1844, 
 
 9. Minutes of the New England Conference, 1845, pp. 12-13. 
 
 10. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1844, pp. 12-13. 
 
 11. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 94, col. 5; September 
 
 27, 1844. Cf. South-Western Christian Advocate, Volume IX.,, 
 No. 1; November 1, 1844. Elliott was a member of this confer- 
 ence. 
 
 12. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 137-9. 
 
 13. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 159-68, 390-400. 
 
 14. South-Western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 10; January 
 3, 18465. 
 
 15. Southern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 182, col. 5; April 24, 
 1846, 
 
 16. The Liberator, Volume XIV., p. 134, col.2; August 23, 1844. 
 17. Southern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 182, col. 5; April 24, 
 1846, 
 
18. 
 
 19. 
 ‘20. 
 21. 
 
 2a 
 
 23. 
 24. 
 25. 
 
 26. 
 27. 
 
 ‘28. 
 29. 
 
 30. 
 31. 
 
 156 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 South-Western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 14; January 
 31, 1845. This feeling against Elliott was general in the South. 
 Lee, editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate, made the fol- 
 lowing suggestions when, in 1848, Elliott was authorized by the 
 General Conference to write a history of the relation of Methodism 
 to slavery: 
 
 “While collecting materials for the work, it is indispensable that 
 the author’s resentments be confined to a straightjacket. 
 
 “In arranging the plan of the work, and assorting the materials, 
 it is absolutely essential to keep the conscience well covered with a good 
 blister plaster, powdered with tartar emetic. 
 
 “In the preparation of the work it will be necessary to administer 
 cooling and composing draughts from the fountains of truth, justice, and mercy 
 to the imagination of the author.”” (Richmond Christian Advocate, Vol- 
 ume II. (New Series), p. 110, col. 5; July 13, 1848) 
 
 History of the Organization of the M. E. Church, South, p. 182. 
 Elliott said the laymen of Louisville were favorable to the North. 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XIX., p. 194, cols, 2-4; 
 July 16, 1845. 
 
 For statements of leaders in Iowa, Illinois, Rock River and Ohio 
 conferences see, Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 491-4; Western 
 Christian Advocate, Volume XII, p. 86, cols. 3-4; September 12, 
 1845 and Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIII. p. 118, cols. 
 1-4; September 25, 1845. Ohio conference, in 1845, actually refused 
 to permit Soule to preside. Bishop Hamline extended the invitation 
 but the conference voted, 145 to 7, to eject him from the chair. 
 (History of the Organization of the Methodist Episcopal. Church, 
 South, pp. 240-41). 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 46, col. 4; July 4, 
 1845. Cf. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II., (New Series), 
 p. 62, cols. 1-2; April 20, 1848. 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII, p. 34, col. 6; June 
 12, 1846. 
 
 Journal of General Conference, 1848, pp. 135-6. 
 
 Ibid., p. 47. 
 
 Ibid., p. 21. Cf. Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, p. 112. 
 
 Journal of the General Conference of the M. E. Church, South, 
 1850, p. 190. The concluding paragraph of Pierce’s message reads: 
 
 “You will therefore regard this communication as final on the 
 part of the M. E. Church, South. She can never renew the offer 
 of fraternal relations between the two great bodies of Wesleyan 
 Methodists in the United States. But the proposition can be re-. 
 newed at any time, either now, or hereafter, by the M. EH. Church. 
 And if made upon the basis of the Plan of Separation, as adopted 
 by the General Conference of 1844, the Church, South, will cordially 
 entertain the proposition.’”’ The position of Dr. Pierce was made. 
 the rule of the Church, South, by a resolution presented by him- 
 self to the General Conference of 1850 of that Church. (ibid., 
 pp. 188-95). 
 
 Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 82, col. 
 1; May 25, 1848. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIX., p. 79, col. 2; 
 May 17, 1848. Cf. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XV., p. 
 90, col. 5; September 18, 1848. A correspondent said in regard to 
 New England conference that they supported the General Con- 
 ference on the fraternization question. ‘‘In reference to it they 
 say good, good, GOOD! And by the way, they like to think that 
 it refused fraternal relations with the Church, South, in conse- 
 quence of the position which that body sustained to slavery. And 
 this is unquestionably the fact in the case.’’ 
 
 The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 52, col. 4; March 29,. 1861. 
 Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 453. Cartwright’s statement is as 
 follows: ‘“‘A better man and a better Christian gentleman the 
 whole south did not afford than Dr. Pierce, their messenger on 
 
32. 
 
 33. 
 
 34, 
 
 35. 
 36. 
 
 Some Differences of Opinion 157 
 
 this embassy; but the Methodist Episcopal Church was caricatured, 
 abused, slandered, and in every sense maltreated by the South; 
 and while they were wounded and bleeding at every pore, is it to 
 be wondered at that this embassy failed, and that every single 
 member of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church of 1848 voted against fraternization? If they would undo 
 the wrongs they had inflicted, and take back their hard speeches, 
 and bind themselves to a Christian course in future, then, and not 
 till then, could the Methodist Episcopal Church think of a Christian 
 fraternization.’’ : 
 
 It is to be noted that nothing is said here about slavery. 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 116, col. 6; November 
 8, 1844. The statement reads: ‘“‘Now if our northern brethren 
 will make suitable reparation for the past and afford satisfactory 
 security for the future as expressed in our fifth conference reso- 
 lution, then will we gladly hail them as brethren beloved, with 
 whom we hold it a privilege to live and die; but short of this, 
 the union as it now is could only be a bond of discord.”’ 
 Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 82, col. 
 1; May 25, 1848. In the Pastoral Address of the General Confer- 
 ence of 1848, they said in regard to slavery and the relation be- 
 tween the two churches: ‘In the disposition of this subject, we 
 can assure you that we have exercised all the wisdom and dis- 
 cretion that heaven had conferred upon us.’”’ (Journals of General 
 Conference, 1848, p. 175). 
 
 It must be admitted that little of either wisdom or discretion 
 seems to have been conferred upon these delegates. 
 
 Journal of General Conference, 1848, pp. 154-64. Cf. Crooks, The 
 Life of Matthew Simpson, p. 247. Crooks says that Simpson was 
 chiefly responsible for the report which was adopted. 
 
 Journal of General Conference, 1848, pp. 80-85. Cf. Ridgeway, The 
 Life of Bishop Janes, p. 111. 
 
 Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 90, col. 
 2; June 8, 1848. 
 
CHAPTER XIII , 
 
 THE BORDER WARFARE 
 
 By the provisions of the ‘““Plan of Separation” the process, 
 by which adherence of Methodists to either the northern or 
 southern church was determined, was a simple one. In each 
 case, the majority of “societies, stations, and Conferences” 
 was to determine the membership of all. That is, no new 
 conference or local church organization was to be formed 
 by a minority, whether such minority favored the South or 
 the North. On the basis of this agreement, ministers were 
 permitted to associate themselves with either church “without 
 blame.” Such was the decision of the General Conference of 
 1844, which expressed the desire “to meet the emergency with. 
 Christian kindness and the strictest equity.’ 
 
 The General Conference action on the division of Method- 
 ism into two independent bodies stirred both Church and 
 Nation profoundly. Yet some leaders of both organizations. 
 stood staunchly by the letter and spirit of the Plan of Separa- 
 tion. Elliott, editor of the Western Christian Advocate and 
 later one of the most virulent traducers of the South, made 
 an elaborate defense of the General Conference. Even the 
 establishment of a fixed line between, the two churches was 
 justified because it was not only fair but similar to the ar- 
 rangement between the Methodist churches of Canada and 
 the United States. Elliott pointed out that many in the 
 North were insinuating that southern Methodists were schis- 
 matics and seceders. This position, said he, could be due 
 only to a determination not to abide by the General Con- 
 ference decision. Such a repudiation was repugnant to 
 Elliott, who declared in favor of two “independent, yet 
 connected bodies.” His conclusion was reached, not because 
 he desired separation, but because he considered that it might 
 be best, and further because he believed such a result un- 
 avoidable. He favored a peaceable division rather than war 
 between southern and northern Methodists.” 
 
 The justness and fairness manifested by Elliott in this 
 editorial on the border question was heartily reciprocated. 
 
 158 
 
The Border Warfare 159 
 
 by southern leaders. In the “Pastoral Address’ of the 
 Louisville Convention, the desirability of peace was strongly 
 emphasized. It was stated that the intense feeling aroused as 
 a result of divergent opinions concerning Bishop Andrew and 
 slavery had caused some to make statements which tended 
 towards war rather than peace. But the Convention declared 
 that there should be no commendation for any southern 
 Methodist who did not seek to compose the difficulties which 
 existed between the two sections of Methodism. Especially 
 were southern Methodists in border territory urged to keep 
 the peace in settling the problems peculiar to their section.? 
 
 That leaders of the northern Church also desired that the 
 line of separation should be determined without bitterness 
 and friction seems apparent from the action of the bishops 
 at New York in July, 1845.4 In their opinion, societies 
 voting on the question of adherence should have sufficient 
 notice of the meeting held for that purpose and proper 
 officers elected to forward the results to the majority’s church 
 officials. 
 
 Bishop Soule acted in strict conformity with the will of 
 the Louisville Convention and the letter and spirit of the 
 resolution passed by the northern bishops. Realizing that 
 the only way to determine the adherence of border Methodists 
 was to hold meetings for that purpose in conferences and 
 societies, he called upon border churches in the southern 
 parts of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa to cast their votes 
 for either the North or the South.® Inasmuch as conferences 
 south of the Ohio River had voted overwhelmingly in favor 
 of the southern Church, it does not appear that Soule, though 
 undoubtedly favorable to the South, was attempting to secure 
 members by questionable methods. That this is the correct 
 view of his action seems apparent from the letter which he 
 wrote concerning the whole border situation. He denied 
 with considerable emphasis the charge that he would use 
 his influence in northern conferences in the interests of the 
 southern Church and again stated his position in favor of per- 
 fect freedom of all Methodists to decide with which church 
 they would associate themselves.® 
 
 The interpretation of Bishop Soule relative to border so- 
 cieties was immediately challenged by Elliott. The latter de- 
 clared that, before a conference could separate from the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church under the Plan, a majority of 
 
 r 
 
160 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 all members must vote affirmatively and then a majority of the 
 preachers of the conference must approve. “These two must 
 unite. No one of them, without the other, can do the deed. 
 And unless this double decision is to be had, the provisions 
 of the plan cannot be available to them.’” 
 
 That Elliott’s interpretation was not in accord with that 
 of northern bishops is evident from a letter written by 
 Bishop Morris, September 8, 1845. He had been asked to 
 meet with Missouri conference, apparently for the purpose 
 of influencing a majority in favor of his Church. But he 
 replied that he should be at Indiana conference at that time 
 and therefore could not come. Believing it best to state his 
 opinion of the border situation, Morris expressed his dis- 
 approval of the presence of two Missouri conferences, each 
 claiming to be the true one, and said the majority should 
 decide which Church should receive the property of the 
 Book Concern. Any minister or layman who did not desire 
 to belong to the Church of the majority had the privilege of 
 uniting with some neighboring conference of the Church 
 of his choice. The work of editors who sought to create 
 difficulty on the border was severely condemned. “If the 
 Plan of Separation had been carried out in good faith and 
 Christian feeling on both sides, it would scarcely have been 
 felt any more than the division of an annual conference.’ 
 
 Two more important documents bear upon the question 
 under consideration. The first is the official interpretation 
 of the Plan of Separation by the General Conference of 
 the southern Church in 1846, so far as it related to the border 
 societies. It was agreed that, whenever the line of separation 
 had been determined by stations adhering to the northern 
 Church, no southern minister should be appointed to a charge 
 north of that line. On two points they were particularly 
 emphatic. They contended that the dividing line was not 
 determined by the action of the first societies that voted, but 
 that the question of adherence was simply transferred to 
 the next tier of societies on the north. They admitted that 
 the principle was equally applicable when the boundary line 
 was being moved southward. Further, the southern Church 
 held that circuits, composed of more than one society, should 
 vote as circuits, and that societies of such a circuit which 
 were not on the dividing line should be considered as integral 
 parts of the circuit and not as interior charges.® 
 
The Border Warfare 161 
 
 It is significant that this interpretation was not challenged 
 by northern Methodist officials until the following year. 
 March 3 and 4, 1847, the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church met at Philadelphia and set forth their interpretation 
 of the Plan in relation to border societies and members. 
 They accepted the line of division as final and declared that 
 they would send no minister south of the line of separation. 
 But they opposed voting: on adherence by circuits, and con- 
 ferences and societies were limited as to the time when their 
 adherence should be fully determined.1° Further, the first 
 vote taken on the question of church membership was to be 
 considered final.1 
 
 While there were differences of opinion between leaders 
 of the two sections relative to the construction to be placed 
 on the Plan of Separation — especially in regard to the voting 
 of circuits — yet the purpose, for the most part, seems to 
 have been to settle the whole border question fairly and 
 peaceably. But the General Conference had made one im- 
 portant omission in the plan for the division of the Church. 
 For, according to the Plan, no provision was made for minor- 
 ities. Naturally, when a minority was composed of members 
 who deliberately opposed the majority, they could be relied 
 upon to refuse to fellowship with the dominant group. While 
 some conflicts occurred in southern conferences, most of 
 them were in slaveholding sections of northern conferences. 
 Consequently, both churches, and especially the northern, 
 were wrought up to the highest pitch of excitement. 
 
 Northern conferences at the eastern end of the line of 
 division which were affected by border controversies were 
 Baltimore, Philadelphia and Ohio. These conferences had 
 territory located in slaveholding Virginia and Maryland, and 
 difficulty was inevitable. Baltimore conference had voted 
 unanimously to remain in the northern Church. But, 
 because it was located in states which supported many slaves, 
 the brunt of the border warfare seems to have fallen upon it. 
 Some stations voted to go with the Church, South, and the 
 minorities refused to transfer their allegiance. The organiza- 
 tion of two churches in the same community caused endless 
 controversy.13 An attempt was made to draw off, not only 
 Baltimore conference entire and unite it with the southern 
 Church,/* but also the Virginia section of Philadelphia con- 
 ference. Baltimore conference in 1848 considered the whole 
 
162 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 question of division and adherence, especially as it was related 
 to themselves. They declared that the line of division was 
 “immovably fixed upon the northern boundary of the thirteen 
 protesting Conferences” when the southern Church was 
 formed; “and that therefore charges that were ‘interior’ 
 then, remain so thereafter.” Certain charges were pronounced 
 ‘interior’, and the conference decided to resist any attempt 
 to consider them part of the southern Church. Ministers of 
 Virginia conference who were responsible for “aggressions” 
 ‘against the Virginia section of Baltimore conference were 
 condemned because their action was considered “in violation 
 of the provisions of the Plan of Separation and derogatory 
 to the friendly relations that should always exist between 
 different denominations of Christians.’’® 
 
 One of the chief points of controversy in this conference 
 was at Alexandria, Virginia. Lee, editor of the Richmond 
 Christian Advocate, was accused of visiting Alexandria in 
 the interests of the southern Church. Whether or not that 
 be true, the fact that a division had taken place at that point 
 was published in the Baltimore Sun. When officers of the 
 Church, South, took possession of the church building, ad- 
 herents of the northern Church protested,!* and the case was 
 carried to the courts, where Judge Tyler decided in favor 
 of the northern Methodists. A new board of trustees was 
 selected from these but a legacy of hatred remained as a 
 result of the controversy.!® 
 
 Ohio conference included the northwestern part of Vir- 
 ginia. For the most part, the stations seem to have voted 
 to remain with the northern Church, but Parkersburg refused 
 to receive the minister sent them because he came from Ohio. 
 He was threatened and “advised” to leave the state, but finally 
 returned and continued to serve those who refused to join 
 the southern Church. Parkersburg, according to the northern 
 interpretation, was not a border station and it was therefore 
 believed to be a part of the northern territory.!® Not only 
 was Parkersburg occupied but it was also charged that the 
 whole Kanawha District, in which it was located, had been 
 overrun by ministers sent out by Kentucky conference of the 
 Church, South. The latter succeeded in organizing many 
 societies for their Church, in communities where a northern 
 church already existed.?® 
 
 Probably that which caused the greatest excitement in 
 
The Border Warfare 163 
 
 Ohio was the attempt of the southern Church to gain control 
 of certain churches and sections of Cincinnati. The formerly 
 deserted Vine St. Methodist Church became “Soule 
 Chapel,’”° with about sixty-five members, most of whom 
 had withdrawn from Methodist churches in Cincinnati.?} 
 Andrew Chapel was also built to accommodate another 
 congregation of southern sympathizers. The objection of 
 northern bishops to the occupancy of these two churches 
 by ministers and members of the Church, South, was based | 
 on the contention that in each instance, there was a northern 
 charge between the southern church and the Ohio River. 
 Therefore, since this territory was ‘interior’ — as much so 
 as if “it were in Columbus or Cleveland” — northern bishops 
 held that the southern Church had violated the Plan of 
 Separation.2* So intense was the feeling of northern Meth- 
 odists in Cincinnati against those of the southern Church 
 that preachers refused to invite southerners to preach in 
 their pulpits—a proceeding which one writer said “must 
 be regarded as an act of unbrotherly hate, of which no 
 Christian should be guilty.’ 
 
 One of the most interesting and typical of these border 
 conflicts was the famous “Maysville Case.” There had been 
 a division of the Methodist church at Maysville, Kentucky, 
 following the General Conference of 1844. The Church, 
 South, members claimed that they were in the majority and 
 that the church property should be used exclusively by 
 themselves. But a minority member, John Armstrong, who 
 had contributed liberally when the building was erected, 
 protested against the use of the church property by adherents 
 of the southern Church, on the ground that the General Con- 
 ference was incompetent to divide the Church. Each group 
 claimed the exclusive use of the property. There was imme- 
 diate difficulty when services by’ two different and conflicting 
 organizations were announced for the same hour and day. 
 To prevent strife, Armstrong had the building closed, but 
 southern Church members undid his work and held a serv- 
 ice.2* Neither party was willing to withdraw in favor of 
 the other, so resort was had to the courts. The first trial 
 started September 30, 1845.7° The decision of the judge 
 was a compromise. Each group was permitted to use the 
 building a proportionate share of the time, and since the 
 number of members in each organization was almost the 
 
164 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 same, he decided that each group should occupy the church 
 on alternate Sundays.”® 
 
 This decision was unsatisfactory to both groups and the 
 case was carried to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, of 
 which Judge Marshall was chief justice. The chief conten- 
 tion of the northern faction was that trustees, members and 
 preachers were required to belong to the “Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church” and “use the property under the rules and 
 Discipline of the same Church.” Whenever any one ceased 
 to be a member of that Church, he ceased to have any 
 claim upon the property of the same. Southerners claimed 
 that each part of the Church was a Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, and that the General Conference was fully compe- 
 tent to divide the Church into two separate organizations. 
 They claimed that, according to the Plan of Separation, they 
 had control of all church property in southern territory, and 
 that that property was to be held by trustees for the benefit 
 of southern members. But they held also that “the Church, 
 in point of general jurisdiction” existed “no longer as a 
 whole, though one in doctrine, faith, and Discipline.”’?? 
 Chief Justice Marshall decided that the Church undoubtedly 
 had the right to divide, and that the General Conference 
 was as competent in this instance as when Canadian Meth- 
 odists separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
 United States.28 The decision was therefore in favor of the 
 Church, South, and all similar cases in Kentucky would have 
 a like result.?9 
 
 In Missouri conference the conflict was equally bitter. One 
 southern paper urged the ministers to remain with the 
 South,®° and there may have been some need for exhortation. 
 When the ministers met, a northern party seemed determined 
 to hold a small number of northern members together for 
 the purpose of keeping the Missouri conference share of the 
 Book Concern dividends for the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 Bishop Morris had been invited to meet with them for the 
 purpose of accomplishing this result but had refused to 
 sanction their plans.*4. When the votes on adherence were 
 counted, there were only fourteen against the southern 
 Church.*? 
 
 St. Louis was thé center of the many local struggles in 
 Missouri. June 10, 1845, seventeen members declared that 
 they would refuse to identify themselves with the southern 
 
The Border Warfare 165 
 
 Church. The editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal 
 commended their action, saying: “Our brethren who remain 
 in the Methodist Episcopal Church in St. Louis will be 
 fostered and supplied by the Church. Let them be firm and 
 immovable, and God will provide for them and all such.’ 
 But the northern society, under the leadership of the Rev. 
 John Anderson, failed to thrive.*+ Probably for the purpose 
 of furthering the interests of the northern Church, Elliott 
 went to St. Louis. One leader gave it as his opinion that 
 “there might be some tarring and feathering in restoring 
 again Methodism in the South,” but northern preachers were 
 held responsible for such proceedings.2® From this time 
 forward, northerners were accused of sending “missionaries” 
 who insisted on worming their way into southern territory 
 in Missouri.*® 
 
 The General Conference of 1848 was called upon to aid 
 the northern minorities of two St. Louis churches. The 
 congregation of Wesley Chapel asked for aid because they 
 had been deprived of their building by southerners. In 
 answer, the Conference extended sympathy but declared that 
 they had “no power to draw on the funds of the Book 
 Concern to indemnify them for their losses.” They urged 
 that all such claims be presented when the final adjustment 
 was made with the Church, South.?* 
 
 A second case which came before the General Conference 
 involved the administration of Bishop Morris. Ebenezer 
 church in St. Louis asserted that Bishop Morris had actually 
 supported the southern Church and that a letter from. him 
 to Joseph Boyle, pastor of Centenary church in the same 
 city, had been used to influence the vote of church members 
 in favor of the southern Church.28 The biographer of 
 Bishop Morris declares that under the Plan of Separation 
 the bishop had no right to appoint a minister to a congrega- 
 tion, when a majority had decided to adhere to the southern 
 Church. He affirms that the only question involved in the 
 case was whether or not Morris had actually written the 
 letter to Boyle. This was soon disposed of by the latter 
 who said he had never received such a communication.®? 
 The General Conference therefore decided that there was “no 
 cause of complaint against the administration of Bishop 
 Morris in that matter.’’*° 
 
166 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Even the Wyandott Indians of Kansas were not free 
 from dissensions as a result of the division of the Methodist 
 Church. The General Conference of 1848 received a petition 
 from some of the Indians, asking that they be permitted to 
 remain in the northern Church,*! and that they be re-imbursed 
 to the amount of five hundred dollars, which had been used 
 to erect a new church building. The Conference recom- 
 mended that the Missionary Society pay this amount “pro- 
 vided the Methodists, in’ the above tribe of Indians, are 
 recognized as belonging to the M. E. Church.’ 
 
 The petition of these Indians seems to indicate that already 
 there had been an attempt to divide the Church. But it 
 was not until September 1 of that year that the vote was 
 taken and the decision rendered to adhere to the Church, 
 South. An appeal was taken from this decision to Ohio 
 conference by those who favored the northern Church.*? 
 October 22, Governor Walker recorded that a preacher had 
 been appointed by Ohio conference to come to Kansas “and 
 sneak about like a night burglar or incendiary to. do harm 
 and not good. What is it that religious fanaticism will not 
 do? The seceders have stolen the church records.” A 
 week later, Mr. Still, the presiding elder of the northern . 
 Church was present and the question of division was again 
 voted upon.** Again the southern Church was successful. 
 October 30, adherents of the southern Church met and 
 prepared a letter to the Indian Agent, in which they asked 
 him to “keep out of our territory those reverend disturbers of 
 the Nation.” This exhibition of unbrotherly relations dis- 
 gusted the non-Christian Indians who held a meeting, January 
 30, 1849 and decided that missionaries of both churches 
 should be expelled. But Walker again defined the position 
 of the southern Church and closed the meeting.*® 
 
 The General Conference of 1848 was especially noted for 
 the repudiation of the Plan of Separation. And that this 
 action, by which the proceedings of the General Conference 
 of 1844 were declared null and void, was in large measure 
 the result of the border warfare, there is no doubt. For, 
 after having declared that there was no power in the General 
 Conference “to pass any act which, either directly or in- 
 directly, effectuates, authorizes, or sanctions, a division of 
 said Church,” they affirmed that no member of the Church 
 could be deprived of the right to remain a member “unless 
 
The Border Warfare 167 
 
 guilty of a violation of its rules.” This right was safeguarded 
 by the Discipline itself, which guaranteed all members and 
 ministers the right of appeal, so that if a member were 
 separated from the Church by any other method, it was 
 contrary to “the constitutional rights and privileges of the 
 membership and ministry.”4° Having thus acted on the 
 pronouncement of the previous General Conference, they 
 decided to recognize all as belonging to the northern Church, 
 who were members in 1844 and did not desire to join the 
 southern Church. They regarded it as their “duty, as far 
 as practicable, to supply all such with the preaching and 
 ordinances of the Gospel.’’4* 
 
 The division of border societies had been accomplished 
 only after the most bitter controversies. For, while leaders 
 on both sides desired an equitable adjustment of border 
 difficulties during the first year after the division of the 
 Church was provided for,*® it was impossible to avoid strife 
 in local churches. By 1848, even northern bishops were 
 willing to present to the General Conference a list of infrac- 
 tions of the Plan of Separation by the southern Church. 
 The General Conference proceeded to repudiate what the 
 Conference of 1844 had done. Not only that, but they 
 determined to protect those members who desired to remain 
 under their jurisdiction, even though they might be in the 
 . territory of the Church South. That is, the door was opened 
 even wider for controversy and hatred and persecution. So 
 far as can be determined, there were only 2,735 Methodists 
 in southern territory who were dissatisfied with the arrange- 
 ments made in 1844. It is one of the ironies of history 
 that the Church which, in 1848, was so emphatic in its de- 
 cision to protect the rights of minorities, was equally deter- 
 mined in 1861 that the southern minority, of which southern 
 Methodists formed a considerable part, should not have the 
 privilege of self-determination. 
 
 1. Supra, p. 145, footnote 14, preamble 2. 
 2. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 94, col. 5; September 
 27, 1844. Elliott’s statement is as follows: 
 
 “The part of the proposed plan which provides that no intrusion 
 shall take place by the two Churches across the line of division, 
 after it shall have been defined, seems particularly obnoxious to 
 many in the north. Yet it is precisely such a regulation as exists 
 between the Methodist Episcopal Church and the British Metho- 
 dists. The refusal to observe this must arise from the considera- 
 tion, that our southern brethren act the part of schismatics in 
 withdrawing, or rather seeking an independent organization. For 
 
168 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 ourselves, we are now unwilling to consider them either as schis- 
 matics or even as seceders from the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 and we shall continue so to think and act until we are compelled by 
 the necessity of the case to think and act otherwise. It would 
 much better suit our views, could it be done, that the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church in the United States would be fairly divided into two 
 great independent, yet connected bodies, to be entitled, the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States in the north, and the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church in the South. 
 
 “We write not these things because we are in favor of separa- 
 tion, aS some may suppose. We are not in favor of separation 
 now, nor for the causes on account of which it may now take. 
 place. Yet we believe the time may come, and is not distant, when 
 a division of the Methodist Episcopal Church may be as Scriptu- 
 rally, and as properly made, as that classes, circuits, districts, and 
 conferences may be divided. And though there may not be suf-. 
 ficient reasons for such a division without schism, yet if there 
 be such reasons as a large number believe to be sufficient, even in 
 this case, it is a grave matter to decide what is best to be done.’” 
 
 For objections to a fixed line of separation, see the report of 
 North Ohio conference in Ibid., p. 89, cols. 4-5; September 20, 1844 
 and Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XV., p. 162, 
 col, 2; Year, 1844. 
 
 3. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 122-3. The para- 
 graph pertinent to our study at this point is as follows: 
 
 ‘It had been too much to expect, considering the weakness of 
 men, suddenly aroused to resistance, as the Southern Churches 
 were, by the unlooked-for action in the cases of Bishop Andrew 
 and brother Harding, there should not, in some instances, have 
 escaped expressions of resentment and unkindness. Or that, put 
 to the defense of the majority of the General Conference, where the 
 evil complained of was so serious, the advocates of that majority 
 should not sometimes have expressed themselves in terms 
 which seemed harsh and unjust. We deeply deplore it, and pray 
 that, for the time to come, such exhibitions of a mortifying frailty 
 may give place to Christian moderation. We invoke the spirit of peace 
 and holiness. That brother should be esteemed as deserving best, 
 who shall do most for the promotion of peace, Surely this is a 
 time of all others, in our day, when we should seek and pursue 
 peace. <A continuance of strife between North and South must 
 prove prejudicial on both sides. The separation is made — form- 
 ally, legally made — and let peace ensue. In Christ’s name let 
 there be peace. Whatever is needful to be done, or worth the 
 doing, may be done in peace. We especially exhort brethren of 
 the border conferences and societies, to forbear each other in love, 
 and labor after peace. Let every one abide by the law of the 
 General Conference, with respect to our bounds, and choose for 
 himself with Christian temper, and permit others to choose with- 
 out molestation, between North and South. Our chief care should 
 be to maintain ‘the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’ 
 Methodism, preserved in what makes it one the world over — the 
 purity of its doctrines, the efficiency of its discipline, its unworld- 
 liness, its zeal for God, its self-devotion — is of infinitely greater 
 value than a question of boundary or General Conference juris- 
 diction merely.”’ 
 
 That peace was desired by southern leaders is further shown by 
 a letter of Bishop Capers to a presiding elder: ‘“‘What you say 
 concerning border societies, deeply interests me. What have we 
 to do with ‘War?’ ‘Border war.’ It is all of the Devil, first and 
 last; a war in which he that fights hardest serves Satan best. It is 
 not thus that we serve Christ. I am so deeply impressed with 
 the conviction, my dear Moorman, that if even you were to turn a 
 man of war, I should not hesitate to remove you from your Dis- 
 trict.’ (Southern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 170, col, 27 
 April 2, 1847) Capers was elected bishop in 1846. 
 
19. 
 
 The Border Warfare 169 
 
 Supra, p. 142. 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 74, cols. 5-6; August 
 22, 1845. Cf. Ibid., p. 75, cols. ‘2-3. 
 
 Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 95, col. 1; August 
 14, 1845. In a letter to Bishop Andrew, dated, July 15, 1845, he 
 says that he had formerly made the statement: ‘‘Guard well the 
 outposts.’’ He said he might be suspected of policy, but that he 
 meant simply that the resolutions of the General Conference of 
 1844 should be strictly observed. ‘“‘These resolutions carried out 
 in the spirit of Christian forbearance and kindness, especially with 
 the joint aid of the Editors on both sides of the line would soon 
 produce peace, and quietness, and mutual Christian confidence in 
 all these borders . . . The pestiferous insinuations that if I 
 attend Northern Conferences I would employ my influence to in- 
 duce preachers and members to change their side of the line, and 
 the suspicion of ‘policy’ in my resolution to attend those Con- 
 ferences so situated, being in my official division of the work, is 
 worthy of the morbid source from which it emanated. Ministers, 
 local and travelling, of every grade and office in the M. E. Church, 
 and all the border stations and societies on both sides, should be 
 perfectly free to remain as they are, North or South, or being on 
 the one side, to adhere to the other. And in either case, not 
 even the slightest suspicion of ‘blame’ should be attached to any 
 one. This is the letter, and spirit and design of the plan of 
 separation.”’ 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 74, cols. 5-6; August 
 22, 1845. Relative to Elliott, Soule wrote: “I assure you that 
 nothing has given me more pain since the close of the last Gene- 
 ral Conference, than the recent proclamation, by the Western 
 Christian Advocate, of an undying warfare against the South.’’ 
 (Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 98, col. 6; August 
 21, 1845). The changing attitude of Elliott towards the South 
 probably was a result of the bitterness which was being stirred 
 up against that section in the North. 
 
 Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 294. Cf. Sutton, The 
 Methodist Church Property Case, p. 142. 
 
 Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 152-3. 
 
 . “For Conferences to the time of their next session after the organ- 
 
 ization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and for stations 
 and Societies to the time of the first session of their respective 
 Annual Conferences subsequent to said organization.’’ 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 153. 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIIL., p. 11, col. 1; May 1, 1846. 
 
 . Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 293. 
 - Richmond Christian Advocate,. Volume XIII., p. 173, cols. 1-6; 
 
 January 1, 1846, Cf. Ibid., p. 197, cols. 1-6; February 12, 1846 and 
 Ibid., p. 201, cols. 1-3; February 19, 1846. 
 
 . Virginia Sermon Pamphlets, Volume 2—An address to the People 
 
 of the County of Accomac by George P. Scarburgh and 15 others. 
 
 . Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 291-2. 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XVI., p. 94, cols. 5-6; June 
 
 13, 1849. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 710-11. This trial was held in 
 
 1850. It illustrates as well as any other the character of the 
 controversies in that section. For an illustration of a somewhat 
 different character, see Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist 
 Church, 1844, pp. 1382-5. 
 
 Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 217. Cf. Journal 
 
 ‘of General Conference, 1848, p. 168; and Southwestern Christian 
 
 Advocate, Volume X., No. 1; October 31, 1845. The editor of the 
 Pittsburg Christian Advocate (Volume XII., p. 165, col. 5; Novem- 
 ber 5, 1845) favored permitting the southern Methodist Church to 
 come to Parkersburg, even though it were north of the line of 
 separation and contrary to the Plan of Separation. 
 
170 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 20. 
 21. 
 22. 
 23. 
 
 24, 
 
 25. 
 
 26. 
 27. 
 
 28. 
 29. 
 
 30. 
 
 31. 
 32. 
 
 Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 50; October 16, 
 1845. 
 
 Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIIL, p. 138, cols. 5-6; 
 October 30, 1845. 
 
 Journal of General Conference, 1848, pp. 168-70. See also, Sutton, 
 The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 218-19. 
 
 Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., No. 28; May 8, 1846. 
 This rebuff may have been responsible for the same writer’s libel 
 on the women of the North: 
 
 “Up here they do not look like our ladies. The tout ensemble 
 of their physical form, bating the features of the face, is not alto- 
 gether unlike that of Cherokee females. Their dresses are badly 
 fitted to their labor-worn and flattened frames. Their arms and 
 fingers are disproportionately long, their hands large, and knuckles 
 look swelled and wrinkled; their countenance is woe-begone, flat 
 and cold . . . With all the rouge and white lead with which 
 they bedaub their faces, and all the festoons of curled hair from 
 the dead with which they.crown themselves, I feel sorry for them.’’ 
 (Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII, p. 23, col. 2; May 22, 
 1846). The writer, one Hanner, was’a delegate to the first south- 
 ern General Conference. 
 
 Quarterly Review, Volume I., p. 546; Year, 1847. A part of the 
 statement is as follows: 
 
 “The opposing clainis of the two parties were brought into im- 
 mediate conflict, by appointments made and published, under 
 different authorities, for preaching and divine worship, at the 
 same hour of the same day, and in the same church, by two 
 different preachers, for each of whom the parties respectively 
 claimed the use of the pulpit. To prevent collision and with the 
 intent that the house should not be occupied at all, on the day 
 referred to, John Armstrong, one of the original trustees to whom 
 the lot had been conveyed, and holding also other official stations 
 in the collective church at Maysville, and being the representative 
 of one of the contending parties, had the house fastened up; but 
 other and more numerous officers and trustees of the other party, 
 had the doors opened, and occupied the church, with their 
 preachers.”’ 
 
 Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., No. 1; October 31, 
 1845. 
 
 Ibid., No, 14; January 30, 1846. 
 
 Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 613-16. Elliott says that the 
 Maysville Church decided unanimously, at first, for the northern 
 Church. 
 
 Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series, p. 44; 
 March 16, 1848. 
 Quarterly Review, Volume IL., pp. 546-89; 1847. See also, Richmond 
 Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), pp. 36-48, passim; 
 March 2-238, 1848. In each source, the entire decision is given. It 
 may be that this decision influenced the southern Church to more 
 fully protect the rights of its members, At any rate, the ‘‘Metho- 
 dist Expositor and True Issue’’ was established in Cincinnati about 
 1848 for the distinct purpose of presenting the case of the Church, 
 South, along the Kentucky border. (Redford, Life and Times of 
 Bishop Kavanaugh, p. 331). 
 
 Blliott (The Great Secession, cols. 617-18) wrote: The decision 
 of the Judge is not one founded on the principles of the common 
 law; but is one founded on the theory introduced by Church revo- 
 lutionists, the adoption of which would scatter to the winds the 
 tenure of all religious and charitable trusts.’’ It will be seen that 
 the advocates of each side had little confidence in decisions of the 
 courts, when they were opposed to their own desires. 
 Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 22; March 
 28, 1845. 
 
 Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 118-20. 
 Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 142-3. 
 
33. 
 
 34. 
 
 44, 
 45. 
 46. 
 
 47. 
 48. 
 
 The Border Warfare 171 
 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XIX., p. 186, col. 4; July 
 2, 1845. The activities of this and the Western Christian Advocate 
 were responsible for attempts to forbid these papers to circulate in 
 the South. (Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, pp. 
 140-41). 
 
 Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 4; November 20, 
 1846. On the other hand, the editor of the same paper (under a 
 different name) declared that the southern church was prospering 
 in spite of the Cincinnati and New York Advocates, (Southwestern 
 Christian Advocate, Volume X., No. 17; February 20, 1846). 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 7; December 11, 
 
 1846. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume XIII., No. 3; November 17, 1848. Cf. Ibid., Volume 
 
 XIV., No. 50; October 11, 1850, 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1848, p. 116. 
 . Ibid., p. 55. Cf. Marlay, Life of Bishop Morris, pp. 230-32. 
 . Marlay, Life of Bishop Morris, p. 232. It seems strange that 
 
 Ebenezer church would have made such a charge if it were not 
 true. To any unbiased person it is apparent that the two state- 
 ments are absolutely opposed to each other. Somebody lied. 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 232-3. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 645-6. 
 
 . Journal] of General Conference, 1848, p. 68. 
 
 . Kansas Historical Collections, Volume IX., pp. 217-19. For an 
 
 opposite statement see Ibid., Volume X., p. 215 and also a Manu- 
 script copy of at least part of the proceedings, in Bishop Ham- 
 line’s correspondence at Garrett Biblical Institute, It seems 
 impossible to harmonize the two accounts, but it is to be noted 
 that, according to the manuscript account, only about twelve voted 
 to remain in the northern Church. WBither account shows con- 
 clusively that the welfare of the Indians was not the primary 
 consideration. 
 That is, the first vote was final when favorable to the North. 
 Kansas Historical Collections, Volume IX., pp. 217-19. 
 Journal of General Conference, 1848, pp. 73-5. No more than six 
 votes were cast against any of these resolutions. 
 Journal of General Conference, 1848, p. 117. 
 Southern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 170, col. 2; April 2, 
 1847. Cf. Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 126, col. 
 3; August 27, 1845. The editor’s statement is: ‘‘And our chief 
 regret now is, not that separation has taken place, but that it has 
 not been effected peaceably, as was contemplated in the plan 
 adopted by the General Conference. Both sides cast the blame on 
 each other, of the bad feelings which had been engendered. 
 Heaven knows we are both at fault.’’ 
 
 Professor Norwood has some additional illustrations of this 
 unchristian border strife in his “‘Schism in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, 1844,” pp. 126-46. ; 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 THE DIVISION OF THE BOOK CONCERN PROPERTY 
 
 The General Conference of 1844 had recommended to 
 annual conferences the suspension of the Sixth Restrictive 
 Article so that the Book Concern property might be divided. 
 When this permission was granted by annual conferences, 
 division of the property was fully provided for. Commis- 
 sioners representing the northern Church were appointed to 
 negotiate with southerr® commissioners.} 
 
 The success of the plan for the division of the Church 
 property seemed assured when northern conferences began 
 to indicate their attitude. New York conference concurred 
 in the proposed change, 143 to 38;? Troy conference ap- 
 proved, 123 to 6; while Providence conference cast a unani- 
 mous affirmative vote.* At least four other conferences were 
 overwhelmingly for the change of the Sixth Restrictive 
 Article and the consequent division of the Church property.® 
 
 But while some northern conferences desired an equitable 
 division of the property, others did not. The fact that most 
 of the concurring conferences cast their votes soon after 
 the adjournment of the General Conference leads one to sus- 
 pect that influence was brought to bear upon the rest for the 
 purpose of defeating concurrence. The evidence supports 
 the suspicion. The editor of Zion’s Herald, in July, 1844, 
 suggested that the decision on the change of the restrictive 
 article be deferred until the following year. He also raised 
 the question whether northern conferences had a moral right 
 to vote affirmatively. He hinted that New England confer- 
 ences had the power and might use it to prevent peaceable 
 division.® | 
 
 While several conferences recorded a negative vote on 
 changing the Sixth Restrictive Article, they maintained, 
 outwardly at least, the most cordial attitude towards the 
 southern Church. Baltimore conference declared that their 
 vote for non-concurrence was not due to any opposition to 
 an equitable division of the Church funds.’ North Indiana 
 conference said they had “no desire to withhold from our 
 
 172 
 
The Division of the Book Concern Property 173 
 
 southern brethren any portion of the property of the church 
 that may justly belong to them,” but that they were influenced 
 “by motives wholly apart from and above pecuniary consid- 
 erations.Ӥ A majority of the delegates from Illinois confer- 
 ence to the General Conference of 1844 had voted in favor 
 of the Plan of Separation. But the division among the 
 delegates is suggestive of the struggle in that conference. 
 Stamper and Berryman advocated concurrence while Peter 
 Cartwright set himself to the task of defeating the measure. 
 It was undoubtedly due to the exertions of Cartwright that 
 the conference refused to accept the proposal of the General 
 Conference. But they did agree that if a division of the 
 Church were decided upon by the Louisville Convention, the 
 southern Church should have “their full share of the funds, 
 provided they do not alter the Discipline in any material 
 Sway a 
 
 With the exception of the ten conferences which have 
 been considered, northern conferences seem to have been 
 opposed to any concession to the southern Church. New 
 Jersey conference voted 103 to 2, against a change of the 
 Sixth Restrictive Article14 Maine!? and North Ohio confer- 
 ences postponed action on the proposed change, the latter 
 on the ground, that there was no power to divide the Book 
 Concern Funds and that it was unnecessary.* Due possibly 
 to the warmth of feeling over southern attacks on Bond, 
 Indiana conference voted, 76 to 2, against the change.'* 
 
 Ohio and Philadelphia conferences were real surprises to 
 southern Methodists. All Ohio delegates to the General 
 Conference of 1844 had voted in favor of suspending the 
 sixth article. Hamline was a member of the “Committee 
 of Nine” and Elliott moved the adoption of the resolutions 
 and spoke in their favor. But in the annual conference 
 of 1844 only one affirmative vote was cast.1® Philadelphia 
 conference voted, 104 to 12, against the proposal® This 
 action from a conference which had slaveholding territory 
 within its boundaries drew the following attack from the 
 editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate: “We rejoice 
 that there are twelve men in the Philadelphia conference 
 teady to extend even-handed justice to their southern 
 brethren. Ten righteous Lots would have saved Sodom; 
 twelve generous and honest men shall protect the Philadelphia 
 conference from any censure of ours.’’!* 
 
174 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 When the votes were counted it was found that southern 
 conferences had cast 971 votes for and 3 against the General 
 Conference recommendation; while in northern conferences 
 there were 1164 undeniably affirmative and 1067 negative 
 votes. Therefore, there were 2135 affirmative and 1070: 
 negative votes.18 Since the Constitution of the Church re- 
 quired a three-fourths majority, annual conferences had 
 defeated the plan for a peaceable division of the Church 
 property.}® 
 
 The editor of Zion’s Herald considered that the vote of 
 annual conferences was final.2® But there were others who 
 took a different view of the situation. One editor said 
 he knew of no one in all his territory who desired a division 
 of the Church,?! but he urged that a settlement of the ques- 
 tion be reached before the convening of the first General 
 Conference of the Church, South, so that relations between 
 the two churches might be more cordial.??. And a contributor 
 to the Western Christian Advocate believed there were con- 
 siderations higher than the mere letter of the law. He ad- 
 mitted that the three-fourths vote had not been obtained, but 
 cited — what is undoubtedly the fact — that many northern 
 conferences had refused to vote for the change lest they 
 should seem to encourage division. He pointed out that 
 many conferences had declared their willingness to divide 
 the Church funds if a division actually took place. His 
 reasons for an equitable division of the Church funds were 
 _ similar to those used by the counsel for the southern Church 
 
 when the case was carried to the courts: (1) that the public 
 would demand that they remain true to their promises; (2) 
 that the Book Concern money had come as a result of sacri- 
 fices by all the preachers, North and South; (3) that when 
 the Book Concern building at New York had burned in 
 1836, the South contributed large sums to rebuild it; (4) 
 that the bishops had recognized the Plan of Separation as in 
 force; and (5) that widows and orphans of southern min- 
 isters had avalid claim on the earnings of the Book Concern.?% 
 
 The first reaction of southerners to the decision of the 
 northern Church was a determination to have peace whether 
 or not they received their share of the Church property. 
 One writer commented on the change in tone of some 
 northern papers during the year following the General Con- 
 ference of 1844, and protested that “Church dignities, money 
 
The Division of the Book Concern Property 175 
 
 and such like, must form no part of this dispute.”*4 The 
 editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate asserted that 
 “more of character, influence and usefulness would be lost 
 by thus attempting to recover our property than would be 
 compensated by the possession of a thousand fold more 
 property than is involved in the dispute. Let it go. Let 
 it fulfil its mission of unrighteousness, and work out its 
 consummation of misery in the hands of those who wrest 
 it from its rightful owners.””° And another editor, referring 
 to the action of Ohio conference, declared: “If this, or any 
 other conference, wish to pocket that portion of the Book 
 Concern and ‘Charter Fund’ that justly belongs to us — and 
 to drive us off by unjust legislation, or any unholy adminis- 
 tration of the law, we envy them neither their piety nor 
 the position they will occupy in the eyes of the Christian 
 world.’’6 
 
 With the failure of northern conferences to suspend the 
 sixth restrictive article, the hope of southerners for a peace- 
 able division of the Church property was destroyed, even 
 though a majority of northern preachers approved such a 
 division.2* When the Book Committee of New York de- 
 cided not to pay dividends to any annual conference until 
 1848, when the General Conference would meet, the decision 
 was considered by southerners a nullification of the Plan of 
 Separation.?8 
 
 The first General Conference of the Church, South, ap- 
 pointed three commissioners to represent them on the prop- 
 erty issue. They were given full power to settle the whole 
 question 1n conjunction with the commissioners who had 
 been appointed by the northern Church.29 August 25, 1846 
 they notified the northern commissioners that they were 
 ready to meet them for the purpose of dividing the Church 
 property. In this communication the southern commissioners 
 attempted to show that a constitutional majority of the min- 
 isters had declared in favor of suspending the Sixth Article. 
 They held that conferences which did not vote at all should 
 either be counted on the affirmative side or not at all. In 
 either case, they asserted that three-fourths of the ministers 
 had favored the plan of dividing the funds. Finally, they 
 urged that a settlement be made peaceably so that an appeal 
 to the courts would be unnecessary.®° 
 
176 _ Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 October 14, 1846, the northern commissioners replied. 
 They protested that they had no authority to act, inasmuch 
 as they had not been officially notified that three-fourths 
 of the ministers had voted to change the Sixth Restrictive 
 Article, and they had no power to demand of conference 
 secretaries the results of the vote on this question. They 
 therefore refused to act on the division of the Church 
 property.*4. Their reply was in perfect accord with the 
 statement of Bishop Hedding, made a year later, in which he 
 said that the General Conference had no right to accede to 
 the demands of the South until three-fourths of the ministers 
 had agreed to the change and the following General Confer- 
 ence had sanctioned the proposed division of the property. 
 Even then he expressed doubts as to the constitutionality 
 of the proceedings.*” 
 
 A further attempt seems to have been made by southerners 
 to secure their share of the Book Concern property from the 
 northern commissioners. But Finley, for the North, refused 
 to accede to the demands of the southern Church. As reasons 
 for his refusal he assigned the following: (1) The annual 
 conferences had refused to authorize a division of the 
 property so the commissioners had no power to act. (2) 
 Northern commissioners were not given authority by the 
 General Conference to decide whether a sufficient number 
 of votes had been cast in favor of a division by the annual 
 conferences. (3) Secretaries of annual conferences were 
 not bound to state the official vote and some of them dared 
 not to do so without permission. (4) “The South have not 
 complied with the conditions on which such a division was 
 to be made. Provided the annual conferences had agreed to 
 alter the sixth restrictive article, they did not find the 
 necessity of their secession, or withdrawal from the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church.” The necessity for division must be 
 determined by a vote of all the members of all the societies 
 jn circuits and stations, and this had not been done.?? Such 
 an interpretation of the Plan of Separation very properly 
 called forth the condemnation of the South.* Had Finley 
 been content to rest his case on the action of annual con- 
 ferences, he might have had reasonable ground for rejecting 
 the overtures of the South. But the other statements seem 
 to be nothing more than mere subterfuges, designed to keep 
 the funds of the Church for the North by fair or foul means. 
 
The Division of the Book Concern Property Lei 
 
 The action of northern conferences on the election of dele- 
 gates to the General Conference of 1848 was indicative of 
 the attitude which that body would assume on the division 
 of the Church property. Illinois®® and Ohio conferences were 
 opposed to the Plan and considered it a nullity.2® In some 
 of the conferences the issue was squarely raised and new 
 and younger men sent to Conference. Thus, in New York 
 conference, Bangs, Olin and Levings were not elected “be- 
 cause it was supposed that they were in favor of a just 
 division of the Church property, between the North and the 
 South.’’" Lee wrote from Pittsburg, the seat of the General 
 Conference, that most of the former members had been 
 excluded because they desired an equitable and peaceable 
 division of the property.28 Of those who were members of 
 the General Conference of 1844, only forty-one were re- 
 turned in 1848.°9 
 
 May 11, 1848, the southern commissioners sent an address 
 to ithe General Conference of} the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, in which they stated the failure to settle the property 
 question and asked that the Conference seek a solution. To 
 this statement no direct reply was made.*® <A week later, 
 the southern comissioners wrote, asking the northern com- 
 missioners whether they considered themselves authorized to 
 act; and if not, if they had anything to propose to secure a 
 settlement according to the Plan of Separation. Ten days 
 later, Peck and Finley replied that they did not deem them- 
 selves authorized to act, since annual conferences had failed 
 to consent to the division of the property; and that they had 
 nothing to propose.*4 
 
 But the Property Question was not ignored by the Con- 
 ference. Early in the sessions, the Committee on the State 
 of the Church was asked to “to inquire into the propriety and 
 expediency of offering to refer the above question to dis- 
 interested arbiters, to be chosen by the parties, for amicable 
 adjustment, and report thereon’*? In answer to this request, 
 the Committee declared that, without the consent of the 
 annual conferences, they had no authority to enter into arbi- 
 tration with the commissioners of the Church, South, in 
 regard to the “claims set up by them to a division of the 
 vested funds of the Methodist Episcopal Church’’.*% 
 
 For the purpose of bringing about a settlement with the 
 Church, South, the Conference instructed the commissioners 
 
178 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 who had been appointed in 1844 that if, after having sought 
 the opinion of eminent counsel, they should discover that they 
 could “legally and constitutionally”’submit the dispute to 
 arbitration, they should do so and abide by the decision. 
 If the southern commissioners started suit in the courts, they 
 were authorized to submit the dispute to arbitration under 
 the direction of the court before which they might appear. 
 If no suit were begun and arbitration were found to be im- 
 possible, ““The General Conference being exceedingly desirous 
 of effecting an amicable settlement of said claim,” voted to 
 ask the annual conferences to suspend the sixth restrictive 
 article so that arbitration might be possible.*4 
 
 That the General Conference intended to settle the dispute 
 on the basis of justice and equity seemed improbable to the 
 southern Church. Lee declared that the resolutions had been 
 passed “merely to turn the current of public opinion setting 
 in so strong against the Conference.” In his opinion, the 
 General Conference had acted “mainly with a view to propi- 
 tiate common scorn and public indignation.” He assured 
 his “contemporaries in and out of the Church that the action 
 of the General Conference in this matter richly deserves 
 to be classed with the things known among men as solemn 
 farces! We have not the first idea that a desire existed in the 
 body to meet this great question on Christian principles. In- 
 dividuals may have felt so; but there was nothing like it in 
 the body.’’**Another editor linked the rejection of Pierce as 
 the fraternal delegate of the southern Church with the un- 
 willingness of the Northern Church to divide the property. 
 His interpretation of the Conference action was as follows: 
 “We haye your money and wish to keep it; if you will, like 
 good Christians, allow us to keep it all, and make no ado 
 about it - that is, pay us, as the price of our friendship, some 
 $250,000 we will readily and cordially fraternize with you; 
 but should you be so unreasonable as to ask your own, and 
 especially should you attempt to coerce it out of us, it will 
 be impossible to recognize you as a legitimate branch of the 
 Methodist family.’’4¢ 
 
 Since 1844, demands had come from the South for an 
 equitable share of the Church property.*7 September 29, 1847, 
 Kentucky conference passed a resolution favoring the prose- 
 cution of the northern Church in order to obtain the South’s 
 share of the common funds.48 Following the General Con- 
 
The Division of the Book Concern Property 179 
 
 ference of 1848, Tennessee conference took similar action.*® 
 But nothing was officially done until after the declaration 
 of the northern commissioners that they had sought legal ad- 
 vice and had decided that they had no power to act with 
 the southern representatives? The answer of the Church 
 South, was to start two suits against the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church,51 one at New York, June 13, and one at Cincinnati, 
 July 12, 1849. Both cases were heard by the United States 
 Circuit courts.” | 
 The New York case occupied the attention of the Court 
 for ten days, and the Judges’ decision was favorable to the 
 southern Church. The chief contention of the counsel for 
 the northern Church was that the conferences had not given 
 the necessary three-fourths vote to change the Sixth Res- 
 trictive Article and that therefore the General Conference 
 was unable to proceed farther, even if there were the desire 
 to do so. But the counsel for the plaintiffs established to 
 the Court’s. satisfaction that the funds of the Church had 
 been accumulated as a result of the labors of preachers of 
 all conferences and that the dividends from the Book Con- 
 cern belonged to the beneficiaries, although distributed by 
 the conferences. The dividends could not be taken from the 
 retired ministers, their wives and children unless it were 
 shown that they had not kept the conditions under which 
 they received a portion of the Book Concern’s earnings.*? 
 
 When the argument had been completed, Judge Nelson 
 suggested that “it would be much better for the interests of 
 this Church, for the interests of all concerned, if, after a 
 full and fair investigation, both of the facts and the law of 
 the case, the parties could amicably take it up, and, by the 
 aid of friends and counsel, come to an amicable decision of 
 the controversy.”°* Thereupon, the northern commissioners 
 proposed that the whole question be arbitrated.. The southern 
 commissioners were willing, provided the northerners would 
 “admit their claim to a full share of the property in question,” 
 and arbitrate only the amount of property to be turned over 
 to them. This proposal was rejected, and the negotiations 
 ended in failure. November 11, 1851, the decision of Judge 
 Nelson, directing a pro rata share of the property to be 
 given the southern Church, was handed down.*® 
 
 Northern leaders were much chagrined at the result. The 
 Michigan Christian Advocate defended the northern Church 
 
Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 by saying that it was “about as easy “for a camel to go 
 through the eye of a needle’, as for justice to secure her 
 rights when the rapacious maw of the slave interests yawns 
 to receive them.”56 Parsons said Simpson had “called out 
 that same old park of artillery which, for the last six years, 
 has been thundering from the battlements of abolitionism 
 against the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and has bid 
 it speak in contravention and impeachment of the late de- 
 cision of the United States Circuit Court. We believe this 
 suit is the first instance, in the history of our country, when 
 any of our high courts have been gravely charged with 
 corruption, or had their opinions arraigned before the 
 people.”°? 
 
 The Cincinnati case, decided in July, 1852, was a victory 
 for the northern Church. The Maysville Case was used 
 as a precedent to show that the General Conference had 
 the power to divide the Church and that the funds of the 
 Book Concern were held for the benefit of the worn-out 
 preachers, their widows and children. The decision of the 
 Court was in general agreement with the claims of the 
 northern Church. Judge Leavitt decided: (1) That the 
 General Conference had no power to divide the Church; and 
 (2) that there was no claim in the action of the General 
 Conference of 1844 to such power. He affirmed (3) that 
 the General Conference was prohibited from applying the 
 produce of the Book Concern except for a specified purpose 
 and in a specified manner; and annual conferences had re- 
 fused to remove the restriction. He asserted (4) that the 
 Book Concern was a charity for the benefit of the ministers, 
 their widows and children, and that those who withdrew from 
 the Church ceased to be beneficiaries of the charity. He 
 admitted (5) that ministers or members were privileged 
 to withdraw whenever they desired, but he maintained that 
 “in withdrawing they take with them none of the rights 
 of property pertaining to them while in the Church,” and 
 the separation of 1845 was considered of this character. His 
 conclusion was that the defendents were not guilty of “breach 
 of trust or any improper use or application of the property 
 or funds in their keeping.’’®§ 
 
 When the New York case was decided in favor of the 
 South, northern papers were found in opposition to the de- 
 cision; when the northern Church was successful at Cin- 
 
The Division of the Book Concern Property 181 
 
 cinnati, southerners were convinced that the result was with- 
 out reason or justice. Elliott wrote that “the St. Louis 
 Advocate laments that no earthly power ‘can rectify the 
 wrongs which have been done to the many poor, suffering, 
 superannuated preachers, widows and orphans, who have by 
 these means been deprived of a great part of their means of 
 support.’ ”’ He quoted the editor of the Nashville Christian 
 Advocate as saying that “lobby counsel and outdoor in- 
 fluence’ had “been busy in producing this result against the 
 clear conviction of both moral equity and legal right.” 
 According to Elliott, this paper was “convinced that no good 
 thing could not come out of Ohio and the late trial staggered 
 their faith.’ 
 
 Both cases were appealed to the United States Supreme 
 Court, but the property question was not argued in Wash- 
 ington until April, 1854.69 In the meantime, a settlement 
 was arranged by the New York commissioners. In May, 
 1853, the eastern commissioners, at the instance of Judge 
 M’Lean, held a meeting which agreed on a basis of settle- 
 ment if the western and southern commissioners consented. 
 Court proceedings were to cease, and the decision of the 
 Court at New York was to be binding upon the Western 
 Book Concern as well as upon that at New York. To 
 this request the western commissioners refused to accede. In 
 this decision they were supported by their counsel, Mr. 
 Ewing, who stated that they had no right to enter into a 
 compromise on the question at issue.® 
 
 In spite of the decision of the Cincinnati commissioners, 
 those at New York continued negotiations. In November, 
 1853, they met with the southern commissioners and ar- 
 ranged a settlement of the property question as far as they 
 were concerned. They agreed to pay $191,000 in cash, of 
 which the dividends due and unpaid should be a part, and 
 turn over all the debts owed the Book Concern by people 
 residing in southern territory. Further, the printing estab- - 
 lishments at Richmond, Charleston and Nashville were to 
 become the property of the Church, South. The unpaid 
 portion of the Book Concern dividends, which had been held 
 back because of the dispute were to be paid as soon as 
 possible.** That the decision to arbitrate the property ques- 
 tion and pay over the funds was not due to any sense of 
 justice on the part of the northern commissioners is clear 
 
182 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 from their report to the General Conference of 1856, in 
 which they said: “Your committee beg leave to assure the 
 General Conference, that while this arrangement was affected 
 in full view of the legal decisions already made, and the 
 moral certainty of those destined to follow, they were also 
 prompted by the strictest economy, upon the part of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, a very considerable sum being 
 saved to the Book (Concern ).’® 
 
 Great was the rejoicing of southern leaders over the 
 outcome of the New York suit, especially since they hoped 
 that better relations between the two churches might result. 
 William Smith of Virginia expressed the hope that fraternal 
 relations might be established. To his overture Elliott re- 
 plied: “The Scriptures say, ‘first pure, then peaceable’., We 
 therefore first pray for purity, and then for peace and 
 amity.”®° Dr. Wightman, editor of the Southern Christian 
 Advocate, also suggested the re-establishment of fraternal 
 relations. But again Elliott refused the offer of friendship 
 and declared that there was “a long list of misdeeds of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, South, that must be amended 
 before there will be cordial amity between the two Churches. 
 And the proceedings of the south in regard to the property 
 question contain a pretty long list of additional wrong acts 
 that will be difficult either to remove, explain, or bear, on 
 the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in view of 
 fraternization.”°® But in spite of Elliott’s ill-temper, Wight- 
 man professed to believe that there were many, even in the 
 North, who rejoiced over the settlement.§* 
 
 After the Cincinnati Court decided in favor of the northern 
 Church, Judge M’Lean, in a letter dated October 29, 1852, 
 advised very “strongly and decidedly” that the Church at 
 the North propose a compromise on the property question.® 
 This suggestion does not seem to have met with favor on 
 the part of the Cincinnati commissioners. But the latter 
 submitted a proposition to the bishops, in which they sug- 
 gested the advisability of again asking annual conferences 
 to permit the division of the Church property. The proposal 
 was dropped because not only the bishops, but also the New 
 York commissioners, considered such a proposal useless.® 
 
 When the eastern commissioners’ made their proposal to 
 settle the dispute on the basis of the New York Court’s 
 decision, those at Cincinnati refused because they said it 
 
The Division of the Book Concern Property 183 
 
 would seem a repudiation of what they considered a just 
 decision in the Cincinnati case and an approval of a wrong 
 decision at New York. Further, they declared that there 
 was no evidence that the Church desired any such action. 
 Resolutions expressing their sentiments were submitted to 
 Judge M’Lean*® who declined to forward them to the south- 
 ern commissioners. The western commissioners then sent 
 their statement directly to the southern commissioners who 
 refused to consider them.” 
 
 That the Cincinnati case would be appealed to the Supreme 
 Court was the general opinion,’ and such was the result. 
 But the editor of Zion’s Herald was not optimistic as to the 
 probable outcome for he expected the decision to be against 
 the North, “knowing how completely the atmosphere at 
 Washington is filled with the miasma of slavery.”73 The 
 result justified the fears of the northern faction, for the 
 position of the southern Church was fully sustained.” 
 
 The decree of the Court was held in abeyance, owing to 
 the tardy decision of the western commissioners to settle 
 the dispute out of court. They offered the southern Church 
 $70,000 but the offer was promptly declined because the 
 southern representatives believed they were entitled to over 
 $90,000. The agreement was finally reached that the south- 
 ern Church should be paid $80,000 in cash and that the 
 debts owed the Book Concern by southerners, amounting to 
 $12,926.61, should be turned over to the southern Church 
 for collection. That the northern commissioners considered 
 that they had struck a rare bargain appears from their state- 
 ment to the General Conference of 1856: “Indeed, when we 
 reflect that the Southern debts were all past due, many of 
 them outlaws, some worthless, and all, while in the hands 
 of the Book Concern, of little or no value; and that the 
 South claimed, and could collect (under the decree of the 
 Court) the interest on their portion of the capital since the 
 rendering of the decree, and which was not taken into ac- 
 count in our calculation, although it would raise their propor- 
 tion about three thousand dollars; and that the extension of 
 credit beyond ordinary business limits and the proffered 
 offer of purchases, with which the Southern propositions 
 were accompanied, were greatly advantageous to the Concern 
 at this crisis, we did not perceive that their proposition 
 materially varied from our own.’ 
 
184 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 A recent writer has said that “few impartial minds will 
 doubt that the decision of the Supreme Court rendered 
 substantial justice.“ But the judgment of history is not 
 in accord with the opinions of leaders at the time. Elliott 
 objected because Judge Nelson, who had written the opinion 
 in the New York case, represented the Court in the final 
 decision. But the fact that the Court was unanimously for 
 the South weakens his charge of bias. In view of a later 
 decision which was very generally condemned in the North 
 and especially by Methodists, Elliott’s complaint is particu- 
 larly interesting. “Surely the case before the Supreme Court 
 was of importance enough to have a decision from Judge 
 Taney, or some other judge of the bench, who, had not 
 prejudiced the case.”" And the western commissioners 
 suggested that the Supreme Court was not to be trusted. 
 “For ourselves, we do not regret that the Supreme Court 
 has decided the case. If it was decided according to the 
 law, it is well for us, for the Southern Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, for the whole country, that the law should be pro- 
 claimed by our highest judicial tribunal. If it has been 
 decided otherwise, it behooves us all to know how far the 
 Supreme Court of the United States can be relied upon.”’® 
 
 Except for the opposition of a few radical Methodist 
 papers and leaders in the North, it seems entirely probable 
 that the division of the Church funds would have been 
 effected with little or no strife. But the long controversy 
 in the papers of both churches resulted simply in creating 
 hatred instead of restoring and maintaining the cordial rela- 
 tions that should have existed. The result of the legal 
 battle was favorable to: the Church, South. But so intense 
 was the excitement that, for over two decades, the northern 
 Church maintained that the property was really theirs.7?7 As 
 one surveys the controversy, he is convinced that the north- 
 ern Church showed’ a notable lack of magnanimity, fairness 
 and desire for justice. This hatred made it easy to fan to 
 a flame the passions of the people on the disturbing political 
 questions of the decade before the Civil War, and arouse the 
 feeling of patriotism towards a section rather than the nation 
 as a whole. : 
 
 Supra, p. 146, resolution 7. 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XVIII, p. 183, col. 1; 
 June 26, 1844. 
 
 ad ee 
 
oe 
 
 The Division of the Book Concern Property 185 
 
 Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p, 213. 
 
 Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 399. 
 
 Rock River (Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 401); Hrie (Western 
 Christian Advocate, Volume XI, p. 70, col. 5; August 16, 1844); 
 Pittsburg (Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 106, col. 
 6; July, 1846); and Michigan (Southwestern Christian Advocate, 
 Volume IX., p. 18, cols. 4-6; November, 1844). 
 
 Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 125-6. The 
 statement reads: ‘‘We regret the excitement at the South, for the effect 
 it is having in New England, in reference to the resolution that is to 
 come before us on a division of the Church-property. It is understood, of 
 course, that the South have no legal claim to the property. . 
 
 It is a questionable point whether it will be morally proper for the 
 North to sanction, by liberal largesses, a schism which, however 
 desirable, if properly conducted, is evidently to be Heitz} 
 battery of unceasing hostility and abuse against ourselves. We 
 regret to state that these circumstances render the fate of the 
 resolution (for dividing the property) exceedingly doubtful in New 
 England. Our best hope for it is that it may be deferred a year, 
 to ascertain the attitude of the South, but even this is doubtful, 
 New England can defeat the measure . . . and she is begin- 
 ning to feel that self-respect, as well as moral propriety, will 
 compel her to do it.’’ 
 
 Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 278, 283. 
 
 Herrick and Sweet, A History of the North Indiana Conference, Dao- 
 Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 425. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 404. 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XIX., p. 154, col. 2; May 
 
 7, 1845. 
 
 . Hiliott, The Great Secession, col, 402. 
 . Ibid., cols. 402-4. 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 102, col. 4; October 
 
 11, 1844. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 406-7. ‘“‘A member 
 of the Northwestern conference is reported to have stated openly 
 in conference that he had no idea of giving the funds to the 
 South, and as one argument he stated that they were extravagant 
 and would waste the money if placed in their hands.’’ (South- 
 western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 1, col. 6; November 
 1, 1844). 
 
 . Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 1, col. 5; 
 
 November 1, 1844. 
 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XIX., p. 142, col. 4; 
 
 April 16, 1845. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 409. 
 
 . Concerning some of the negative votes, some question was raised, 
 . Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 146-7. 
 
 . Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XYVIII., p. 154, col. 
 
 2; September 29, 1847. 
 
 . Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 34, col. 6; March 
 
 19, 1845. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume XIII., p. 60, cols. 2-4; March 11, 1846. 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 18, cols. 3-4; May 
 
 8, 1846. Cf. Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., No. 29; 
 May 15, 1846. 
 
 . Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 13; January 
 
 24, 1845. 
 
 . Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., p. 22, cols. 2-3; April 
 
 9, 1846. 
 
 . Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 1; November 1, 
 
 1844. 
 
 . Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 22, col. 
 
 1; February 10, 1848. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume XIV., p. 22, cols. 1-4; April 9, 1846. Cf. Southwestern 
 
 Christian Advocate, Volume X., No, 27; May 1, 1846. 
 
 . Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 103. 
 
186 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 30. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 148-5. The following extract is especially interesting: 
 
 ‘It follows hence, that both by the language of the Discipline 
 and that of the Plan of Separation, the question was to be settled 
 by the aggregate vote of those members of the several annual 
 conferences, who were present in their annual sessions, when the 
 question came up, and actually voted upon it. If any refused or 
 failed to vote, with such we have nothing to do—they cannot be 
 regarded as either for or against the measure. They declined the 
 right of suffrage by refusing to act, and the determination of the 
 question rests with those who were present and voted in accordance 
 with the law. In the instance of several annual conferences, the 
 vote was contingent, and future events, now to be judged by the 
 commissioners, were to give an affirmative or negative character to 
 their votes. In the instance of two of these at least (and we 
 believe it to be equally true of four) it is susceptible of the 
 clearest proof, that by their own official showing, their votes must, 
 beyond all doubt, be counted in the affirmative, or not at all.’’ 
 
 In 1849, Baltimore and Philadelphia conferences voted ‘“‘unani- 
 mously to suspend the rule.’”’ (Norwood, The Schism in the 
 Methodist Church, 1844, p. 162). Such action, in 1845, would have 
 avoided years of strife and legal warfare. 
 
 . Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 145. 
 
 . Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 6061-2. 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 6; December 4, 1846. 
 . Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume I., (New Series), p. 146, 
 
 COLT: 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XII., No. 3; November 12, 
 
 1847. 
 
 . Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 145, col. 6; October 
 
 1, 1845. 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 33; June 11, 1847. 
 
 Cf. Ridgeway, The Life of Bishop Janes, p. 110. 
 
 . Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 82, col. 
 
 LeMay 25.1848) 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 144. 
 
 . Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 146. 
 
 SL bIiG: DLO: 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1848, p. 54. 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 95, 141. 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 95-6. Cf. Gorrie, History of the Methodist Episcopal 
 
 Church, pp. 113-14. 
 
 . Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 94, col. 
 
 2; June 15, 1848. 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XII., No. 30; May 26, 1848. 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 70, col. 3; August 16, 
 
 1844. 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 52; September 21, 
 
 1847. 
 Ibid., Volume XII., No. 30; May. 20, 1848. 
 
 . Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume III (New Series), p. 10, 
 
 cols. 5-6; January 18, 1849. 
 
 - Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., No. 45; September 
 
 1, 1849. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 151. Cf. Sutton, 
 
 The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 364. 
 
 . Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 148 ff. 
 « Loid. Da 867. 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1852, p. 127. Cf. Elliott, The Great 
 
 Secession, cols. 720-21. 
 
 . Quoted in Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume 
 
 XVI.; January 8, 1852. 
 
 . Ibid., January 15, 1852. : 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 793-4. 
 
 . Ibid., col. 794. ar H 
 . Ibid., col. 799. 
 
68. 
 . Ibid., p. 246. ; 
 70. 
 
 71. 
 72. 
 
 The Division of the Book Concern Property 187 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1856, p. 245. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 246. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 733-4. 
 
 . Journal of Genera] Conference, 1856, p. 276. Cf. Ibid., p. 221. 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 816. 
 
 . Ibid., cols. 815-16. 
 
 . Ibid., col. 814. His statement is as follows: 
 
 “To our northern brethren, we can readily believe that this 
 settlement, which lifts from their consciences and better feelings 
 a very unpleasant burden, is acceptable. It sets them right once 
 more before the community. It quiets a distinctly felt and oft- 
 expressed sense of uneasiness on the part of a large body of the 
 Methodist laity. We had the opinion volunteered to us in New 
 York, not long since, in influential quarters, that no blessing from 
 God, no extensive revivals of religion need be expected, till a fair 
 settlement was made with the south. Some such feeling we sup- 
 pose to have been general.’’ 
 
 The editor of the Buffalo Christian Advocate Was quoted as saying: 
 “We are glad in our heart, that we are permitted to announce the 
 fact. It will be hailed by the church in general with decided 
 Favor (Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume 
 XVII, December 15, 1853). 
 
 Journal of General Conference, 1856, p. 245. 
 
 Two of the resolutions follow: 
 
 “That while we regret the litigation before the civil courts 
 occasioned by the suits brought by the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South, and feel disposed to do everything that justice, equity, or 
 a Christian spirit may demand, we do not think we are required 
 to make any proposition for compromise, or that it would be 
 proper for us to do so.” 
 
 “That while we deeply regret the litigation into which the 
 
 Methodist Episcopal Church has been forced, we cannot conceive 
 any good reason why the Church we represent and serve, or the 
 cause of religion, should suffer disgrace by our being sued, es- 
 pecially under the circumstances under which the suit was brought, 
 and our appearing as defendants before the Courts of the country.”’ 
 The alternative was arbitration or a decision by the courts. 
 Journal of General Conference, 1856, pp. 246-7. 
 Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 794. The illustration given is the 
 statement of Judge Leavitt, at the conclusion of the Cincinnati 
 case, ‘‘Although the conclusions to which I have arrived have 
 been satisfactory to myself, I experience the highest gratification 
 from the reflection that if I have misconceived the points arising 
 in the case, and have been led to wrong results, my errors will 
 be corrected by that high tribunal to which the rights of these 
 parties will, without doubt, be submitted.” 
 
 . Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXV., p. 86, col. 38. 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 799. 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1856, pp. 249-50, 254-5. 
 
 . Townsend, A New History of Methodism, Volume IIL., pp. 130-31. 
 
 . Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 800. 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1856, pp. 251-3. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 171-2. 
 
CHAPTER AV 
 
 THE TREND OF THE TIMES. 
 
 In the three previous chapters some of the untoward 
 results of the General Conference of 1844 have been con- 
 sidered. It has been shown that the bitterness between the 
 two sections of the Church was accentuated by these con- 
 troversies. For a generation or more, the discussion of 
 topics connected with the deposition of Bishop Andrew, the 
 adherence of border societies and the division of the Church 
 funds, stirred old passions to fever pitch and widened the 
 breach between the two Methodisms. In the present chapter 
 we shall show the trend of the times on the question of 
 slavery,! as it related itself to the two churches. 
 
 The attack upon Bishop Andrew in the General Conference 
 of 1844 was rightly considered by southern Methodists as a 
 thrust at the institution of slavery. Georgia ministers as- 
 serted that the decision in the case of Andrew would cause 
 a slave insurrection.2, The whole attitude of the General 
 Conference on the question of slavery was condemned by the 
 Louisville Convention of 1845, and made the basis of the 
 resolution asking for a separate Church organization.? 
 
 Local churches and ministers were in complete sympathy 
 with southern conferences. A North Carolina church con- 
 sidered slavery a civil institution and under the exclusive 
 control of the states and territories where it existed. Since 
 the Bible did not prohibit slavery they thought that the ques- 
 tion of slaveholding should be left “to the enlightened judg- 
 ment and conscience of every man.”4 Princess Anne Circuit, 
 Virginia, asserted that slavery was “opposed to no law. of 
 Methodist discipline, nor to the law of God; neither is it a. 
 ‘moral evil,’ but is an institution fastened upon us by northern 
 ‘traders in blood,’ which has been abolished at the north (as 
 far as concerns the negroes) by interest, under the garb of 
 philanthropy.”’ Abolitionism was “an insatiate Moloch, upon 
 whose unholy altars its high priests would sacrifice all that 
 is dear to the south—a “foul spirit of the pit,’ whose mildew 
 
 188 
 
The Trend of the Times 189 
 
 breath has arisen to blast the Church of God.’® Because 
 Dr. Bond was supposed to have become: an abolitionist, he 
 was termed “a recreant southern man, and unworthy the 
 confidence of the South any longer.”® At a meeting held in 
 Nashville, July 8, 1844, it was affirmed that it was “the 
 right of every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 from the bishop to the layman, to hold slaves when the law” 
 permitted.’ The Opelousas, Louisiana, church favored ex- 
 punging from the Discipline “every provision in regard to 
 slavery, except so far as the same may direct the relative 
 duties and obligations of master and slave, and this because 
 we find nothing in the word of God prohibiting slavery.Ӥ 
 
 The Louisville Convention and the southern General Con- 
 ferences gave official pronouncements on slavery. By the 
 former it was considered “as strictly a civil institution,” with 
 which the Church had nothing to do except to ameliorate the 
 conditions of slaves and carry to them the blessings of the Gos- 
 pel message. They contended that, although slavery was every- 
 where present at the beginning of the Christian era, neither 
 Jesus nor the apostles were against it. It was pointed out 
 that early attempts of the Methodist Church to destroy slavery 
 had ended in failure and that the law of the Church did not 
 consider slavery under all circumstances a sin. Where it 
 was not practicable to free the slaves because of a state law 
 or where the liberated slave could not “enjoy freedom,” 
 emancipation was “not required of any owner of slaves in 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, from the lowest officer up 
 to the bishop.’ 
 
 The first southern Methodist General Conference was 
 watched with the keenest interest by the North. May 19, 
 1846, the Committee on Revision of the Discipline recom- 
 mended the retention of the rule on Slavery?” but advised that 
 an. explanatory paragraph be added in the language of the 
 General Conference resolutions in 1836 and 1840, especially 
 that dealing with the petition of Westmoreland Circuit. 
 These resolutions asserted that annual conferences had no 
 right to interfere with the civil and political relations between 
 masters and slaves; that the subject was put “beyond the 
 power of legislation by the General Government, as well as 
 the control of ecclesiastical bodies ;” that the Church should - 
 refrain from agitating the subject; and that the mere holding 
 
190 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 of slaves in states where the laws did not permit emancipation 
 was no barrier to the election and ordination of ministers.!2 
 This explanation was also included in the “Pastoral Address”. 
 It was insisted that the North had violated the rules of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church on slavery while the South had 
 adhered strictly to their meaning and former interpretation.'% 
 
 This Conference was severely censured by Elliott, who 
 stressed the fact that no non-slaveholders were elected bishops 
 while Capers and Paine, both of whom became bishops, 
 were large slaveholders. He predicted that their election 
 would mean that ministers and laymen would tend to become 
 owners of slaves. The new bishops would become the boon 
 companions of Calhoun, M’Duffie and Hammond, who would 
 be “intoxicated with joy, in shaking hands with the new 
 episcopacy’. Jurther, he asserted that, while the wording 
 of the rule on slavery had not been changed, yet “the doc- 
 trine” was “entirely expunged or repealed, to all intents and 
 purposes, and” was “of no more force than if it never was 
 in the Discipline’. According to Elliott, the whole section 
 on slavery would have been expunged from the Discipline 
 had it not been for the desire of the southern Church to hold 
 Missouri and Kentucky conferences.14 That there was a 
 measure of truth in his contention appears from the deter- 
 mination of the latter conference that the section on slavery 
 should not be altered.® 
 
 Southern apologists believed that their Church acted from 
 the highest and purest motives. The editor of the Southern 
 Christian Advocate answered the charges made against Bish- 
 ops Capers and Paine. The slaves of Capers were inherited 
 from his father. Recalling the time when Capers was pro- 
 posed as a candidate for bishop, he said: ‘But one thing is evi- 
 dent, he is not more involved in slaveholding than he was in 
 1836, when James B. Finley and many other northern men 
 voted to promote him to the office of Bishop.”!® The freedom 
 of southern Methodists from those in the North was reason 
 for great rejoicing on the part of Bishop Andrew. “Southern 
 Methodists now feel that their privileges are not held at the 
 mercy of a wild and wayward fanaticism which makes its 
 caprice and its power the rule of action, and which by mere 
 courtesy allows slaveholders to continue mémbers of the 
 Church.’’27 
 
The Trend of the Times 191 
 
 Elliott’s charge that the Discipline was a dead letter on 
 the question of slavery was unquestionably true in most 
 southern conferences. The Christian Advocate and Journal 
 asserted that the Discipline had been suppressed because 
 it was “an incendiary publication.” But a southern editor 
 replied that it had not been suppressed because it was incen- 
 diary but rather because access to the negroes by mission- 
 aries would otherwise be curtailed.1® Even from Kentucky, 
 the most anti-slavery of all southern states, came advice 
 to nullify the section on slavery. The writer was probably 
 correct when he said there were “many pious Methodists, 
 both North and South, who would not burn” him “as a 
 heretic’ if he expressed his belief that the entire section in 
 the Discipline on slavery should be removed.!® 
 
 In 1850, the General Conference made a strong effort to 
 remove the section dealing with slavery. But the vote was 
 only 43 to 38 for removal and therefore failed of a consti- 
 tutional majority.2° While the Church, South, had been 
 unable to remove the section on slavery, it was predicted that 
 the rule would not survive the next quadrennial conference.*? 
 Without doubt, the attitude of Bishop Soule contributed 
 towards this gradual change in sentiment. He considered 
 the section “entirely inapplicable” and “inefficient” to accom- 
 plish the removal of slavery; as an attempt to interfere with 
 state and national laws; and as “detrimental to the best 
 interests of the colored population of all the States where 
 slavery exists.” 
 
 That the southern Church was really interested in the 
 welfare of slaves is beyond question. The southern press 
 published a book entitled “Duties of Masters to Servants.”?8 
 St. Louis conference declared that they had no sympathy for 
 those ‘who either openly or clandestinely interfere with the 
 civil relations between master and slave,’ but they also 
 pledged themselves to ameliorate the condition of slaves and 
 called attention to the great need of religious instruction for 
 the negroes.*# Reports of what was actually accomplished 
 and planned in at least one conference are still more con- 
 vincing. In January, 1846, there was published a report 
 of South Carolina conference on missions, in which it was 
 revealed that, of the $14,250 raised for missions, $11,000 had 
 been appropriated to the work among negroes of the con- 
 ference.2> A year later, another important document show- 
 
192 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 ing the growth of missionary work among slaves and the 
 interest of Methodists in the spiritual welfare of the slave 
 population, had a prominent place in one of the Church 
 publications. While not repudiating the right of southerners 
 to hold slaves, it was a strong statement of the responsibility 
 which South Carolina conference assumed for the dependent 
 racers 
 
 It might reasonably be expected that the northern Metho- 
 dist Church would become as anti-slavery as the Wesleyan 
 Methodists. Andrew had been deposed, ostensibly because 
 of his connection with slavery, slight though it unquestionably 
 was, and the consequent .effect upon the “itinerant system” 
 of the Church. Southern Methodists had been condemned 
 for forming a pro-slavery Church and seeking to destroy 
 every vestige of opposition to their “institution” in the 
 Discipline. Much was made of the fact that the first two 
 bishops elected by southerners were slaveholders. However, 
 though consistency might imply a new and more radical stand 
 on the question, a survey of the attitude of northern con- 
 ferences, leaders and newspapers is extremely disappointing 
 to uncompromising opponents of slavery. 
 
 Baltimore conference’s committee on slavery presented a 
 report in which they commented upon the peculiar situation 
 existing between the North and the South. They declared that 
 non-slaveholding was a condition for admission of a candi- 
 date into the conference and also a requirement for continu- 
 ance in the ranks of the travelling ministry. They considered 
 that local preachers in Virginia were protected by provisions 
 of the Discipline, since the laws of that state did “not permit 
 the emancipated slave to live within her bounds and enjoy 
 .freedom.” The ownership of slaves was not a disqualification 
 for church membership, and ‘slavery itself was not “neces- 
 sarily and under all circumstances a sin.” This statement 
 and three resolutions were tabled and never considered.?? 
 Whether Elliott believed that this report had been accepted, 
 or was giving a general impression of the attitude of the 
 conference does not appear, but that the conference had not 
 changed is evident from his statement that Baltimore con- 
 ference was anti-slavery and anti-abolition as they had been 
 for sixty years. “It has received no new lessons from 
 abolitionists or pro-slavery men, but continues in its unflinch- 
 ing posture, giving the world to see a model of excellency 
 
The Trend of the Times 193 
 
 well worthy the imitation of Kentucky and Missouri.” As 
 to the attitude of his section towards this sort of a stand, 
 Elliott says that “the whole northwest are perfectly one with 
 Baltimore, and they will continue one from generation to 
 generation.” 28 
 
 Other border conferences were entirely sympathetic with 
 the position of Baltimore conference. Philadelphia confer- 
 ence was not only opposed to the agitation of the slavery 
 question,?® but elected a slaveholder to membership in the 
 conference by a practically unanimous vote “in order to 
 prevent that part of the Church going with the Church 
 South.”8° In 1847 they declared that they were not aboli- 
 tionists — that while they were “as much as ever convinced 
 of the great evil of slavery,” they knew their “calling too 
 well to interfere with matters not properly belonging to the 
 Christian ministry.” They determined to remain, as they had 
 previously been, opposed to slavery and abolitionism. They 
 deprecated the agitation which had divided the Church and 
 called attention to the fact that the rules of the two Methodist 
 churches on slavery were exactly the same. “We cannot, 
 therefore, see how we can be regarded as abolitionists, without 
 the ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church South 
 being considered in the same light . . . We would also say, 
 that there are members of this conference who have from 
 time to time given you the most conclusive evidence, by their 
 public acts and writings, that they are far from being 
 abolitionists, and who with confidence and love abide in the 
 conference of their early choice.”?! Garrison wrote that all 
 candidates for orders in this conference who did not declare 
 that they were not abolitionists were rejected.2* That he 
 was a prejudiced witness cannot be denied, but that he spoke 
 the truth in this instance is shown from the Pastoral Address 
 of the conference to the people of their territory. They 
 refuted the charge that they were abolitionists and pointed 
 to their record of the preceding sixty years to protect them 
 against such gross injustice. They also affirmed that they 
 had for several years put to every candidate for admission 
 into the conference the question, “Are you an abolitionist?” 
 Unless he replied in the negative he was not received.*4 
 
 That Ohio conference was opposed to abolitionists is 
 evident from the fact that the Western Christian Advocate 
 was so strongly against them.** Further to the westward, 
 
194 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Illinois conference was also anti-abolition in its sentiments. 
 Akers, a member of this body, declared that he was “thor- 
 oughly satisfied that our Church should continue as hereto- 
 fore, to oppose with equal discountenance the offensiveness 
 both of abolitionism and pro-slaveryism.’’%* That his confer- 
 ence would have supported him seems assured from the fact 
 that they approved the work of the Colonization Society in 
 1847,°> and from the strenuous opposition of Cartwright to 
 abolition doctrines.*® 
 
 The reactionary tendency in the northern Church is more 
 clearly seen in the action of conferences further north. 
 During the period under consideration, neither Troy nor 
 Genesee conference “Minutes” show any resolution against 
 slavery.27 In 1844 and 1845 Maine conference condemned 
 slavery and the “secession” of southern conferences.38 But 
 in 1846 they asserted that while an intelligent slaveholder 
 could not be a Christian, they were opposed to the ultraism 
 of both the North and the South.®® Providence conference 
 in 1845 resolved: “That we have entire confidence in the 
 ‘ Anti-Slavery character of our brethren of the Baltimore 
 Conference; that we greatly rejoice that they stand, where 
 they have ever stood, upon true Methodist ground; . . . 
 and that we pledge ourselves to abide by them, in their sup- 
 port of Methodism, as transmitted to us by ‘the Fathers’.’’4° 
 
 New Hampshire conference had formerly been one of 
 the most radical in opposition to slavery. In 1845 they 
 approved the action of the General Conference of 1844 on 
 slavery and suggested that, if they had made a mistake, 
 “it was rather by being too lenient than otherwise.” They 
 declared that the decision of the Louisville Convention 
 encouraged them to believe that the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church would soon be freed from all connection with slavery. 
 To non-slaveholders of the South they said: “We hope all 
 our brethren of the south who are not involved in the sin 
 of slaveholding will still adhere to the M. E. Church and 
 her institutions, and thereby be co-workers with us in spread- 
 ing scriptural holiness over the southern as well as these 
 northern lands.”41 In 1846, the conference took the usual 
 stand against slavery in the abstract, but also adopted the 
 following equivocable resolution: “Resolved, That in using 
 the terms ‘abolition’ and ‘abolitionism’, we do not mean to 
 imply the least sympathy with the falsely so-called abolition- 
 
The Trend of the Times 195 
 
 ism of the “Garrisonian party’, nor do we mean a system of 
 persecution of slaveholders; nor do we imply that the mere 
 legal relation of master and slave in all cases, must be sinful; 
 but we do mean by these terms, as in the language of our 
 excellent Discipline, that slavery is a ‘great evil’, and that 
 it consequently ought to be abolished.”42 The next year they 
 refused to fellowship any engaged in buying or selling slaves, 
 or those “‘who, for their own profit, hold slaves and attempt 
 to justify such practice on Christian principles.”43 In 1848, 
 these ministers threatened political interference, if necessary, 
 to prevent the further extension of slavery.** 
 
 Only Vermont and New England conferences showed 
 any signs of the former vigor. The first condemned slavery 
 and opposed its further introduction into free territory. 
 They also affirmed that “the slaves of this nation, by virtue 
 of their humanity, are men, women, and children; and, 
 therefore, they are not, never were, and never can be the 
 property of other human beings.’* New England con- 
 ference approved the action of their delegates in the Gen- 
 eral Conference of 1844; demanded the “utter extirpation” 
 of slavery from the Church; and said they would use their 
 entire power to “restore our fellow men to the exercise 
 and enjoyment of civil and religious liberty.”4® They 
 opposed any plans to conciliate slaveholders and declared 
 that, if a man were found to be possessed of slaves, the 
 burden of proof should be placed on him to show that 
 he was compelled to hold slaves, or else be charged with 
 immorality.47 In 1847, they affirmed that emancipation was 
 practicable in any state in the Union, and they therefore 
 refused to “recognize or fellowship as’ a Christian any 
 person who is guilty of this sin; nor can we acknowledge 
 as a sister church any organization that clearly permits or 
 sanctions this sin in its members.’’48 
 
 For some time after the General Conference of 1844 
 abolition lecturers had been at work in northern Ohio against 
 the conservatism of several churches. Particularly did they 
 condemn Erie conference for their attitude towards slavery. 
 No one could successfully defend the conference and as a 
 result many societies were distracted and members every- 
 where were threatening to leave the Church. Face to face 
 with such a catastrophe, ministers and people of the Western 
 Reserve “felt the absolute necessity of changing the position 
 
196 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 of the conference on that subject.” Petitions and memorials 
 were drafted and adopted by many groups and forwarded 
 to the conference.*” 
 
 The report of the conference Committee on Slavery was 
 a compromise. They said the General Rule on Slavery 
 forbade trafficking in slaves, but they nevertheless asked 
 for an additional statement explaining its true meaning. 
 They interpreted the rule to apply to any state, territory 
 or district, where the laws permitted emancipation and al- 
 lowed the liberated slave to enjoy his freedom. They dis- 
 claimed all fellowship with the ultra-radical party in the 
 North. After strong speeches for and against it by J. J. 
 Steadman and Calvin Kingsley, respectively, the report 
 seems to have been adopted, the vote on the second res- 
 olution providing for a change of the rule on slavery being 
 Go LON Zo ge? 
 
 The Erie conference resolution asking for a change of 
 the General Rule on Slavery was presented to the other 
 conferences for their approval. The results indicate con- 
 clusively that the Methodist Episcopal Church had no in- 
 tention of becoming radical on this subject. Only the 
 New England conference approved the proposals.59 Onei- 
 da,®°1 Ohio,®? North Indiana,°?, and Illinois®+ conferences 
 voted against it. Baltimore conference of 1846 voted unani- 
 mously against the resolution.®® They decided to continue 
 in the northern Church but at the same time issued an ulti- 
 matum which read: “Resolved, 2. Vhat this conference dis- 
 claim having any fellowship with abolitionism. On the 
 contrary while it is determined to maintain its well known 
 and established position, by keeping the travelling preach- 
 ers composing its own body free from slavery, it is also 
 determined not to hold connection with any ecclesiastical 
 body that shall make non-slaveholding a condition of mem- 
 bership in the Church, but to stand by and maintain the 
 Discipline as it is.”©°® Providence conference recalled with 
 gratitude the accomplishment of Baltimore conference in 
 1844,5” and pledged themselves to continue in their former 
 course which was cailed “the same conservative and true 
 anti-slavery ground by which this Conference has already 
 become distinguished.”5§ 
 
 E. O. Haven®® asserted that “the first two General Con- 
 ferences after the division - those of 1848 and 1852 - gave 
 
The Trend of the Times 197 
 
 less attention to slavery than any other in the history of 
 American Methodism.”®9 While this is unquestionably an 
 exaggeration, yet the General Conference of 1848 did noth- 
 ing which had for its purpose the destruction of slavery 
 within the Church. No change was made in the General 
 Rule on that subject. The delegates actually took steps to 
 lessen the expenditures in Liberia by putting the burden 
 upon the negroes themselves.®! Little interest was taken 
 in the negroes in this country. When a petition from 
 the colored members in Baltimore was presented, asking 
 that ministers of their own race be permitted to have 
 charge over all negro Methodists of the Church, and that 
 “an annual conference of coloured preachers be organ- 
 ized,” ®* the Conference declared that it was inexpedient to 
 organize such a conference at that time. They asserted 
 that the Discipline gave bishops the right to “employ co- 
 loured preachers to travel and preach, where their services 
 are judged necessary” if they had been “recommended by 
 a quarterly conference.” 63 
 
 The conservatism and apathy discovered in most north- 
 ern conferences on the question of slavery was just as wide- 
 spread in the columns of Methodist papers, While Zion’s 
 Herald condemned the sale of a slave woman in Washing- 
 ton, D. C.,64 yet the position of Baltimore conference in 
 1846 was approved by this paper and also by the Christian 
 Advocate and Journal.®® The attitude of the Pittsburg Chris- 
 tian Advocate may be inferred from its refusal to publish 
 resolutions adopted by some anti-slavery Methodists of 
 Franklin, Ohio. These abolitionists condemned the slave 
 trade from Africa and frankly stated their conviction that 
 the sin of slavery was largely to be laid at the door of the 
 Church. Northerners who refused to speak against slavery 
 were called “soul-murderers.” They even opposed north- 
 erners having fellowship with slaveholders.66 The Discip- 
 line of the Church was considered to be against slavery 
 and they therefore asserted that they would refuse to sup- 
 port a minister who was pro-slavery or who did not speak 
 out boldly against slavery.®? 
 
 As has already been indicated, the Western Christian Ad- 
 vocate approved the action of Baltimore conference and de- 
 clared that the northwest was one with the border conference. 
 
198 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 While the editor could find time and space for articles of 
 a nature pleasing to slaveholding conferences, yet his hand 
 was against abolitionists at all times. In an article entitled 
 “Abolitionism and the Methodist Episcopal Church,” he ex- 
 pressed his unalterable opposition to the doctrines of radi- 
 cals because they agitated the Church and State and _ be- 
 cause they said that slavery was always sinful. He asser- 
 ted that “the Methodist Episcopal Church had adopted no 
 such doctrine, and she never will or can adopt it.’®8 To 
 show that the Methodist Episcopal Church was not aboli- 
 tionist, Elliott noted the fact that they had refused to fol- 
 low Garrison, Scott and other abolitionists. Again the prac- 
 tice of the Church for the preceding sixty years indicated the 
 opposition of Methodists to ‘the radical demands. He 
 maintained that the Church would continue this opposition 
 to abolitionists in the future. He protested that aboli- 
 tionists had not scared the North but that that section had 
 determined to adhere to the anti-slavery principles held by 
 Methodism before abolitionism was known.®8 Elliot later 
 declared his belief that the work of abolitionists had re- 
 tarded the progress of freedom fifty years.® 
 
 Further indication that Elliott was conservative is to be 
 found in his willingness to print accounts of Colonization 
 Society meetings,“®° and also in his advice that radical 
 methods to remove slavery should not be countenanced.?1 
 And a correspondent, under the pen name “Illinois,” advised 
 that southerners be permitted to “attend to their own busi- 
 ness in their own way;” that the free states be “ ‘diligent in 
 business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord,’”’ and that “the 
 friends of the colored man, both in the slave and free states, 
 unite together, in one great effort, to release the negroes from 
 spiritual bondage.” 7? 
 
 A survey of the material presented shows conclusively 
 that neither the South nor the North had changed on the 
 question of slavery as a result of the General Conference of 
 1844 and the consequent division of the Church. The 
 South had always been decidedly conservative or pro- 
 slavery. Slavery was not, under all circumstances, consid- 
 ered a sin. The strife caused by the division of the Church 
 had resulted in many pro-slavery expressions by souther- 
 ners but their attitude was not changed but only intensi- 
 fied by that event. Elliott and other northerners had at- 
 
The Trend of the Times 199 
 
 tempted to fasten upon the South the reproach of support- 
 ing a pro-slavery Church. That they held slaves was not de- 
 nied by southerners, but many of them maintained that 
 they were involuntary slaveholders and that the laws of the 
 states in which they resided rendered emancipation impos- 
 sible. Further, it was exceedingly difficult for northerners 
 to prove from the Scriptures that slavery was wrong, and 
 from the history of the Methodist Church that the pre- 
 cedents were not on the side of the South.7% 
 
 The southern Church had at least the virtue of con- 
 sistency; the Methodist Episcopal Church could scarcely 
 claim that much. For, while claiming to be anti-slavery, 
 northerners retained slaveholders in the membership of the 
 Church, and permitted them to hold offices in the local 
 churches and preach in their pulpits.74 Garrison declared 
 that, as a result, southerners had only contempt for the 
 Church that was attempting “so to serve God as not to 
 offend the devil.”’*4 The editor of the True Wesleyan pointed 
 out that the rules of the two churches were exactly the same, 
 and that the General Conference of 1848 had done nothing 
 against slavery. On the contrary, they had voted to ex- 
 tend their jurisdiction over Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, 
 Missouri and Arkansas so that there were eight slaveholding 
 conferences in the northern Church.75 It may be claimed 
 that both of these writers were antagonistic to the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. That is true, but admissions of northern 
 conferences and leaders themselves prove the truth of their 
 statements. 
 
 Elliott made the charge that the Church, South, would have 
 been still more pro-slavery if it had not been that leaders 
 feared losing border conferences to the northern Church.7® 
 But that the northern Church also feared losing this border 
 territory is equally true. We have seen that conservatives in 
 Erie conference acted only when radicals threatened to 
 secede.‘* The threat of Baltimore conference to leave the 
 Church if anything radical were done caused much anxiety 
 and undoubtedly was responsible for the willingness of al- 
 most every northern conference to compromise sufficiently 
 to hold border conferences. Attacked from front and rear, 
 the conservatives continued to flirt with both groups of 
 radicals, with the odds in favor of the pro-slavery border. 
 
200 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 ye go bop 
 
 In this chapter, the period covered is that from 1844 to 1850. 
 Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 115-18. 
 History of the Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South, p. 179. , 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 70, col. 4; August 16, 
 1844. Many of these resolutions are printed in the papers of both 
 churches. 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI. p. 70, col. 3; August 16, 
 1844, 
 
 The Liberator, Volume XIV., p. 157, col. 1; October 4, 1844. Of the 
 slaves the preacher-author of the above statement says: ‘“‘They 
 would be hung and shot down in the streets for their roguery, 
 their insolence and their meanness if they had no masters to 
 make them work, to provide them temporal and spiritua] blessings.” 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XV., p. 2, col. 6; April 12, 
 1848. 
 
 Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XI. p. 153, col. 5; October 
 16, 1844. 
 
 Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 125 ff. 
 
 . The rule forbade: “Th buying and selling of men, women, and children, 
 
 with an intention to enslave them.’”? (The Doctrines and Discipline of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1846, p. 24). 
 
 . This action was rescinded by the northern General Conference of 
 
 1848. 
 Journal of the General Conference of the M. E. Church, South, 
 1846, pp. 74-5. 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 110-12. 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 30, cols. 6-7; June 
 
 5, 1846. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 558-9. 
 
 . Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No, 48; September 
 
 26, 1845. 
 
 . Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XIIL, p. 177, cols. 3-4; June 
 
 24, 1846. 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 14, col..3; May 8, 
 
 1846. 
 
 . Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 54, cols. 
 
 2-3; April 6, 1848. 
 
 - Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., No. 11; January 11, 
 
 1850. The article is by B. T. Crouch. 
 
 . Southern Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., p. 2, col. 4; June 7, 
 
 1850. 
 Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., No. 23; 
 April 5, 1850. 
 
 . Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XVI., p. 309, cols. 1-2; Sep- 
 
 tember 25, 1850. 
 
 . Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., No. 39; 
 
 October 9, 1851. 
 
 : Peery Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., No. 1; November 3, 
 
 . Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., No. 11; January 9, 
 
 1846. 
 
 . Quarterly Review, Volume I (1847), pp. 319-38. 
 . Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 270-80. Cf. Pitts- 
 
 burg Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 43, col. 1; April 2, 1845. 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII, p. 2, col. 3; April 18, 
 
 1845. 
 
 . Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., No, 26; April 24, 1846. 
 . The Liberator, Volume XVI., p. 98, col. 3; June 19, 1846. 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., p. 6, col. 5; April 23, 
 
 1847. J. P. Durbin, who was one of the most ardent defenders of 
 the northern position in 1844, was chairman of the committee. 
 The Liberator, Volume XVII., p. 183, col. 1; August 20, 1847. 
 
 . We shall consider the attitude of this paper when we take up the 
 
 relation of the press to slavery in the Church. 
 
The Trend of the Times | 201 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 42, col. 5; June 27, 
 
 1845. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume XIV., p. 106, col. 6; October 15, 1847. 
 
 . Cartwright, Autobiography, passim. 
 
 . See the ‘‘Minutes’’ of these conferences for the years indicated. 
 
 . For the record of 1844 see Western Christian Advocate, Volume 
 
 XI., p. 90, col. 4; September 20, 1844. For that of 1845, see 
 Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1845, pp. 13-14. 
 
 . Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1846, pp. 6-7. 
 . Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XVI., p. 112, col. 2; 
 
 July 9, 1845. 
 Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1845, p. 13. 
 
 . Ibid., 1846, p. 15. 
 
 w/2bid., (1847, p: 12, 
 
 . Ibid., 1848, pp. 14-15. 
 
 . Minutes of the Vermont Conference, 1848, pp. 21-2. Lee, com- 
 
 menting on these resolutions, said: ‘These Vermont Methodist 
 preachers tell their Virginia Brethren that they are guilty of 
 crimes that must be ‘regarded as an enormity for which perdi- 
 tion itself has scarcely an adequate state of punishment! ! '” 
 ‘Richmond Christian Advocate. Volume II (New Series), p. 126. 
 col. 5; August 10, 1848). The Vermont resolutions do not indicate 
 that there is any justice in Lee’s statement. 
 
 . Minutes of the New England Conference, 1845, pp. 12-13. 
 
 . Ibid., 1846, p. 13. 
 
 . Ibid., 1847, pp. 20-21. 
 
 . Gregg, The History of Methodism in Erie Conference, Volume I1., 
 
 pp. 277-82. 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 32; June 4, 1847. 
 . Ibid., No. 43; August 20, 1847, 
 
 . Ibid., Volume X., No. 49; October 2, 1846. 
 
 . Herrick and Sweet, A History of the North Indiana Conference, p. 
 
 17. The vote was 60 to 2. 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XII., No. 3; November 12. 
 
 1847. The vote was 82 to 2. 
 
 . Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 285. 
 . Ihid., p. 2838. Cf. The Liberator, Volume XVI., p. 81, col. 4; May 
 
 22, 1846. Garrison declared that this resolution ‘‘might have been 
 appropriately drawn up by Hope H. Statler, the great negro- 
 trading Methodist of Baltimore.’’ 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p, 11, col. 1; May 1 
 
 1846. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume XVII., p. 1388, col. 1; August 20 1847. 
 . Haven was afterwards a bishop of the northern Church, 
 
 . Stratton (editor), Autobiography of Bishop Haven, p. 124. 
 
 . Journal of Genera] Conference, 1848, p. 131. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 42. 
 . Ibid., .p. 130. 
 . Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XVIII., p. 124, col, 2; 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume XVI., p. 81, col. 4; May 22, 1846. 
 
 August 4, 1847. 
 
 . In 1848 it was reported that Bishops Andrew and Morris had taken 
 
 the communion together at St. Louis. (Nashville Christian Advo- 
 cate, Volume XIII., No. 2; November 10, 1848.) 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume XVI., p. 117; July 17, 1846. 
 
 4, 1844. 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 98, cols. 4-5; October, 
 
 -4, 1844. 
 
 9. Ibid., p. 102, col. 3; October 11, 1844. 
 
 . Ibid, Volume XII., p. 41, col. 4; June 27, 1845. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume XITI., p.' 14, col. 5: May 8, 1846. 
 
 . Ibid, Volume XIV., p. 50, col. 6; July 9, 1847, 
 
 . The necessity of finding some other basis for the elimination of 
 
 social wrongs was one of the important steps in the more recent 
 interpretation of the New Testament. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume XVI., p. 135, col. 1; August 21, 1846. The 
 
 document is taken from the Southern Christian Advocate and reads: 
 
202 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Qa -j 
 
 ba kor kA] 
 
 “And now we wish the Methodist Episcopal Church of the 
 United States North, joy in being as fully pro-slavery—so far as 
 any and every vital principle is concerned—as the M. EB. Church 
 South, is, has been, or ever will be. That ecclesiastical body is 
 formally, truly, undeniably, irrevocably, connected with slavery. 
 Slaveholders lead her classes, slaveholders kneel at her commun- 
 ion tables, slaveholders fill her board of trustees; slaveholders occupy 
 her very pulpits. Let New England and Ohio stand aghast, and let 
 the daughters of eastern and western abolitionism gird themselves 
 with sackcloth. Slaveholders occupy her pulpits, we repeat; for 
 although the travelling preachers of the Baltimore Conference are 
 not allowed to hold this sort of property, any of the Maryland or 
 Virginia local preachers may, that choose so to do; and many of them 
 are slaveholders. <A fine denoument, truly, is this whole tragedy of 
 the General Conference of 1844. The M. E. Church has lost six- 
 teen of her fairest provinces, and kept slavery sticking to her skirts 
 after all. Her enemies. within and without will say that she 
 endorses the doctrine that human beings may be regarded as 
 property—held as chattels—and what answer can she give? She 
 sees no moral guilt in the relation of master and slave, per se. 
 Her official organs must again be muzzled. Expediency must 
 strangle conscience, or abolitionists will leave the foul communion 
 in thousands. The sliding scale of morality must be adopted again, 
 and that course of action be regarded as virtuous and praise- 
 worthy in a layman which would send a bishop to perdition. In 
 short, the Baltimore Conference has conferred a better boon upon 
 the Southern Church by going North, than if she had brought to 
 our communion twice the amount of her present numbers, and ten 
 times the amount of her talent. She keeps slavery in the mother 
 Church, and makes every apology for northern Methodism, a 
 champion of northern rights and principles.’’ 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume XVIII., p. 154, cols. 3-4; September 29, 1848. 
 . Supra, p. 190. 
 
 Supra, pp. 195-6. 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 
 THE ENTERING WEDGE 
 
 The six years following the General Conference of 1844 
 had brought no perceptible change in the attitude of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church towards slavery. But the six 
 years after 1850 were so filled with political discussions on 
 this subject that the Church could not escape controversy. 
 Slowly and with the greatest reluctance northern ministers 
 enacted legislation which was an advance over any previous 
 strictures against slavery. 
 
 In 1850 Vermont conference declared that “for those who 
 voluntarily sustain, extend, and perpetuate slavery,” they 
 had no fellowship. They enthusiastically endorsed the anti- 
 slavery sentiment of Zion’s Herald and commended the editor 
 for his advocacy of abolition principles! Two years later, 
 they showed their disgust for certain people in the North 
 when they stated that for “the (so-called) anti-slavery which 
 has long shown itself capable of talking against slavery, 
 and acting in its favor, and for its perpetuity and extension, 
 we have no fellowship.’ 
 
 Maine conference adopted strong resolutions against slav- 
 ery in 1850,3 and two years later were frank enough to 
 admit that slavery was protected by the Nation and “tolerated 
 by ecclesiastical usage” and that “men occupying the most 
 important positions in the Church, are actually engaged in 
 defending and sustaining this monstrous system.” They 
 asserted that they would not submit to the demands of the 
 slave power, but on the contrary would seek “by all wise 
 and honorable means, the speedy emancipation of the enslaved 
 millions of our own and other lands, and especially” would 
 they endeavor “to remove the shame and reproach of Slavery 
 from the Church of Christ.’ 
 
 There was some sentiment for a change of the General 
 Rule on Slavery. New England conference sought to exclude 
 all voluntary slaveholders from the Church.5 Erie conference 
 passed similar resolutions, but they also advocated providing 
 
 203 
 
204 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 funds with which to buy the slaves and remove them to free 
 states. In case the slaves could not be freed without injury 
 to themselves, masters were to be urged to teach them to 
 read the Bible and permit them to attend church. New 
 Hampshire conference was more severe. After admitting 
 that there were “slaveholders who are members of the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church,” and expressing concern lest the slave 
 power should be strengthened in the Church, they asked for 
 a change in the General Rule on Slavery so that it would 
 forbid: “Buying or selling men, women, or children with an 
 intention to enslave them or holding and treating them as 
 property.”? 
 
 Baltimore and Philadelphia conferences gave their vote 
 against any change whatever in the Discipline on the subject 
 of slavery.8 That these border conferences should take such 
 action is not surprising, but that other conferences should. 
 prove so utterly indifferent seems strange indeed. Six 
 conferences took no action at all, either to show their dis- 
 approval of slavery in the abstract, or to secure a change 
 of the rule.9 The indifference of these conferences was 
 equalled only by the lack of anti-slavery material in the 
 official papers of the period. The Western Christian Advo- 
 cate was the most radical. In its columns were found an 
 appeal of colonizationists of Indiana for the purpose of rais- 
 ing $2000;3° and an announcement of a three day anti- 
 slavery convention to be held in Cincinnati. 
 
 With such lethargy existing throughout most of the 
 Church, it was futile to expect the General Conference of 
 1852 to take any radical action against slavery. There was 
 no lack of memorials, papers and speeches against slavery in 
 the Church and in favor of a change of the Rule on 
 Slavery.“ Calvin Kingsley seems to have been one of the 
 most active anti-slavery advocates but he was unable to cope 
 with the “strong conservative and semi-proslavery current.” 
 His declaration that he would yet be heard was prophetic, 
 but it was to be eight years before any change was made in 
 the Chapter on Slavery.4® Petitions and papers were simply 
 referred to the “Committee on Revisals” and no action was 
 ever taken. 
 
 It was at this Conference that certain districts of Pittsburg 
 conference, lying within the bounds of Virginia, petitioned 
 that they be joined to Western Virginia conference. The 
 
The Entering Wedge 205 
 
 motives back of this memorial were probably indicated by 
 the Wheeling (Virginia) Gazette, which declared that such a 
 disposition of these districts would strengthen Western 
 Virginia conference; unite these districts with a conference 
 with which they were in complete sympathy ; make it possible 
 to avoid the embarrassment of having an abolitionist sent 
 as a preacher to Virginians; free a preacher from the North 
 from inevitable difficulties arising from his attempts to 
 instruct the slaves; and finally, join people of similar religious 
 practices through trade on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.# 
 
 Following the General Conference of 1852 the annual 
 conferences showed a more radical tendency. As usual, 
 New England conferences led the way. Maine conference 
 of 1855 admitted that slavery existed in State and Church, 
 and that the latter “must lead in this great reformatory 
 movement, as she is to an alarming extent responsible for 
 the existence of the evil.”15 They affirmed their belief that 
 the Discipline, in spirit, was opposed to the system of slavery ; 
 and they also voted against the formation of new conferences 
 in slave states unless it was understood that slaveholders 
 should be excluded from the Church Similar resolutions 
 were adopted by New Hampshire and Vermont conferences.'® 
 
 New England conference was also opposed to compromise 
 with the slave power in Church and Nation. It was in 1854 
 that they called to account leaders of both state and Church, 
 and declared that they discovered “much in the conduct 
 of leading men, both in the Church and State, which should 
 awaken alarm and prompt us to the most decided action.” 
 They especially condemned “any disposition to make converts 
 to our denomination, or to recover territory from the M. E. 
 Church, South, by softening the language of pure Methodism 
 on the subject, or by concealing its proper meaning under 
 false interpretations.’”?" So strong was this statement that 
 the Christian Advocate and Journal refused to print the 
 resolutions, on the ground that they were a reflection on 
 the action of the General Conference of 1848.18 
 
 The resolutions of conferences further west indicate an 
 increasing opposition to slavery. Black River conference 
 condemned the General Conference of 1852 when they said 
 they had “witnessed with surprise, and deep regret, the 
 masterly inactivity of our late General Conference on this 
 subject.”!9 Three years later, they approved the opposition 
 
206 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 of Maine conference to the creation of any more conferences 
 in slave states until there was a radical change in the attitude 
 of the Church towards slavery.2® Oneida conference, besides 
 opposing slavery, approved the movement to have the United 
 States government recognize the independence of Liberia.”4 
 
 Conferences of the “Old Northwest” were less radical. 
 Cincinnati conference condemned, “after a long and spirited 
 debate,” slaveholding for mercenary purposes and declared 
 in favor of religious instruction for the slaves.2*_ North Ohio 
 conference desired to exclude from the Church all those who 
 held “slaves for the sake of gain.”?3 Wisconsin conference 
 asked for a modification of the rule of the Church so that 
 slaveholders would not be eligible to membership in the 
 Church, “except in those instances in which, owing to the 
 stringency of the slave laws, it may be found necessary to 
 permit the legal relation to exist for the protection and 
 support of the slave.”?4 The following year, 1853, they 
 sought to interpret the rule on slavery so that “all traffic 
 in human beings by members of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church”’*5 would be prohibited. In all these resolutions the 
 involuntary slaveholder and the incompetent slave were care- 
 fully protected. . 
 
 A few conferences in this section showed a tendency 
 towards radicalism. In 1853, North Indiana conference 
 declared that those who held slaves for gain were sinners 
 before God, and that no involuntary slaveholder should be 
 admitted into the Church.2® Two years later, they asked 
 the General Conference to determine the date when all slaves 
 belonging to Methodists should be declared free.27 North- 
 west Indiana conference added their condemnation of sla- 
 very as it existed in the Church,?8 while Rock River confer- 
 ence asked that the further extension or continuance of slav- 
 ery in the Methodist Church be prohibited.?9 
 
 With the approach of the General Conference of 1856, 
 ministers attempted to formulate changes which they desired 
 in the rule on slavery. The changes proposed may be divided 
 into two classes—conservative and radical. Four conferences 
 adopted resolutions providing for a rule which would still 
 have permitted slavery to continue in the Church.?9 North 
 Ohio conference’s resolution, asking that the rule forbid 
 “The buying or selling of any human being, with an intention 
 
The Entering Wedge 207 
 
 to enslave such person; or holding any person in slavery, 
 where emancipation can be effected without injury to the 
 slave,”’®1 is typical of all. Only Wisconsin conference stood 
 for a rule which would absolutely exclude all slaveholders 
 from the Church.?? 
 
 The response of the conferences to these proposals indi- 
 cates very clearly the real sentiments and the breadth of 
 view of northern ministers. By an almost unanimous vote 
 East Maine conference approved both the Erie and North 
 Ohio resolutions.28 Three conferences concurred in the 
 resolution of Troy conference.?# On the other hand, the 
 radical Wisconsin proposal was approved by four confer- 
 ences,*° which indicated a decidedly more aggressive spirit 
 than had formerly obtained. 
 
 But the opposition to these resolutions was such that it 
 was impossible to secure action. Thus, while Southeastern 
 Indiana conference declared that non-slaveholding should 
 be a test of membership in the Church and pledged their 
 delegates to the General Conference to work for such a 
 change, they non-concurred in the resolutions of northern 
 conferences.2® Ohio conference protested that they were 
 “as much as ever” opposed to slavery; and favored legisla- 
 tion to secure the rights of matrimony to slaves of Metho- 
 dists, and to forbid Methodist members engaging in the 
 domestic slave trade; but they defeated the Wisconsin 
 resolution unanimously and the Erie and North Ohio pro- 
 posals by substantial majorities.27 Both the Wisconsin and 
 North Ohio resolutions were rejected, 28 to 2, by California 
 conference.38 
 
 Baltimore conference was unanimously opposed to the 
 Troy resolutions.29 The position of the conference was 
 declared to be the same as in 1846 and the threat of secession 
 issued at that time was republished in 1855.49 These min- 
 isters watched with the keenest interest and the greatest 
 anxiety the action of western conferences. One of them 
 wrote: “We sincerely desire that moderation shall prevail 
 in the next General Conference, for, 1f extreme measures 
 are adopted, a ruinous excitement and dismemberment must 
 ensue.’’*1 
 
 Likewise, other border conferences were opposed to any 
 change of the rule on slavery. Philadelphia conference 
 unanimously non-concurred in the Wisconsin plan,4? and 
 
e 
 
 208 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 reprinted their statement of 1847 in which they said they 
 could not rightly be accused of being abolitionists any more 
 than members of the southern Methodist Church.*? Western 
 Virginia conference refused to approve any of the resolutions 
 asking for a change of the rule on slavery.44 Southern 
 Illinois conference explained their non-concurrence by stat- 
 ing: “In existing circumstances, we apprehend that any such 
 changes in our general rules as are recommended in the 
 afore-mentioned documents (the resolutions .of Troy, Wis- 
 consin and other conferences) would operate injuriously on 
 our brethren residing in slave territory, the larger portion 
 of whom never had, and from conscientious motives never 
 will, have any connection with Slavery.”* 
 
 Not only were these “border conferences” opposed to 
 any change in the rule on slavery, but also other conferences 
 not so closely associated with the South. When Illinois 
 conference voted in favor of the rule as it then was, they 
 were vigorously denounced by Akers and Stone, two mem- 
 bers of that body.**° And New York conference declared 
 that the Discipline “maintains substantially the right ground 
 in reference to this great evil, that we are satisfied with 
 it . . . as it is, and that no change in this respect is 
 desirable.’’4? | sed) 4 ee 
 
 With sentiment of the conferences divided it was natural 
 that a variety of opinions should be found in the official and 
 semi-official publications of the northern Church. In 1852, 
 Bishop Janes was reported to have invited a distinguished 
 slaveholder into the pulpit. So friendly was the treatment 
 of southern preachers by northern ministers that southerners 
 related with pleasure the accounts of the excellent reception 
 tendered them in the North.*® Bishop Scott wrote a two- 
 column article in favor of colonization which depicted the 
 fine climate and the excellent state of affairs in Liberia.*? 
 Even Dr. Elliott, who had so bitterly condemned the southern 
 Methodist Church, declared that it was impossible to exclude 
 all slaveholders from the Church. He also affirmed that 
 “those amendments that have been proposed, from the sug- 
 gestions of the recent abolition school, have little in them 
 calculated to benefit the slaves; while most of them would 
 prove ruinous.’’5° 
 
 One of the most constructive methods of securing a future 
 reform is to educate the youth of today. But, before 
 
The Entering Wedge 209 
 
 the General Conference of 1856, the Sunday School Journal 
 of New York contained no teachings against slavery. Speak- 
 ing of the general lack of anti-slavery teaching in the churches, 
 Theodore Parker declared in 1854 that there were only 
 a very few “true men” among the twenty-eight thousand 
 Protestant ministers in the United States. Concerning the 
 Methodist Church he asserted that there was not a single 
 “Anti-Slavery Sunday-school” in the denomination, In ail 
 the books and pamphlets there was “not a line showing that 
 it is wicked to buy and sell a man, for whom, according to 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, Christ died.’ _ 
 
 But while this condition undoubtedly obtained in the 
 Sunday School publications, at least two papers were unre- 
 mitting in their demands for a more anti-slavery position 
 on the part of the northern Church. The Northwestern 
 Christiam Advocate showed that slaveholding existed among 
 northern ministers of slaveholding conferences as well as in 
 the southern Methodist Church.°? Slavery had been too 
 tenderly treated by the Church,®® and the editor called for 
 drastic action on the subject.5# And Zi0n’s Herald under the 
 editorship of Dr. Wise, contended earnestly for a more 
 radical stand by the northern Church. 
 
 The position of these two abolition editors is more clearly 
 seen in their summaries of the probable action of the General. 
 Conference of 1856 on the question of slavery. Dr. Wise 
 said that, while the eighteen or more conferences which 
 asked for a stronger rule on slavery were not agreed on what 
 should be done, yet they did agree that “something ought to 
 be done, and that something MUST be done at the next Gen- 
 eral Conference.” He was sure that, when the memorials 
 of these bodies were presented to the General Conference, 
 they would “lead to something more than talk,’ and that 
 changes would be made that would “convince the world that 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church” was “earnestly seeking 
 the extirpation of slavery from her communion.’ ®° 
 
 Dr. Watson, editor of the Northwestern, was also hopeful 
 of the outcome at the General Conference. He said that 
 there were four conferences in favor of the rule as it stood ;°8 
 two for “a change without an improvement’’,°’ seven for a 
 new rule;>® while fifteen preferred only some slight change 
 in the chapter on slavery.5® Speaking of the situation in 
 August, 1855, he said: “Of the ninety delegates to the next 
 
210 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 General Conference already elected, only twenty-four were 
 in the last General Conference, and a large majority—if not 
 three-fourths — of those re-elected, are known to be pro- 
 gressive, anti-slavery men. Brethren of the Northwest, what 
 think you of the prospect? Shall voluntary slaveholding 
 be longer tolerated in the M. E. Church? Let us be firm. 
 ‘Doughfaceism’ may defeat us, the devil cannot.” 6° 
 
 But Watson did not produce all the facts in the case, for 
 Philadelphia and Baltimore conferences were not included 
 in his calculations. Further, the attitude of Missouri, Ken- 
 tucky, Arkansas, Southern Illinois, Southeastern Indiana 
 and California conferences was not encouraging. He also 
 omitted to say that many conferences refused to accept the 
 recommendations of other conferences so that there was not 
 a three-fourths majority of all the ministers voting in favor 
 of any particular change. That there was no reason for 
 the excessive optimism of Watson appears from the action 
 of New England conference in April, 1856. It is true that 
 they condemned slavery and favored excluding all slave- 
 holders from the Church. They even censured the Tract 
 Committee for removing all anti-slavery tracts from their 
 list of publications. But Elliott wrote of the delegates 
 selected by this conference: “Three of these delegates are 
 “decidedly conservative, and opposed to the ultra-abolition 
 school, which, up to this time, has afflicted the New England 
 churches, and has greatly impeded both the cause of religion 
 and the cause of human liberty; and we have no hesitancy 
 in declariag as our settled judgment, that the day of this 
 extravagance is nearly over. Both liberty and religion will 
 be the gainers; especially will the “Churches have rest,’ 
 and will be more particularly engaged in promoting the salva- 
 tion of men.”61 
 
 It was Matlack, editor of the True Wesleyan, who esti- 
 mated most accurately the sentiment of the northern Church. 
 In his opinion, the few anti-slavery men would make a vain 
 attempt to destroy slavery. The debate would last several 
 days and the abolition program would be defeated by a few 
 votes. Then, to keep the abolitionists from leaving the 
 Church, conservatives would present a meaningless resolution 
 against slavery which would accomplish nothing. This would 
 be accepted. ‘And the North, making a virtue of necessity, 
 will go home rejoicing in the fact that for the first, in more 
 
The Entering Wedge 211 
 
 than. 50 years some specific action has been taken adverse 
 to slavery.” Wise believed that Matlack was mistaken and 
 said he was convinced that the General Conference would 
 take some decisive action. Watson agreed. “We are very 
 slow to believe that the next General Conference will evince 
 before the world, that doughfaced truculency, which the 
 present congress in its incipiency is certainly doing.’ 
 
 The General Conference convened in Indianapolis. In 
 the “Address” of the bishops, the rule on slavery was 
 explained to mean that slaves could not be bought or sold; 
 that officials and ministers were forbidden to hold slaves 
 where the state laws permitted emancipation ; and that slavery 
 wes “a great evil’’.6 In view of the fact that none of the 
 proposed changes in the rule had received the constitutional 
 three-fourths vote of the ministers, the bishops doubted 
 whether “any measure equivalent to a change in the General 
 Rules” could “be constitutionally adopted without the con- 
 currence of the Annual Conferences.”®* Janes, who read the 
 address, says that it was “very severely criticised by the 
 ultra party and strongly denounced.’’65 
 
 The action of the Conference on the work among the 
 colored people indicates the attitude of the Church towards 
 the negroes. Methodists were urged to support a special 
 institution in Ohio which should educate negroes for mission- 
 ary work in Africa.°6 The Committee on Colored Mem- 
 bers®? recommended a change in the section of the Discipline 
 dealing with negroes in the Church, As it stood after 1856 
 the Discipline permitted negro preachers and members 
 all the rights of white ministers and members — 
 “where the usages of the country” did “not forbid it.” The 
 presiding elder was given permission to hold quarterly con- 
 ferences for negroes whenever he considered it “expedient.” 
 Further, bishops and presiding elders were authorized to 
 “employ colored preachers to travel and preach” whenever 
 it was considered “necessary”. No negro could be used for 
 this purpose without the recommendation of a quarterly 
 conference. Finally, bishops were permitted to hold a con- 
 ference for colored local preachers for the purpose of consid- 
 ering the work among negroes. But the presiding elder of 
 the district in which the conference was held must be present 
 and the conference itself must be authorized by an annual 
 
2i2 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 conference and considered by the bishops to be “practicable 
 and expedient.’’6® 
 
 The changing of the Rule on Slavery met with the bitterest 
 opposition. All memorials, petitions and papers of every 
 kind on this subject were referred to a special committee. 
 The “Wisconsin Rule” was the only one considered, but it 
 did not have the support of a majority of the committee. 
 Two reports were therefore presented to the Conference, 
 the minority report recommending a radical change while 
 the conservative recommendation was opposed to any effective 
 alteration.®® An exciting debate ensued and Bishop Janes 
 feared that the radicals might be successful.” The radical 
 minority report was accepted, 146 to 55; but when the Ayes 
 and Nays were called for, the vote failed of the constitutional 
 two-thirds majority, 122 to 95.7 
 
 Two of the leading figures in this debate were Abel Stevens 
 for the conservatives and Daniel Wise for the radicals. Both 
 had been editors of Zion’s Herald, which had been made the 
 medium of a bitter controversy between them.*? The Con- 
 ference elected Stevens editor of the official Christian Advo- 
 cate and Journal, while Wise was given charge of the Sunday 
 School publications.“* The conservative attitude of the Con- 
 ference was further indicated in the defeat of William 
 Hosmer as editor of the Northern Christian Advocate. 
 Hosmer and Hibbard, the successful candidate, were both 
 ultra-abolitionists but the latter was considered the more 
 temperate of the two. The fact that Hibbard had the 
 support of the conservative Baltimore and New York con- 
 ference delegations led to the charge that these and other 
 conferences had “entered into a concerted scheme” to defeat 
 abolitionists.”* 
 
 At only two points were abolitionists successful. It will 
 be remembered that there was considerable agitation over the 
 fact that Sunday School publications and the Tract Society 
 had published nothing which implied a censure of slavery. 
 But Wise, who had been an associate of Garrison, was 
 chosen editor of Sunday School publications, and the future 
 was therefore full of promise for the propagation of anti- 
 slavery doctrines.“* And the Tract Committee of the Con- 
 ference proposed the following resolution which was adopted : 
 “That the Book Agents and Tract Secretary be, and they 
 
The Entering Wedge 213 
 
 hereby are, instructed to publish, in tract form, such anti- 
 slavery matter as the subject of slavery may demand, 
 including Mr. Wesley’s Thoughts on Slavery.” 
 
 In the “Pastoral Address” which was prepared by a com- 
 mittee of the delegates, it was maintained that the Methodist 
 Church had always been anti-slavery and that their attitude 
 was unchanged. In proof of their statement that they were 
 considered an anti-slavery Church they cited the fact that 
 one conference had been compelled by a mob to change the 
 place of meeting. They also stated that the Conference 
 debates had shown conclusively that none of the delegates 
 “entertained pro-slavery sentiments” and that there was 
 “little or no mercenary slaveholding” in the denomination. 
 As a reason for the conservative action of the General 
 Conference on the slavery issue they said: ‘And the effect of 
 such action upon the interests of the border conferences, 
 probably alone prevented a constitutional majority from 
 voting to recommend a change of our General Rule on the 
 subject of slavery.” Finally, they recommended: “On this 
 subject be temperate and firm; resisting evil, not with carnal 
 weapons, but with immutable truth— ‘weapons that are 
 mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds’.”’?® 
 
 There were two groups in the Church who believed that 
 the Conference had done nothing of consequence on the 
 question of slavery. Cartwright, who represented the con- 
 servative element, says that they had reason to expect that, 
 as a result of the political turmoil, they would have trouble 
 in the General Conference on this subject. This was espec- 
 ially true since many of the “preachers who were strongly 
 opposed to slavery, had suffered themselves to become too 
 excited by designing demagogues.”’ He believed that these 
 radicals cared not at all for the welfare of the negro but 
 only for position and power. “But on this, and almost all 
 other long-tried and prosperous regulations of our beloved 
 rules and disciplinary regulations, there were found aboard 
 the old ship ministers enough to keep the old, well-tried 
 vessel well trimmed, and leaving in the distance these inno- 
 vators and spoilers of ancient Methodism. So may it ever 
 be.’77 That Cartwright probably had in mind the effect 
 such radical action would have on the work of the northern 
 Church among the negroes appears from his plea: “Let 
 moral suasion be used to the last degree for the sake of 
 
214 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 the salvation of the slaveholders and the salvation of the 
 slaves. Let us not take a course that will cut off the Gospel 
 from them, and deliver them over to the uncovenanted 
 mercies of God, or the anathemas of the devil.’’78 
 
 The second group condemned the General Conference 
 because they had not done more against slavery, and they 
 were particularly incensed over the election of Hibbard. 
 Michigan conference endorsed the unsuccessful stand of the 
 Conference majority,’® which was an implied censure because 
 no radical stand had been taken by the Conference as a 
 whole. The quarterly conference of Harrisonville Circuit, 
 Northwest Indiana conferénce, passed resolutions in which 
 they declared that they were “opposed to the retention of 
 a single slaveholder” in the Chufch and condemned the 
 General Conference for their conservatism.2° One writer 
 asserted that the lack of legislation by the General Conference 
 on slavery was due to the absence of “backbone” on the part 
 of northern delegates.®1 
 
 The controversy over the election of Hibbard centered in 
 the patronizing conferences of that paper. Genesee confer- 
 ence deprecated the attempt to remove Hibbard and gave him 
 their endorsement. Black River conference took no official 
 action in this question. But a convention of ministers from 
 five patronizing conferences met at Syracuse, New York 
 and formed the “Central New York Publishing Association” 
 with a capital stock of $20,000. It was held that Hibbard 
 should resign and that if he refused to do so they should 
 publish another paper to be called the “Central New York 
 Independent.” The election of Hibbard was considered 
 most unfortunate. Thus, Dr. Bowen, an anti-slavery advo- 
 cate, declared that slavery was triumphant in both State and 
 Church, He affirmed that the movements of the Methodist 
 Church had “been retrogade for the last four years. Four 
 years ago the slaveholders, or their apologists, dare not look 
 us in the face at Boston. They would hardly venture to 
 admit that they were slaveholders. Everything was done by 
 management. But at Indianapolis they met us in the open 
 field and whipped us in a fair fight. The Northern Con- 
 ferences are conquered territory. And this was done in an 
 open field fight. The South can have just as many go-over- 
 every-time-they-need-men as will carry the point. No meas- 
 ure fails for want of men . . . The General Conference has 
 
The Entering Wedge 235 
 
 tied our hands. The shadow has gone back ten degrees on 
 the dial. And yet I expected it.”%* 
 
 But while Cartwright and the radicals believed that the 
 General Conference had either marked time or else actually 
 retreated in the presence of the slave power, there were many 
 others who, while recognizing that the action of the General 
 Conference fell short of their hopes, yet saw that abolitionists 
 had gained ground. At least seven conferences adopted resolu- 
 tions in which they endorsed the republishing of anti-slavery 
 books and tracts, and pledged themselves to circulate them 
 as much as possible.*4 
 
 A beginning had been made towards eliminating slavery 
 from the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is true that only 
 on two propositions—the publication of anti-slavery tracts 
 and the election of an abolitionist as editor of Sunday 
 School publications—were the radicals successful. But com- 
 pared with the action of the General Conference of 1836 that 
 of 1856 seems extreme indeed. In 1836, there were only four- 
 teen abolition delegates to the General Conference; in 1856, 
 there were enough to constitute a substantial majority. In 
 1836, two members of the Conference attended an anti- 
 slavery meeting and were roughly handled in consequence ; 
 twenty years later, many delegates attended “a _ public 
 political anti-slavery meeting” without the least danger of 
 censure.®> And while it is true that the bishops of both 1836 
 and 1856 were opposed to radicalism in the Church, yet the . 
 use of anti-slavery literature by thousands of young people 
 a to powerfully affect the counsels of ‘both Church and 
 
 tate. 
 
 Minutes of the Vermont Conference, 1850, pp. 18-19. 
 
 Ibid: .1852; p.'20: 
 
 Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1850, p. 12. 
 
 Ibid., 1852, p. 13. 
 
 Minutes of the New England Conference, 1852, pp. 20-21. As in 
 
 ‘botertaan conference, the rule was to affect voluntary slaveholders 
 
 only. 
 
 6. Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume I1., p. 516. 
 The year was 1851. 
 
 7. Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1852, pp. 18-19. This 
 proposed rule was similar to that adopted by the Christmas Con- 
 ference of 1784 and other early General Conferences. 
 
 Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., No. 1; 
 January 9, 1851. 
 
 9. These were East Maine, Ohio, North Ohio, North Indiana, Michi- 
 
 aa and Illinois conferences. The Minutes show no reports on 
 
 slavery. 
 
 Ovih eRe 
 
216 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 14. 
 
 15. 
 16. 
 
 Li. 
 
 18. 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XVII., p. 126, col. 7; August 
 
 7, 1850. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume XIX., p. 62, col. 6; April 21, 1852. 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1852, pp. 16, 22, 23, 35, 87, 38, 39, 
 
 40, 47, 54, 55, 61, 68, 69, 73, 74, 108. 
 
 . Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 187. It is inter- 
 
 esting to note that a few years before Kingsley had been decidedly 
 conservative. See Supra, p. 196. 
 
 Quoted in The Liberator, Volume XXII., p. 81, cols. 4-5; May 21, 
 1852. So far as can be determined nothing was done with this 
 petition. The item is interesting as showing a tendency which 
 existed from even an earlier date, for the western Virginia coun- 
 ties to separate from the eastern. 
 
 Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1855, p. 12. Cf. Northwestern 
 Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 99, col. 1; June 20, 1855. 
 Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 18538, p. 10. Cf. Nash- 
 ville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XVIII., June 1, 
 1854 and Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III, p. 138, 
 col. 6; August 29, 1855. For Vermont conference see the Minutes 
 LOL LSHas Dele se ana LDIG WwilS50.) Dakit. 
 
 Minutes of the New England Conference, 1854, pp. 29-31. Cf, Ibid., 
 1853, p. 23; Ibid., 1856, pp. 22-3; and Northwestern Christian Ad- 
 vocate, Volume ITI., p. 99, col. 1; June 20, 1855. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXV., p. 99, col. 5; 
 June 14, 1854. In the same volume (p. 205, cols. 5-6) is a state- 
 ment which may furnish the reason for the attitude of the New 
 York paper. In 1854, Captain Smith was convicted of slave- 
 trading by a New York Court. He asserted that twenty vessels 
 had gone out from New York during that year and that thirty-five 
 had sailed the previous year for the purpose of carrying slaves, 
 and that New York was ‘the chief port of the world for the slave 
 trade.’’ This indicates something of the attitude of New York 
 towards slavery. It is possible that the Methodist editor was 
 affected by the indifference of people towards this evil and was 
 consequently impatient when abolition sentiments were expressed. 
 
 . Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XVI., Sep- 
 
 tember 2, 1852. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 98, col. 5; June 
 
 20, 1855. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume I., p. 127, col. 2; August 10, 1853. Cf. Ibid., Volume 
 
 II., p. 129, col. 2; August 16, 1854 and Ibid., Volume III., p. 130, 
 col. 7; August 15, 1855. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume III, p. 170, col. 7; October 24, 1855. 
 
 - Minutes of the North Ohio Conference, 1853, p. 33. 
 
 . Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 132. 
 
 . kbid., p. 139. 
 
 . Minutes of the North Indiana Conference, 1853, pp. 15-16 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 69, col. 3; May 
 
 2, 1855. 
 
 mLbide D7. VIL, coll2: July 18) 28565. 
 . Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1855, pp. 13-14. 
 . Those besides North Ohio were: 
 
 (1) Troy—see Minutes of Troy Conference, 1854, pp. 44-5. 
 
 (2) Erie—see Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume 
 II., pp. 517-18. 
 
 (3) paciee River—see Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1854, 
 p. 26. 
 
 . Minutes of the North Ohio Conference, 1854, p. 35. 
 . Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 148. The sug- 
 
 gested rule would have forbidden “The buying, selling, or holding a haman 
 being as a slave.”’ 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III, p. 188, col. 6; 
 
 August 29, 1855. 
 
34, 
 
 Co 
 
 oT 
 
 The Entering Wedge tube 
 
 These were as follows: 
 
 (1) New Hampshire—see Nashville and Louisville Christian Advo- 
 cate, Volume XVIII., June 1, 1854. The vote was 50 to 6. 
 
 (2) East Genesee—see Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., 
 p. 142, col. 6; September 6, 1854. 
 
 (3) New England—see Minutes of the New England Conference, 
 1854, pp. 29-31. 
 
 . These were: 
 
 (1) Vermont—see Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., 
 p. 1388, col. 6; August 29, 1855. 
 
 (2) Black River—see Ibid., p. 98, col. 5; June 20, 1855. 
 
 (3) East Genesee—see Ibid., p. 138, col. 7; August 29, 1855. 
 
 (4) Michigan—see Minutes of the Michigan Conference, 1855, pp. 35-6. 
 apt Christian Advocate, Volume XXII, p. 161, col. 3; October 
 
 10, ‘ 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 154, col.2; Sep- 
 
 tember 26, 1855. 
 
 ~ Lbid., Dp: 110; cols*?/4-5; July/11)' 1855; 
 . Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XVIII., April 
 
 18, 1854. Commenting on this conference, the Northern Christian Advocate 
 said: ‘If Baltimore Conference, with Fugitive Slave laws and 
 Nebraska bills pouring down upon it, is disposed to hold on to 
 this rotten plank, we are quite sure that many other conferences 
 will not.’’ 
 
 . Supra, p. 196. See also, Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Confer- 
 
 ence, p. 302; and Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume II, 
 p. 81, col. 3; May 238, 1855. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume TL) p.) 151, col, 3; Sep- 
 
 tember 19, 1855. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 70, col. 56; May 2, 1855. 
 . Ibid., p. 81, col. 3; May 23, 1855. See also, Supra, p. 193 for 
 
 the conference statement. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 99, col. 1; June 
 
 20, 1855. 
 
 . Minutes of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1855, p. 20. 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume To p. 181, cols. 1 and 
 
 7; November 14, 1855. 
 
 ; Ibid., p. 188, col. 63) August 29, 1855. 
 . The Liberator, Volume XXIII., p. 159, col. 2; October 7, 1853. 
 | Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume I., p. 165, cols. 1-3; 
 
 October 19, 1853. 
 
 . Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume XXXVII., p. 320 (1855). 
 . Old South Leaflets, Volume IV., No. 80, p. 11. ‘This is an extract 
 
 from a sermon by Parker on ‘‘The Dangers of Slavery’’, delivered. 
 in Music Hall, Boston, Sunday, July 2, 1854. His statement in 
 regard to the Methodists is as follows: “In 1853 the Episcopal 
 Methodists had 9,488 Sunday Schools; 102,732 Sunday School 
 teachers; 525,008 scholars. There is not an Anti-slavery Sunday- 
 school in the compass of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Last. 
 year, in New York, they issued on an average, two thousand 
 bound volumes every day in the year, not a line against Slavery 
 in them. They printed also two thousand pamphlets every day; 
 there is not a line in them all against Slavery. They printed 
 more than two hundred and forty million pages of Sunday-school 
 books, not a line against Slavery in them all; not a line showing 
 that it is wicked to buy and sell a man, for whom, according 
 to the Methodist Episcopal Church, Christ died.” 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 13, cols. 6-7; 
 
 January 24, 1855. 
 
 . Ibid., col. 4. 
 . Ibid., p. 198, cols. 4-6; December 12, 1855. 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., p. 190, col. 7; Novem- 
 
 ber 29, 1854. His statement follows: ‘“‘At least eighteen - 
 probably more than twenty - out of the thirty-eight conferences 
 have taken ground in favor of some stronger action against. 
 
218 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 85. 
 
 slavery than is now provided for in the Discipline. They do not 
 agree as to what precise mode of action is best; but they do 
 agree that something ought to be done, and that something 
 MUST be done at the next General Conference, to compel our 
 brethren to more vigorous efforts for the extirpation of slavery. 
 When these resolutions are presented, as we doubt not they will 
 be, at the next General Conference, by more than one hundred 
 delegates elected on anti-slavery grounds, they will lead to some- 
 thing more than talk. They will be reproduced in some prudent, 
 judicious, effectual disciplinary changes which will convince the 
 world that the Methodist Episcopal Church is earnestly seeking 
 the extirpation of slavery from her communion.” 
 
 . New York, New York East, Western Virginia, and Mlinois. 
 . Ohio and Southern Illinois. 
 . New Hampshire, Vermont, East Maine, Erie, Wisconsin, North 
 
 Ohio, and North Indiana. 
 
 . Troy, California, Maine, Black River, Pittsburg, Wyoming, Onieda, 
 
 East Genesee, North Indiana, Michigan, Rock River, Indiana, Cin- 
 cinnati, Iowa and Southeast Indiana. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 138, col. 7; Au- 
 
 gust 29, 1855. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume IV., p. 70, col. 7; April 30, 1856. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume III., p. 202, col. 4; December 19, 1855. 
 
 . Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume XXXI., p. 464; July, 1857. 
 . Ridgeway, The Life of Bishop Janes, p, 196. Cf. Marlay, Life of 
 
 Bishop Morris, pp. 274-5. 
 
 . Ridgeway, The Life of Bishop Janes, p. 197. 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1856, p. 104. 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 3-5. 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1856, p. 183. 
 
 . Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, pp. 159-60. 
 . Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, p. 199. 
 
 Journal of General Conference, 1856, pp. 126-7. 
 
 . Stratton (editor) Autobiography of Bishop Haven, pp. 124-5. 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XX., July 24, 1856. 
 . The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 52, col. 4; March 29, 1861. This 
 
 information is from a letter written by Gilbert Haven to Garrison. 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1856, p.150. : 
 . Methodist Quarterly Review. Volume XXXI., p. 461; July, 1857. 
 . Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 503. 
 
 wODIGs) Ds, 29! 
 
 . Minutes of the Michigan Conference, 1856, p. ‘ 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IV., p, 146, col. 2; Sep- 
 
 26 
 tember 10, 1856. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 141, col. 4; September 3, 1856. 
 
 . Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1856, p. 25. 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XX., August 14, 1856. 
 
 . For the action of the various conferences see the following: 
 
 (1) Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 163. 
 
 (2) Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume IL., p. 519. 
 (3) Minutes of the Delaware (Ohio) Conference, 1857, pp. 27-8. 
 
 (4) Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1857, p. 10. 
 
 (5) Minutes of the Detroit Conference, 1856, p. 27. 
 
 (6) Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1856, pp. 22-3. 
 
 (7) Minutes of the New England Conference, 1856, pp. 22-3, 29-39. 
 Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 160. 
 
CHAPTER XVII 
 
 THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1860 
 
 When annual conferences considered the question of 
 slavery within the Methodist Episcopal Church during the 
 quadrennium following the General Conference of 1856, they 
 generally had in mind the action which might be taken by 
 the Conference of 1860. In the first years of this period 
 abolition conferences sought to arouse anti-slavery conviction 
 and spread anti-slavery doctrines among both ministers and 
 people. During the years immediately preceding the General 
 Conference of 1860, abolitionists attempted to secure an 
 effective alteration of the General Rule on Slavery so that 
 this evil might be wholly excluded from the Church. .On 
 the other hand, border conferences earnestly entreated north- 
 ern conferences to make no change in the rule as it then 
 appeared in the Discipline. 
 
 To recite the story of abolition conferences during this 
 period would be but a repetition of the account of previous 
 years. In some instances, there seemed to be a tendency in 
 New England and other northern conferences to qualify 
 their condemnation of slavery so that border conferences 
 would not be forced out of the Church. But, on the whole, 
 conferences to the extreme north were very strongly opposed 
 to slaveholding within the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 Particular attention was given to the attitude of Methodist 
 papers in anti-slavery territory. All publications except the 
 Christian Advocate and Journal were heartily commended 
 for their stand against slavery. This official paper, however, 
 which had stood for three decades as the defender of conser- 
 vatives against abolitionists, was now execrated because it 
 did not assume the radical point of view. The resolution of 
 New England conference that the Advocate did “not truly 
 represent the law of our church; as embodied in the Disci- 
 pline, the views of the majority of the last General Confer- 
 ence, or anti-slavery sentiment demanded by every obligation 
 
 219 
 
220 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 of Christianity and humanity in the present dominant posi- 
 tion of the slave power,’ was typical of statements of other 
 abolition conferences. 
 
 In only one section which had previously been favorable 
 to the South was there a change to a more radical position. 
 Beginning with 1858, New York conference declared that 
 they were opposed to slavery and took pleasure in “pointing 
 with just pride” to the “consistent” stand which the Metho- 
 dist Church had ever taken against slavery, “regarding it as 
 an evil, for the extirpation of which all wise and prudent 
 means” were to be used.? That these ministers were much 
 divided on the subject 1s evident from the resolution in favor 
 of colonizing negroes in Africa, which had resulted in the 
 “foundation of a Christian Republic,” which they believed 
 had “done more for the elevation of the African race than all 
 other mere human agencies combined,’’® 
 
 New York East conference also became more radically 
 opposed to slavery in the Church. In 1857, the first anti- 
 slavery society was formed.* The following year the confer- 
 ence approved the language of the Church in 1784, by which 
 it was declared that slaveholding was contrary to the Golden 
 Rule, the inalienable rights of man and the principles of the 
 American Revolution, and that it was their duty to seek 
 its extirpation from the Church. They also believed it to 
 be their duty to instruct the Church by means of the press 
 and pulpit until the high standards of early Methodists 
 were attained. They favored the emancipation of slaves as 
 “the requirement of righteousness.”? 
 
 The real strength of the conservative party was to be 
 found in conferences of the “Old Northwest” and on the 
 border. Peoria conference approved the work of the Colo- 
 nization Society, assigning as reasons for their action that 
 the slave trade would be arrested and Christianity introduced 
 into Africa, which was compared to America as a refuge for 
 the oppressed.® Illinois conference was also extremely con- 
 servative,’ while the only action of Southern Illinois confer- 
 ence in behalf of negroes was to favor the establishment of 
 a school for free colored people to be known as Wilberforce 
 University.2 That ministers of Southeastern Indiana confer- 
 ence were conservative seems clear from their resolution 
 
The General Conference of 1860 221 
 
 “That we will not meddle with the legal relations of master 
 and slave; but that we will never cease our opposition to the 
 immoralities of the system till slavery is ‘extirpated.’ ””? 
 
 In this section of the country, Ohio and Delaware confer- 
 ences were the most conservative. The former rejoiced “in 
 the fact that the M. E. Church has, by her policy and spirit, 
 ever borne consistent testimony against every alliance with it, 
 and ever had in view its final extirpation.”!° The informa- 
 tion of this conference seems to have been very deficient, but 
 that of the Delaware conference committee was even more 
 startling. Their resolution ‘““That we rejoice in the fact that 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church has ever been anti-slavery ; 
 that from her very commencement she raised her voice 
 against this crying evil, and all along she has spoken in 
 thunder tones from the pulpit and the press’!+ would be 
 amusing if it were not such a perversion of the truth. The 
 “thunder tones” of the pulpit and press for half a century 
 had sounded more like the clang of a cat’s paw than the 
 voice of an organization in deadly earnest. 
 
 Border conferences were very much averse to any change 
 in the sentiment of the Church on slavery, and sought to 
 protect slaveholding in states where they could not be freed 
 according to the laws. Kentucky conference maintained that 
 they had no disposition to continue slavery in the Church 
 “further than is necessary on account of the difficulties 
 attending emancipation,” and said that they anxiously awaited 
 “the openings of Providence for its removal in a just, peace- 
 ful, and Christian manner.” They declared, however, that 
 when earlier leaders pronounced in favor of the destruction 
 of slavery “they did not intend any interference with the 
 rights of those legally connected with the institution.’’!? 
 
 On the eve of the General Conference of 1860, Western 
 Virginia conference stated their position through a Pastoral 
 Address and a letter from a member of that body.4® They 
 protested against substituting mobs for laws and courts and 
 affirmed their allegiance to the state. The anonymous writer 
 declared that enemies of the northern Church, and especially 
 the Richmond Christian Advocate, had attempted to show 
 that the members of the conference were disloyal. Through 
 their pastoral letter they had sought to defend themselves 
 against the charges of being pro-slavery, which were pre- 
 ferred by their enemies in the North; and the charges of 
 
222 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 being abolitionists, which came from the South. As “Virgin- 
 ius” expressed it: ‘““We occupy the unenviable position of 
 being midway between two fires ; but the Southern proslavery 
 fire is nearest to us, and against this our chief efforts are 
 needed. While you charge us with being proslavery, they 
 declare we are abolitionists.’ Both charges were denied with 
 emphasis. The conference was composed of “anti-slavery 
 men of the old school—to which belonged our ecclesiastical 
 fathers of the state, Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, etc.” 
 They regarded slavery as an evil to be gotten rid of but they 
 were opposed to unlawful methods to obtain their ends. In 
 conclusion, Virginius said: “We can not but hope that 
 reasonable men on all sides will, by-and-by, understand our 
 position, and appreciate our principles. We think they are 
 those of the ‘Pauline Code’ and must commend themselves 
 to sensible men of all parties as scriptural and right. If you 
 Northern men could only let us alone in this crisis you would 
 greatly oblige us. If ever there was an inopportune period 
 for such a movement, as some of you propose, this is the 
 time. We marvel that you do not see it so. Perhaps you 
 dg..t* 
 
 Previous to the General Conference of 1860, East Balti- 
 more conference passed no resolutions on slavery.’  Balti- 
 more conference caused considerable excitement in 1857 by 
 their resolutions “that we highly deprecate the agitation of 
 the slavery question which has already resulted to the detri- 
 ment of the political and religious interests of this country” 
 and that “as heretofore, we will oppose with equal zeal any 
 aggressions which shall be attempted by the abolition agita- 
 tion of the country.”46 Irving H. Torrence introduced a 
 resolution declaring that it was “inappropiate and injudi- 
 cious” to bring the slavery question before the conference. 
 This created so much excitement that the motion was with- 
 drawn. Henry Slicer asked for a reconsideration of the 
 resolutions but John A. Collins asserted that, while he 
 regretted that they had ever been introduced, they dared not 
 recede from their position or they would wreck the work of 
 the Church on the border. The motion for reconsideration 
 was therefore tabled.17 As a result of this action, Bennett 
 of Wisconsin conference, charged that these ministers had 
 
The General Conference of 1860 223 
 
 departed from “the old Methodist platform on the subject 
 of slavery.”18 
 
 The alteration of the General Rule on Slavery was an im- 
 portant topic in abolition conferences. East Maine conference 
 declared that a change was necessary because “under the 
 joint influence of constitutional toleration, verbal defects of 
 the law, and laxity in the administration, two fifths of this 
 anti-slavery church has become one of the most hopelessly 
 pro-slavery ecclesiastical organizations in the land. This 
 moral apostacy in the Church South has preceded, if not 
 produced a gross demoralization of sentiment in all that 
 region, so that what was once bewailed as a terrible though 
 transient evil, is now boldly affirmed to be an equitable, 
 divine, and permanent institution.” They therefore asked 
 for such changes of the rule as would destroy all “sinful 
 slaveholding.”” But that this conference was not of the most 
 radical group is apparent from their resolution “That we 
 highly honor our Border brethren; that we sympathize with 
 them in their struggles; and that we solemnly pledge our- 
 selves to. prosecute our plans for the purity of our common 
 Zion by constitutional action in a conciliatory spirit.”!® 
 
 Maine conference was also convinced that the meaning of 
 the rule was not clear.2° These ministers were much more 
 radical and less considerate of border conferences for they 
 declared that while some harm might result to the “border 
 brethren,” they considered it expedient to seek the extirpa- 
 tion of slavery from the Church, and their delegates to the 
 General Conference were instructed to work towards that 
 end.24_ New England conference recommended that the 
 General Conference formulate a rule on slavery and submit 
 it to the various conferences for their approval.?? 
 
 The desire for a change of the slavery rule was almost 
 unanimous among northern conferences. Some of them pro- 
 fessed to believe that the rule as it was prohibited slavery, 
 yet they desired some kind of a change that would leave no 
 room for doubt on that point. One important step was 
 taken by many conferences to secure united action. A rep- 
 resentive from each body was appointed to correspond with 
 persons selected by other groups so that the largest measure 
 of co-operation might be obtained. 
 
224 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Resolutions are many times meaningless and inconse- 
 quential. But when, as a result of the adoption of a resolu- 
 tion, loss of prestige, property or numbers ensues, words are 
 more carefully weighed and debated from every angle. Such 
 was the situation in the years from 1858 to 1860. For the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church faced the possibility of serious 
 secessions from border conferences if a radical position on 
 slavery were decided upon. The action of the conferences, 
 therefore, upon the definite proposals submitted to them had 
 a real significance in one of the most crucial periods in the 
 history of the Methodist Church. 
 
 Five conferences: namely, New England, Providence, 
 Cincinnati, Erie and Minnesota, proposed specific changes in 
 the rule on slavery. That of Cincinnati conference was the 
 most conservative but was a distinct advance over the exist- 
 ing rule. The other four differed in wording but not at all 
 in purpose. Only the Providence and Erie suggestions met 
 with any considerable response. Each conference had the 
 support of twelve other conferences.?? But for no resolution 
 did three-fourths of the ministers vote, so that this method 
 of changing the rule had failed as before. 
 
 Against these proposed changes border conferences were a 
 unit. Southern Illinois conference declared slavery to be 
 “an unmitigated evil; approved the attempts being made in 
 Missouri and other states to destroy slavery in the Church 
 when it was done for mercenary purposes and asserted that 
 all slaveholders for gain should be expelled from the Church, 
 yet they resolved: “That we are satisfied with the discipline 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as it now is, on the sub- 
 ject of Slavery.”** They opposed all suggested changes and 
 asserted that the existing rule would “properly regulate, if 
 not entirely extirpate’’ the great evil. Finally they stated: 
 “Resolved, that we have implicit confidence in our brethren 
 in the border Conferences, that we deeply sympathize with 
 them in the persecutions which they are called to endure; 
 and, inasmuch as they are more interested in the subject than 
 any other portion of the church, that they should be per- 
 mitted to take the initiative in regard to any change which 
 may be considered necessary.” Delegates to General Con- 
 ferences were instructed to act “in harmony with the fore- 
 
The General Conference of 1860 225 
 
 going resolutions.”*> Kentucky conference refused to concur 
 in any of the proposed changes and their delegates were 
 “instructed to use their influence and cast their votes against 
 any change of the General Rule.’** Western Virginia con- 
 ference likewise defeated every attempt to alter the rule on 
 slavery.2* Baltimore conference declared that they were 
 “determined not to hold connection with any ecclesiastical 
 body which makes nonslaveholding a condition of member- 
 ship in the church.’ 
 
 In New York, two conferences stood with the border 
 ministers. New York conference voted, 75 to 65, against 
 the Providence resolution. One writer says that the negative 
 vote was returned because not enough ministers of other 
 conferences had voted for the proposed change to constitute 
 a legal majority. He assures us, however, that the confer- 
 ence elected “progressive’ men as delegates to the ensuing 
 General Conference. Dr. Bangs introduced a resolution 
 “instructing the delegates to vote against any change of the 
 rule on slavery” but this “was laid upon the table by a 
 decisive vote.’ The same writer again declared that “the 
 delegation from this conference” was “most decidedly pro- 
 gressive—some say slightly radical.”*° But no action indicat- 
 ing radicalism was taken on any subject connected with 
 slavery. 
 
 New York East conference had apparently joined the 
 ranks of the radicals. But the proposition to concur in any 
 of the suggested changes was definite. Prior to 1860 the 
 conference approved the Cincinnati resolution, but in that 
 year they voted to reject all proposals of other conferences.*° 
 That there was tremendous excitement in this body of min- 
 isters is evidenced by the action taken on a resolution asking 
 the General Conference “to devise such measures as shall 
 clearly prohibit all slaveholding for selfish or mercenary 
 purposes.” During the debate, Kettel, one of the members, 
 “affirmed most emphatically, that under God’s providence, 
 slavery in America had been the only thing which had el- 
 evated the negro race, and he was a bold man who would 
 dare deny it! In morals, health, and civilization, the slaves 
 were far above the free negroes.’%° On the first vote, the 
 resolution was lost, 91 to 88. Later enough members 
 
226 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 changed their votes so that the recommendation to the Gen- 
 eral Conference passed by one vote,®! yet the conference 
 failed to act in any effective manner on the subject before 
 them. 
 
 When the General Conference of 1860 met at Buffalo, the 
 Nation and the Church were in a turmoil. Political parties 
 were choosing their leaders for the coming campaign and it 
 seemed that some radical action would surely be taken by 
 the Church. An unprecedented number of memorials on 
 slavery were presented in favor of a change of the rule.*” 
 The majority of the Committee on Slavery,** which was, as 
 usual, composed of one member from each conference, 
 reported in favor of a rule which would forbid “The buying, 
 selling, or holding of men, women, and children with an 
 intention to enslave them.’’%* For almost two weeks it was 
 the subject of a spirited debate. A substitute motion, provid- 
 ing for the strict interpretation of the existing rule, was 
 tabled, 135 to 85.35 When the vote on the rule was finally 
 taken, it failed, 138 to 74, of having the necessary two-thirds 
 majority.24 Since the same and similar propositions had 
 failed to receive the votes of three-fourths of the ministers 
 in annual conferences there was no possibility of changing 
 the rule on slavery.*® 
 
 Since these attempts had ended in failure, abolitionists 
 sought to strengthen the chapter on slavery—which could 
 be done by a majority vote. In this they were successful, 
 for the so-called ‘“‘New Chapter” was adopted, 155 to 58. In 
 answer to the question as to what should be done “for the 
 extirpation of the evil of slavery,’ they answered: “We 
 declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the great 
 evil of slavery. We believe that the buying, selling, or hold- 
 ing of human beings, as chattels, is contrary to the laws of 
 God and nature, inconsistent with the Golden Rule, and with 
 that Rule in our Discipline, which requires all who desire to 
 remain among us to ‘do no harm, and to avoid evil of 
 every kind’. We therefore affectionately admonish all our 
 preachers and people to keep themselves pure from this great 
 evil, and to seek its extirpation by all lawful and Christian 
 means.”’%6 
 
 The reason for the conservatism of the delegates is ex- 
 plained by Brunson who says that “the brethren from the 
 
The General Conference of 1860 227 
 
 border conferences in which slavery existed, or from the 
 great commercial emporiums whose merchants dealt with 
 the South, and whose interests were as much with the South 
 as if they actually owned slaves themselves, strongly opposed 
 any change of our rules which were deemed an advance 
 toward the ultimate abolition of this ‘sum of all villanies’; 
 not because they really favored the system themselves but 
 because it was for the interest of the people they served, to 
 let the system alone, however much wrong it might do the 
 subjects of it, professing to view the evil as incurable.’’%? 
 Considerable pressure was brought to bear upon these dele- 
 gates to block all advanced legislation on the subject of 
 slavery, under threat of joining the Church, South; and a 
 like compulsion was exerted upon the delegates from aboli- 
 tion conferences, the members of which, in many instances, 
 threatened to join a more anti-slavery Church if radical 
 action were not taken.?® 
 
 Having made this radical change in the chapter on slavery, 
 the General Conference became fearful lest they actually had 
 done something that would alienate border conferences from 
 the Church. So, by an almost unanimous vote, they pro- 
 ceeded to nullify the New Chapter by deciding that it “ ‘was 
 in itself so clearly declarative and advisory as not to need 
 any explanation.’ It had not, therefore, the force of law.’ 
 The threats of Baltimore and other conferences had had 
 their influence in the counsels of the highest legislative body 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 The results of the General Conference satisfied neither 
 radical abolitionists nor conservatives in slaveholding states. 
 The majority report of the committee on slavery was 
 approved by most northern conferences and the New Chapter 
 was fairly well supported. But New England conference, 
 while commending the advance of abolitionism in the Confer- 
 ence, regretted that a change had not been made “so clearly 
 prohibiting the practice of slaveholding that neither delin- 
 quents should be able to escape its penalty, or the different 
 authorities of the Church to give to it diverse interpretations, 
 as seems now to be the case.”49 And Providence conference, 
 while approving the New Chapter, expressed the fear that 
 bishops and other leaders would evade the New Chapter and 
 
228 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 contravene the will of the majority of the General Confer- 
 ence and of the members of the Church.*4 
 
 Along the border, conferences sought either to interpret 
 the General Conference action in such a manner that it was 
 completely nullified or else attempted to secure the repeal of 
 the chapter. Southern Illinois conference rejoiced that the 
 Methodist Church had always taken anti-slavery ground and 
 had protested continuously against slavery. But they also 
 asked the “brethren everywhere, to frown upon all attempts 
 for the forcible dissolution of the relation between master 
 and slave, which, by the sanction of municipal law, exists in 
 the slaveholding States of this Confederacy.” On the other 
 hand, they demanded the right of free speech on the subject 
 of slavery. Relative to the action of the General Conference 
 of 1860 they said that, while they had been opposed to any 
 change of the Discipline on the question of slavery, they 
 would submit to the General Conference decision. As to 
 the effect of the New Chapter they asserted “that in view of 
 the advisory character of the new chapter on slavery, we 
 regard it as really more lenient to our brethren, who are 
 unhappily connected with slavery, than were the provisions 
 of the former chapter.” They were therefore opposed to 
 the secession of any annual conference as a result of this 
 legislation.*? 
 
 The Baltimore conferences were in open rebellion. A 
 meeting of laymen, in June, 18600, refused to obey the law 
 of the Church, since they considered it “injurious to the 
 Church of God” among them. ‘They expressed the desire 
 that the former rule might still prevail.48 In December of 
 the same year a convention of laymen met in Baltimore. 
 They declared in favor of peace; repudiated the action of 
 the General Conference; and requested Baltimore and other 
 border conferences to secede from the Church. The confer- 
 ences of the Church were given until December 14, 1861 to 
 call a General Conference for the purpose of repudiating the 
 action of 1860.44 That the sentiment of the section around 
 Baltimore was almost unanimously opposed to the action of 
 the General Conference was the opinion of the editor of the 
 Baltimore Christian Advocate, who said: “The difference of 
 opinion among us is not serious in kind or extent. There 
 
The General Conference of 1860 229 
 
 are a few who approve the action of the General Conference. 
 But, as far as we know, they might hold a mass meeting in 
 an omnibus, and give seats to spectators.’ 
 
 The first meeting of Baltimore laymen was a warning to 
 northern Methodist leaders that secessions from the Church 
 would be very serious unless something were done to pacify 
 border Methodists. It was for the purpose of preventing 
 another rupture of the Church that The Methodist was estab- 
 lished at New York. In the very first number, the editor 
 took occasion to re-affirm the statement of the General Con- 
 ference that the New Chapter was only advisory and that 
 “mere advice’ was not “a sufficient cause for revolution.” 
 The threatened secession was of such a nature that it was 
 believed impossible to justify it before God or the people.*® 
 
 The panic of northern leaders is most easily seen at Balti- 
 more conference, which met in March, 1861. During this 
 conference certain questions were submitted to Bishop Scott, 
 the presiding officer, for authoritative answers. He was 
 asked whether there was anything in the Discipline to 
 prevent the ordination of a local preacher who held slaves; 
 whether there was anything in the Discipline by which a 
 slaveholder could be excluded from the Church, and whether 
 there was anything in the law of the Church which justified 
 an administrator in arraigning a slaveholder as a sinner. All 
 these questions were answered in the negative. The fourth 
 question was whether there was any process authorized by 
 the Discipline by which a member could be brought to trial 
 if he held slaves for gain. Scott replied: “I know of no 
 such process.” The fifth question read: “Is the New Chap- 
 ter to be regarded as containing the doctrine and belief of 
 our Church on slavery?’ Scott answered: “The Chapter 
 contains an admonition, and from its position in the Disci- 
 pline claims to be regarded as expressing the doctrine of the 
 church on slavery.” Then the conference asked: “Is not 
 every man a sinner against God, and the laws of nature, and 
 the precepts of the Bible, who holds a slave in the sense of 
 the New Chapter’” Scott diplomatically replied: “He is, 
 in the sense of the Discipline, whatever that sense is.” The 
 last question read: “Is it not, under the Discipline, the duty 
 of every member of the church to engage in active efforts 
 
230 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 for the abolition of slavery?” And Scott answered emphati- 
 cally: ‘“‘Not more under the present than under the former 
 Discipline.”’47 
 
 But if Scott and other bishops hoped to save this confer- 
 ence for the Church they failed miserably. Whether because 
 they were disgusted at the equivocal answers of Bishop Scott 
 or feared that the laymen would support them in no action 
 short of secession is not certain, but the ministers protested 
 against the action of the General Conference,*® and, by a 
 vote of 87 to 1, declared themselves “separate and independ- 
 ent” from the Methodist Episcopal’ Church. Armstrong 
 says they redeemed the promise which had repeatedly been 
 made to their people that they would not submit to the 
 domination of radical abolitionists. Forty-one refused to 
 vote.*? Had it not been for the “judicious” rulings of Bishop 
 Scott it is probable that the whole conference would have 
 withdrawn from the northern Church.°° 
 
 Those who withdrew did not immediately join the Church, 
 South. They even claimed to be a part of the northern 
 Church. Their hope was that other conferences would join 
 them and thus form the real Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 The bishops were asked to repudiate the action of the Gene- 
 ral Conference of 1860.°! Only a few conferences seem to 
 have considered the recommendation. Upper lowa confer- 
 ence condemned the “spirit of disloyalty and secession mani- 
 fested by the Baltimore Christian Advocate’ and _ its 
 supporters, and declared that if the New Chapter did not 
 express the sentiments of the people in the neighborhood of 
 . Baltimore, they were “forced to conclude that they” were 
 “anti-slavery only in name.”°? Minnesota conference passed 
 the resolution: “That we decidedly, unreservedly and per- 
 petually non-concur.”°? These are but typical of resolutions 
 passed by several northern conferences.*4 
 
 Just how this situation would have developed under 
 normal conditions can not be determined. For the Civil War 
 cut off most southern ministers so that they could not attend 
 the conference at Baltimore in March, 1862. As a result, 
 only about fifty members, part of whom had approved the 
 action of the previous conferences, met under the presidency 
 of Bishop Janes. All affirmed their allegiance to the north- 
 
The General Conference of 1860 231 
 
 ern Church and “by resolution, declared the majority, absent 
 thus compulsorily, withdrawn, by a vote of 22 to 11.” The 
 southern faction continued to meet annually in Virginia, and 
 after the war voted to join the Church, South. Thus the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church lost “one hundred and eight 
 travelling and fifty-seven local preachers, and nearly twelve 
 thousand members.’’®® 
 
 Outside of the Baltimore conferences, the most serious 
 secessions were in Philadelphia, Western Virginia and 
 Southern Illinois conferences. In the first, Bishop Janes 
 had to use the utmost discretion and tact in placing ministers, 
 and even then many withdrew from the Church.°® In West- 
 ern Virginia conference a close friend of Bishop Simpson 
 wrote that he did not believe that some members would 
 remain with the Church until 1861.57 Some ministers in 
 Illinois also withdrew and, in 1866, were received into the 
 southern Church.®® 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church had failed in its supreme 
 Opportunity to become an anti-slavery Church. Fearful lest 
 there might be some ministers and members who would 
 withdraw from the Church if the rule on slavery were made 
 to completely exclude all slaveholders from the denomination, 
 they continued “so to serve God as not to offend the Devil.” 
 But even then they were to fail in their purpose, for border 
 conferences, ministers and members joined the Church, 
 South, with whose principles they had all along been in the 
 fullest sympathy. The freeing of the Church from slavery 
 was to come by a radical and unnatural upheaval rather than 
 by revolutionary methods. 
 
 
 
 %. Minutes of the New England Conference, 1857, p. 26. Cf. Ibid., 
 1858, pp. 238-4. ° 
 
 Minutes of the New York Conference, 1858, p. 22. 
 
 Tbhid., 1860, p. 33. 
 
 The Liberator, Volume XXVII., p. 77, col, 5; May 15, 1857. \ 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXYV., p. 66, col. 6; April 28, 
 
 1858. 
 
 Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IV., p. 161, col. 5; 
 
 October 8, 1856. 
 
 Minutes of the Illinois Conference, 1859, p. 25. 
 
 Minutes of the Southern Illinois conference for 1856 and 1857. 
 
 Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IV., p. 179, col. 2; 
 
 November 5, 1856. 
 
 10. Ibid., Volume VII., p. 150, col. 5; September 21, 1859. 
 
 11. Minutes of the Delaware (Ohio) Conference, 1859, pp. 25-7. 
 
 12. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII, p. 50, col. 3; 
 March 28, 1860. 
 
 wer gh omer 
 
232 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 13. 
 14. 
 
 15. 
 16. 
 
 a hy 
 
 18. 
 19. 
 20. 
 21. 
 
 22. 
 23. 
 
 24, 
 25. 
 26. 
 
 27. 
 
 28. 
 
 31. 
 32. 
 
 Baltimore Christian Advocate, Volume IIL, p. 2, cols. 3-4; March 
 31, 1860. 
 
 Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 57, cols. 3-4; 
 April 11, 1860. 
 
 See the Minutes of the conference for 1859 and 1860. 
 
 The resolutions were adopted by the overwhelming vote of 220 to 
 14. 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., p. 47, col. 2; March 
 25, 1857. Cf. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., April 
 9, 1857. The figures in the two papers are not identical. 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., p. 81, col. 4; May 27, 
 1857. 
 
 Minutes of the East Maine Conference, 1860, pp. 14-16. 
 
 Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1856, p. 10. 
 
 Ibid., 1860, p. 14. 
 
 Minutes of the New England Conference, 1860, p. 18. 
 
 The General Conference Committee on Slavery reported the fol- 
 lowing votes on the three most popular resolutions: Cincinnati, 
 319 for and 1212 against; Providence, 1242 for and 1329 against; 
 Erie, 1795 for and 1416 against. On the Erie resolution the fol- 
 lowing conferences were overwhelmingly opposed: Baltimore, 149 
 to 0; California, 56 to 0; East Baltimore, 156 to 0; Kentucky, 16 
 to 0; Missouri, 42 to 0; New Jersey, 72 to 0; Southern Illinois, 80 
 to 0; Western Virginia, 72 to 0; Illinois, 115 to 24; Newark, 106 to 
 37; New York, 146 to 45; and Philadelphia, 169 to 8. (See Journal 
 of General Conference, 1860, p. 425, Appendix GG). 
 
 Minutes of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1858, p. 17. 
 
 Ibid, 1859, pp.. 32-3. 
 
 Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 50, col. 3; 
 March 28, 1860. 
 
 Ibid., Volume VII., p. 78, cols. 4-5; May 18, 1859. The opposition 
 of the conference to the Cincinnati resolution was based on the 
 belief that ‘“‘the amendment proposed - . is unauthorized by 
 apostolic practice; that it involves a wide departure from the 
 policy of the church, hitherto, as manifested down to recent periods 
 in the successive formation of new conferences on the border, 
 without intimation of any such change of rule; that it is to 
 conflict with the whole past history of Methodism, both in Englandg 
 and America; that the church, throughout the entire territory 
 where the proposed rule would have any application, is entirely 
 and decidedly opposed to its enactment; that the proposed rule is 
 needless, and therefore hurtful, threatening to other sections of our 
 Zion, as well as our own, a harvest of profitless questions and 
 abstractions, and regarding, as did our fathers, the present 
 General Rule in the Discipline as prohibiting all traffic in slaves 
 except for merciful purposes.’’ 
 
 Ibid., Volume VIII., p. 50, col. 2; March 28, 1860. Commenting 
 upon the action of the Baltimore conference, the editor said that 
 in all the history of the Church ‘“‘we have never conceded the right 
 of any man to hold another as property. We have always been 
 pledged to the work of extirpation, and regard the rebuke to a 
 wholesome agitation as at variance with the spirit of Methodism.” 
 
 . Ibid, p. 66, col 3; April 25, 1860. 
 30. 
 
 Ibid., cols. 3-4. The attitude of the Southern Church towards 
 such a speech may be seen from the statement of the editor of 
 the St. Louis Christian Advocate: “If that be conservatism, we would 
 like to know what our northern brethren mean when they talk 
 about the ‘pro-slaveryism’ of the Southern Church! In all our 
 life long we never heard a Southern Methodist preacher go further 
 than this.’” (Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVIL, p. 82, 
 col. 4; May 238, 1860). 
 
 Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 66, cols. 3-4; 
 April 25, 1860 and Ibid., p. 74, col. 4; May 9, 1860. 
 
 Journa] of General Conference, 1860, pp. 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 
 
The General Conference of 1860 233: 
 
 51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 79, 80 
 S21, 62,86, 88; 90, 91,)92,.98,° 99,200, etc, POON Te: 
 
 Memorials against a change in the rule were received from ‘33 
 conferences.’’ There were ‘137 memorials, signed, by 3,999 persons 
 and from 47 Quarterly Conferences.’’ On the other hand, memor- 
 ials from 33 conferences, ‘signed by 45,857 persons, and from 
 forty-nine Quarterly Conferences’”’ were received asking for the 
 extirpation of slavery. (Ibid., pp. 425-6). Of the memorials 
 against a change of the rule, 28 were received from within the 
 bounds of the Genesee conference. (Journal of General Conference, 
 pp. 39, 44, 45, 50, 59, 77). 
 
 . Calvin Kingsley was Chairman (Ibid., p. 26). 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1860, p. 216. Cf. Bennett, History 
 
 of Methodism in Wisconsin, pp. 187-8; and Ridgeway, Life of 
 Bishop Janes, pp. 236-7. 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1860, pp. 220-22, 517-22. 
 
 . Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, pp. 187-8. 
 
 . Brunson, A Western Pioneer, Volume II., pp. 282-8. 
 
 . Ibid, pp. 283-4. 
 
 . Ridgeway, The Life of Bishop Janes, p. 237. Cf. Journal of: 
 
 General Conference, 1860, pp. 261-2. The vote on this resolution 
 was 175 to 6. 
 
 . Minutes of the New England Conference, 1861, p. 26. 
 
 . Minutes of the Providence Conference, 1861, p. 27. 
 
 . Minutes of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1860, pp. 30-31. 
 
 . Minutes and Annals of the Baltimore Conference (now of the 
 
 M. E. Church, South). During the years 1862-66, Chapter L., p. 4, 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., December 27, 1860. 
 Mmibid. | hulyay 12." 1860), 
 
 . Crooks, The Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 363. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 56, col. 5; April 5, 1861. 
 
 . Baltimore Conference Hand-Book, pp. 97-9. Found at Randolph- 
 
 Macon. 
 
 . Minutes and Annals of the Baltimore Conference, Chapter I., p. 4. 
 
 Cf. Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 283-4. 
 
 . Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, p. 244. Scott had the whole- 
 
 hearted support of Janes on all the answers to the questions 
 submitted. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 186-7. 
 . Minutes of the Upper Iowa Conference, 1860, p. 27. 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 347, col. 33 
 
 October 30, 1861. 
 
 . Minutes of New Hampshire, Vermont, Troy and East Genesee 
 
 conferences have been consulted on this point. East Baltimore 
 conference suggested that the regulations be left to each confer-. 
 ence but none but border conferences approved the proposal. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 187. 
 . Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, pp. 244-5. 
 
 . Crooks, The Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 363. 
 
 . Myers, The Disruption of the M. EB, Church, p. 187. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII 
 
 SLAVEHOLDING IN THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 Charges had been freely made by the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, South, that the northern Church was as fully pro- 
 slavery as itself. It may be said in defense that it takes 
 time to break away from the traditions of the past and that 
 northern Methodists were coming to a position of antago- 
 nism to slavery as rapidly as possible. The fact that the 
 General Conference of 1848 made no attempt to destroy 
 slavery may be explained by saying that Church leaders were 
 intent upon the more pressing questions of the division of 
 the Church funds and the intrusion of southern Methodists 
 into northern territory. But after 1850 no such excuses 
 were valid. Whether or not slaveholding was practiced 
 among the membership and ministry of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church, the territory in which it was prevalent, and 
 the number of slaves held by Methodists are the topics to be 
 discussed in the present chapter. 
 
 That the Discipline of the Church permitted slaveholding 
 was generally recognized in the North and joyously affirmed © 
 by the South. Vermont conference confessed the fact “with 
 shame and sincere sorrow of heart.’ The editor of the True 
 Wesleyan declared that the Discipline of the northern Church 
 explicitly admitted that slaves were in bondage to Methodists, 
 and in proof cited the rule: “All our preachers shall enforce 
 upon our members the necessity of teaching their slaves to 
 read the word of God.” In 1857, Long insisted that, while 
 three-fourths of the membership, lay and clerical, were anti- 
 slavery, they had a pro-slavery Discipline which permitted 
 members “in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia to hold for 
 gain, to give away, and transmit by will to their heirs, as 
 chattels personal, souls for whom Christ died. The slaves 
 can be sold for their debts at any time. They can give them 
 away to relatives, who can sell them to the negro buyer at 
 
 234 
 
Slaveholding in the Methodist Episcopal Church 235 
 
 pleasure; and do all this according to the Discipline of the 
 church; and they cannot be expelled for it.’ 
 
 Before the General Conference of 1856 Dr. Watson, editor 
 of the Northwestern Christian Advocate, had predicted that 
 some decisive action on the question of slavery would be 
 taken by that body.* After the adjournment of that Confer- 
 ence, he maintained that the delegates were unanimously 
 anti-slavery and that the “expressed will of the Church at 
 the late General Conference” was: “Any person holding a 
 human being as a slave, is a sinner, and ineligible to 
 membership.” But the editor of the Nashville Christian 
 Advocate cited the fact that there were many slaveholders in 
 the northern Church to prove that Watson’s statement was 
 unreliable.» The very fact that, during the next four years, 
 abolitionists employed every possible method to secure a 
 change of the rule on slavery is conclusive proof that the 
 tule of 1856 was not sufficient to exclude all slaveholders 
 from the Church. 
 
 It is true that the “New Chapter” was adopted by the 
 General Conference of 1860, but its force was completely 
 nullified by interpretations given by the Conference and 
 bishops. Bishops Simpson, Janes and Scott did all that was 
 possible to protect slaveholders in border conferences, lest 
 these members be lost to Methodism. Bishop Scott’s official 
 interpretation of the New Chapter before Baltimore confer- 
 ence confirms the conclusions of radicals that the Discipline 
 did not forbid slaveholding. 
 
 The General Conference and bishops were not alone in 
 the opinion that the Discipline permitted slaveholding. Again 
 and again, abolition conferences condemned the rules of the 
 Church because they favored slaveholders. Even after the 
 General Conference of 1860 the fear was expressed that the 
 New Chapter would be so construed by bishops that slave- 
 holding could continue among members of the Church as it 
 had previously. Among border ministers there was no 
 question that the Discipline permitted members and local 
 preachers to hold slaves. And the majority of the General 
 Conference stirred them to such an extent that they 
 threatened to withdraw unless the legislation were rescinded. 
 
 Thus far we have considered the possibility of Methodists 
 
236 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 holding slaves in border conferences and yet being in con- 
 formity with the Discipline. That slaveholding was the rule 
 among well-to-do border Methodists was freely charged. 
 Speaking of this section of the country, one minister affirmed: 
 “Many of the stewards are slaveholders. To a great extent 
 this office is represented by the moneyed men in the Church 
 —the large holders of property. One half of the whole 
 number of stewards on those districts are probably slave- 
 holders. . .Exhorters, leaders and local preachers are 
 slaveholders.”* Long mentions two Methodists who died 
 in 1855 and 1856 who left from twenty-five to thirty slaves 
 in bondage for life? J. G. D. Pettijohn, a member of 
 North Indiana conference, testified that he had seen a class 
 leader of the Church buy a slave girl. The official refused 
 to listen to the mother who begged that her only remaining 
 child should not be separated from her.2 H. C. Atwater, 
 of Providence conference, declared that border Methodists 
 were opposed to abolitionists and anti-slavery movements 
 of any kind. “Jt matters not how many slaves a man owns, 
 it is no objection to his becoming a member of these mission 
 churches. . . .Ihousands of slaves are held without a 
 word of rebuke by the membership, in six of the Confer- 
 ences of the Northern Church.’”® And the editor of Zion’s 
 Herald, commenting upon the statement circulated after the 
 General Conference of 1852 that the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church was free from “mercenary slaveholding,” said that 
 “there never was a grosser mistake—o call it by no graver 
 name.’® 
 
 The connection of the ministry with slavery was still more 
 emphatically maintained. “Slaveholding in the ministry is 
 the rule,” said the editor of the Northern Independent, “non- 
 slaveholding the exception. We let all our preachers hold 
 slaves, if they will consent to be local and unordained. We 
 will consent to ordain them, and let them travel, slaveholders 
 though they be, if wicked slaveholders are disposed to make 
 a law forbidding emancipation. . . .It is a well-known 
 fact that many of our local preachers are slaveholders. No 
 intelligent man will presume to deny this statement. There 
 never has been any objection to local preachers holding 
 slaves: the practice is as free to them as to any other 
 
 
 
Slaveholding in the Methodist Episcopal Church 287 
 
 anember of the Church.’?° A free colored local preacher 
 sold a slave, simply because he had run away, and yet his 
 license was not taken from him. Atwater asserts that 
 absolutely no check was put upon slaveholding “travelling” 
 preachers.? . 
 
 The editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate challenged 
 Bishop Simpson and Dr. McClintock, who, as delegates to 
 the British Conference had declared that the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church was free from slavery, to deny that there 
 were “many slaveholders and slaveworkers among the private 
 members, and official members, and ministers of the Northern 
 division of the M. E. Church.”® The editor of the Nashville 
 Christian Advocate declared that there were hundreds of 
 members, “including official members and ordained preachers” 
 who owned slaves for the same reason that southern slave- 
 holders did—namely, that it was profitable. Preachers in 
 Maryland and Virginia refused to exclude slaveholders from 
 the Church, and even when they were voluntary slaveholders 
 they were not brought to trial.1* In answer to a statement 
 of Gilbert Haven that the northern Church had refused to 
 establish fraternal relations with the Church, South, in 1848 
 because Southern Methodists held slaves and defended the 
 practice, the same editor wrote Bishop Morris: “You have 
 this day many large slaveholders in your division of the 
 Church. You know that in Maryland and Virginia, you have 
 hundreds, yes, thousands of members who hold slaves; that 
 you have ordained to the office and work of the ministry 
 many a slaveholder.’ 
 
 It was maintained that there were seven slaveholding 
 states, in which the Methodist Church was working, and in 
 which slavery was not prohibited among the members by the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church.14* In Philadelphia conference, 
 which included portions of Delaware, Maryland and Vir- 
 ginia, it was persistently stated that there were many slave- 
 holders.1® This conference refused to entertain charges 
 against the Rev. J. D. Long, apparently because they feared 
 that in condemning his book, “Pictures of Slavery,” unwel- 
 come disclosures might be made.1® March 30, 1860, Quinn, 
 a slaveholding member, was brought to trial on the charge 
 of “unministerial and unchristian conduct” because of his 
 
238 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 relation to slavery. After a very warm and acrimonious 
 debate, his character was passed, 86 to 81.17 Long wrote 
 that so far as Philadelphia conference was concerned “the 
 practical and administrative example and influence of the 
 Church” in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia was “‘to per- 
 petuate and extend slavery.’’48 The extent of the practice of 
 slaveholding may be seen from the statement of one observer 
 that in this conference alone there were fifteen hundred 
 slaveholders.?® 
 
 In the region around Baltimore a similar condition existed. 
 J. K. Peck asserted that a majority of the quarterly confer- 
 ence, of which he was a member for a year, “were slave- 
 holders for gain.’”*° A local preacher of Baltimore confer- 
 ence sold a slave to a slavetrader but remained a local 
 preacher; and a prominent member of the Church in the 
 same conference sold a mother and five children at public 
 auction. Of these slaves, one trader bought the mother and 
 one child while the rest were sold to other parties. And yet 
 these practices were not rebuked by ministers; in fact, the 
 authority for the incident asserts that some ministers told 
 their members that they might “buy as many slaves as they 
 could pay for.’’4 
 
 The situation does not seem to have been materially differ- 
 ent in Western Virginia. It was claimed that a northern 
 Methodist preacher of the region owned and sold slaves.”” 
 The editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate is authority 
 for the charge that a presiding elder of this section, and a 
 delegate to the General Conference of 1852, was a slave- 
 holder ‘‘to all intents and purposes.’”’ Another presiding 
 elder owned slaves in 1851 but sold them and kept the 
 money. With biting sarcasm Garrison wrote: “And yet 
 Northern Methodist ministers are continually representing 
 their Church as free from all taint of slavery.’’% 
 
 In Missouri, slaveholding was also practiced by northern 
 Methodists. The editor of the Nashville Christian Advocate 
 said that less than fifty of the five thousand five hundred 
 members of the northern Church in the state held slaves, 
 but he also maintained that many northern Methodists joined 
 the southern Church as soon as they arrived in the slave 
 state.24 The consistency of many northern Methodists may 
 
Slaveholding in the Methodtst Episcopal Church 239 
 
 be inferred from the statement of one southerner who 
 asserted that in his section of the country there were a 
 hundred of them who demanded a northern preacher, and 
 yet, said he, “every one of them that can raise the money 
 buys negroes and works them as hard as any Southern 
 planter.’’25 
 
 As to the number of slaveholders and slaves among the 
 members of the Methodist Episcopal Church there is con- 
 siderable variation in the estimates. In 1845 one writer 
 believed there were “about 80,000 slaves in the Methodist 
 Church in America, as members.” Five years later a 
 northern minister placed the number of slaveholders at four 
 thousand and the slaves at twenty-seven thousand.?’ In 
 1860, the editor of the Northern Independent declared that 
 there were thirty-five thousand slaves owned by northern 
 Methodists who were members in good and regular standing 
 and acknowledged as Christians.2* Still another anti-slavery 
 advocate wrote: “We speak of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, North, which Bishop Simpson and Dr. M’Clintock 
 stated, before the English Conference of 1857, to be free 
 from the stain of slavery, but which we are prepared to 
 show has at this moment (1860) some 15,000 slaveholders 
 in its communion, holding about 100,000 slaves. Our 
 object is not to make any man a liar, but to elicit the 
 truth.”28 Whether the writer was himself telling the truth 
 can not be determined. To reconcile the estimates is im- 
 possible. But one fact remains certain: that slaves were 
 held in considerable numbers by northern Methodist 
 members, officials and ministers, at least until 1864. 
 
 The condemnation visited upon the Advocates of Baltimore 
 and New York by abolitionists indicates that these papers 
 were either apologizing for, or sympathetic with, slave- 
 holders and slavery. Concerning the former there can be 
 no question at all; relative to the latter one incident gives 
 some indication of its attitude. In 1852 or 1853 a slave- 
 holder, Mr. George Gorsuch, was killed by his slave in 
 Pennsylvania. Subsequently, there was published in the 
 Christian Advocate and Journal a memoir of the deceased 
 in which it was asserted that Gorsuch was “one of the 
 brightest ornaments of the Church. A consistent, meek, 
 
240 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 and holy Christian, in the best and truest sense of the word.” 
 Of course, no editor would care to be held responsible for 
 the obituaries which appear in the columns of his paper! 
 But this statement was protested by a member of New York 
 East conference, who affirmed that to commend such a man 
 was “to insult the moral sense of nineteen-twentieths of the 
 M. E. Church.” The responsibility of Dr. Peck, the editor, 
 began at this point, for the protest was returned with a 
 refusal on his part to publish it.%° 
 
 Both southerners and abolitionists were quick to point 
 out that, so far as the practice of the two churches was 
 concerned, they were a unit in their attitude towards slavery. 
 One southern leader contended that the “preachers and 
 people of the Northern division of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church hold slaves as truly as those of the Southern 
 division.’31 The editor of the Nashville Christian Advocate 
 emphasized the fact that the southern Church was being 
 condemned for doing exactly what the northern Church was 
 continually practicing. Both communions had members who 
 were slaveholders; deacons and elders who owned slaves; 
 and ministers were chosen for their work in exactly the 
 same way in both Churches. Those of the northern Church 
 “were ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop. 
 Bishop Waugh, Bishop Morris and Bishop Janes, to my 
 certain knowledge, have each ordained slaveholders to the 
 office of deacon and elder. Where, then, is the difference?”®? 
 And the simple fact was—and many in the North were 
 ready to confess it—that there was no difference between a 
 slaveholder in the northern Methodist Church and one in 
 the Church, South. 
 
 Northern Church leaders had contended that they were 
 standing for a principle when they deposed Bishop Andrew; 
 when they refused fraternal relations with the southern 
 Church in 1848; and when they proclaimed that they repre- 
 sented the anti-slavery organization, while the Church, South, 
 was composed largely of slaveholders. But the editor of 
 the Northern Independent exploded this theory when he 
 wrote: “The question of principle does not divide the Church 
 North from the Church South, so far as its practice is 
 concerned. It is a question of quantity more than of quality 
 
Slaveholding in the Methodist Episcopal Church 241 
 
 —a question of retail versus wholesale. The Church South 
 does a wholesale business in human slavery; the North, a 
 retail business in this abomination. On the score of consis- 
 tency, the South has decidedly the advantage. It says that 
 slavery is a divine institution, and consequently takes it to 
 its bosom. The Church North says, ‘It is the vilest thing 
 that ever saw the sun,’ and yet refuses to thrust it out of 
 it communion.”%8 
 
 1. Minutes of the Vermont Conference, 1856, p. 15. 
 
 2. The Liberator, Volume XXIII, p. 159, col. 2; October 7, 1853. 
 
 3. Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, pp. 33-4. 
 
 4. Supra, pp. 209-10. 
 
 5. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XX., September 18, 1856. 
 
 6. Pullen, Blast of a Trumpet in Zion, p. 24. 
 
 7. Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, pp. 31-4. 
 
 8. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXII, p. 78, col. 3; May 16, 
 1855. 
 
 9. Quoted in The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 54, col. 3; April 5, 1861. 
 
 10. Ibid., cols, 3-4. 
 
 11. Pullen, Blast of a Trumpet in Zion, p. 26. 
 
 12. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XX., September 18, 1856. 
 
 13. The Liberator, Volume XXXI., pv. 54, col. 4; April 5, 1861. The 
 
 New Hampshire conference of 1846 had the same idea as Haven. 
 “That we consider it a matter of joy and of devout thanksgiving 
 and praise to God, that there is not a slaveholder in the travelling 
 ministry of the M. EH. Church of the United States of America.’’ 
 (Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1846, p. 15). 
 
 14. The Liberator, Volume XXIII., p. 159, col. 2; October 7, 1853. 
 There were eight slaveholding conferences in the northern Church: 
 namely, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Ohio, Western Virginia, 
 Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. (Ibid., XVIII., p. 154, cols. 3-4; 
 September 29, 1848). 
 
 15. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXIX., p. 98, col. 1: 
 June 23, 1858. 
 
 16. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIII., April 15, 1859. 
 
 17. Ibid., Volume XXTV., April 19, 1860. 
 
 18. Pullen, Blast of a Trumpet in Zion, pp. 23-4. 
 
 19. Ibid., pp. 17-19, 22. Cf. The Liberator, Volume XXII, p. 81, cols. 
 LaZr Maya leel soa. 
 
 20. Peck, Stevens answered in his appeal to the M. E. Church, p. 30. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume XXII., p. 81, cols. 1-2; May 21, 1852. 
 
 22. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., July 30, 1857. The 
 editor, on another occasion, related the story of a slave who had 
 been sold to a trader who took the negro further south. He 
 declared that this was the same slave who had been sold to a 
 brutal slave-trader by a Methodist preacher of the northern Church 
 a few years before. The character of this trader was likened to 
 that of Legree in “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.’’ The slave had been 
 handcuffed while the preacher looked on. The editor commented: 
 “The church south don’t do such things, It would not tolerate 
 such a slave-holder in its communion an hour.’”’ (Nashville and 
 Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XVII, September 8, 1853). 
 
 23. The Liberator, Volume XXII., p. 81, cols. 4-5; May 21, 1852. 
 
 24. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., February 23, 1860. 
 
 25. Ibid., Volume XIV., No. 17; February 22, 1850. 
 
242 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 26. The Liberator, Volume XV., p. 73, col. 8; May 9, 1845. The 
 article is quoted from the Glasgow Argus of March Yo, 1845. Henry 
 C. Wright of Philadelphia was the author. 
 
 27. Parker Pillsbury’s statement in The Liberator, Volume XX., p. 24, 
 col. 3; February 8, 1850. 
 
 28. The Liberator, Volume XXX., p. 119, cols. 3-4; July 27, 1860. 
 
 29. Pullen, Blast of a Trumpet in Zion, p. 8. 
 
 30. Thids\ ppsvaT=18i Oren tne Liberator, Volume XXII., p. 81, cols. 
 1-2; "May 21, 1852. 
 
 31. The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 54, col. 3; April 5, 1861. 
 
 32. Ibid., col. 4. 
 
 33. Ibid., cols. 3-4. 
 
CHAPTER XIX 
 
 SOUTHERN METHODISM AND SLAVERY 
 
 The decade preceding the Civil War witnessed the consum- 
 mation of the desires of the pro-slavery party in the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Slight though the 
 restraints of the Church had been which kept the pro-slavery 
 extremists within certain bounds, even these were thrown 
 aside as soon as it became expedient to do so. Gradually 
 but surely the defense of the conservative party was broken 
 down and the southern Church came to be an important 
 bulwark of the pro-slavery party. 
 
 The two parties in the South—conservative and extreme 
 pro-slavery—were composed of earnest and devout men. 
 The attitude of the former group was maintained in the 
 face of threats of radical southerners. A correspondent of 
 the Holston Christian Advocate declared that Methodists in 
 the South never had been and were not then pro-slavery in 
 their sentiments. They disapproved the system of slavery 
 but accepted it as “necessary and unavoidable” for their 
 section. Another writer said that in Missouri there were 
 no slave-traders among Methodist ministers, and that he 
 knew of only one case in which a minister had bought a 
 slave and then it was a case of Christian benevolence.? 
 Always, southern Methodists returned to the teachings of 
 Bible characters—especially Paul—to show that, in not seek- 
 ing the utter destruction of slavery, they were following in 
 the footsteps of those worthies.? 
 
 The ultra party of the Church, South, condemned the 
 principles of abolitionists in both North and South. South- 
 ern Methodists did not tamely submit to denunciations by 
 ultra-abolitionists of the Garrisonian school. The condemna- 
 tion of the churches by Theodore Parker* was scarcely more 
 scathing than that heaped upon abolitionists by Dr. Baker of 
 the Nashville Christian Advocate. He undoubtedly repre- 
 sented a large number of southerners who considered north- 
 
 243 
 
244 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 ern radicals hypocritical and ignorant of the divine plan for 
 the negro race. Northern abolitionists had kept the nation 
 in an uproar through Congress; they were destitute of 
 truth, and Frederick Douglass, Garrison and others, having 
 rejected the Bible, were to be classed as infidels. Self- 
 interest was declared to be the reason for the exertions of 
 abolitionists, “For the abolitionist,’ said Baker, “steals 
 negroes for pay and takes their labor for nothing. He lectures 
 for the luxury of beholding rosy cheeked damsels weep, 
 and that chicken-pie and plum-pudding may vanish before his 
 voracious appetite.’’® 
 
 Not only were Garrisonian radicals condemned but publica- 
 tions of the northern Church were also censured. A meet- 
 ing at Bothesville, Virginia, passed a resolution against 
 official northern Methodist papers because they had “become 
 abolition sheets of the rankest character,” and they asked 
 attorneys and post-masters of the state “to examine them, 
 and'if found to be of unlawful character, to deal with them 
 and their agents as the laws of our State direct.’”® 
 
 After the northern General Conference of 1856, when the 
 Tract Society was instructed to publish anti-slavery docu- 
 ments, the editors of Advocates at Charleston and Richmond 
 withdrew their support from this organization. The Tract 
 Society had resolved “to treat of ‘the moral evils and 
 vices which slavery is known to promote,’ as it would other 
 vices and evils.”? Dr. Lee declared that the Tract Society had . 
 outlived its usefulness so far as the South was concerned. 
 “For years we have commended and co-operated with this 
 Society. We considered it American, and believed it Christian. 
 It ceases in both respects; it has become sectional in char- 
 acter and abolitional in its objects. As at present consti- 
 tuted, it is an enemy of the South. The Philistines have con- 
 quered it, changed it, subsidized it to their disorganizing and 
 vicious objects; denuded it of its virtues, and debauched it 
 by a union with the most graceless and brazen-faced ism of 
 the day.’ . 
 
 For those Methodists who opposed the pro-slavery tendency 
 of the southern Methodist Church and people, the ultra par- 
 ty had nothing but contempt and persecution. —Two Wesleyan 
 preachers, Crooks and McBride, were driven from North 
 
Southern Methodism and Slavery 245 
 
 Carolina by pro-slavery mobs because they preached 
 against slavery to audiences composed of people who were 
 sympathetic with their cause.2 The editor of the Richmond 
 Christian Advocate condemned some abolitionists in North 
 Carolina for their work among the slaves and asserted that 
 the southern Church was sending the Gospel to the negroes 
 as fast as possible.2 By a Virginia paper, Baltimore con- 
 ference ministers were considered “‘the most deadly foes” to 
 southern institutions and it recommended that they be 
 expelled from the state and that the southern Methodist 
 Church commence work in towns and cities of Virginia 
 where the northern Church was then established. “Let the 
 good work commenced continue till the whole valley and 
 western portion of Virginia are cleansed of the foul leprosy 
 of anti-slavery Methodism.’”?° 
 
 If pro-slavery advocates condemned the propagandists 
 from the North, they were still more incensed at those of 
 their own number who refused to accede to their demands. 
 In Mississippi when seven members of Mississippi confer- 
 ence voted against striking out the rule on slavery in the 
 Discipline, several papers demanded to know who the seven 
 “negro worshippers” were. They promised “advertisement 
 free of cost” so that they should be “known all over the 
 country.” 
 
 That southern Methodist leaders were one with pro- i avuey 
 men there seems to be no doubt. Lee held that slavery was 
 approved by the Bible and protected by the Constitution, and 
 that it had advanced civilization here more rapidly than in 
 any other country. On the other hand, abolitionism was 
 held responsible for retarding the progress of the nation.** 
 When Dr. Smith delivered an address at the southern Gene- 
 ral Conference of 1854 in favor of slavery, one southern 
 editor wrote that it was “a most masterly defense of the 
 south and her institutions.”48 Another southerner inter- 
 preted Wesley’s “Thoughts on Slavery” as being opposed, 
 not to the domestic slave trade, but to the African slave 
 trade only.14 And when South Carolina conference followed 
 the precedent established by the General Conference of 1808 
 and used the Discipline without the section on slavery, the 
 Southern Christian Advocate approved. “The souls of men 
 
246 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 are more important than the dead letter of an obsolete law. 
 Nay, the very respect for the Constitution of the Church, 
 embodied ir the Discipline which all of us ardently desire 
 to see maintained and deepened, demands that the dead fly 
 in the pot of precious ointment should. be got out of it, at 
 all hazards—by the conservative power of an Annual Con- 
 ference brought up in an emergency for self protection, tf 
 by no other means.”’}* 
 
 So pro-slavery did the southern Church become that the 
 editor of the Memphis Advocate was accused of favoring 
 the slave trade, although he was supposed to have advised 
 that it was “well to have pens to put slaves in before sold, 
 rather than have them kept out of doors exposed to the 
 weather and, of course, liable to damage in their health, good 
 looks, etc., in consequence of such outdoor exposure.’’!® 
 Elliott declared that the southern Methodist Church was 
 decidedly pro-slavery. In proof he cited an advertisement 
 of an auctioneer in an official paper. This auctioneer desired 
 to sell all kinds of property, including slaves. Said Elliott: 
 “Can there longer remain a doubt in the mind of any one 
 as to the position of this Church on the subject of human 
 bondage, when, as in the above instance, her official organs 
 advertise for sale in market, like beasts of the stall the souls 
 and bodies of men, women and children! No marvel that 
 they expunge the old Methodist rule.’’2” 
 
 With a large number of the leaders, both within and 
 without the Church, pro-slavery in their sentiments, it was 
 only natural that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
 should seek the elimination of the Disciplinary rule on 
 slavery. The General Conferences of 1846 and 1850 refused 
 to act on such a change because they feared that border 
 conferences might return to the fold of the northern Church. 
 But during the decade prior to the Civil War southern 
 leaders became increasingly desirous of extirpating the 
 section of the Discipline which forbade slaveholding of any 
 kind. 
 
 The action of official conferences of the Church, South, 
 shows an unmistakable trend towards the extreme pro- 
 slavery position. In 1854, the General Conference made a 
 determined effort to strike out the rule on slavery. But 
 
Southern Methodism and Slavery 247 
 
 they lacked seven votes of the constitutional two-thirds to 
 make such action valid.18 Therefore the rule remained in 
 the same words as in 1846;'* and precisely as it was in the 
 Discipline of the northern Church, both before and after 
 the division took place. But that the sentiment was very 
 strong against the retention of the rule may be inferred from 
 the interpretation put upon it by the Conference; namely, 
 that it referred to the foreign slave trade only. In this 
 action they were undoubtedly supported by the secular press 
 of the South. One editor wrote: “The Methodist Church 
 has thus placed itself upon scriptural foundations upon this 
 subject, and deserves, and will receive the commendation of 
 the southern people for its bold and manly assertion of the 
 apostolic doctrine upon this vexed question in the face of the 
 insane clamors of wild fanaticism which has substituted its 
 puling philanthropy for the Word of God.’’?° 
 
 In 1857, Alabama conference passed a resolution asking 
 the General Conference of 1858 to expunge the General Rule 
 forbidding the “buying and selling men, women and children 
 with an intention to enslave them,”*! and the bishops were 
 requested to present their memorial to the other conferences 
 for their approval.2* Western Virginia conference voted, 22 
 to 12, to expunge the rule?? The most serious opposition 
 was encountered in Kentucky conference, where the vote 
 was 43 to 18 in favor of retaining the rule.2* That the more 
 southerly conferences were almost unanimously for the 
 change is certain from the fact that, of the 1,471 votes cast, 
 only 311 were for non-concurrence.?> 
 
 With the sentiment so overwhelmingly for expunction of 
 the rule, the General Conference of 1858 proceeded to carry 
 out the wishes of the majority. The phraseology of the rule 
 was declared to be ambiguous, and it was feared that it 
 might “be construed antagonistic to the institution of slavery, 
 in regard to which the Church has no right to meddle, except 
 in enforcing the duties of masters and servants as set forth 
 in the Holy Scriptures.” .The committee urged that the 
 General Conference expunge the rule against slavery and 
 also withdraw their statement of 1854 that the rule applied 
 only to the foreign traffic in slaves. The General Conference 
 
248 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 responded to the recommendation of the committee by an 
 affirmative vote of 140 to 8.76 
 
 Owing to the fact that some conferences had not voted 
 on the proposed change previous to the General Conference, 
 the latter body considered it necessary to submit the change 
 to another vote of the annual conferences. That these readily 
 assented to the General Conference action may be easily 
 imagined. Even Kentucky conference reversed its vote of 
 the previous year and concurred in the expunction of the 
 rule by a large majority. When Stevenson attempted to 
 have a resolution passed in which the conference should go 
 on record against the African slave trade, it was declared 
 out of order since the General Conference resolutions 
 included an abrogation of their statement of 1854 that the 
 rule applied only to the African slave trade. One man 
 asked for the privilege of protesting against the expunction 
 of the rule and of having his protest entered in the “Jour- 
 nal” of the conference. This was permitted, and in 1859 the 
 Rev. D. Wilburn presented his reasons against the elimina- 
 tion of the rule from the Discipline.?? 
 
 Of the minority who stood so staunchly against further 
 concessions to the pro-slavery party, the Rev. D. Stevenson 
 was one of the most prominent. He opposed the change in 
 the rule because he said the southern Church had virtually 
 pledged itself not to make any further concessions to slavery ; 
 because, if this concession were granted, then more would 
 be asked of the Church by the pro-slavery party; the 
 language of the General Conference was considered “too 
 non-committal” on the question of re-opening the African 
 slave trade; and finally, if the interpretation of the rule made 
 in 1854 were correct there was no necessity for a change in 
 order to keep on good terms with slaveholders because that 
 trafic was outlawed by the United States Government. 
 Stevenson represented the few in the South who, just before 
 the Civil War, dared to defy slaveholders within and without 
 the Church. 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, had become 
 avowedly pro-slavery. That which had been done by the 
 Methodist Church in the South for three-quarters of a 
 century without the sanction of the Church was now pro- 
 
Southern Methodism and Slavery 249 
 
 claimed the official sentiment of the southern Methodist 
 Church. Just a half century after the General Conference 
 of 1808 passed the resolution by which the Discipline used in 
 South Carolina was not to contain the rule on slavery, the 
 General Conference of the southern Church completely de- 
 stroyed all opposition to slavery. 
 
 Se Pa See ee OS te oo cae 
 
 Nite dl Christian Advocate, Volume XVIII., p. 138, col. 7; August 
 7, 1851. 
 
 Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., No. 19; 
 May 15, 1851. 
 
 Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VII, p. 54, col. 7; April 
 6, 1859. 
 
 Supra, p. 209. 
 
 The Liberator, Volume XXIII., p. 125, col. 1; August 12, 1853. 
 Olmstead, Journeys and Explorations in the Cotton Kingdom, 
 Volume II., p. 140, footnote. ° 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., p. 90, col. 7; July 10, 
 1857. 
 
 The Liberator, Volume XXVII., p. 129, cols. 5-6; August 14, 1857. 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXII., p. 182, cols. 5-6; 
 November 14, 1855. Elliott asked, if this were true, why the 
 negroes were not taught to read the Bible, and why the whites 
 did not enforce marriage chastity among the slaves. 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 107-8, 
 . Ibid., pp. 108-9. 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 66, col. 5; 
 
 April 25, 1860. 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., p. 94, col. 3; June 14, 
 
 1854. Cf. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 37 
 
 _Ibid., Volume XXIIL, p. 162, col. 6; October 8, 1856. 
 . Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XVIITI., p. 209, cols. 1-2; 
 
 July 8, 1851. Cf. Southern Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., p. 
 26, cols. 3-4; July 19, 1850. 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXII., p. 27, col. 1; February 
 
 14, 1855. 
 
 . Ibid, Volume XXV., 102, col. 6: June 30, 1858. 
 | Nashville Christian Uivoonts: Volume XXIL, July 15, 1858. 
 : The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Hpiscopal Church, 
 
 South, 1854, p. 30. 
 
 . Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXV., p. 94, col. 5; 
 
 June 14, 1854. 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 108, 110, 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., p. 6, col. 7; January 
 
 14, 1857. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 162, col. 6; October 14, 1857. 
 . Stevenson, Journal, Volume I., pp. 152-3. In another source the 
 
 vote of Kentucky conference is given as 44 to 16 (Western 
 Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., p. 162, col. 6; October 14, 1857) 
 Stevenson’s whole attitude was very judicious; he was, moreover, 
 a careful observer. This difference is not important, but I am 
 inclined to accept his figures. 
 
 . Journals of the General Conference of the M. EB, Church, South, 
 
 26. 
 27. 
 
 1858, p. 443. 
 
 Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 110. 
 
 Stevenson, Journal, Volume I., pp. 160-63. Stevenson’s account is 
 worth preserving. He says “Ag secretary, I called the roll. Var- 
 fous members of Conference took occasion to explain their position. 
 While calling the roll I jotted down heads of such objections to 
 the expunction of the rule as occurred to me, and at the proper 
 time urged them. They were in substance these: First, that at 
 
250 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 the time of the division of the Church in 1844-5 we had virtually 
 pledged ourselves to retain the rule, affirming that it was not our 
 purpose to encourage a more pro-slavery spirit that then existed 
 in the Southern portion of the Church—Secondly, that I knew not 
 when we would end if we broke down the barrier to an extreme 
 pro-slavery sentiment—that some of the members of the recent 
 General Conference at Nashville had expressed themselves favor- 
 able to a re-opening of the African Slave trade, and that that 
 sentiment seemed to be spreading in the church, and that the 
 retention of the rule seemed to be necessary to prevent its pre- 
 vailing generally in the South; Thirdly, that the language of the 
 General Conference was too non-committal on that subject, and. 
 Fourthly, that we hitherto interpreted the rule to refer to the 
 African, and not to the domestic, slave trade, and that if that 
 interpretation was the true one, there could be no necessity for 
 the expunction of the rule, in order to avoid offending the sensi- 
 bilities of the members of the church who were involved in slave- 
 holding, so long as the African slave trade was prohibited by the 
 Constitution and laws of the land. In concluding my remarks— 
 which were more extended than those of any other member of 
 the Conference, I said that while I might not agree with all the 
 views of the people in the north, I certainly did not like the 
 tendencies in the South and that I had gone as far in a pro- 
 slavery direction, as I expected to go—‘Not another step will I go 
 in that direction,’ were, I think, my words. Had the rule not 
 been in the Discipline, I might probably not have been concerned 
 to have it there. But once there, and in view of our past and. 
 prospective history as a Church, I regarded the reasons given by 
 the enemies of the rule as insufficient for its expunction. 
 
 “The Conference had turned completely about in one year—The 
 vote being taken, resulted in showing a large majority in favor 
 of the expunction of the rule. Of course many of those who had 
 voted against its expunction the year before had, from some cause, 
 probably from the overwhelming influence of the General Confer- 
 ence vote and the position of the Church papers, been induced to 
 change their ground.”’ 
 
CHAPTER XX 
 
 THE NORTHERN INVADERS 
 
 The excitement among southerners—and especially Metho- 
 dists—because of northern Methodist attacks was intense. 
 But that which aroused the bitterest antagonism in the South, 
 both within and without the Methodist Church, was the 
 “invasion” of their territory by northern Methodists. Many 
 laymen migrated to the South and Southwest and in several 
 instances asked that northern preachers be sent to them. 
 The very fact that the northern Methodist Church claimed 
 to be anti-slavery led to the proscription of all members of 
 that denomination. Resolutions of New England and other 
 conferences were cited to show that northern Methodists 
 were as truly abolitionists as Garrison himself. 
 
 Radical Methodists in the North undoubtedly contributed 
 to the antagonism of southerners towards northern preachers 
 and: laymen in their communities. H. C. Atwater, of 
 Providence conference, condemned northern preachers in 
 Missouri because they were not as radical as himself. He 
 also urged that no more missionary supplies should be sent 
 to the Southwest until preachers from the North adopted 
 the most extreme anti-slavery principles. His statements 
 were published in a pro-slavery paper at Hannibal, Missouri, 
 and caused northerners considerable trouble Another 
 prominent Methodist abolitionist who aroused the wrath of 
 the pro-slavery element was William Hosmer, the editor of 
 the Northern Independent. His two chief contentions were 
 that slaveholders could not be Christians — provided that 
 slavery was a sin; and that a slave who refused to fight for 
 his independence and his rights was “not worthy ot free- 
 dom,” and could not be considered a Christian if he continued 
 in slavery after his conversion. Since this was an appeal to 
 the slaves to rise against their masters, members and 
 ministers of the northern Church naturally suffered as a 
 result.? 
 
 25% 
 
252 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was officially 
 opposed to the intrusion of northern preachers. Editors of 
 the Advocates at Charleston and Richmond urged that all 
 denominations hold the same views as the Methodist, and 
 suggested that no church with contrary views on the question 
 of slavery should be tolerated and supported by southern 
 people? Further, the views of Bishop Pierce were given 
 the widest publicity by the southern Methodist press. The 
 bishop suggested that there was plenty of room in their own 
 territory for northern preachers to work and that they ought 
 not to come where they were not wanted.* By 1860, Pierce 
 had become even more radical against northern Methodists. 
 Writing from California in October of that year, he declared 
 that they came “into the slave States as open, declared 
 enemies of the institutions of the people” and that according 
 to their own statement they could “not be faithful to God 
 without aiding and abetting runaway slaves. They must 
 sympathize with arson, blood, and murder, insurrection and 
 carnage.” Further he said: “For these reasons, abolitionists 
 can not and ought not to be tolerated in the Southern States. 
 No quarantine will justify their admission, no fumigation 
 can disinfect them. Rank, rotten with the foul virus of an 
 incurable disease, foes of God and man, spies and traitors 
 of their country and their kind, let them stay where they 
 belong!” 
 
 That leaders of the Methodist Episcopal Church who were 
 responsible for the missionary endeavor in the South and 
 Southwest had no intention of destroying slavery in that 
 section or assisting any slave to escape from his master is 
 beyond question. To meet the statements of radicals like 
 Atwater, Durbin wrote several articles for northern 
 Methodist papers. In these he maintained that “the apostles 
 admitted and retained slaveholders in the Churches which 
 they organized and governed; yet under a discipline sub- 
 versive of slavery”; and that the churches which followed 
 did likewise.6 Bishop Morris disclaimed all knowledge of, 
 or responsibility for, Atwater’s letter and the principles 
 which it set forth. He declared that, while the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church was “opposed to all sorts of wickedness” 
 —in which was presumably included slavery, although the 
 
The Northern Invaders 253 
 
 bishop did not specifically say that either he or his followers 
 were anti-slavery—they were always obedient to the civil 
 authorities. He asserted that the reason for sending northern 
 preachers into the South and Southwest was simply that 
 certain groups desired to bring salvation to as many sinners 
 as possible. ‘Whoever charges us with sending them for 
 any political or sinister purpose, or to accomplish any object 
 other than to feed the flock of Christ and save the souls of 
 the people, does us great injustice.’ Against the conten- 
 tion of Dr. Watson, editor of the Northwestern Christian 
 Advocate, that the work of the northern Church should be 
 discontinued in slaveholding states, Elliott asserted that this 
 was a most promising field and that the holding of these 
 places by the Methodist Episcopal Church kept the people 
 from becoming wholly pro-slavery.® 
 
 The hatred of southerners for northern preachers was 
 concentrated upon conferences which assembled in southern 
 territory, and upon the boldest missionaries. Thus there was 
 considerable opposition to the meeting of Kentucky confer- 
 ence in 1859. A correspondent of a radical pro-slavery 
 paper declared that the twenty-four ministers and two 
 thousand four hundred and ninety-six laymen were attempt- 
 ing to abolish slavery in the state. He therefore urged that 
 Methodists from the North should be driven out. The 
 editor of this paper, the Cynthiana News, approved the 
 suggestion of his correspondent. The ministers were called 
 a “band of incendiaries” who were meeting “for the purpose 
 of perfecting their plans of abolitionism.’”’ The editor con- 
 cluded: “We would as soon believe that the people of 
 Germantown would permit a convention of horse-thieves to 
 be held there, as allow men entertaining such unconstitu- 
 tional and traitorous principles, as those who belong to the 
 Conference. . . .The people in that section have driven 
 others out, and we hope they will give a cold reception to 
 this Northern Conference, which is headed. by Bishop 
 Simpson.” But, in this instance, the people refused to rally 
 against the northern Methodists.’ 
 
 In 1855, Missouri conference was to have met at Inde- 
 pendence. So great was the opposition to northern Metho- 
 dists that a public meeting was called and resolutions adopted, 
 
254 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 in which it was stated that it was deemed inexpedient for 
 the conference to assemble at that place because of its 
 nearness to Kansas and the consequent excitement, and that 
 if the meeting were persisted in they would refuse to be 
 responsible for the results which might follow. The minis- 
 ters therefore decided to hold the conference in St. Louis. 
 Scriptural authority for such a move was found by members 
 of Ebenezer Church in that city, who said the change would 
 be “in accordance with the pacific precept of the Great Head 
 of the Church to his first disciples—‘If they persecute you 
 in one city, flee to another.’ ”?° 
 
 A week before Arkansas conference met at Bonham, 
 Texas, on March 11, 1859, a meeting of citizens was held. 
 at Millerwood, where northern Methodists were censured 
 because they held principles “in violation of the laws of 
 their country.” A Bonham editor published an account of 
 the meeting and warned northern Methodists against a 
 possible visitation on the part of pro-slavery citizens. On 
 the first day of the conference, two southern Methodist 
 preachers, Dickson and Porter, were present “as observers, 
 spies, and reporters.” The following day, citizens of the 
 vicinity met in Bonham to consider their future action. 
 
 The purpose of the meeting was to condemn northern 
 Methodists as abolitionists and the conference as inimicable 
 to the interests of the South. Resolutions of northern con- 
 ferences were read to prove the radicalism of the northern 
 Church. Judge Roberts, a southern Methodist, asserted 
 that the two Methodist bodies differed only on the question 
 of slavery. While he said he “was not in favor of mob 
 law,’ yet the people were urged to deal with the situation 
 as it required. A southern minister, A. W. Brown, also 
 addressed the citizens and expressed his pleasure that decis- 
 ive action was about to be taken against a Church which, 
 he declared, was “abolition to the core.” A committee, of 
 which Judge Roberts was a member, drew up a preamble 
 and seven resolutions against the “secret foe’ which was in 
 the community. Since the teachings of the northern Church 
 were declared distasteful to that community, the northerners 
 were ordered to discontinue them. The motto of the group . 
 was ‘“‘Peaceably 1f we can, forcibly if we must,” and they 
 
The Northern Invaders 255 
 
 united to suppress the public or private expression of any 
 abolition doctrines in the community. A committee com- 
 posed of fifty people of whom Brown was one, was charged 
 with the responsibility of conveying the resolutions to the 
 Methodist conference. 
 
 Sunday morning, about two hundred pro-slavery men 
 rode to the church where the bishop was preaching the 
 sermon. They were “armed with revolvers and bowie- 
 knives,” thus giving the impression that they were ready to 
 take extreme action. Bishop Janes was interrupted, while 
 Judge Roberts read the resolutions of the meeting of the 
 previous day and commented upon them. The conference 
 was given only two hours to return an answer. The com- 
 pany then withdrew and the service continued. At its 
 conclusion, the conference decided to refer the question to 
 the laymen for their decision. The pro-slavery group was 
 informed of their decision and the southerners dispersed. 
 On the following day, the southerners re-assembled, heard 
 the report of the committee and listened to numerous 
 speeches. The burden of the remarks of some of the 
 speakers seemed to be that northern Methodists were suc- 
 ceeding in building up a stronger membership than that of 
 the Church, South.!! 
 
 As to the responsibility for the action taken against the 
 conference, southern pro-slavery men assumed that fully. 
 But they denied that the people composing the company 
 was in fact a mob. However, it is impossible to believe 
 that this “citizens’ meeting” was anything other than a mob, 
 even though it was composed of leaders of the community. 
 In the North, the southern Methodist Church was given 
 the credit for the insult to northern Methodists. Bishop 
 Janes did not blame the southern Church alone but only 
 to the extent that the Church approved and justified the 
 mob. He believed, however, that southern Methodist leaders 
 would “at least hold the clothes of those who threw the 
 stones.”’!* 
 
 It is true that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
 did not officially urge citizens of Texas to threaten Arkansas 
 conference. But that leaders of that Church ever raised 
 their voices against the mobs does not appear. - On the 
 
256 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 other hand, the editor of the Texas Christian Advocate 
 approved of everything that was done and said: “We did 
 do it, and should do it again; if that is mobocracy, all 
 concerned are welcome to make the most of it.’”4% And, 
 writing relative to this trouble and the protest of northern 
 Methodist papers, the editor of the Nashville Christian 
 Advocate advised: “Preach the gospel, brethren, the whole 
 gospel, and nothing but the gospel, and you will not be 
 molested anywhere. in the South. Confine yourself to this 
 one thing, and you are safe in Texas, It is not as gospel 
 ministers that you meet trouble, but as anti-slavery agitators 
 —as those who propose and pledge themselves to extirpate 
 a civil institution delicately and yet powerfully interwoven 
 with the structure of Southern society. A revival is what is 
 wanted, not an insurrection.”?4 
 
 It was especially upon individual ministers that south- 
 erners wreaked their vengeance.® In 1853, Charles F. 
 Kelly escaped from the penitentiary at Ft. Madison, lowa. 
 February 13, a Methodist minister, Charles H. Kelly, was 
 arrested at Chambersburg, Missouri, by a man named 
 Tradue, who claimed to be the Marshall of the State of 
 Missouri. Kelly was tied hand and foot, and, without being 
 given an opportunity to prepare for the journey, was 
 compelled to start on the trip to Fort Madison. A fellow- 
 minister finally persuaded the rufhans to permit him to give 
 Kelly additional clothing. Arriving at Fort Madison, the 
 Missourians took him to a hotel, where he was left in chains 
 until the following morning. When prison officials promptly 
 declared that his captors had the wrong man, Kelly was 
 released. From February to September, his health, as a 
 result of exposure and barbarous treatment, continued to 
 weaken, and on the seventeenth of the latter month, he died.1® 
 
 In 1849, Mark Robertson was appointed to Batesville, 
 Missouri. After the conference adjourned, Bishop Janes 
 received letters from Batesville, where a public meeting, 
 presided over by a southern Methodist, had protested against 
 the sending of another northern preacher to that charge and 
 declared that “if they did violence must follow, and they 
 must account for the blood shed.” Robertson had moved 
 two hundred miles to reach his appointment and determined 
 
The Northern Invaders 257 
 
 to stay. His first service was well advertised and he spoke 
 to a large audience. The following morning, the court seems 
 to have encouraged the pro-slavery element to meet. There 
 it was decided that Robertson must quit the country at once 
 —‘peaceably if he would, forcibly if need be.” When the 
 preacher refused to move voluntarily, he was not molested 
 during the remainder of the year. That he had many sup- 
 porters at this time appears from the fact that over one 
 hundred people joined his church in one year.1? 
 
 By 1853 the pro-slavery party had increased their attacks 
 upon Robertson. Mr. Cochran, editor of the Batesville 
 Eagle, had the active support of preachers and members of 
 the southern Methodist Church when he claimed that 
 Robertson was an abolitionist and interested in the under- 
 ground railroad, by which slaves were aided in escaping 
 from their masters. Robertson was refused permission to 
 correct the errors in the editor’s statement. The minister 
 revenged himself by publicly refuting the charges. Cochran 
 threatened to whip him, but his purpose was never carried 
 out.1® The following year, Robertson was still further 
 persecuted. John Cole, a presiding elder of the southern 
 Methodist Church, gave an address before three thousand 
 people to show that the northern Church was radically anti- 
 slavery. For three hours Robertson listened to Cole. An 
 unsuccessful attempt was made to keep him from replying 
 to this unjustifiable attack. The retort of Robertson to 
 Cole’s charges was that Cole had been an Englishman, had 
 later lived in the North and finally had come to Missouri. 
 Since he proved to be a “turncoat,” Robertson claimed that 
 it was probable that he was insincere in his statements. 
 Although there was a distinct lack of sound argument, the 
 people seemed to be satisfied with the reply. However, the 
 work of the northern Church did not prosper because many 
 members, convinced that they could not enjoy their privileges 
 under the Constitution, migrated to new territory “or” 
 returned to their former homes.!9 
 
 Robertson had been threatened with severe punishment if 
 he did not leave the country. In 1855, W. H. Wiley was 
 actually run out of the country because he was a minister of 
 the northern Methodist Church. John A. Tuggle, a member 
 
258 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 of the southern Methodist Church, declared that Wiley had 
 made certain statements in a private conversation relative to 
 the situation in Kansas which marked him as an abolitionist. 
 When two negroes escaped from their masters a short time 
 afterwards, he was charged with being the leader of a group 
 that urged slaves to flee from the country. He was captured 
 by armed men, his personal effects, including his private 
 letters, scanned for possible anti-slavery documents, and 
 finally he was given seven days to leave the State. Wiley 
 was told that the laws were not severe enough and that 
 southerners had taken matters into their own hands. The 
 result was that he removed from Missouri to free territory 
 where his liberty of speech and action would not be cur- 
 tailed.?° 
 
 Anthony Bewley came to Missouri from Virginia and 
 Tennessee. In 1843 he was admitted into Missouri confer- 
 ence and two years later decided to remain in the northern 
 Methodist Church. From that time forward until his tragic 
 death he was the victim of persecution.24, In 1850, while 
 living at Ebenezer, the trustees of South-western High 
 School refused to allow his children to attend school “till a 
 meeting.of the curators and a decision be made thereon.” 
 After an interview with the teacher, temporary permission 
 was granted to Bewley’s children to receive instruction. The 
 fact that this school was “under the supervision of the 
 Southern Methodists” is especially significant. At one point 
 about one hundred people signed a petition asking him not 
 to preach in that community.2? In a doctrinal debate of 
 1854, Bewley was charged with being an abolitionist, which 
 was considered by many to be conclusive evidence that not 
 only his doctrines but his morals were unacceptable.*8 
 
 In 1860 he was appointed to work in Texas for the third 
 year. That summer it was rumored that he and a companion 
 had been responsible for the burning of several towns and 
 poisoning wells.2* So great was the cry against him that he 
 decided to go to Missouri. There he was overtaken by an 
 Arkansas mob who took him back to Forth Worth, Texas. 
 He freely predicted that he would be hanged, whether or 
 not he had disobeyed the law of the State. After a few 
 hours’ sleep at Fort Worth he was taken by a mob and 
 
The Northern Invaders 259 
 
 hanged where several negroes had previously been murdered 
 by similar irresponsible organizations. 
 
 One author denies that northern Methodists were hanged 
 by southern Methodists.2® In so far as Methodists were 
 members of mobs they acted on their own responsibility. 
 While some southern Methodist papers did not sanction 
 lynching, they did not condemn the mobs nearly as much 
 as they did those who were murdered or driven from the 
 slave states. But the’ Texas Christian Advocate was so 
 extreme as to assert that there were “cases in which Lynch- 
 law is expedient, necessary, just.” Bewley was considered 
 a lawless character who merited his fate.27 With official 
 papers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, either 
 supporting the murderers or else placing the blame upon the 
 northerners, it is not strange that there should have been 
 outrages committed in slaveholding territory. 
 
 The reaction among the people of the North may be 
 imagined. Even the conservative Bishop Morris condemned, 
 in unmeasured language, the murderers of Bewley.*8 Con- 
 trary to the Constitution of the Nation, the right of free 
 speech and of peaceable assembly had been denied to north- 
 ern Methodists, chiefly because they were not members of 
 the recognized pro-slavery Church. By a system of intimi- 
 dation, persecution, social ostracism and murder, northern 
 Methodists had lost their fundamental rights. 
 
 
 
 Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 43-4. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 57-8. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 95-6. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 94-5. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 149-50. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 58-9. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 62-3. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 63-6. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 200-201. 
 
 0. Ibid., pp. 68-71. Cf. The Liberator, Volume XXV., p. 149, col. 6; 
 September 24, 1855. Said Garrison: ‘In view of this lynch law 
 religious ostracism, how pertinent is the motto, ‘No union with 
 slaveholders religiously,’ as well as politically.’’ 
 
 11. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 126-32. 
 
 12. Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, pp. 227-8. 
 
 13. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 142. 
 
 14. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXTII., June 2, 1859. 
 
 15. Space permits only a few of the many accounts of outrages com- 
 mitted without sanction of law, and many times without any reel 
 justification, even from a pro-slavery viewpoint. 
 
 16. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 32-3. 
 
 UT bias Di .2T% 
 
 tea tpid. Di si. 
 
 KAO CONIA CACO Ne 
 
260 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 19. Ibid., pp. 34-5. 
 
 20. Ibid., pp. 46-51. 
 
 21. Ibid., pp. 21-2. 
 
 22. Ibid., pp. 28-9. 
 
 23) bids, /D.Wie+ 
 
 24. Ibid., pp. 151, 154. 
 
 25. Ibid., pp. 149-99. 
 
 26. Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume I., pp. 150 ff. 
 27. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 189. 
 
 28. Ibid., pp. 185-7. 
 
PART IV 
 LOOKING TOWARDS CIVIL WAR 
 
oy 
 PA) 
 ’ } 
 
 x i 
 Rane 
 
 nh tis Ra sine: ne ri ns 
 
 AO ae Laat NS vam 
 
 te ha) i} ay ies MR 
 a . mea he be), 
 RMON ie ith, Ng 
 
 he 
 + 
 \" 
 
 y or re Ae) : 
 RUDY 
 "ig 7 “s 
 
 } bt 
 Wey 
 
 i} ie wep! 
 eye 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XXI1 
 
 THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 
 
 When, by means of the Compromise of 1850, Clay and 
 Webster sought to avert the threatened division of the 
 Nation, the Bill immediately claimed the attention of Metho- 
 dist leaders of both sections. At first, the support of the Con- 
 promise was almost unanimous. While it was still being 
 debated, the editor of Zion’s Herald commended two of 
 Clay’s speeches... The editor of the Nashville Christian 
 Advocate wrote: “We mention with pleasure the manly, 
 frank, independent, and patriotic course of Mr. Webster 
 
 we do admire his compromising spirit in this 
 hour of peril, and mark with unbounded pleasure his love 
 for the Union, and the boldness with which he steps forward 
 to arrest the spirit of fanaticism, discord, and strife.” 
 
 But northern opinion rapidly changed. He who had 
 commended Clay in February, declared in August, 1850 that 
 “if our leading statesmen — our Clays and Websters — had 
 boldly rebuked the culpable, insurrectionary menaces of the 
 Southern demagogues, and magnanimously asserted the in- 
 tegrity of the Constitution, instead of whining and succumb- 
 ing to Southern threats,” the men who had threatened the 
 Union’s destruction would have been silenced. A month 
 later, the same writer expressed his conviction that the day 
 had passed “in which a politician who succumbs to the South 
 can expect to be sustained by the people of the free States; 
 they will send no more pro-slavery men or “‘doughfaces’ to 
 Congress.” Even after the death of Webster, two years 
 later, the editor had not recovered from the shock of Web- 
 ster’s speech which was considered the greatest mistake 
 of Webster’s life.® 
 
 Matthew Simpson, editor of the Western Christian Advo- 
 cate, subjected the Compromise measure to what was probably 
 the most searching analysis given it by any northern Metho- 
 dist. The chief argument advanced in favor of Clay’s pro- 
 posal was that, unless such an accommodation were arranged, 
 
 263 
 
264 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 the country faced disunion. But Simpson scoffed at such 
 reasoning, and declared that there was no indication of so 
 great a catastrophe. He believed that the pro-slavery party 
 desired to introduce slavery into New Mexico, and that the 
 South had raised the cry of disunion to frighten the North. 
 He also charged that northern politicians who voted with 
 the South were to be rewarded with important offices. Poli- 
 ticians had warned his paper to keep silent but Simpson re- 
 plied: ‘Gentlemen of the political school, you may muzzle 
 the political press if you can, but the religious press shall - 
 be free, and for its support we shall throw ourselves upon the 
 country.”® 
 
 In October, 1850, Simpson considered what came to be the 
 most objectionable features of the Compromise. He pre- 
 sented five objections to the Fugitive Slave Bill: (1) It 
 denied trial by jury. The fugitive could not testify in his 
 own defense, but on affidavit of the claimant, the court was 
 authorized to give the alleged owner a certificate of owner- 
 ship. (2) The writ of habeas corpus was refused. Thus a 
 dark complexioned white man might be turned over to a 
 slave-hunter and there was no process by which he could be 
 recovered, even though he were proved to be a white man. 
 (3) The law offered a direct bribe, inasmuch as the judge in 
 each case was to receive five dollars if he declared the negro 
 free and ten dollars if he adjudged him a slave and gave the 
 claimant an order by which the slave might be carried back 
 to the South. (4) The people would be required to pay for 
 the return of fugitive slaves. For, if the owner or kidnapper 
 made affidavit that he feared the rescue of the slave or alleged 
 slave, the commissioner was required to employ all neces- 
 sary aid to return the negro to the state from which he had 
 fled. The expense of such aid was to be paid from the United 
 States Treasury. It seemed reasonable to suppose that this 
 would be the normal procedure and that the burden of ex- 
 pense would be borne by the public rather than by the slave’s 
 owner or kidnapper. It was intimated that the law would 
 give employment to many “worthy” men. (5) The people 
 were commanded to assist in the capture of those accused 
 of being escaped slaves. If desired, even ministers could be 
 drafted for such service on the Sabbath day, though it might 
 interfere with a religious service.’ 
 
The Compromise of 1850 265 
 
 Simpson did not object to a law which would enforce the 
 provisions of the Constitution. Said he: “If these enact- 
 ments are made in a fair spirit — if they secure the free 
 against the kidnapper, while they arrest the fugitive, we have 
 no word to offer in opposition.”® But he warned Congress 
 against going further. “If they go beyond this, a ‘higher 
 law;’ disliked by some Congressmen, but dwelling in the 
 bosoms of a Christian people, will render them comparatively 
 nugatory.”8 He opposed violence. Christians might suffer 
 the consequences of disobedience to the law but not resist 
 it. Resistance to the law meant a mob. He therefore advised 
 a Christian “to use all moral influence to change the odious 
 features of exceptionable laws — let him speak freely by the 
 tongue, the press and the ballot box, but never let him resist.”® 
 
 The response to Simpson’s editorials varied according to 
 the views of his critics towards slavery. One man wrote: 
 “How glad I am to see a man at the head of our Church paper 
 who has the nerve to do right.”2° But his arraignment of 
 Congress was displeasing to those who supported the Bill. 
 W. J. Brown, editor of the State Sentinel of Indiana, and a 
 supporter of the Bill, spoke against the editorial which ana- 
 lyzed the Compromise. “We have always admired Dr. 
 Simpson for his eloquence in the pulpit and the simplicity 
 and beauty of his style. But divinity, not law, has been his 
 study. We shall review his article in the spirit of Christian 
 forbearance.”4 
 
 The reports from the North were sufficient to prove that 
 the Fugitive Slave Law was unpopular among Methodists.” 
 One writer declared that so extreme a measure would unite the 
 North against slavery even as the South was united 1n its 
 favor. “Demagogues and doughfaces will shrink away before 
 the burning demands of the people of the north for the repeal 
 of this law. The south has overacted the matter, and the 
 demagogues of the north will be rebuked.”** From New 
 England! and Detroit!® came news of the greatest excitement 
 as a result of the enactment. It was considered unjust, des- 
 tructive of the right of trial by jury and the writ of habeas 
 corpus, and therefore highly objectionable. In Chicago, the 
 Methodist churches contributed modest sums, ranging from 
 $2.70 to $28.00 for the purpose of aiding a certain John 
 Freeman in his fight against being returned to the South.1® 
 
266 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 In Pennsylvania, when James Kennedy attempted to return 
 to the South with a fugitive slave, he was murdered on the 
 streets of Lancaster, Pennsylvania “by a mob encouraged, 
 if not instigated, by an eminent minister of the Methodist 
 Church.”?” 
 
 Simpson’s statement that “a law enacting a crime is, by 
 the force of natural reason, null and void,”11 found a ready 
 response in northern conferences. Maine conference, in 
 1850, resolved not to compromise with slavery in any way 
 whatsoever.18 The following year they declared that they 
 owed obedience to God first of all, and that the Fugitive Slave 
 Law, being contrary to the law of God, did not merit their 
 support.19 Three years later they urged the repeal of the 
 law ;7° and in 1855 they again pledged themselves to seek its 
 removal from the statute books of the nation, since they 
 considered it “an unrighteous usurpation of authority, un- 
 authorized by the Constitution of the United States and con- 
 trary to the word of God and the precepts of Christianity.?? 
 
 Vermont conference condemned the law and those res- 
 ponsible for it. They claimed to be good citizens but affirmed 
 that when the laws of the land were contrary to the law of 
 God, they would resist any attempt to coerce them.2* Fast 
 Maine conference declared with emphasis: “That as Minis- 
 ters of Christ, we will never relax our efforts in behalf of the 
 oppressed — WE WILL NEVER BE SILENT SPEC- 
 TATORS OF THEIR WRONGS AND SUFFERINGS, 
 and by the grace of God, WE WILL NEVER LEAVE 
 OUR MASTER’S WORK TO HUNT DOWN THE 
 WEARY AND TOIL-WORN STRANGER WITHIN 
 OUR GATES, NOR IN: ANY. WAY (ASSIS Tague 
 COUNTENANCE HIS RETURN TO HOPELESS 
 BONDAGE.”*3 Other conferences took similar action ;*4 
 in fact, within the writer’s knowledge, there was no dissenting 
 voice in the chorus of denunciation which continually in- 
 creased in northern conferences. 
 
 There can be no question that northern Methodists hoped 
 to destroy the force of the Fugitive Slave Law. The editor 
 of Zion's Herald wrote: “We hope that from the outset this 
 enormous statute will be found a nullity—dead letter, doubly 
 dead and buried beneath the curses of a free and Christian 
 people. So shall we treat it, and we shall teach men so.’’25 
 
The Compromise of 1850 267 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Robie, editor of the Buffalo Christian Advocate, 
 agreed: ‘“‘We can only regard this law, passed by the late 
 Congress, as one of the most accursed offsprings of one of the 
 most depraved bodies that ever met to legislate for the des- 
 tinies of the nation. . . we sustain the ‘higher law’, and 
 abominate such legislation without apology.”?° With such 
 advice coming from men in places of influence it is not sur- 
 prising that there should be resistance to the law. Northern 
 Methodists refused, as did those in the South, to obey a law 
 which was obnoxious to them. 
 
 While northern Methodists condemned unsparingly the 
 enactment of Congress, those in the South supported it. By 
 the editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate it was con- 
 sidered “a wise and just provision for giving efficiency to an 
 article of the Constitution of the United States.” It was held 
 that the legislators never anticipated the effect it would have in 
 the north. “It works well in catching slaves,—but it has 
 made a great many fugitives from sanity. Insane ravings 
 against it are almost as common as the subjects whose wander- 
 ings it was intended to prevent.”*? Again, the same writer 
 believed that the law was very conservative and perhaps “‘the 
 only link in the golden chain which binds our National Con- 
 federacy in glorious union. If this last link be broken, our 
 Federal Union will crumble in ruins.” 
 
 Two groups in the North were the targets of southern 
 Methodists. Theodore Parker had condemned the city of 
 Boston for permitting Simms, a fugitive slave, to be taken 
 back to slavery. Herod, Nero, Dominic, Torquemada, George 
 Jeffries — none of these was considered as foul as those 
 who, for ten dollars, were willing to deprive a human be- 
 ing of his freedom.”® But Parker was not the only master 
 of bitter invective. For the editor of the Nashville Christian 
 Advocate denounced the great abolitionist for his extreme 
 condemnation of the craven spirit of Boston officials. In 
 part he said: “It is said that there is a difference and a choice 
 in. spoiled eggs; if so, we think we have found about the 
 worst one in the nest, in the following which we take from 
 an Eastern paper. If abolitionism itself can stand such a 
 nauseous dose of furious treason without vomiting forth 
 the guilty author it must be possessed of the stomach of a 
 hyena. Begotten of ignorance upon the body of hypocrisy, 
 
268 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 fanaticism, blind and BLACK, starts forth, at whose pollut- 
 ed shrine Parker, Garrison & Co. are the high priesthood. A 
 noble band, truly, and as innocent, faithful, and worthy as 
 their great prototypes, Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot. 
 Such men ought to be elevated, lifted up high in the world, 
 that they may receive their deserts; the elevation of Haman 
 would not be a too lofty one upon which to exhibit them to 
 their admiring countrymen; but alas! virtue like to theirs 
 does not always meet its reward in this bad world, especially 
 in the North, — In the South they might stand a better 
 chance.”° 
 
 The second group was composed of northern Methodist 
 editors. Writing of these men, and especially of the editor 
 of Zion’s Herald, the editor of the Nashville Christian Advo- 
 cate declared: “These men are guilty of treason.”8! The 
 same writer, after printing many expressions on the Fugitive 
 Slave Law from northern papers, which counseled disobed- 
 ience of the law, said that his only purpose was to inform the 
 South so that they would “know how their rights are regarded 
 at the north, and what kind of appeals are made to the relig- 
 ious community by these saintly editors and writers, whose 
 Bible and Discipline teach them ‘to be subject to the powers 
 that be.’ If these men can influence a majority at the north, 
 our days as a confederated republic are numbered.’’? 
 
 The fact that northern Methodists were disobedient to the 
 law of the land was especially noted by southern Metho- 
 dist editors. An editorial in the St. Louts Christian Advocate 
 denounced the interference of the northern press with the en- 
 forcement of the law and concluded: “Let then the senti- 
 ment be as immovable as the eternal granite of the Rocky 
 mountains, that law must be and shall be preserved. Let the 
 bold and reckless nullifiers of law and disorganizers of gov- 
 ernment understand that the government has resources which 
 it can and will bring into requisition, if needful, for the pro- 
 tection of its citizens.’’*? The decision of northern Methodists 
 to obey the “higher law” was also bitterly censured. One 
 editor wrote: “Who made them judges in this matter? Who 
 clothed red-mouthed fanaticism in the habiliments of the 
 ‘woolsack’, and mounted the high headed monster upon the 
 ‘higher’ bench of a spiritual judiciary there, with the tolerance 
 of the Inquisition, to arraign before it and sit in judgment 
 
The Compromise of 1850 269 
 
 upon the peace-promoting laws of the land?’—those same 
 laws too, under whose kind protection, unfortunately, that 
 foul demon, which inspires them, is allowed to live. . . 
 We look upon the unfortunate Benedict Arnold as a generous 
 and noble gentlemen compared with some of the more modern 
 traitors.’’4 
 
 The Compromise of 1850 increased the ill-feeling be- 
 tween the two Methodist Churches. We have seen that 
 southerners did not propose to obey a law which they con- 
 sidered contrary to their interests. Neither life nor property 
 of northerners was safe in slaveholding states. But southern- 
 ers might protest that they had only followed the example 
 of northerners in disobedience to the law. For, before 
 southerners committed their most serious crimes against 
 northern Methodist preachers, northern Methodists had re- 
 fused to obey the Fugitive Slave Law and thus placed them- 
 selves, legally at least, on the same plane as those they later 
 condemned for outrages committed in southern territory. 
 Not law, but passion, mob spirit, and the “higher law” were 
 supreme. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI,, p. 30, col. 1; 
 
 February 20, 1850. 
 
 Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., No. 22; March 29, 1850, 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p. 126, col. 1; 
 
 August 7, 1850. 
 
 Ibid., p. 146, col. 1; September 11, 1850. 
 
 Ibid., Volume XXIII., p. 174, col. 2; November 3, 1852. 
 
 Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, pp. 262-5. 
 
 Wuceen a Christian Advocate, Volume XVII, p. 162, col. 3; October 
 
 » 1850. 
 
 Ibid., p. 154, col. 3; September 25, 1850. 
 
 Ibid., p. 182, col. 3; November 14, 1850. 
 
 10. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 265. 
 
 wir ibids  pwi267. 
 
 12. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p. 166, col. 1; 
 October 16, 1850. 
 
 13. nent Christian Advocate, Volume XVII., p. 170, col. 3; October 
 3, 1850. 
 
 14, Ibid., p. 174, col. 4; October 31, 1850. 
 
 15. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p. 170, col. 1; 
 October 238, 1850. 
 
 16. Sera e Christian Advocate, Volume II., p. 39, col. 3; March 
 , 1854. 
 
 17. Tyler, Memoir of Roger B. Taney, p. 131. 
 
 18. Minutes of the Maine Conference, p. 12. 
 
 19. Ibid., 1851, p. 12. 
 
 20. Ibid., 1854, pp. 11-12. 
 
 21. Ibid., 1855, p. 12. 
 
 22. Minutes of the Vermont Conference, 1851, pp. 17-18. 
 
 23. Minutes of the East Maine Conference, 1852, pp. 22-3. 
 
 24. These conferences were Erie, North Indiana and Wisconsin. 
 
 Rte Pen eo 
 
270 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 25. 
 26. 
 27. 
 28. 
 29. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p. 154, col. 1; 
 September 25, 1850. 
 
 Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., No. 52; October 25, 
 1850. 
 
 Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume IV (New Series), p. 170, 
 col. 3; October 24, 1850. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p. 190, col. 3; 
 November 27, 1850. 
 
 Bartlett, Modern Agitators, pp. 33-5. The passage from Parker’s 
 speech is as follows: ‘‘Where shall I find a parallel with men who 
 will do such a deed—do it in Boston? I will open the tombs and 
 bring up the most hideous tyrants from the dead. Come, brood of 
 monsters, let me bring you up from the deep damnation of the 
 graves wherein your hated memories continue for all time their 
 never ending rot. Come, birds of evil omen! come, ravens, vul- 
 tures, carrion crows, and see the spectacle! come, see the meet- 
 of congenial souls! I will disturb, disquiet, and bring up the 
 greatest monsters of the human race! Tremble not, women; 
 tremble not, children, tremble not, men! ‘They are all dead! They 
 cannot harm you now! Fear the living, not the dead! 
 
 “Come hither, Herod, the wicked. Thou that didst seek after 
 that young child’s life, and destroyedst the innocents! Let me 
 look on thy face! No, go! Thou wert a heathen! Go, lie with 
 the innocents thou hast massacred. Thou are too good for this 
 company! 
 
 “Come, Nero! thou awful Roman emperor, come up! No, thou 
 wast drunk with power, schooled in Roman depravity. Thou hadst, 
 besides, the example of thy fancied gods. Go, wait another day. 
 I will seek a worser man. 
 
 “Come hither, St. Dominic! come Torquemada!—fathers of the 
 Inquisition! merciless monsters, seek your equal here. No; pass 
 by. You are no companions for such men as these, You were the 
 servants of atheistic popes, of cruel kings. Go to, and get you 
 gone. Another time I may have work for you,—now lie there, 
 and persevere to rot. You are not yet quite wicked and corrupt 
 enough for this comparison. Go, get you gone, lest the sun turn 
 back at sight of ye! 
 
 “Come up, thou heap of wickedness, George Jeffries! thy hands 
 deep purple with the blood of thy murdered fellow-men. Ah! I 
 know thee, awful and accursed shade! Two hundred years after 
 thy death, men hate thee still, not without cause. Look men 
 upon thee! I know thy history. Pause and be still while I tell 
 it to these men . . . Come, shade of a judicial butcher. Two 
 hundred years, thy name has been pilloried in the face of the 
 world, and thy memory gibbeted before mankind. Let us see how 
 thou wilt compare with those who kidnap men in Boston. Go, 
 seek companionship with them. .Go, claim thy kindred, if such 
 they be. Go, tell them that the memory of the wicked shall rot; 
 that there is a God; and eternity; ay, and a judgment, too, where 
 the slave may appeal against him that made him a slave, to Him 
 that made him a man. 
 
 “What! Dost thou shudder? Thou turn back! These not thy 
 kindred! Why dost thou turn pale, as when the crowd clutches 
 at thy life in a London street? It is true, George Jeffries and 
 these are not thy kin. Forgive me that I should send thee, on 
 such an errand, or bid thee seek companionship with such—with 
 Boston hunters of the slave! Thou wert not base enough! It was 
 a great bribe that tempted thee! Again, I say, pardon me for 
 sending thee to keep company with such men! Thou only struck- 
 est at men accused of crime; not men accused only of their birth! 
 Thou wouldst not send a man into bondage for two pounds! I 
 will not rank thee with men, who, in Boston, for ten dollars, 
 would enslave a negro now! Rest still, Herod! Be quiet Nero! 
 Sleep St. Dominic, and sleep, O Torquemada, in your fiery jail! 
 
The Compromise of 1550 271 
 
 Sleep, Jeffries, underneath ‘the altar of the church’ which seeks, 
 with christian charity, to hide your hated bones!’ 
 
 Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., No. 19; May 15, 1851. 
 Ibid., Volume XIV., No. 53; November 1, 1850. 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XVII, p. 178, cols. 6-7; 
 November 6, 1850. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p, 198, col. 5; 
 
 December 11, 1850. 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., July 17, 1851. 
 
CHAPTER XXII 
 
 FIRST STEPS TOWARDS CIVIL WAR 
 
 The publication of Harriett Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle 
 Tom’s Cabin” stirred the wrath of southern Methodist 
 editors. Those of the Advocates at Memphis and Nashville 
 believed that the rights and privileges of such authors as 
 Mrs. Stowe should be taken away.* Lee, editor of the 
 Richmond Christian Advocate, asserted that ‘“‘the whole 
 work, from inception to completion, from the press to the 
 theater, ‘is just like the devil.’ It ain’t like anything else, 
 that we wot of.’ 
 
 When Stephen A. Douglas introduced his bill in January, 
 1854, erecting the Kansas-Nebraska territory, Chase and 
 Sumner and other Free-soilers in the House and Senate 
 published a protest against the bill and its author. By the 
 populace, Douglas was compared to Benedict Arnold and 
 burned in efhgy throughout the North “by thousands who 
 never took the trouble to read the Kansas-Nebraska Bill or 
 seriously contemplated its effects.”? As a part of this denun- 
 ciation, three thousand fifty ministers of New England, of 
 all denominations, protested against the passage of the bill.* 
 Douglas immediately took offense at this action and bitterly 
 condemned the ministers, charging them “with ‘HAVING 
 PROSTITUTED THE SACRED DESK to the miserable 
 and corrupting influence of party politics,’ and he asserted 
 that they ‘ought to be rebuked and required to confine them- 
 selves to their vocation, instead of neglecting their holy 
 religion.’ ”® 
 
 The reaction of Methodists was such as might be expected. 
 New England ministers were upheld and Douglas was 
 severely criticised by two northern editors.6 In the South, 
 the reverse was true. The rebuke administered by Douglas 
 and other senators to northern radicals was highly com- 
 mended. Southern Methodists put the greatest emphasis 
 upon the effect which the action of New England clergymen 
 
 272 
 
First Steps Towards Civil War 273 
 
 would have upon Christianity. The editor of the Richmond 
 Christian Advocate affirmed: “This is a sad affair, not only 
 for the country, but for Christianity, so shamefully outraged 
 in ‘the house of its friends.’ Professionally, we cannot be 
 supposed to feel indifferently towards the ministerial char- 
 acter. When in their place, engaged in their appropriate 
 work, no class of men in the country is more highly esteemed 
 than ministers of the gospel. But when they turn aside from 
 their holy employments, and descend into the arena of party 
 political strife, they defile their mission, and lay their honor 
 in the dust. Instead of ‘washing their hands in innocency,’ 
 they soil them with worldly filth, and stain them with crime 
 against their country’s peace. They richly merit the rebukes 
 administered by the gentlemen of the Senate, and must blame 
 themselves, if, hereafter, they find themselves shunned as 
 disturbers of the public peace, and the religion they profess 
 and teach suspected of having too much to do with the 
 world that now is, and too little with that which is to come.’’? 
 
 As in 1850, so now northern conferences. rallied to the 
 anti-slavery side of the question. By Maine conference, the 
 Nebraska Bill was called a “wicked act, in as much as it is 
 a violation of the word of God, a violation of a solemn 
 compact, a forfeiture of national confidence, and an insult 
 to the moral sentiment of a free people.” They declared 
 their belief that members of Congress from New England 
 who supported Douglas ‘were actuated by motives absolutely 
 corrupt” and that they were therefore “unworthy the confi- 
 dence of the New England people.” ‘They urged that all 
 such should be defeated for re-election.2 Members of 
 Providence conference maintained that the fact that they 
 were ministers did not absolve them from their duties as 
 citizens; against the passage of the bill they protested be- 
 cause it would create distrust between the two sections, and 
 because it was proposed to make slavery a national rather 
 than a state question.? Erie conference also considered the 
 law dangerous to the union of the states,!° while conferences 
 of the “Old Northwest” passed various resolutions in which 
 they protested against the further extension of slavery and 
 asked the people to petition Congress to repeal the act. Some 
 declared that they would vote against any man for public 
 
274 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 office who was not definitely pledged against the further 
 extension of the slave power." 
 
 It may be taken as axiomatic that whatever the North 
 disliked the South approved. A northern editor asserted 
 that “none of the Southern Methodist papers have done 
 anything but wink favorably at the Nebraska bill as proposed 
 and urged by Mr. Douglas.’?* It is doubtless true that 
 southern Methodists were in complete sympathy with the 
 Douglas program but they said comparatively little on the 
 merits of the subject, maintaining that the Nebraska Bill 
 was a political measure and therefore one on which the 
 Church had no right to express itself.1% 
 
 By the terms of the Douglas bill the question of slavery 
 or freedom in Kansas was to be decided by the people of 
 the territory itself. That the southern Methodist Church 
 was keenly interested in the outcome is evident. One south- 
 erner urged the southern Church to enter the lists in Kansas 
 against northern Methodists.44 A correspondent of the Texas 
 Christian Advocate declared that “southern men, southern 
 organizations, southern colonization, and Southern Churches” 
 would occupy Kansas. He believed that the South should 
 have the entire territory in spite of northern protests. “Their 
 disregard of southern rights and southern feelings, their 
 insincerity and dishonesty, and their treason to the Consti- 
 tution of the Union, place them utterly beyond the pale of 
 our respect. Let the whole south, and the entire southern 
 Church, direct their eyes and their energies to Kansas—aye, 
 and to Nebraska also. Let these troublers of Church and 
 state be defeated and overwhelmed, ‘horse, foot, and dra- 
 goons.’ 1° 
 
 In 1857, the Texas Christian Advocate made a further 
 appeal. The editor said it had been demonstrated that slave 
 labor could be used as well in Kansas as in any other south- 
 ern territory. He urged that if ‘“‘a steady tide of emigration 
 is kept up from the South, it will yet be free from abolition 
 domination.” He cited several authorities to show that 
 colonies had already gone, while others were preparing to go 
 to Kansas. One Captain Clayton was especially commended 
 and the editor added: “Other patriotic citizens from other 
 portions of the South will doubtless follow his example, and 
 
Furst Steps Towards Civil War 275 
 
 Western Missouri will literally empty her population upon 
 the territory.’ 
 
 March 14, 1855 Andrew Monroe of the southern Church 
 wrote a letter to the Nashville Christian Advocate, in which 
 he urged the South to establish herself in Kansas and_ be- 
 sought the Church to “lay deep and wide the foundations of 
 Southern Methodism.” He commented upon the promising 
 future of Kansas but he also issued a warning. “Kansas 
 is the most vulnerable and exposed part of our entire 
 Methodist territory. The south generally, and the Church 
 in particular, has much to win or lose in the present contest. 
 We hope to see thousands of families here from slavehold- 
 ing states before six months shall pass. Our _ bishops, 
 presiding elders, preachers, and people ought to know that 
 this country will be settled, and furnished with preachers and 
 institutions. If we do not do it, others will. May we not 
 hope for prompt and efficient action on the part of the south, 
 till the men and the vast wealth of the south be called into 
 requisition 27 
 
 The plans of the South for southern churches and south- 
 ern institutions in Kansas were denounced in scathing 
 language by the editor of the Western Christian 
 Advocate. He said it appeared that “to propagate the 
 patriarchial system was of more importance than to spread 
 the Gospel itself. Earth and perdition it seems are to be 
 moved, in order to have the ‘peculiar institution’ planted in 
 Kansas.”!7 Later he charged that “the Southern press” 
 were “at all times more eager to defend slavery and to 
 denounce anti-slavery men than they” were “to denounce 
 licentiousness and concubinage.’’!8 
 
 After Sumner delivered his speech, “The Crime against 
 Kansas,” May 19, 1856, anti-slavery sentiment in the North 
 and pro-slavery sentiment in the South became more intense. 
 Lee accused northern Methodist preachers of being leaders 
 in the anti-slavery agitation; and affirmed that they were 
 neglecting their regular work and turning to politics—that 
 “slavery, Kansas, Sumner, et id omne genus, are the themes 
 on which the pulpit has been sweltering for some time 
 past.”49 A survey of the resolutions of northern conferences 
 
276 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 indicates that there was probably little exaggeration in the 
 statement of the southern editor. 
 
 East Genesee conference condemned unsparingly the prac- 
 tices in Kansas and called upon the Government to protect 
 free-soilers. They also condemned the existence of “recrim- 
 ation, of bullying and black-guardism” in Congress.7° Gene- 
 see conference determined to use their influence in every 
 possible way, and especially at the ballot-box, against slavery 
 extension, which was considered the important question in 
 the election of 1856.71, Maine conference declared that the 
 work of southern “rufhans” in Kansas and in Congress was 
 “not only an assault upon the foundations of civil and relig- 
 ious liberty, but an insult to the American people which 
 demands the utter prostration, by constitutional means, of 
 the slave power, as the only method of preserving our self 
 respect and of showing ourselves worthy to be a free and 
 independent people.”?? 
 
 Conferences of the “Old Northwest” were equally strong 
 in their denunciation of slavery and the slave power in 
 Kansas and in Congress. Michigan conference encouraged 
 Methodists in Kansas and deplored the fact that “pro-slavery 
 ruffans” had “been allowed to invade the Territory of 
 Kansas, to shoot down and drive out free State men, with 
 a view to prostitute its virgin soil to the foul purposes of 
 slavery.*2 Rock River conference condemned the Adminis- 
 tration for the outrages in Kansas, and also “the spirit of 
 crimination bullying and blackguardism as it unfortunately 
 existed in the Halls of Congress of the United States.” They 
 declared that the attack on Sumner merited the condemnation 
 of “all honorable and upright men.”?4 
 
 Bishop Pierce predicted that the South would lose the 
 struggle for the control of Kansas. While he blamed the 
 North for being the aggressors in the outrages in the terri- 
 tory, he admitted that the South had followed the bad 
 example set by the North. In his opinion the South had 
 erred in two respects. First, they had sent soldiers instead 
 of citizens, and the permanency of southern society was, 
 therefore, continually threatened. Second, southerners had 
 undertaken the punishment of “abolition knights,’ instead 
 of turning them over to the National Government. While 
 
First Steps Towards Civil War 277 
 
 the climate was considered unfavorable for slavery, he hoped 
 the institution might be recognized in the Constitution of 
 the State when it was admitted into the Union so as “to 
 identify Kansas with the Southern States in the councils of 
 the country.” But he concluded that Kansas would be lost 
 to the South “by her own fault rather than by the contri- 
 vance of her enemies.”’?° 
 
 It was on March 6, 1857 that the Supreme Court of the 
 United States delivered their momentous decision in the case 
 of Dred Scott» The South was more than satisfied with the 
 result, and, while there is little evidence on the point, there 
 is no reason to believe that southern Methodists were not in 
 accord with popular sentiment. But in the North, there 
 seemed to be few dissenting voices in the chorus of denun- 
 ciation with which the majority of Methodist leaders greeted 
 the ‘Court’s decision. The opinion of Justice Curtis that he 
 did not consider the decision of the Court binding because 
 it embraced points which were beyond its jurisdiction, gave 
 Methodists sufficient opportunity to express their utter disap- 
 proval of the disposition of the case. 
 
 Maine conference regretted the effect which the decision 
 would have upon the negroes of the country, and said that, 
 while they did “not pass judgment upon its legal correct- 
 ness,” they believed that “the slave power produced that 
 decision.”*6 New Hampshire conference refused to accept 
 the decision because it was contrary to the Constitution, 
 justice and religion.2“ Pittsburg conference declared that 
 they had always considered slavery local and therefore be- 
 yond their control; now the Supreme Court had made 
 slavery a national question, and consequently proper for 
 discussion.28 Other conferences of the Northeast and West 
 were equally severe in their censure of the Court.”® 
 ' The three topics considered in this chapter helped to bring 
 about the Civil War. “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was propaganda 
 that succeeded in increasing the bitterness between the sec- 
 tions; the Kansas-Nebraska Bill re-opened a question which 
 was supposed to have been settled in 1850; while the Dred 
 Scott decision further increased sectionalism and the hostility 
 of northerners and southerners for each other. On all these 
 questions Methodist leaders expressed themselves, and aided 
 
278 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 in creating sentiment for or against the political leaders in 
 the great controversy over slavery. 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Volume XX., p. 18, col. 7; February 
 
 2, 1853 and Ibid., p. 23, col. 1; February 9, 1853. 
 
 Ibid., p. 6, col. 6; January 12, 1853. 
 
 Dodd, Expansion and Conflict, pp. 235-40. 
 
 Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume I., p. 174. Cf, The 
 
 Liberator, Volume XXIV., p. 438, col. 8; March 17, 1854. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXV., p. 58, col. 
 
 3; April 12, 1854. ; 
 
 Those of Zion’s Herald and the Northwestern Christian Advocate. 
 
 For the latter see Volume II., p. 638, col. 2; April 19, 1854 and 
 
 Ibid., p. 66, col, 2; April 26, 1854. 
 
 7. The Liberator, Volume XXIV., p. 65, col. 2; April.28, 1854. 
 
 8. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1854, pp. 11-12. 
 
 9. Minutes of the Providence Conference, 1854, p. 24. 
 
 10. Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II., pp. 
 517-18. The vote on the resolutions was unanimous. 
 
 11. Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 147; Herrick and 
 Sweet, History of the North Indiana Conference, p. 47; The Lib- 
 erator, Volume XXIV., p. 57, col. 4; April 14, 1854 and Ibid., p. 169, 
 cols, 5-6; October 27, 1854. See also, Northwestern Christian Ad- 
 vocate, Volume IT., p. 70, col. 3; May 3, 1854. 
 
 12. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., p. 38, col. 7; March 8, 
 1854. 
 
 13. Ibid., p.. 43, ‘col. 2;. March’ 15, 1854, 
 
 14. The Liberator, Volume XXV., p. 73, cols. 1-2; May 11, 1855. 
 
 15. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXII., p. 110, col. 7; July 11, 
 1855. 
 
 16. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 93. 
 
 ie ict acats Christian Advocate, Volume XXII., p. 66, col. 6; April 
 5, 1855. 
 
 18) bids ape 110.0 cola Wy July Le ie55. 
 
 19. Ibid., Volume XXITII., p. 174, col. 2; October 29, 1856. 
 
 20. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IV., p. 150, col. 7; 
 September 17, 1856. 
 
 21. Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1856, p. 25. 
 
 22. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1856, p. 10. 
 
 23. Minutes of the Michigan Conference, 1856, p. 26. 
 
 24. Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1856, pp. 22-3. These 
 resolutions were, in substance, the same as those adopted by 
 Troy, Black River, Oneida and Wyoming conferences. 
 
 25. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 96. 
 
 26. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1857, p. 10. 
 
 27. Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1857, p. 28. 
 
 28. Minutes of the Pittsburg Conference, 1857, pp. 24-5. 
 
 29. For the action of other conferences see: Minutes of the East 
 
 Maine Conference, 1858, p. 20; Minutes of the Vermont Confer- 
 
 ence, 1857, p. 15; Minutes of the New England Conference, 1857, 
 
 p. 26; Minutes of the Upper Iowa Conference, 1857, p. 32; and 
 
 Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1857, pp. 22-3. One para- 
 
 graph of the latter resolutions was copied verbatim from the New 
 
 England conference resolutions without proper credit. 
 
 oa nm #wr 
 
CHAPTER XXII 
 
 THE EVE OF CIVIL WAR 
 
 In the last two years before the outbreak of the Civil 
 War there were three subjects of importance.! On the re- 
 opening of the African slave trade the two Methodist 
 Churches seem to have been of one mind. New England 
 conference condemned “the desperate and persistent efforts” 
 to import slaves into the country.? In the South, the editor 
 of the Nashville Christian Advocate cited with approval the 
 statement of Justice John A, Campbell of the United States 
 Supreme Court at the Commencement of the University of 
 Alabama that the African slave trade was the “supreme un- 
 righteousness.”* He also commended the address of Hon. 
 H. W. Hilliard at the Commencement of the University of 
 Virginia, in which he said it was “better for Holland to cut 
 the dykes that keep out the sea than for our country to open 
 her doors to this importation of barbarism.” The editor 
 declared that “such applause greeted the sentiment as even 
 that place and audience were not used to.’% The same 
 writer said that there were a few in the South and some in 
 the North who desired a law admitting slaves but that these 
 did not express the real sentiment of either section.? 
 
 The second event which stirred both sections of the country 
 to a high pitch of excitement was the capture of Harper’s 
 Ferry by John Brown and his attempt to organize a slave 
 insurrection. As might be expected, the exploit of Brown 
 received only condemnation from southern papers. Under the 
 heading, “Riot at Harper’s Ferry,” the editor of the Nash- 
 ville Christian Advocate printed some of the press comment 
 on the insurrection.» A week later, he declared that it was a 
 “foolish and wicked attempt on the part of a few fanatics to 
 accomplish an impossibility” and that he did not anticipate 
 that the “outrage” would have the sanction of many people 
 in the North.6 The editor of the Richmond Christian Advo- 
 cate considered the raid at Harper’s Ferry a warning to the 
 
 279 
 
280 Episcopal M ethodism and Slavery 
 
 South. “Abolitionism is a form of treason daily acquiring 
 new strength and new courage. LIBERTY. trembles at 
 its progress. Patriotism, uniting north and south, can alone 
 arrest its progress, and a wise Providence must guide . 
 
 Let the entire south learn from the easy capture of Harper’s 
 Ferry, the stern necessity of protection, as far as the national 
 and state constitutions will allow, and our own resources will 
 justify, against all contingencies and probabilities, from 
 abolitionism in Church and state, in future.” 
 
 John Brown and his raid were scarcely more popular among 
 northern Methodist editors. The Western Christian Advo- 
 cate first gave an account of the “riot” simply as a news item.® 
 A week later the editor asserted that Brown’s exploit was 
 “one of the most insane and foolhardy things” he had ever 
 known, and decried the attempt to make political capital 
 out of it, as it was claimed the Nashville Christian Advocate 
 had done by saying it was a part of the “abolition and Black 
 Republican schemes.” “If the editor of that paper really 
 thinks that the Republican party sympathize with the crazy 
 schemes of Brown any more than the Democratic party do, 
 he is to be pitied for his ignorance; if he does not think so, 
 he is to be pitied for something worse than ignorance.’? 
 
 Watson condemned the raid of Brown because of the 
 evils that would come upon the slaves, and because anti-sla- 
 very men were placed in an embarrassing position. In his 
 opinion, Brown had used the wrong methods to accomplish the 
 destruction of slavery. “We are citizens, and our laws re- 
 flect our will. If we like them not, we have but to breathe 
 upon them and they are gone. Our remedy is at the ballot- 
 box—not the cartridge-box. We have no apology for re- 
 bellion and invasion.” Servile war was considered the worst 
 of all evils, and no one who claimed “‘to be either a friend to 
 the slave or a true man” would aid such a movement.” He 
 excused Brown by saying that he believed that, because he 
 had lost a son and some property by the raids of the pro- 
 slavery party, he had sought retaliation as a result of an 
 unbalanced mind. “The whole affair seems the work of a 
 madman.’’14 
 
 By the latter part of November, Watson seemed less con- 
 cerned about the treasonable character of Brown’s act. He 
 recorded that there was a great excitement in Virginia, 
 
The Eve of Civil War 281 
 
 especially at Charlestown, Alexandria and Richmond, because 
 the people feared that Brown’s friends were about to attempt 
 his rescue. Troops had been ordered to Harper’s Ferry from 
 Washington.’ He seems almost to chuckle at the excitable 
 state of the Virginia mind. A gun was discharged by a sol- 
 dier and Charlestown thrown into a panic, which was quieted 
 only when it was discovered that it was only a cow which had 
 refused to obey the sentry’s order to give the countersign.*4 
 
 It remained for Zion’s Herald to stir the Methodist press 
 of the South. The editor declared that Harper’s Ferry had 
 “caused a perfect panic in the South.”!° It was stated that 
 the fires in Charlestown, started by unknown persons, had 
 been credited to the friends of Brown and that the military 
 power in Virginia had been increased as a result.1® All 
 trains were searched for armed men who might be coming to 
 the aid of Brown.1? 
 
 The attention which this New England paper paid to the 
 insurrection called forth the condemnation of the New 
 Orleans Christian Advocate. Under the heading, “Zion’s. 
 Herald Giggles Over Harper’s Ferry,” the southern paper 
 refuted the statement of the prevalence of a panic in the 
 South. “A more deliberate, unfounded, profitless, pointless, 
 pitiful falsehood, was never perpetrated.” He admitted 
 that there was excitement in Virginia but nothing more than 
 would be occasioned by “a fatal steamboat or railroad dis- 
 aster.” The panic attributed to the South was entirely lack- 
 ing and the statement of the northern editor declared to be 
 without foundation. The southerner’s comparison of the 
 editor of Zion’s Herald and Gerrit Smith and Brown is not 
 complimentary to the first named. ‘The only difference 
 between the editor of Zion’s Herald and Gerrit Smith is a 
 difference in outspoken honesty and pluck. ‘Ossawatamie 
 Brown’ is a saint, compared to those orators, preachers and 
 editors, secular and religious, who have purposely fomented 
 such hideous incendiarisms and villany, and secretly longed 
 to see it sucessful, but are ready to condemn it if it fai! 
 Poor Brown will hang, but his neck is no more richly claimed 
 by the halter than many a one now encircled by a white 
 cravat.’’18 
 
 Brown impressed all who met him, whether friend or 
 enemy, as a man of purpose. A Methodist preacher argued 
 
282 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 with him in his cell about slavery as “a Christian institution,” 
 but Brown replied that, while he was willing to consider the 
 clergyman a gentleman it was “as a heathen gentleman.”1!9 
 One editor declared that John Brown “convinces all who 
 approach him, that he possesses an original nobility of soul 
 which is to be found in very few individuals.”2° After his 
 execution, Watson came to a fuller appreciation of Brown. 
 “John Brown is dead, but the spirit of his deeds walks among 
 the Southern plantations! John Brown is dead, but his death 
 made him in the estimation of thousands a martyr to free- 
 dom !’’21 
 It was in connection with the raid on Harper’s Ferry that 
 the editor of Zion's Herald wrote: “There is no evidence that 
 previous to 1854, only five years ago, John Brown was any 
 stronger in his abolition tendencies than three-fourths of all 
 the men and women and children north of Mason & Dixon’s 
 line. John Brown has done no more than each one of a 
 million of men in our Free States would have done under 
 similar provocation, if they had had the pluck to do it.’ 
 Pluck John Brown undoubtedly had, by testimony of friend 
 and enemy. But if the New York Observer may be believed, 
 it must be admitted that the ministers of New York were not 
 grasping for the martyr’s crown. The editor affirms that 
 “of the five hundred pulpits of this city, we believe that not 
 five uttered a word of approbation of the John Brown in- 
 vasion of Virginia 
 
 “Of the five hundred preachers i in this city, we have heard 
 of but TWO who ventured to give the sanction of their pul- 
 pits to the support of the highest crime perpetrated in this 
 country since the treason of Benedict Arnold.’ 
 
 That not all Methodists in the North were opposed to 
 Brown’s raid is evident from the evidence already presented. 
 Zion’s Herald was a very strong supporter of Brown. And 
 Gilbert Haven, sensing the meaning of Brown’s act, said 
 on the day he was hanged: “Ere long slavery will lose 
 Waterloo. Within this first century of our national life tt 
 will disappear. Then will all men unite in praising this Sam- 
 son who first tore down the pillars of this soul-devouring 
 Dagon.”** But those who spoke out boldly in condemnation 
 of Brown were few indeed. Consistency compelled northern- 
 ers to support the Constitution and the Government against 
 
The Eve of Civil War 283 
 
 attacks, even as they were insisting that northern preachers 
 should be protected in their right of free speech and the right 
 of assembly when they went into southern territory. 
 
 The election of 1860 was one of the most important in the 
 history of our country, yet Methodist papers returned to 
 the time-honored position of non-interference in politics. 
 There is no indication that northern Methodists, as such, 
 approved the principles set forth by Lincoln in his debates 
 with Douglas or that they favored him as the Republician 
 presidential candidate. In view of the fact that probably 
 two-thirds of the delegates to the Republican Convention at 
 Chicago preferred Seward and that Lincoln was not favorably 
 known to many in the party,”° it is not strange that Methodists 
 should have been deprived of the seer’s vision as to the real 
 greatness of the new Republican leader. Northern papers 
 gave some indication of the general feeling in the South but 
 nothing more. Mr. Rett of South Carolina was reported 
 to have declared that Lincoln was a “renegade Southerner” 
 and Mr. Hamline a mulatto.2® Colonel Keitt of Columbia, 
 South Carolina, declared that he was for disunion if Lincoln 
 were elected.27. But a more moderate southern paper was 
 quoted as saying: “All who are in favor of civil war, star- 
 vation, ruin, desolation, robbery, arson, murder, and the 
 utter destruction of the South, should go for disunion if 
 Lincoln is elected.”? 
 
 Southern Methodist papers freely predicted that Lincoln 
 would be elected and that secession and civil war would 
 result.29 The conviction that Lincoln’s election meant the 
 destruction of slavery was shared by at least one Methodist 
 abolitionist, who made the prediction immediately after 
 the triumph of Lincoln.2° Dr. Kingsley, editor of the Wes- 
 tern Christian Advocate, asserted that the election of the 
 Republican candidate did not mean the destruction of slavery. 
 In reply, the editor of the New Orleans Christian Advocate 
 declared: “Dr. Kingsley knows perfectly well that he is 
 simply practicing a deception of the deepest kind upon the 
 Southern people. He knows perfectly well that the ultimate 
 destruction of the institutions of the South is the one aim of 
 the Republican party, and the success of Mr. Lincoln gives 
 them power to accomplish it, gradually but surely. He knows 
 perfectly well that he does not represent the prevalent feel- 
 
284 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 ing of the Northern people. But the South can not be 
 deceived any longer. And she will choose destruction rather 
 than submission to dishonor and gradual subjugation: and 
 she will choose rightly. The Western, itself, is filled with 
 hatred, abuse, and misrepresentation of the South. The 
 coaxing game is hypocritical, contemptible, and happily comes 
 too late.’”’31 
 
 The election of Lincoln caused the greatest excitement 
 throughout the country and especially in the South, where 
 the states began to adopt their ordinances of secession.*? In 
 this section there was the greatest interest in the incoming 
 administration. Predictions as to the personnel of the new 
 Cabinet were freely made but proved to without basis in 
 fact.8% As an abolition state paper Lincoln’s inaugural ad- 
 dress must have been a severe disappointment. But to con- 
 servatives of both sections it brought the promise that 
 there would be no war unless it was forced upon the Govern- 
 ment. Stevenson testified: “His inaugural is as good and 
 as favorable to the South, it seems to me, as could reasonably 
 be expected.”*4 And Stephen A. Douglas gave his approval 
 to Lincoln’s position on the question of secession. 
 
 Three topics — the re-opening of the African slave trade, 
 John Brown’s raid and the installation of Abraham Lincoln 
 as president — have been considered in the present chapter. 
 On the first, Methodists of the North and the South seem to 
 have been agreed, although it is improbable that those in the 
 South would have brought in a verdict of “guilty” in a trial 
 of smugglers who unloaded their human freight at southern 
 wharves. Until.after the execution of John Brown, official 
 Methodist papers of both sections condemned Brown and his 
 unlawful attempt to free the slaves. Only Zion’s Herald, 
 which was not responsible to the General Conference but only 
 to the radical, abolition conferences of New England, seems 
 to have stirred the South to wrath and indignation. And in 
 one of the greatest crises in the history of the Nation, north- 
 ern Methodist papers, conferences and bishops gave no indi- 
 cation that they believed that Lincoln’s principles should be 
 sustained at the ballot-box, much less that he was the man 
 of destiny, called of God to be the preserver of the Union 
 and the liberator of a race. 
 
19. 
 20. 
 
 The Eve of Civil War 285 
 
 The Lincoln-Douglas debates are not considered because there was 
 no comment by any Methodist paper on these debates until 1861, 
 From the Methodist press one would never have known that the 
 debates occurred. 
 
 Minutes of the New England Conference, 1859, p. 19. 
 
 Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIII., September 1, 1859, 
 “The truth is, those who favor the re-opening of the African slave- 
 trade are about equally divided between the North and the South 
 and too few in either section to awaken serious reply or opposition. 
 Hence all the saying and writing has been pretty much on one 
 side. The people of the North must not be held accountable for 
 the acts of ship owners in New York and Massachusetts, who it 
 appears from recent developments, are actively engaged in fitting 
 out vessels designed for this traffic. Nor must those of the South 
 be held accountable for those smuggling speculators on the gulf 
 coast who are ready to receive these cargoes.’’ 
 
 It should not be forgotten that the General Conference of the 
 Church, South, in 1858 refused to take any stand on the African 
 slave trade. The probability is that little opposition would have 
 been raised to such traffic by southern Methodists. 
 
 “Ossawatomie Brown” had first gained notoriety in 1856 when he 
 murdered five pro-slavery men in Kansas in retaliation for the 
 murder of free state men. (Smith, Parties and Slavery, p. 165). 
 In May, 1858, he led a band of men who freed eleven negroes and 
 stole some horses in Missouri. The negroes were taken to Canada 
 and the horses sold in Cleveland, Ohio. In the process of taking 
 this property, one slaveholder was killed. (Chadwick, Causes of 
 the Civil War, pp. 76-7). In July, 1859, Brown and twenty-one 
 followers came to the vicinity of Harper’s Ferry. The secretary 
 of war was perfectly familiar with the plans of Brown but did 
 nothing, On the evening of Sunday, October 16, Harper’s Ferry 
 was occupied by Brown and his men; the folowing Tuesday morn- 
 ing, the engine-house was assaulted and Brown and some of his 
 men were captured. Owen Brown and six others made their 
 escape. (Chadwick, Causes of the Civil War, pp. 77-81.) 
 Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIII., October 27, 1859. 
 Ibid., November 3, 1859. 
 Quoted in the Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVL, p. 
 178, col. 6; November 9, 1859. 
 etc Christian Advocate, Volume XXVI., p. 170, col. 4; October 
 , 1859. 
 Ibid., p. 174, col. 4; November 2, 1859. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VII., p. 195, col. 3; 
 
 December 7, 1859. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 171, col. 3; October 26, 1859. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 183, col. 3; November 16, 1859. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 187, col. 3; November 23, 1859. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 191, col. 3; November 30, 1859. 
 
 . Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXX., p. 171, col. 1; 
 
 October 26, 1859. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 187, col. 2; November 23, 1859. 
 . Ibid., p. 191, col. 2; November 30, 1859. 
 . Ibid., p. 182, col. 5; Nov. 16, 1859. In reply, the editor of Zion’s Herald 
 
 said: ‘‘We have seen drunken men stoutly maintain they were sober, 
 and shall not forget one poor little man shaking with the ague, 
 who with teeth chattering and chin trembling, squeaked out, ‘I- 
 don’t-shake-much-now.’ As to the comparative saintship of Brown 
 and Zion’s Herald, that is not a matter for us to decide, though 
 we certainly would rather take his chance for heaven hanging, 
 than the above Editor’s, or any unhung and unrepentant oppres- 
 sor of God’s poor.’’ 
 
 Sanborn, Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 618. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXX., p. 179, col 
 1; November 9, 1859. 
 
286 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 21. 
 22. 
 23. 
 . Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume LIL. p. 191; April, 1870. It 
 
 Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VII., p. 195, col. 3; 
 December 7, 1859. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXX., p. 194, col. 3; 
 December 7, 1859. 
 
 eiavee: in The Liberator, Volume XXIX., p. 193, col. 1; December 
 NLS Oats 
 
 is possible that Haven had thoughts in 1870 of what happened in 
 1859 that he did not have in 1859. 
 
 . Chadwick, Causes of the Civil War, pp. 119-23. 
 . Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXXI., p. 119, col. 
 
 1; July 25, 1860. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 147, col. 2; September 12, 1860. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 179, col. 2; November 7, 1860. 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 224-5. 
 
 . Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume XXIV., December 6, 1860. 
 
 This was Gilbert Haven. 
 
 - Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVIII. p. 84, col. 4; March 
 
 Los ASOl: 
 Stevenson, Journal, Volume I., pp. 171-2. 
 
 . Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., December 6, 1860 
 . Stevenson, Journal, Volume I., p. 176. 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVIII., p. 81, cols. 6-7; 
 
 March 6, 1861. The account of the inaugural in this paper gives 
 the impression that the gloom of midnight had settled down over 
 the country. No great care seems to have been taken to have a 
 proper setting for the ceremony. ‘‘The canopy beneath which Mr. 
 Lincoln delivered his Inaugural was of rough boards without orna- 
 ment.’’ It was affirmed that ‘‘the table before which Mr. Lincoln 
 stood was of the commonest description, that could be purchased 
 at a street auction for three shillings. The verdict of the crowd 
 was that it was ‘scandalous.’’’ Chief Justice Taney, who had 
 administered the oath of office, and Stephen A. Douglas, who held 
 Lincoln’s hat during the ceremony, were two interested onlookers, 
 the first of whom “sat eyeing the reader from the moment the 
 first word was uttered to the last,’ while the latter ‘‘frequently, 
 in a subdued voice, said, ‘Good’; ‘That is the right doctrine,; 
 ‘That is no coercion,’ etc.” 
 
CHAPTER XXIV 
 
 METHODISM AND DISUNION 
 
 In preceding chapters we have considered the division of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church and the formation of the 
 Church, South; the adherence of preachers and societies 
 to the Church of their choice and the division of the Church 
 funds; the change in the sentiment of the two Churches 
 towards slavery; and the attitude of the two branches of 
 Methodism on political questions connected with slavery. 
 Before we turn to a consideration of the part which the 
 Methodist Churches played in the Civil War, it is important 
 to fix the responsibility of Methodism for that conflict, so far 
 as it is possible to do so. While it is true that other denomina- 
 tions—especially the Presbyterian and Baptist—divided on 
 the issue of slavery, the very fact that the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church was the first to separate on a problem connected 
 with this question means that that Church should receive a 
 larger share of the credit if that separation presaged the dis- 
 union of the Nation. 
 
 When, during the General Conference of 1844, John C. 
 Calhoun invited William Capers and other southern dele- 
 gates to meet him in Washington on their return from New 
 York, in order that they might counsel together,! the division 
 of the Methodist Church instantly took on a new significance. 
 The Charleston Mercury published with the most favorable 
 comment the “Protest” of southern delegates in the General 
 Conference of 1844 and declared that it marked “an epoch— 
 the first dissolution of the Union.’* The Columbia South 
 Carolinian asserted that the effect of the division would be 
 felt in the Nation. Separation was considered desirable 
 because it would promote peace in the Church and “arouse 
 the North to a proper sense of the pernicious influence 
 of abolitionism.” If this should result, it was thought that 
 it would “lead to a closer and happier union, religious and 
 political. But if not, then it is evident that the separation will 
 soon end in a political one.’ 
 
 287 
 
288 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 When Henry Clay was asked his opinion on the effect which 
 the separation of the Church would have on national disunion, 
 he replied: “I will not say that such a separation would 
 necessarily produce a dissolution of the political union of 
 these states ; but the example would be fraught with imminent 
 danger, and in co-operation with other unfortunate causes 
 unfortunately existing, its tendency on the stability of the 
 confederacy would be perilous and alarming.’* Another 
 southern statesman was more bold. He was quoted as 
 being in favor of the division of the Church, although he 
 predicted the dissolution of the Union as a result. 
 
 By 1850, the full significance of the division of the Metho- 
 dist Church was more easily recognized. Both Calhoun and 
 Webster referred to the strife which had resulted between the 
 two Churches to show that the situation was full of the 
 gravest danger and alarm if a more conciliatory spirit did not 
 obtain in both sections. Webster said that there were many 
 cords—spiritual and ecclesiastical, political and social—which 
 bound the Nation together. Speaking of the Church, he 
 declared: “The first of these cords which snapped under its 
 explosive force, was that of the powerful Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church. The numerous and strong ties which held it 
 together, are all broken, and its unity gone. They now form 
 separate churches; and instead of the whole church which 
 was formerly felt, they are now arrayed into two hostile 
 bodies, engaged in litigation about what was formerly their 
 common property.’ 
 
 While the editor of the Southwestern Christian Advocate 
 could see no connection between the division of the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church and the dissolution of the Union,’ 
 other southern Methodists freely predicted dire results for 
 the Nation if the ecclesiastical struggle continued. One cor- 
 respondent asserted that he had opposed division until 1844 
 “on the ground that, if we had Northern and Southern 
 churches, it would not be long before we should have 
 Northern and Southern Confederacies.”® And the editor 
 of the Southern Christian Advocate wrote: “The feud 
 occasioned, mark it, by the admission of political and extra- 
 religious measures into the Church, will array political 
 partizans on one or the other side, according to their sympa- 
 thies with or against abolition :—and the upshot of the whole 
 
Methodism and Disunion 289 
 
 matter will be a dissolution of our glorious confederacy—with 
 civil war looming up in the distance and whetting his fangs 
 for the blood of brothers. The experiment whether man is 
 capable of self-government will end ;—the noblest model of 
 a free and republican confederacy of sovereign states which 
 ever saw the light—will find its grave dug by Americans in 
 the name of God and religion.’ 
 
 In the North, there was a like difference of opinion as to 
 the effect which the division of the Church would have upon 
 the preservation of the Union. The editor of the Western 
 Christian Advocate agreed with the Nashville editor that 
 there was no relation between the- two calamities1° The 
 editor of Zion’s Herald, replying to the fears of his con- 
 temporary of the Southern Christian Advocate, said: “As 
 much as we honor Methodism we do think that this supreme 
 importance attached to her influence on the destiny of the 
 nation 1s supremely ridiculous. If the Methodist Church 
 is becoming necessary to the existence of the state, it is high 
 time she were overthrown. All good patriots should pray for 
 its dissolution. The fact is our southern brethren have 
 given themselves up to extravagances which give an air of - 
 almost ludicrous hyperbole to their writings and proceedings. 
 Time will afford some curious retrospections.’’14 
 
 The division of the Methodist Episcopal Church was 
 watched with the keenest interest by Wesleyan Methodists. 
 The editor of their official paper, the True Wesleyan, de- 
 clared that, while he thought the division of the Church would 
 certainly be consummated at Louisville in 1845, this would 
 not necessarily produce the disruption of the Union. But 
 he believed that that event would “greatly weaken the cords 
 of union.” He asserted that the question of slavery or 
 liberty would soon be paramount in the thought of the people. 
 Said he: “Other churches will most likely follow the 
 example of the M. E. Church. They must do this. And 
 the nation cannot long brave the moral sentiment of the 
 country. And blessed be that day when the ungodly national 
 compact shall be broken up! Slavery never would, never 
 could have flourished in this land in the nineteenth century, 
 controlling church and state, but for the connivance and sup- 
 port of the North. Cut off Northern support, in every sense, 
 and you take its life-blood.” As to the possibility of civil 
 
290 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 war between the two sections, the editor considered it beyond 
 belief. “It is too late in the day to talk about a war between 
 the North and the South. Such a war could not be maintained 
 on the part of the South a single month; and those eyes 
 which only see through cotton bags and human souls, must 
 see this—however reckless they may be in other matters. 
 Besides, the anti-war spirit and feeling is diffusing itself 
 ' throughout creation. It is, therefore, we repeat, too late in 
 the day to talk of a civil war in such a land as this.”!” 
 
 But Dr. Bond believed that the importance of the division 
 was underestimated by other northerners. He showed from 
 the statement of the governor of South Carolina that the 
 relation between the ecclesiastical and political affairs was 
 very intimate. Bond believed that the interest of Calhoun 
 and the South Carolina governor in the proceedings of the 
 General Conference of 1844 meant disunion for the nation. 
 He urged that the political results would be much more 
 serious than the ecclesiastical, and that Methodists should 
 hesitate long before consummating separation.}% 
 
 Peter Cartwright specifically charges that the division of 
 the Church was the first great step in political disunion. He 
 expressed the fear that “the constant agitation and unscrupu- 
 lous anathemas indulged in by frenzied preachers and un- 
 principled demagogues, political demagogues, that seek more 
 for the spoils of office than the freedom of the slave or the 
 good of the country, will so burst the bonds of brotherly love 
 and the real love of country, that all the horrors of civil war 
 will break upon us shortly, and firebrands, arrows, and death, 
 be thrown broadcast over the land, and anarchy, mobs, and 
 lawless desperadoes reign triumphant.’’!4 
 
 As the discussion of political questions connected with 
 slavery continued, Methodist papers became more certain 
 that civil war would be the outcome of the controversy. 
 Leading writers shared their conviction. While Simpson 
 made light of the fear of the South that disunion would 
 result unless the Compromise of 1850 were adopted, the 
 editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal declared in the 
 same year that “the indications of a spirit of disunion have 
 been too plain to be mistaken.” The agitation of the subject 
 of slavery in papers and conferences of the Church was 
 considered “highly inexpedient, not to say dangerous.” As 
 
Methodism and Disunion 291 
 
 a result, the nation had been brought to “the very verge of a 
 fearful vortex.” As to the future, the editor said: ‘Let 
 the system of agitation be pressed a step or two farther, and 
 the United States of America may be plunged into the horrors 
 of a civil war—a thing infinitely more injurious, even to the 
 coloured race, than slavery itself.”4® In 1856, Cartwright 
 wrote a scathing denunciation of abolitionists)? and added: 
 “Tt am perfectly satisfied that if force is resorted to, this 
 glorious Union will be dissolved, a civil war will follow, death 
 and carnage will ensue, and the only free nation on earth 
 will be destroyed.’!8 Again he predicted that the results 
 of the agitation and strife and compromises would be dis- 
 union, war, ‘and rivers of human blood” which would “stain 
 the soil of our happy country.’’!® 
 
 Among southerners there developed a similar conviction 
 that civil war was imminent. The editor of the Nashville 
 Christian Advocate cited the action of a convention in South 
 Carolina, in 1852, where it was asserted that they had good 
 erounds for withdrawing from the Union but declined doing 
 so only because it was considered inexpedient.2° Governor 
 Campbell of Tennessee saw the outcome of secession perhaps 
 more clearly than most leaders of his section. No northerner 
 who advocated the further centralization of government 
 could improve on his statement of the situation.” “When we 
 look calmly and thoroughly at the matter, it must strike us 
 as idle and insane to talk about seceding from or dissolving 
 the Union, in quiet and peace, by consent. This is impossible. 
 Civil war will inevitably and naturally follow the one or the 
 other. Secession is separation, and disguise it as you may, it 
 implies and intends a separate organization and a separate 
 government. Should one State prove successful, others would 
 seek to follow the example and in the course of time, we 
 should probably have thirty or more petty republics, wrang- 
 ling and quarreling and fighting.”?? 
 
 In January, 1860, southern Methodist papers boldly 
 espoused the cause of secession. The editor of the Richmond 
 Christian Advocate set forth with evident approval that the 
 South was arming; that non-intercourse with the North was 
 becoming very popular among southerners; and that the 
 dissolution of the Union was considered inevitable. The 
 only hope for the continuance of a united nation was in the 
 
292 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 conservative party in the North. But that the editor had 
 little confidence in the North is clear from his statement that 
 the South was “concentrating on the single principle of self- 
 preservation and separate independence, for Southern con- 
 servatism’” was “fast settling on this principle.”?? Before 
 the election of Lincoln, the North Carolina Christian Advocate 
 declared that the Union would not survive a year if he were 
 successful. But the editor of that paper was perfectly aware 
 of the consequences. “A dissolution of this Union cannot 
 be peaceful. It will be followed by a civil war, the most 
 inveterate and horrible.”?% 
 
 Despite the knowledge that civil war would follow seces- 
 sion, there were Methodists in the South, even before the 
 nomination of Lincoln, who talked about the advantages of 
 disunion. One writer declared that “the probabilities and 
 advantages of an independent Southern confederacy are 
 matters current in conversation and journalism.” He be- 
 lieved that New Orleans would probably become the great 
 center of trade for the new nation, and that the capital would 
 be in the neighborhood of that city. Cuba and Spanish 
 America, as far as the Isthmus of Panama, might be added 
 to the new southern nation. The writer viewed the new 
 government as an accomplished fact. “What a dazzling 
 dream of empire! to be at length disentangled from the cold 
 North, and to have free and unembarrassed development. 
 for our peculiar resources and proclivities. Divide the 
 federal property peaceably, and dissolve the political part- 
 nership. Split the American eagle in twain, and the star- 
 spangled banner, the grave of Washington and the memories. 
 of the Revolution.’’* 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has been charged 
 with the responsibility for the Civil War. That the preachers 
 and editors of that Church advocated disunion even though 
 it might lead to a_ struggle has already been shown. 
 Brunson declares that they were responsible for the cat- 
 astrophe because they stood for slavery and because, being 
 the largest Church, their influence was greater. He con- 
 cludes his tirade against southern Methodists by a brief 
 review. of the separation and shows to his own satisfaction 
 that the division of the Methodist Church was the beginning 
 of a series of events which led directly to the war.?é 
 
Methodism and Disunton 293 
 
 On the other hand, Armstrong cites McTyiere’s “History 
 of Methodism” to prove that the Methodist Church was in no 
 sense responsible for the Civil War. He says that abolition- 
 ists had sought to succeed in their program through the 
 Church, and that when they were defeated there, they turned 
 to politics and won their battle for the freedom of the slaves. 
 Armstrong affirms that it was “a well known fact that, after 
 defeat on religious and moral lines, they began by spurning 
 the Bible and the civil Constitution, and that they honored 
 the churches by their denunciation.’’?" 
 
 To assign to either Southern or Northern Methodists the 
 responsibility for the “Irrepressible Conflict” is more than 
 can be done with certainly. But that the division of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church was a very powerful factor in the 
 attempt at disunion can not be denied. It will be remembered 
 that the northern delegates to the General Conference of 1844 
 accepted division as the way out of a bad situation; both con- 
 sidered it a final resort. Because a division of the Church 
 took place, it did not necessarily follow that there must also 
 be disunion of the states. If it had not been for the bitterness 
 aroused on both sides of the “line of separation” and espec- 
 ially if it had not been for the dispute, extending over a 
 period of years, concerning the common property of Metho- 
 dism, it is altogether probable that the talk of dissolving the 
 Union would have been greatly minimized. But thoughtful 
 argument is always at a premium when passions are aroused, 
 and especially when the point of view of the opposition is 
 not thoroughly understood. 
 
 But whether the Methodist Church in the South or that in 
 the North, or neither, was directly responsible for the Civil 
 War, the time had come when slavery was to receive its 
 death-blow. To accomplish this result, war must be the 
 portion of the Nation for four years; and millions of money 
 and thousands of human lives must be sacrificed. The Civil 
 War was waged to preserve the Union, but it became im- 
 possible to avoid the issue of emancipation®® as a contributing 
 cause of the greater and more immediate problem of secession. 
 
 1. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., No. 33; August 28, 1851. 
 The letter is also quoted in Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist 
 Church, 1844, p. 190. 
 
 2. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 432-3. See also, Norwood, The 
 Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 188 and The Liberator, 
 
294 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Volume XIV., p. 113, col. 3; July 19, 1844. 
 
 The Liberator, Volume XIV., p. 105, col. 6; July 5, 1844. Cf. Ibid. 
 
 p. 141, col. 1; September 6, 1844 where the Belknapp Gazette is quoted 
 
 as predicting that the-political union would not outlast the division 
 
 of the Methodist Church six months. 
 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XIX., p. 157, col. 1; May 
 
 14, 1845. Cf. Democratic Statesman, Volume I., p. 80; May 10, 
 
 1845. This latter paper was published for nine months for the 
 
 purpose of ‘‘redeeming’”’ Tennessee from Whiggism to “her ancient 
 
 democratic position.” (Found in the Tennessee Historical Library). 
 
 _Garrison commented: “Only think of the advice of a politician, 
 
 like Henry Clay, being sought by the Church of Christ (!) for its 
 
 guidance in the path of duty!!”” (The Liberator, Volume XV., p. 
 
 78, col. 2; May 16, 1845). 
 
 Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 433-4. 
 
 Webster, Writings, Volume X., p. 63. Cf. Calhoun, Works, Volume 
 
 IV., pp. 557-8. This is a part of Webster’s famous speech in the 
 
 debate on the Compromise of 1850, delivered March 7, 1850. 
 
 So a ane Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 11; January 10, 
 oO. ° 
 
 Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIII, pp. 158, col. 6 and 
 
 159, col. 1; December 4, 1845. 
 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XV., p. 122, col. 4; 
 
 July 31, 1844. 
 
 _ Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 70, cols. 1-2; August 
 
 16, 1844. 
 Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XV., p. 122, col. 4; 
 
 July 31, 1844. 
 Quoted in the Liberator, Volume XIV., PD. 126, col. 3; August 9, 
 
 1844. 
 
 . Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, pp. 191-3. 
 
 Cartwright, Autobiography, pp. 439-40. 
 
 | Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, pp. 262-5. Cf. Western Christian 
 Advocate, Volume XVIL., p. 70, cols. 2-3; May 1, 1850. 
 
 Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., January 
 
 "9 1851. The item is taken from the Christian Advocate and 
 
 Journal of December 26, 1850. 
 “T have never seen a rabid abolition or free-soil society that I 
 
 could join, because they resort to unjustifiable agitation, and the 
 
 means they employ are generally unchristian, They condemn and 
 confound the innocent with the guilty; the means they employ are 
 not truthful, at all times; SNe he ts 
 Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 129. 
 
 | Ibid., p. 158. “If agitation must succeed agitation, strife succeed 
 
 strife, compromise succeed compromise, it will-end in a disolution 
 of this blessed Union, civil war will follow, and rivers of human 
 
 blood stain the soil of our happy country.” 
 Nashville, Christian Advocate, Volume XVI., May 18, 1852. 
 
 1. tbid., Volume XV., October 23, 1851. 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 210-11. 
 
 3. Ibid., p. 225. 
 Volume XXIV., February 16, 1860. 
 
 Nashville Christian Advocate, 
 
 Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 30, gives another example. 
 
 Brunson, A Western Pioneer, Volume DP yp.o0G, 
 
 Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 275. 
 
 See the Minutes of the Providence Conference, 1855, p. 19, for an 
 interesting statement of the existence of slavery and freedom side 
 by side. It reads as follows: “Slavery in our country exists in 
 the very presence of Christianity, simply because Christianity is 
 not so administered as to abolish it; and Christian churches and 
 slave barricoons; protracted meetings and slave auctions; gospel 
 ministers and negro traders; revivals of religion and pro-slavery 
 caucuses; bibles, hymn books, disciplines and chains, whips and 
 thumb screws; pious prayers and cries of distress; shouts of praise 
 and wails of despair; collections for the support of missions abroad, 
 
Methodism and Disunion 295 
 
 and the sale of Christ’s church at home to supply the means: a 
 holy indignation against infanticide and Sutteeism in India, and 
 the forcible separation of Christian families at home; crowds of 
 devoted worshippers with prayer books in hand passing through 
 the streets to the house of God, on one day. and coffies of manacled 
 slaves under the whip of the soul drivers, destined for the shambles 
 of the far South, defiling along the same streets, the next—all 
 strangely mingied together, in one country.” 
 

 
PART V 
 THE PERIOD OF CIVIL WAR 
 
. 
 4 i 
 rh 
 
 ee Nee a) 
 
 
 
CHAPTER XXV 
 
 THE LOYALTY OF NORTHERN METHODISTS 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church has always been proud 
 of its record of devotion to the Union during the Civil War. 
 “Methodism is loyalty’ asserted one conference,’ and the 
 estimate that one hundred thousand Methodist soldiers were 
 to be found in northern armies? indicates that the claim to 
 loyalty was no idle boast. And, if there were any doubt as 
 to the regard in which the Methodist Church was held by 
 the National Government, it would be dispelled by the state- 
 ment of President Lincoln, made in response to an address 
 of the General Conference of the Church in 1864. “Nobly 
 sustained as the government has been by all the churches, [ 
 would utter nothing which might in the least appear invidious 
 against any. Yet, without this, it may fairly be said that the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church not less devoted than the best, 
 is by its greater numbers the most important of all. It is 
 no fault in others that the Methodist Church sends more 
 soldiers to the field, more nurses to the hospital, and more 
 prayers to Heaven than any.’ 
 
 Lincoln, perhaps more than any other man, kept constantly 
 in mind the paramount purpose of the North in coercing the 
 southern states—namely, the preservation of the Union. 
 During the first few months of the war, Methodist leaders 
 were in complete agreement with him. To permit south- 
 erners to secede from the Union was considered unthinkable. 
 War might come if an attempt were made to prevent the 
 extension of slavery, but even war, while terrible and opposed 
 to the spirit of the Bible, was not the greatest evil.* “It is 
 a greater calamity to permit the spirit of mobocracy to 
 remain rampant, destroying all rights of citizens. It is a 
 greater calamity to submit to the extinction of the freedom 
 of the press, and speech, and to degenerate into the system 
 of Austria, or Florence.” Watson believed it would be worse 
 than war to have slavery control all the territories and seize 
 
 299 
 
300 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 from Mexico some of that nation’s best provinces and stock 
 them with slaves. He concluded that the only possible action 
 for the Government was to resist secession.* After the war 
 had begun, the same editor asserted that the attack of the 
 Government was not “upon the institution of slavery, nor 
 with a design to destroy it. The administration has no such 
 design, and cannot have, and it is not best that any should 
 be deceived. The sole design of the administration is to 
 maintain the authority of the nation to uphold the majesty 
 of law, and ‘hold and possess’ national property.”® 
 Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the 
 whole, strongly supported the President in his determination 
 to suppress the rebellion. The records of over thirty .of 
 these bodies for the years of the war show a very general 
 and hearty approval of the aims of the Washington Govern- 
 ment. One conference was opposed to “all inflammatory 
 speeches, and treasonable utterances designed to convey sym- 
 pathy to the enemies of the nation, to discourage and 
 distract the loyal masses, and to subvert the vile purposes 
 of unprincipled partizans and demagogues.”® Another body 
 of ministers declared with emphasis that “this infernal 
 rebellion, the most hellish since Satan seceded from the 
 government of Heaven, must be put down,, cost what it 
 may.”? With such sentiments current throughout most of 
 the northern Church, the enthusiasm of Genesee conference 
 may be imagined when a beautifully carved cane was shown 
 to that body. “The serpent of secession was (shown) 
 endeavoring to destroy Liberty and her children, and the 
 strong talons of the Eagle avenger were on the reptile’s 
 throat.” As it was intended to do, “it suggested stinging 
 rebuke to ‘Copper heads’, and breathed ‘Death to Traitors.’ ’’8 
 Without exception, bishops of the northern Methodist 
 Church were actively loyal to the Washington Government. 
 At Genesee conference, October 16, 1861, just before the 
 unanimous vote was taken in support of the National 
 Government and in condemnation of the rebellion, Bishop 
 Ames delivered a spirited address to the ministers on national 
 affairs. “He thought that, were it his duty to join the 
 Union army and fight the rebels, he should shoot very fast, 
 he would ‘fire into them most benevolently.’”9 May 17, 
 
The Loyalty of Northern Methodists 301 
 
 1861, Bishop Morris wrote a letter urging the fullest support 
 of the Federal Government. He discouraged political divis- 
 ions and said there were only loyal and disloyal people— 
 “there is no middle ground.” The Bible, and especially 
 the writings of St. Paul, were cited to show that God was 
 the “source of civil authority” and that he required obedience 
 to the civil governments from all the people. “To deny 
 either of these propositions is virtually to deny the truth of 
 God’s Word.’”?° Bishops Janes, Scott and Baker also wrote 
 messages of encouragement to Elliott, who, at that time, was 
 struggling manfully against secessionists in St. Louis and 
 other points in Missouri. 
 
 But, of all the bishops, Simpson possessed most fully the 
 confidence of the President and people. Even before Lincoln 
 went to Washington, he and the bishop were in conference 
 several times.1* In April, 1861, after the President made 
 his call for the first seventy-five thousand volunteers to 
 suppress the rebellion, Simpson expressed his conviction that 
 only a beginning had been made and that a prolonged struggle 
 might be expected. Seward was skeptical relative to the 
 accuracy of the bishop’s opinions on war and politics but 
 both Bates and Blair were convinced. that, because he had 
 travelled so extensively, he was especially well qualified to 
 interpret the spirit of the nation. On numerous occasions 
 Simpson was called to Washington to consult with the 
 President on the general situation throughout the North. 
 He was one of the few men who could influence the burly 
 Stanton and was often employed by Lincoln for that pur- 
 pose. And it was Simpson who spoke the final words at 
 the tomb of the martyred president./* 
 
 Bishop Simpson contributed to the winning of the war by 
 his interest in the Sanitary Commission and the Christian 
 Commission. The first was patterned after the work of 
 Florence Nightingale in the Crimean War; the second was 
 _ the idea of the Young Men’s Christian Association. It was 
 in behalf of the former, and representing the President, that 
 Simpson delivered a notable address in Philadelphia, in which 
 he lauded the purposes and accomplishments of this organ- 
 ization.14 When the Christian Commission was dissolved in 
 February, 1866, it was Bishop Simpson who was chosen to 
 
302 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 deliver the final address in the House of Representatives. 
 Here again, those who served their country—this time by 
 their interest in the religious welfare of the soldiers—were 
 praised for their endeavors and bidden to continue their 
 work in other fields.¥® 
 
 Simpson was a magnetic and powerful speaker. At 
 Chillicothe, Ohio, members of Ohio and Cincinnati confer- 
 ences were his audience. So excited did people become that 
 handkerchiefs were waved, hats thrown in the air, and all 
 the people were standing when the bishop finished his 
 address.1® In November, 1864, he spoke to a packed house 
 in the Academy of Music, New York City. Here he spoke 
 of the possibilities of Americans rising from the humblest 
 circumstances to places of responsibility and trust, and of the 
 results of disunion. While he appealed to the religious 
 nature of the people, he did not hesitate to say that he would 
 not give a cent ona dollar for the debts owed by the 
 Government if a line of division were run through the 
 country from East to West. He declared that twenty years 
 of war would be preferable to a settlement at that time.’? 
 Lincoln’s only criticism of this address, which had previously 
 been delivered in Washington, was that, in mentioning the 
 great natural resources of the country, Simpson did not 
 “strike ile.” Thereafter the oil interests were not forgotten.1® 
 
 The influence of northern Methodists on the outcome of 
 the war and the recognition of their patriotism may be illus- 
 trated by their relation to four situations. The first of 
 these was the maintenance and strengthening of Union senti- 
 ment in western Virginia. A writer in a southern Methodist 
 paper!” stated that, should the South be successful in western 
 Virginia, northern Methodists would lose their influence in 
 that section.2° The struggle for ecclesiastical supremacy 
 probably increased the patriotic zeal of northern preachers. 
 One of these declared that he did not know of half a dozen 
 northern ministers who were in favor of the South. The 
 relation between ecclesiastical and political forces was clearly 
 stated. ‘“‘We preach in favor of Union. We pray for it, 
 and we talk for it, and defend it among the people. If 
 Western Virginia is saved, she will owe her salvation more 
 to Methodism, under God, than to any other agency. The 
 
The Loyalty of Northern Methodists 303 
 
 enemies of the Government are the enemies of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church.’*! It was a northern preacher, Gordon 
 D. Battelle, who, with F. H. Pierpont, the first governor of 
 West Virginia, was responsible for the inauguration of this 
 new commonwealth.** The loyalty of western Virginia was 
 credited to ministers and members of the northern Methodist 
 Church in that section.?? 
 
 That which was threatened by southerners in western 
 Virginia was also predicted in Missouri—that Methodism of 
 the northern type would be proscribed by Confederates if 
 they were successful in the insurrection against the Govern- 
 ment.*4 But in Missouri, also, there were a few northern 
 Methodists who heroically defended the cause of freedom 
 and Union. Led by Charles Elliott, the editor of the Cen- 
 tral Christian Advocate, Methodists of St. Louis became the 
 nucleus around which gathered the loyal people of the city 
 and the state. Though threatened with arrest by pro-slavery 
 men, Elliott defiantly displayed the Stars and Stripes from 
 the office window of the Book Concern. Protests against 
 the curtailment of loyalists’ rights were made by this editor, 
 while many ministers joined the Union forces as privates, 
 officers of infantry and chaplains. Patriotic meetings were 
 held, war speeches delivered and the people encouraged in 
 their support of the Union. Disloyalty was heavily con- 
 demned and arguments of southerners refuted. In Missouri, 
 the name of Elliott deserves to rank with that of Battelle in 
 West Virginia.” 
 
 The third incident which shows the place of the northern 
 Methodist Church in the Civil War was the occupation of 
 southern Methodist church property by northern Methodists. 
 As early as April, 1862, bishops and the Missionary Board 
 were being urged “to follow the army of the Union in its 
 triumphant march with institutions, the discipline and the 
 ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” The means 
 for such an extension of the Church’s work had been provi- 
 dentially supplied, for there was a great surplus of ministers 
 in eastern conferences. That patriotic considerations were 
 not the only ones which influenced them is clear from the 
 statement that this surplus had been “provided by the Head 
 of the Church for our right and perpetual re-occupation of 
 
304 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 the territory which was wrested from us in the great seces- 
 sion of 1844.’°6 In South Carolina, northerners were so 
 extreme as to consider vacant churches of southern Metho- 
 dists the legal property of the northern Church, and gave the 
 punishment of the Church, South, as the reason for their 
 action. But the editor of The Methodist showed that the 
 United States Supreme Court had declared that these 
 churches were the property of the Methodist Church, South. - 
 “The recommendation of a measure so dishonorable in itself 
 is well calculated to degrade the Church in the estimation of 
 all sensible men.”2* 
 
 Whether Methodist bishops urged that southern churches 
 be turned over to northern Methodists is uncertain, although 
 there is some evidence to support such a contention.?28 But 
 on November 30, 1863, the Secretary of War issued his 
 famous “Stanton-Ames Order,” in which northern generals 
 were “directed to place at the disposal of Rev. Bishop Ames 
 all houses of worship belonging to the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, South, in which a loyal minister who has been 
 appointed by a loyal Bishop of said church does not of- | 
 ficiate.” ‘The purpose was to rally a strong union sentiment 
 and aid in restoring “tranquility to the community and peace 
 to the nation.” By Christmas, 1863, the order was being 
 carried out. Wesley Chapel in Memphis, Tennessee, was 
 handed over to Bishop Ames simply because a loyal minister 
 was not in charge of the congregation. 
 
 According to one southern apologist, northern Methodists 
 soon began to take possession of southern churches without 
 military orders.*! Bishop Simpson is charged with ordering 
 southern Methodists to vacate McKendree Church in Nash- 
 ville2* The same authority declares that the abuse of 
 Stanton’s order became so intolerable that President Lincoln 
 himself found it necessary to interpose his veto. In a state- 
 ment of February 13, 1864, the President showed that the 
 Secretary of War had exempted Missouri and that Kentucky 
 never had been included in his order. He declared that the 
 sole purpose of the Secretary’s order was to rally loyal 
 Methodists to the Union cause in sections in which they had 
 become disorganized. He even suggested that it might be 
 necessary and desirable to withdraw the privileges of the 
 
The Loyalty of Northern Methodists 305 
 
 northern Church entirely.3° The action of the President may 
 have been responsible for resolutions of Missouri conference 
 in 1864 commending Bishop Ames for not occupying south- 
 ern churches in that state. The more probable reason is that 
 many southern Methodist preachers who were loyal to the 
 northern cause were joining the northern Church and they 
 feared lest that movement might possibly be stopped.34 
 
 Except for a few questions connected with the slavery 
 issue, northern Methodist leaders had rather consistently held 
 the view that as an organization they should not attempt to 
 influence the political situation. But in the election of 1864 
 it was easy to consider that event as a factor in the suppres- 
 sion of the “hellish” rebellion. In this crisis, northern 
 Methodist leaders did not hesitate. As early as February, 
 1863 Elliott rejoiced that political parties were so badly 
 shattered as a result of the war. Instead of the Republican 
 party a Union or National party had been organized, whose 
 chief purpose was the prosecution of the war until victory 
 was attained. On the other hand, the Democratic party had 
 become the organization in which might be found “neutrals, 
 sympathizers, and rebels, or traitors.’”°5 When the Demo- 
 crats nominated George B. McClellan, the action was openly 
 ridiculed by the editor of Zion’s Herald.?® 
 
 Northern conferences were also interested in the election 
 of 1864, Wisconsin conference asserted that it was their 
 duty to stir the Church and the people generally to a realiza- 
 tion of the danger which threatened them if the Democrats 
 were successful.2* South West German conference warned 
 the people not to be deceived in the election, the intimation 
 being that they should support Lincoln.3® After adopting 
 resolutions in support of the Government, Rock River con- 
 ference declared that, “inasmuch as participation in the 
 choice of rulers and representatives is both a national privi- 
 lege and a Christian duty,” they favored making all necessary 
 arrangements so that, in case of a change of residence, “not 
 a vote may be lost by which the national honor may be 
 periled.”°9 Genesee conference asserted that the questions 
 to be decided were not simply political but rather moral, 
 and that the people would be divided into two parties: 
 namely,“Patriots and Traitors.”*° 
 
306 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 One of the most important addresses delivered in behalf 
 of Lincoln during the campaign of 1864 was that of Bishop 
 Simpson, November 3, 1864. Before an immense New 
 York audience, he gave his great lecture on “Our Country” 
 which had created such an intense spirit of loyalty in many 
 other cities. This speech was reported by the leading New 
 York papers so that he spoke to the whole nation, It 
 probably had a large part in completing the splendid victory 
 obtained by the President in the November election.*! 
 
 While the Methodist Episcopal Church as a whole was 
 loyal to the Government, there were certain sections and 
 groups that were decidedly unpatriotic. The disloyal senti- 
 ment may have been the result of editorials in the Western 
 Christian Advocate and the Balttmore Christian Advocate. 
 In 1861, just before the inauguration of Lincoln, the editor 
 of the former wrote: “We entirely agree with the notion 
 that it would be highly impolitic to attempt to force an 
 unwilling state to remain in the Union.”#? The latter paper 
 published articles so favorable to the South that many 
 members withdrew from the northern Church and supported 
 the Confederacy.*3 
 
 With such sentiments current in Methodist papers it is 
 not surprising that there was disaffection even in the North. 
 East Genesee conference was divided on the action that should 
 be taken relative to national affairs.44 During the years 1863 
 and 1864 there was no report by these ministers on “The 
 State of the Country.”*° While Erie conference as a whole 
 was loyal to the North,*® there were many instances of dis- 
 loyalty among both ministers and members. October 14, 
 1862, ministers of Meadville District met at Conneautville, 
 Pennsylvania. Reports from various ministers indicated 
 that there was considerable disaffection in their own terri- 
 tory. The minister from Salem reported: “A good many 
 sympathizers with the South. We preach as much war as 
 we can without cutting their heads off.” The preacher from 
 Saegertown said some sympathized with the South and 
 created as much opposition as possible for those who were 
 loyal. Another reported that all loyal men had gone to the 
 war and left at home those who favored the rebellion. On 
 the following day, the preachers held a patriotic meeting, 
 
The Loyalty of Northern Methodists 307 
 
 with addresses by two of their number on “The Moral 
 Aspects of the Present War.’’4? 
 
 February 24, 1863, the same ministers met at Cochranton, 
 Pennsylvania, and declared that it was not Christian to give 
 support or extend sympathy to those who opposed the 
 Government, discouraged enlistments or slandered ministers.*® 
 June 9 of the same year they met at Linesville, Pennsylvania. 
 Again there were reports from ministers. One said he had 
 attempted to accommodate himself to disloyalists but had 
 found it impossible, and he had launched out in an attack upon 
 Slavery. Another declared he had shown his loyalty by 
 cutting off all copperheads. Josiah Flower reported: “Stars 
 and Stripes go with me. Disloyalists threatened to starve 
 me but have not done it. ‘Copperheads’ will give nothing. 
 Have expelled three.”*® Just how many ministers were 
 disloyal is impossible to determine; but at the session of 
 Erie conference in 1863 Judge Chaffee was requested to 
 administer the oath of allegiance to members of the con- 
 ference.°° 
 
 While Philadelphia conference adopted loyal resolutions 
 in 1862,51 these ministers had so far lost their enthusiasm by 
 1863, that they asked the President to appoint a day of 
 fasting and prayer, to be observed by all Christian people, 
 for the termination of the rebellion.5* And while they had 
 returned to their former loyalty by 1864, they declared that 
 some ministers and members had been disloyal and should 
 withdraw from the Church.5? 
 
 Methodists of Baltimore conferences were probably more 
 disloyal than any others in the northern Church. The fact 
 that the conferences included territory kept in the Union 
 only by force indicates that the people were not as loyal as 
 was desired. While East Baltimore conference adopted 
 resolutions favorable to the President in 1862,54 there was 
 no expression in support of the Government the following 
 year after the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued.** 
 was defeated, 37 to 11. But a resolution was adopted which 
 
 Especially interesting were the proceedirigs of Baltimore 
 conference, which met at Georgetown, D. C. in 1863. One 
 resolution, pledging the support of the conference to the 
 Government and sympathy and prayers for the President 
 
308 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 read: ‘Resolved, That the President of the United States 
 of America be respectfully requested to appoint a day of 
 national fasting and prayer to Almighty God, that it may 
 please him to bring our civil war to an end, and restore us 
 unity, peace, and prosperity.” In the course of the debate 
 on this resolution, the Rev. J. Bull, a chaplain of the 5th 
 Maryland regiment, declared that “State matters ought not 
 to be touched. He hated abolitionism as he did hell. Any 
 resolution in reference to the President would destroy the 
 Church. Pass it, and there were scores of Methodists in 
 Baltimore and adjacent “places who will leave the Church.” 
 Another minister said he was not in favor of the resolution 
 because “he did not pray for the success of either the Federal 
 or Confederate arms—he did not know which was right.”5® 
 This lack of support of the Government and the President 
 was unsparingly condemned. Writing in regard to the action 
 of Baltimore conference, one observer concluded: “Such an 
 exhibition of moral rottenness, as is here seen, cannot be 
 paralleled outside the Baltimore Conference, unless in the 
 conclaves of the Knights of the Golden Circle, or the Five 
 Points in New York. After the late action of this body of 
 moral lepers, if it did not stink in the nostrils of all decent 
 people forever, then the religious condition of the country 
 is most deplorable indeed. This is the second attempt made 
 to pass resolutions—faintly and feebly endorsing the Govern- 
 ment and condemning treason, with the same result. I have 
 met a few of these Methodist wolves in sheep’s clothing, 
 since the Conference has been in session, and so far as I 
 have observed, they are generally a tobacco-chewing, cigar- 
 smoking, and evidently whiskey-drinking set of rowdies, un- 
 worthy in any respect to be recognized as gentlemen.” 
 The sweeping claim to loyalty made by members and 
 ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church must be modi- 
 fied to conform with the facts. The statement of President 
 Lincoln can still be quoted by those who take pride in the 
 war record of the Methodist Episcopal Church. But Lincoin, 
 who was undoubtedly familiar with the fact that certain 
 sections of the Church were disloyal, did not affirm that 
 there were no traces of opposition in northern Methodism. 
 He simply said that more had been done by this Church than 
 
The Loyalty of Northern Methodists 309 
 
 by any other to support the Union cause. The situation in 
 East Genesee and Erie conferences is difficult to explain, 
 unless the “copperheads”? remained at home while the others 
 joined the northern army. As for the border, the explana- 
 tion is comparatively easy. Situated as these conferences were 
 in slave territory, they simply reflected the opinions of the 
 people whom they served. A strict adherence to the truth, 
 therefore, will compel those who tell the story of Methodist 
 achievement in the Civil War also to refer to the disloyalty 
 which unquestionably existed in some conferences. 
 
 
 
 Minutes of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1863, p. 37. 
 
 Minutes of the Upper Iowa Conference, 1864, p. 23. 
 
 Nicolay and Hay (editors), Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, 
 
 Werner wots p. 622. Cf. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, facing 
 
 pp. -7. 
 
 4. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 4, col. 2; January 
 2, 1861. Watson believed that the war could not last long. “It is 
 useless to conceal the fact that a conflict is almost inevitable. It 
 will be short, sharp, and bloody. The day for long wars is over.’ 
 
 Salis DelG4 COlaiwe Mayas.) 186Gb 
 
 6. Minutes of the Detroit Conference, 1864, p. 12. 
 
 7. Minutes of the West Wisconsin Conference, 1862, p, 11. 
 
 8. Conable, History of Genesee Conference. p. 674. 
 
 9 
 
 eho 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 669-70. 
 
 10. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 268-70. 
 
 11. Ibid., p. 272. 
 
 12. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 370, 
 
 13. Ibid., pp. 373-5, 397-403. 
 
 14. Ibid., pp. 391-5. 
 
 15. Ibid., pp, 403-6. 
 
 16. Ibid., pp. 378-80. 
 
 17. Ibid., pp, 381-5. 
 
 18. Ibid., pp. 372-3. 
 
 19. The Nashville Christian Advocate. 
 
 20. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 210; col. 3; July 
 10, 1861. 
 
 21. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 264-5, 
 
 22. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 283, and footnote. 
 
 23. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXXIII., p. 198, col. 
 3; December 10, 1862. 
 
 24. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 219, col. 3; July 
 10, 1861. 
 
 25. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 248-6, 263-72, 298, 310-13, 
 334-5, 365, 370-71, 396, 416-17, The latter part of the volume is a 
 complete apology for the. North during the Civil War. 
 
 26. Minutes of the New England Conference, 1862, pp. 23-4. That the 
 northern Methodist Church should occupy southern churches was 
 also the opinion of the Erie conference (see Fradenburgh, History 
 of Erie Conference, Volume II., p. 529). 
 
 27. The Methodist, Volume IV., p. 308, col. 6; October 3, 1863. 
 
 28. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 397. 
 
 29. Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume I, DP. 254; Fleming, 
 Documentary History of Reconstruction, Volume II., p. 221. 
 
 30. Fleming, Documentary History of Reconstruction, Volume II., p. 222. 
 
 31. Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume L., pp. 179 ff. 
 
310 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 SoLbids) DiliZeo. 
 . Ibid., p. 264. Cf. Nicolay and Hay (editors), Complete works of 
 
 Abraham Lincoln, Volume II., p. 481. Said Lincoln: ‘I fear it is 
 liable to some abuses, but it is not quite easy to withdraw it 
 entirely and at once.’’ 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 464-5. 
 . pp. 416-17. 
 . Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXXV., p. 142, cols. 
 
 3-4; September 7, 1864. 
 
 . Minutes of the Wisconsin Conference, 1864, p. 23. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume XXXIV., p. 170, col. 5; October 21, 1864. 
 . Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1864, pp. 25-6 
 
 . Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1864, pp. 11-12. 
 
 . Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, pp. 381-6. 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVIII., p. 68, col. 1; Feb- 
 
 ruary 27, 1861. 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 299. 
 
 . Minutes of the Hast Genesee Conference, 1862, p. 7. 
 
 . Ibid., for the years 1863"and 1864. 
 
 . Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II., pp. 527-8. 
 . Ibid. pp. 529-30. 
 
 wLbid., ppls30-312 
 
 Did: pW bod: 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 532-3. 
 
 . Minutes of the Philadelphia Conference, 1862, pp. 45-6. 
 
 . Ibid., 1863, p. 48. 
 
 . Ibid., 1864, pp. 44-5, 48. 
 . Nicolay and Hay, Complete Works of Lincoln, Volume II., pp. 152-3. 
 . Cf. Minutes of the Baltimore Conference for the year 1868. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume XXXIII., p. 53, cols. 2-3; April 3. 1868. 
 
CHAPTER XXVI 
 
 THE LOYALTY OF SOUTHERN METHODISTS 
 
 From a northern point of view, southerners of the Civil 
 War period were the worst of traitors ; from a southern view- 
 point, those who defended the South against invasion by 
 northern “oppressors” were, and still are, considered worthy 
 of the greatest honor. Had Jefferson Davis been approached 
 on the subject, he could have written an appraisal of the 
 loyalty of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, which, with 
 all due regard for the facts, would have rivaled the statement 
 of President Lincoln to the General Conference of 1864. 
 To interpret the action of the southern Church from the 
 southern point of view is the purpose of this chapter. 
 
 Conferences in the extreme South gave their enthusiastic 
 approval when plans for secession were under consideration. 
 Five days before South Carolina seceded from the Union, 
 the conference of that state declared in favor of the proposed 
 action. The conference chairman asserted that “the interests 
 of the Southern States are identical, and we must hang to- 
 gether or hang by ourselves.’ They pledged their sympathy 
 and support to the State in meeting northern attempts at 
 suppression... Alabama conference, having stated that the 
 election of Lincoln compelled southerners to defend their 
 rights, pledged their support to Alabama, Florida and Missis- 
 sippi, parts of which were included within the bounds of the 
 conference.” Of the ninety-six preachers in Georgia con- 
 ference, only nine were opposed to secession.” The attitude 
 of all these conferences was substantially that of Shanondale 
 Circuit of Baltimore conference. At a meeting held in 
 Jefferson County, Virginia, November 19, 1860, they de- 
 clared they would wait “until our wise statesmen and the 
 people generally have taken their stand—then, as a Church, ~ 
 we will follow, and not lead.”* In none of these resolutions 
 was there an attempt to delay secession, but in every instance 
 the support of the Church was promised to the states rather 
 than the national government. 
 
 311 
 
312 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Southern Methodist papers were likewise for the South. 
 The New Orleans Christian Advocate rejected the thought 
 of submission to the North and urged that the rights of their 
 section be maintained. In December, 1860, the editor of 
 the Nashwille Christian Advocate advised the Southwest to 
 support the coming Confederate Government and declared 
 that all the people, and especially Methodists, desired a separa- 
 tion from the North. Writing the following month, the 
 same editor asserted that the secession of southern states from 
 the Union might confidently be expected. Shortly after the 
 struggle commenced, he again expressed himself in favor of 
 secession and the Confederate Government. “We are for 
 the Confederate States and their success in this war. Call 
 you that secession? By that or any other name you like—dis- 
 union, rebellion, revolution.” The people of Tennessee were 
 urged to return a unanimous vote in favor of secession and 
 in support of the Constitution of the Confederate States of 
 America.? 
 
 When the Civil War had become an actuality, southern 
 Methodists were almost wholly on the side of the Confeder- 
 acy. The bishops of the Church were loyal adherents of 
 the provisional government.® Bishop Early offered prayer at 
 the opening of the fourth session of the Confederate Con- 
 gress.2 Bishop Andrew was especially active in his support 
 of the South and wrote many articles to encourage the 
 people.° In a statement printed in the Southern Christian 
 Advocate in June, 1861, he reminded Confederate women that 
 their relatives had been particularly loyal to the Revolutionary 
 cause, and that, in the conflict with the North, he believed 
 the old devotion would be equalled. He urged that southern- 
 ers were fighting for their homes, and that, even if the North 
 were successful against them—which he did not think was 
 probable—abolitionists would be ruined because of the cost 
 of the war. He believed that the South would be victorious 
 because their purpose was righteous; because the South— 
 “thanks to Lincoln’s folly and perfidy’—was firmly united; 
 and because they were fighting for their homes. He further 
 declared that the South had “an army made up of the very 
 best material, and commanded by officers second to none on 
 earth.” Finally, he asserted that many southern soldiers were 
 earnest Christians, as were the people at home, and the united 
 
The Loyalty of Southern Methodists 313 
 
 prayers of all the people in behalf of their cause would cer- 
 tainly prevail.14 
 
 The loyalty of southern Methodist papers to the Confed- 
 eracy is abundantly shown by their statements during the 
 war and by the action taken against them by the Washington 
 Government and the generals of the North. The New 
 Orleans Christian Advocate commended the attitude of 
 southern people towards the new Government, and especially 
 because the religious element was so prominent in everything 
 they did. “The truth is, it zs a religious war, It is a defense 
 of the rights of conscience.’”* A month later, it made the 
 following comparison of Davis and Lincoln: ‘Davis is the 
 very soul of courage, honor and chivalry: Lincoln is a 
 cowardly sneak. In the midst of the present storm, Davis 
 is calm, cool, generally cheerful, comprehensive in observa- 
 tion, rigidly keeping his own counsel. Lincoln is filled with 
 abject fear, drunk half the time, occasionally foolishly 
 whistling to keep up his courage!® By June, 1862, the 
 paper had been suspended because of the scarcity of paper and 
 all the employees had joined the Confederate forces.14 
 
 The Texas Christian Advocate was also loyal to the South. 
 The editor, Dr. Carnes, wrote that he had learned with sur- 
 prise that southern people were concerned about the attitude 
 of Texas. In reply he declared that the opinion was “univer- 
 sal, among white and black, that Texas ‘unrestrained by 
 Divine grace,’ can whip any two of the Northern States.” 
 The fact that a northern Methodist referred to the Pacific 
 Methodist as “the pro-slavery—secession—rebellion—treas- 
 onable sheet’! indicates that this southern Methodist paper 
 was aiding the South. The Owachita Conference Journal 
 saw the hand of God in the fact that their crops, which had 
 been very light the previous years, gave promise of an abun- 
 dant harvest. The people were urged to “build, plant, wor- 
 ship, erect schools, press on with every glorious enterprise. 
 - War against unbelief, lying, cheating, abolitionism, whiskey 
 and the devil ; and in humble faith anticipate the day when the 
 land shall have her rest and be overspread by a Sabbath day 
 of holiness,”’46 
 
 The St. Louis Christian Advocate aided the southern 
 cause at every opportunity. The editor, Dr. M’Anally, 
 praised the work of southerners and encouraged the people as 
 
314 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 much as possible. He was an associate of the editor of the 
 Missourt State Journal, and after the suppression of that 
 paper by the United States Government, the subscribers of 
 the Journal subscribed for the Advocate.17 M’Anally 
 attempted to show that he was not disloyal to the northern 
 Government, but he had little success in his representations 
 to the military authorities.1® When the North obtained some 
 success in Missouri and the West, he saw only desolation 
 for the country because of the northern invasion.?® In the 
 Spring of 1862 the Advocate was suppressed and the editor 
 arrested and thrown into prison in St. Louis.?° In 1863 he 
 was sentenced to banishment to the South, but the sentence 
 was never carried out. In connection with this sentence, 
 the Missourt Democrat, a paper in sympathy with the North, 
 stated: “His (M’Anally’s) paper, the Advocate was a viper 
 concern, and, while permitted by the military authorities to 
 exist, did more, in an insidious way, to poison the public 
 mind of Missouri toward tha (Washington) Government 
 than almost any other treasonable agency among us.”} 
 
 The Nashville Christian Advocate published the Consti- 
 tution of the Confederate States of America,?* and also, with 
 evident satisfaction, printed replies of the governors ‘of 
 Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and 
 Missouri, refusing the request for troops with which to 
 suppress the rebellion.2? The editor urged the South to 
 unite and resist the attempt of the North to coerce them. 
 Comparing the resources of the two sections, he concluded 
 that the South was much superior. “They have more 
 soldiers: we the better cause. Their fanatical hordes may 
 descend upon us from the North and Fast, and they will 
 doubtless seek to arouse against us Indians on the South and 
 West, and to convert the docile slaves in our midst into 
 assassins.” But all this strength would prove unavailing 
 for “what are all these against a people fighting for rights 
 and homes? A people in the right, and whose arms and valor 
 have won for the old Union its chief military glories? We 
 have no fear for the result; none at all.’ The people were 
 warned, however, to save their powder, repair their guns and 
 form organizations of home guards. The southern soldier 
 was considered irresistible—“One true Southern man can 
 chase a dozen Yankees.”23 
 
The Loyalty of Southern Methodists 315 
 
 The Publishing House at Nashville further showed that 
 southern Methodists approved the Confederacy by issuing a 
 “Confederate Almanac” in which the Richmond Government 
 was recognized and praised, while the Washington Govern- 
 ment was denounced.?4 Under the auspices of the Soldiers 
 Tract Society, thousands of hymn-books for soldiers were 
 printed.*> In 1862, when an officer of the United States 
 army visited the Publishing House, he found that the base- 
 ment of the building had been used to manufacture Con- 
 federate war materials.2° Because of its opposition to the 
 North, the Book Concern was closed and later confiscated by 
 United States officials.°? The editor and publisher went 
 further south,?® and the paper was combined with the 
 Southern Christian Advocate and published at Atlanta, 
 Georgia.”® 
 
 The two leading southern Methodist papers east of the 
 mountains were those at Charleston and Richmond. We 
 have noted that the former was compelled to suspend pub- 
 lication and unite with the Nashville Christian Advocate. The 
 Richmond Christian Advocate asserted that, if the Lincoln 
 Government. sought to subjugate the South, southerners 
 would have the consciousness that they had not started the 
 war. Therefore, the editor advised the people to defend 
 themselves, even though they might be compelled to destroy 
 northerners who were sent against them.*° 
 
 Most conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South, undoubtedly supported the Southern cause. The fact 
 that Kansas and Missouri conferences heartily approved the 
 work of the St. Louis Christian Advocate and especially the 
 attitude of that paper towards the war shows conclusively that 
 they favored the South.44 Missouri and St. Louis confer- 
 ences of the Church, South, were required to take the “Test 
 Oath’” because they were supposed to be assembling for the 
 purpose of aiding the Confederacy. Early in the year 1862, 
 Mississippi conference “most fully and heartily” declared 
 their “loyalty to the Government of the Confederate States 
 of America.’”’% That southern conferences were generally 
 loyal to their sectoin is also shown by the fact that Holston 
 conference in eastern Tennessee suspended all of their num- 
 ber who were not opposed to the North.** 
 
 With southern leaders and conferences loyal to the Rich- 
 mond Government, it was only natural that ministers sup- 
 
316 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 ported the Confederacy. Elliott declares repeatedly that 
 they were opposed to the North and accuses them of being 
 responsible for many questionable acts—which means that 
 they would be considered by the South as faithful to their 
 own homes and institutions.*° Dr. Carnes, editor of the 
 Texas Christian Advocate, became commander of a regi- 
 ment made up mostly of Methodist preachers and laymen.*® 
 Of the two hundred southern Methodist preachers in 
 Missouri, very few were untrue to the South. Elliott says © 
 that “many were in the rebel army, many were in the most 
 notoriously rebel communities, some led guerrilla bands, and 
 a valiant few went . . .. to Canada.”%’ One southern 
 Methodist chaplain wrote the editor of the Nashville 
 Christian Advocate as follows: “Serene Doctor: The Lord 
 grant you good health, peace, plenty, and everlasting deliv- 
 erance from Lucifer and Lincoln.’ 
 
 While loyal to the South, two addresses by the Rev. D. 
 S. Doggett were on a very high plane. The first was de- 
 livered in the Fall of 1862 in Broad Street Methodist 
 Church in Richmond, on the day of thanksgiving and prayer 
 appointed by the Confederate President. ‘The people re- 
 joiced exceedingly over their military successes. The ser- 
 mon was a very moderate statement of the southern posi- 
 tion.2® April 4, 1864, he preached another sermon on the 
 occasion of the National Fast. The situation from the 
 southern viewpoint was unfavorable, and the minister 
 sought to revive the waning hopes of the people in the Con- 
 federacy. He declared that he was still hopeful of victory. 
 He spoke of the heresies and divisions in northern churches, 
 and declared that the destruction of the Lincoln Govern- 
 ment was imminent. Considering the condition of the South 
 and the passions which had been aroused, this may likewise 
 be considered a very temperate utterance.*° 
 
 But disloyalty to the Confederacy was not entirely lack- 
 ing. We have already noted that Holston conference in 
 1862 expelled all of their number who were favorable to 
 the North, and that in 1864 most of them declared their 
 loyalty to the Washington Government.*! The most obvious 
 disloyalty to the Davis Government was found in Kentucky 
 conference. In the first session of the conference after the 
 commencement of the Civil War, the question of adherence 
 
The Loyalty of Southern Methodists 317 
 
 to either the South or the North was decided in favor of the 
 latter. Only eighteen or twenty ministers in Kentucky sup- 
 ported the rebellion, while sixty-four preferred to remain in 
 the Union. The conference further refused to elect any 
 secessionist to the General Conference which was to have 
 met in May, 1862, at New Orleans. Finally, they voted to 
 observe the day of fasting and prayer appointed by Presi- 
 dent Lincoln.4* With the occupation of the state by Fed- 
 eral troops it was comparatively easy to maintain the position 
 taken in 1861. The conference of 1864, while deciding to 
 remain a part of the southern Methodist Church, was over- 
 whelmingly in support of the Union.* 
 
 In sections of the South where ministers were disloyal 
 to the Richmond Government it is safe to conclude that 
 the laity were also disaffected. Particularly in Missouri 
 does there seem to have been wide-spread dissatisfaction with 
 the. southern Church because of its support of the Confed- 
 erate Government. Members of that Church promised to 
 secure subscriptions for the northern paper,** and protests 
 were common against the St. Louis Christian Advocate.*° 
 Methodists at Louisiana, Missouri, protested vigorously 
 against the secessionist Advocate because of its support of 
 the rebellion.4® Later, they joined the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church because it was loyal to the Federal Government.** 
 This withdrawal from the southern Church was encouraged 
 by southern Methodists who were loyal to the Union, and 
 by leaders of the northern Methodist Church who believed 
 they were serving not only their country but also the cause 
 of pure religion by such proselyting.*® 
 
 The record of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is 
 one upon which an apologist for the Confederacy can look 
 with pride. It is true that there were many instances of 
 disloyalty to the South along the border, but most Methodist 
 ministers and people whole-heartedly supported the insur- 
 rectionary government. Generally speaking, in both Metho- 
 dist churches, loyalty to the section increased the further 
 the people were removed from the “bloody ground” which 
 had been set aside by the self-interest, avarice, and greed of 
 both denominations during the years beginning with 1844 
 and ending with 1865. Naturally, the number of adher- 
 ents to either Church in this section varied with the success 
 of opposing armies.* 
 
31 
 
 Xe 
 Advocate, Volume X., p. 22, col, 2; January 15, 1862. 
 
 2. Elliot, South-Western Methodism, p. 229. 
 
 3. Richmond Enquirer, Volume LVII.; November 30, 1860. 
 
 4, Elliot, South-Western Methodism, p. 229. 
 
 5. Ibid., p. 226. 
 
 6. Ibid., p. 2380. 
 
 7. Ibid. pp. 281-2. 
 
 8. See Smith, Life and Times of George F. Pierce, pp. 436-88; Smith, 
 Life and Letters of Andrew, pp. 435 ff.; Redford, Life and Times. 
 of Bishop Kavanaugh, p. 411; Northwestern Christian Advocate, 
 Volume IX., p. 302, col. 3; September 18, 1861. 
 
 9. Elliot, South-Western Methodism, p. 377, 
 
 10. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXV.; September and Oc- 
 tober, 1861. 
 
 11. Elliot, South-Western Methodism, pp. 280-81. 
 
 12. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXV.; June 14, 1861. The 
 conviction of the New Orleans Christian Advocate that the war 
 was of a religious nature is further illustrated by the following 
 passage quoted from that paper: ‘‘Southern people feel profoundly 
 assured that they are fighting for the only rights, the only com- 
 fortable life, and the only true social and political status the negro 
 can ever have. They feel that they are fighting for the only true 
 Christian civilization they can ever enjoy, either in this or any 
 other country. Slavery is rapidly coming to be regarded as a 
 providential system of African civilization. It has long since come 
 to be regarded as a ‘power’ in general civilization; now, the idea 
 of the present and eternal welfare of the Africans is involved in 
 its defence. Southern men defend slavery now upon the same 
 principle and with the same spirit as they do their religion, their 
 homes, their wives and children, their personal honor and inde- 
 pendence.’’ (Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 318, 
 cols. 4-5; October 2, 1861). 
 
 138. The Liberator, Volume XXXL, p. 93, col. 5; June 14, 1861. 
 
 14. Eliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 397. 
 
 15. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 22, col. 2; January 
 15, 1862. 
 
 16. Ibid., Volume IX., p. 219, col. 4; July 10, 1861. 
 
 17. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 290-91. 
 
 18. Ibid., pp. 303-4. 
 
 19. Ibid., pp. 376-7. Said M’Anally: ‘‘What a scourge is upon it! (the 
 
 8 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Elliot, South-Western Methodism, p. 228. Cf. Northwestern Christian 
 
 country) What chastisements it is undergoing! Who that really 
 loves it can reflect upon its present condition, without feelings of 
 bitterest anguish! Distracted, disrupted, torn, and bleeding! Its 
 material interests all marred—its social relations almost broken 
 up—its educational and religious interests all languishing! And 
 the prospect for the future more dark, if possible, than the aspects 
 of the present! Think of the bitterness of feeling—the blood- 
 thirstiness and cruelty which are being manifested—the hatred 
 and vindictiveness of one part of the people toward the other! 
 Who, twelve months ago, would have believed the people of this 
 country could ever have been led to indulge the feelings they have 
 recently manifested? How total, in many instances, has been the 
 disregard to private rights, private interests, and property! Think 
 of the destruction of homes—the waste of towns and villages, and 
 the desolations of whole tracts of country that have occurred— 
 the thousands of innocent women and children who have been 
 rendered houseless and homeless—and the tens of thousands of 
 sober, industrious men, made desperate by the sufferings and 
 privations they have endured.” h 
 
 To this the editor of The Methodist responded: ‘All this is 
 sternly true, but what is the guilty cause? It is the Southern 
 treason against a righteous and Constitutionally administered Gov- 
 ernment. All this woe comes from the men with whom the 
 Advocate has been in tacit alliance. Why does it not turn its 
 
48. 
 
 The Loyalty of Southern Methodists 319 
 
 doleful admonitions toward them? The article from which we 
 quote has no allusion to the reprobate culprits who inflict this 
 misery on the country. Such is the maneuver of this Western 
 editor. Why does he not treat with the retreating foes of his 
 country ?’’ 
 
 . Ibid., p. 388. 
 . Ibid., p. 426. 
 t Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXV., February 21, 1861. 
 
 . Ibid., April 25, 1861. 
 S Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 465. 
 . A copy, published in 1863, is in the Confederate Museum at Rich- 
 
 mond, Virginia. 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 394-5. 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 180, col. 3; June 
 
 4, 1862. Cf. Ibid., p. 206, col. 3; June 25, 1862. 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 382. 
 . Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXXIII., p. 102, col. 
 
 3; June 25, 1862. 
 
 . The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 93; col. 5; June 14, 1861. 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 337-8. 
 
 . Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume II., pp. 64-71. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 86, col. 4; March 
 
 12, 1862. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 406, col. 4; December 17, 1862. In August, 1864, the 
 
 ministers of Holston conference declared that one hundred twenty 
 of their number were known to be loyal to the North and that 
 forty more were supposed to be. (Nicolay and Hay-—editors— 
 Abraham Lincoln, A History, Volume VI., p. 333). 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 363, 382, 395, 414, 421. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 3965. 
 
 MeL bide uD) 4e5. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 269, col. 1; 
 
 August 21, 1861. 
 
 . Doggett, A Nation’s Ebenezer (Pamphiet). 
 . Doggett, The War and Its Close (Pamphlet). 
 . It is significant that in 1868, the southern Holston conference 
 
 appealed to the Genera] Conference of the northern Church for a 
 return of property carried over by these ministers in 1864. (Cf. 
 Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume I., pp. 267-740.) 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 398, col. 3; 
 
 December 11, 1861. 
 
 . Stevenson, Journal, Volume I., pp. 216-19. Stevenson and seven- 
 
 teen other ministers withdrew from the southern Church. 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 300. 
 
 . Ibid., pp, 412-13. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 336. 
 
 . Ibid., pp. 482-3. As a reason for their action they said: “. 
 
 when the rebellion culminated in open hostilities we had the morti- 
 fication to see, not only in the seceding States, but in our own . 
 State, ali the official powers and authorities of our Church, with 
 a very few honorable exceptions, arrayed against the Government 
 with all their influence and power. Many of the ministers not 
 only refused to utter or to tolerate the utterance by others of the 
 usual] prayers for the authorities and officers of the Government, 
 but, on the contrary, openly and publicly prayed for the success of 
 traitors in arms against it; publicly urged, by speeches and other- 
 wise, the young men of the country to commit the crime of treason 
 against the Government; urged them to kill, burn and destroy— 
 to ‘wade to their knees in hldod* to destroy that Government framed 
 by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and their compeers 
 .We are unwilling to be made to bow down and worship an 
 institution as a divine inheritance which had its origin in a cruelty 
 and barbarity without a parallel in the history of the world as the 
 price Of our Church relations and Christian privileges.” 
 Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume I., pp. 201-2. See also, 
 
320 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1864, p. 24; and Elliott, South- 
 Western Methodism, pp. 412, 414, 428. 
 
 49. One of the most interesting questions connected with any war is 
 the destruction of universa] conceptions of religion. Jehovah 
 becomes nothing more than a tribal deity, who is expected to 
 bless his own adherents and curse those who are considered 
 ‘‘enemies.”’ oH: a 
 
CHAPTER XXVII 
 
 ANSWERED PRAYER 
 
 While northern Methodists proclaimed that the Civil War 
 was being waged to preserve the Union, they also declared 
 that the contest was God’s chastisement visited upon the 
 nation for permitting the evil of slavery to exist for almost 
 a century after the Declaration of Independence had been 
 issued.1 Slavery was declared to be the underlying cause of 
 the civil strife which had arrayed brother against brother, 
 and father against son.2, Every endeavor which had for its 
 purpose the destruction of human bondage in Church and 
 State had the active support of northern Methodists. 
 
 Writing of the abolition of slavery, George M. Weston 
 said in 1857: “That it will not take place in our day and 
 generation, is as indutiable as anything future can be.’* But 
 scarcely had war begun until measures prejudicial to the 
 slaveholding interests were proposed. Previous to May, 1861 
 northern generals had sedulously protected the vested rights 
 of slaveholders, General Butler had even offered the use of 
 his troops in Maryland to suppress a threatened servile in- 
 surrection.* This position of non-interference with slavery 
 except to enforce the law was supported by the editor of 
 the Northwestern Christian Advocate, who declared in 
 January, 1861, that “revolting as is the Fugitive Slave law 
 to our feelings, it is the duty of the government to enforce 
 it until the sovereign people shall repeal it.”> But when 
 General Butler, who had been placed in command at Fortress 
 Monroe in May, 1861, conceived the happy thought of call- 
 ing slaves who had run away from Confederate masters 
 “contraband,” and the Government had given its approval, 
 the same editor commended “Butler’s lawyer-like position.”® 
 
 During the summer of 1861 the Northwestern Christian 
 Advocate set forth the advantages of freedom for slaves and 
 the absolute necessity of doing something to destroy slavery. 
 The resolution of Erie conference, expressing the hope that 
 
 321 
 
322 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 slavery would soon be abolished and no longer control 
 national affairs, was printed.’ Three New York publications 
 were quoted to show that when slavery was destroyed, white 
 men would go to the South, improved machinery would be 
 introduced, the power of politicians would be minimized, and 
 the two sections and the churches would be re-united? 
 August 7, Eddy said that leaders at Washington might “as 
 well commence on the word liberation, It will come harder 
 to their vocal organs than the others, but they will be obliged 
 to come to it. They may halve it, or syllable it, or letter it, 
 any way that its bold, manly pronunciation can be learned 
 easiest, but learned it must be.’? 
 
 The editor of the Northern Christian Advocate was also 
 insistent in his demands that slavery must be abolished. “Let 
 the cause of disunion be removed and the Union is safe. Let 
 ‘that most prolific source of anarchy, misrule, robbery and 
 treason be swept away, and there will be no farther anxiety © 
 for the perpetuity of an excellent government. If we must 
 have a civil war, with all its evils—and they are many—let it 
 be for a sufficient cause. Let the freedom and moral eleva- 
 tion of 4,000,000 of human beings now in a bondage of 
 intolerable cruelty, be reckoned into the results of such a war. 
 In a word, let us accept the issue the rebels themselves offer 
 —SLAVERY OR NO SLAVERY. In such a conflict, God, 
 who hears the cry of the oppressed, will be on our side, and 
 the sympathy of every Christian nation on earth will be with 
 us,’’10 
 
 When President Lincoln revoked the order of General 
 Fremont, decreeing freedom to slaves of rebels in his district, 
 his action immediately raised a storm of protest among north- 
 ern radicals. In reply to O. H. Browning, September 22, 
 1861, the President said that the general’s order was not 
 justified. He pointed out that a commander might seize a 
 pasture for military purposes but the land was not thereby 
 taken from the owner. The same was true of slaves. A 
 proclamation of this kind Lincoln labelled as “simply dic- 
 tatorship.” “It assumes that the general may do anything he 
 pleases — confiscate the land and free the slaves of loyal 
 people, as well as disloyal ones. And going the whole figure, 
 I have no doubt, would be more popular with some thought- 
 
Answered Prayer 323 
 
 less people than that which has been done! But I cannot 
 assume this reckless position, nor allow others to assume it 
 on my responsibility.” If he should do so, it would mean 
 that he as President would seize and exercise legislative 
 functions of government. 
 
 The editor of The Methodist, a ridetloncisiat paper which 
 had been established in 1860 for the purpose of holding 
 border Methodists in the northern Church, supported the 
 President. It was noted that it was not the purpose of the 
 Chief Executive or the generals to abolish slavery in sections 
 where the people were loyal. ‘The president, his counsellors, 
 and Congress have each and all steadily resisted the clamors 
 of the zealots who have urged that emancipation be made 
 the direct object of the war.’ He declared that the North 
 was dealing only with rebellion against the Government, and 
 that slavery would be dealt with in seceding states according 
 to the exigencies of the case.!* 
 
 But this writer stood alone. Detroit!’ and Minnesota! 
 conferences cordially supported Fremont rather than the 
 President. The editor of the Northwestern Christian Advo- 
 cate wrote: “The General is right. The administration may 
 not sustain him, but the people will.’ The editor then gave 
 his argument in favor of emancipating the slaves. He as- 
 serted that the people of the North were being taxed to 
 suppress rebellion and that taxes had been cheerfully accepted. 
 “At the same time we demur to the enforced collection of 
 this revenue if it is to be used in maintaining the right of 
 our foes to their property in human flesh. Let every bonds- 
 man with a rebel master, be made a freeman and bid to 
 defend his freedom and newly-found self-ownership against 
 all comers.”2® And as chairman of the Rock River confer- 
 ence committee on the “State of the Nation,” Dr. Eddy 
 presented a resolution which declared that the question of 
 slavery would “have to be met as the hardy ‘Pathfinder’ met 
 it in his proclamation, which rang like the shout of an angel, 
 ‘their slaves, if they have any, are free MEN! 16 
 
 When President Lincoln presented his plan to compensate 
 any state for a part of the loss sustained through emancipat- 
 ing slaves, Thaddeus Stevens dubbed it “the most diluted 
 milk and water-gruel proposition ever made to the American 
 
324 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 nation.”!7 Among Methodists there was a division of opinion. 
 Southern Illinois conference favored the plan and especially 
 the colonization of the negroes.18 New York East confer- 
 ence considered it perfectly fair that “the States 
 
 share in the expense necessary to be incurred in affecting 
 that object.” Even New England conference “hailed with 
 pleasure and heartily” endorsed “the late emancipation meas- 
 ure of the President.’’”° 
 
 Eddy was less cordial. March 12, he said that plans for 
 purchasing slaves of loyal people were being considered,7! 
 but his statement two weeks later showed that he disapproved 
 the President’s proposal. One of the chaplains of the Union 
 army declared that the proposed emancipation scheme was 
 the greatest blow ever struck at slavery, although he consid- 
 ered it only an enlargement of General Fremont’s proclama- 
 tion. Lincoln’s measure he believed to be only a halting step 
 in the right direction, and yet he was willing to say: 
 “Abraham Lincoln! Huis name shall be as dear while living, 
 his monument as high when dead, and his fame as enduring 
 as our own Washington’s—the President who gave slavery 
 the first direct blow with the strong arm of the nation.” 
 Eddy commented: “The extract gives some fine specimens 
 ofihytalutin’ 77? 
 
 When Congress considered the measure declaring all slaves 
 in the District of Columbia free,?* the law met with the ap- 
 proval of Methodists. After Congress had acted but before 
 the President had affixed his signature, there was consider- 
 able doubt as to whether he would sign it, and much specula- 
 tion as to whether Congress could muster a two-thirds 
 majority to pass it over his veto.*4 
 
 When their fears were found to be without foundation, the 
 comment of conferences and papers was very favorable. 
 Rock River conference rejoiced: “Slavery has been swept 
 from the District of Columbia!”25 Eddy was especially jubi- 
 lant: striking headlines, the doxology, and the president’s 
 proclamation of a day of thanksgiving and prayer, appeared 
 in the columns of the Northwestern Christian Advocate. 
 Lincoln’s statements against slavery were quoted, especially 
 that in which he said that the nation could not continue half 
 slave and half free, and the conclusion of the editor given— 
 
Answered Prayer 325 
 
 “That the rebellion in the sugar and cotton states can be 
 suppressed and slavery preserved, we seriously doubt.” 
 Another writer declared that the act of Congress was “‘one 
 of the greatest victories of the war.” He said some would 
 ask: “But what is the world going to do for cotton?” And 
 he answered: “The world can better afford to do without 
 cotton, than it can afford to have it under a system which 
 sets at defiance the laws of God and humanity.” He as- 
 serted that if the war continued more than that Summer, 
 the destruction of slavery would become an absolute necessity, 
 for “the country can not endure the financial burdens of this 
 war for two years more, nor do we believe it can for one 
 year more.” Either slavery must go, or the Republic would 
 be destroyed." 
 
 At least one Methodist paper was interested in the sup- 
 pression of the African slave-trade. When Captain Gordon 
 was captured and sentenced for slave-trading, the editor of 
 the Northwestern Christian Advocate said: “Let us have no 
 maudlin pity for his fate. He ought to die! The wretch 
 who could steal 99 human beings is unfit to live 
 Let the stern penalty be executed, and with it will come the 
 strangling of Northern participation in the slave-trade.’#8 
 Six months later, when a treaty to suppress the African 
 slave-trade had been accepted by Great Britain and the 
 United States, Eddy was unstinted in his praise.?9 
 
 The proposal to confiscate slaves of rebels which were used 
 against the North met with the general approval of northern 
 Methodists.2° Only Rock River conference objected that 
 “mere confiscation” was not enough, “for that makes slaves 
 our property and not theirs; and the United States must not 
 be a great slaveholder.’*+ But the following Spring, when 
 the measure was being warmly debated in Congress, Eddy, 
 who was responsible for the resolutions of Rock River con- 
 ference, declared: ‘““The Congressional hesitancy in adopting 
 some plain law of confiscation is amazing. Do those gentle- 
 mien believe that the expenses of this war should be borne by 
 loyal men? Do they legislate upon that theory? If so, their 
 constituents differ radically. They believe that those who 
 dance should pay the piper, and demur to defraying all the 
 expenses of this huge carnival of death, gotten up by slavery 
 
326 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 propagandists.” He contended that there was no “dignity so 
 sublime gathering about the right of property in man, in 
 black men,” that slaves should not be appropriated under 
 confiscation acts.?” 
 
 From the time that Union forces began to march into slave 
 territory, radicals began to demand the abolition of slavery. 
 Three Methodist papers were especially insistent that drastic 
 action be taken. According to Eddy, the rights of slave- 
 holders were protected only if they were loyal to the Federal 
 Government. He said various arguments would be advanced 
 against emancipation—that it had proved a failure in British 
 Colonies and that white men had been reduced to bankruptcy. 
 Further, it was asserted that freedmen would not work be- 
 cause they believed that “freedom” meant freedom from 
 work. These arguments were dismissed by Eddy who com- 
 mented: “These and kindred sayings are repeated oracularly 
 by the London Times, the Washington Star, and sundry 
 slavery-loving sheets much nearer Lake Michigan.’ 
 
 That this Chicago paper should have been radical is to 
 have been expected, but the same is true of formerly con- 
 servative Methodist papers. October 16, 1861, the Western 
 Christian Advocate carried an article by O. A. Brownson, a 
 Catholic, in which he urged emancipation as a war measure.*4 
 In June, 1862, the editor published an article of his own on 
 “The Emancipation Question” in which he complained of 
 the slowness of the Administration to act on this important 
 subject. He confessed that there were wide differences of 
 opinion as to the kind of manumission—some asking for 
 immediate, unconditional emancipation, while others favored 
 manumission and deportation. The first was the more popu- 
 lar with extremists, while the latter was supported by many 
 Congressmen and by the President. Kingsley said that the 
 argument most frequently heard against emancipation was 
 that negroes were not fitted for freedom. But he held that 
 freedom did not imply the right to vote, else white women 
 and children were slaves. The question of race equality was 
 not involved in the discussion. He admitted, however, that 
 this was the greatest stumbling block in the way of total 
 emancipation. This explained the plan to colonize the 
 negroes. ‘One may blush for such a puerile exhibition of 
 
Answered Prayer 327 
 mingled meanness and malignity,”’ said he, “‘but since it ex- 
 ists, it would be unwise to ignore it in the discussion of the 
 practical relations of the slavery question, especially so long 
 as it dictates the policy of the Chief Magistrate of the 
 nation.” 
 
 The third paper to urge immediate emancipation was the 
 Christian Advocate and Journal. Early in the year 1862, 
 the editor, under the heading “Emancipation of the Slaves,” 
 urged the move as a military necessity.°° A more definite 
 alliance with the most radical element was made in an editor- 
 ial which urged emancipation for the following reasons: 
 (1) The South would be ‘compelled to recall troops in the 
 field to suppress slave uprisings; (2) “it would diminish the 
 number of slaves and consequently the supplies of the south- 
 ern army”; (3) it would increase the number of laborers and 
 soldiers in the northern army; (4) it would “remove the 
 only cause of the war”; and (5) “it would prevent any for- 
 eign intervention in our affairs” for “England would not dare 
 to fight us, or fight for our adversaries if we fought for 
 emancipation and the South against.”%? 
 
 Whether or not President Lincoln was influenced by popu- 
 lar clamor is impossible to determine. Certain it is that 
 before July 13, 1862 he showed the greatest impatience with 
 those who were over-zealous for negroes. When Secretary 
 Chase and others became especially interested in having slaves 
 used as soldiers, he said: “What is all this itching to get 
 niggers into our lines.”°8 And when Sumner urged that an 
 appeal ‘““be made to the slaves, and the rear-guard of the 
 rebellion be changed into the advance guard of the Union,” 
 Lincoln answered that “he would at once, if he did not fear 
 that half the army would lay down their arms and three 
 other States would join the rebellion.”*® 
 
 But, commencing July 13, he seriously considered issuing 
 an emancipation proclamation.4® On July 22, the President 
 submitted to the Cabinet the first draft of his famous Eman- 
 cipation Proclamation. Several suggestions were made by 
 cabinet members but only one was acceptable—namely, that 
 of Seward who urged that it should not be published until 
 after a northern victory. Seward’s thought, said Lincoln, 
 was “that it would be considered our last shriek on the 
 
328 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 retreat.’”41 It was discussed at two successive cabinet meet-- 
 ings, and by the President and individual members of that: 
 group. After the battle of Antietam, the Cabinet was again. 
 convened, and the proclamation issued, September 22, 1862.4 
 
 While President Lincoln waited for a victory, the agitation 
 for emancipation continued. Upper lowa conference resolved 
 to at once “memorialize the President of the United States: 
 in reference to the immediate emancipation of every slave in. 
 the United States.”43 Minnesota conference could not “re- 
 frain from expressing an ardent desire that this frightful 
 source of so much evil may be crushed by military power as 
 soon as such a measure shall be deemed practicable.”44 West 
 Wisconsin conference declared that such a document would 
 “fill heaven with joy and hell with terror. It would make 
 every loyal heart rejoice, and every rebel heart quake with 
 fear.” The army would be greatly inspired, and the rebellion 
 be given a death-blow. “It would send the name of 
 Abraham Lincoln down to posterity by the side of that of 
 George Washington, forever honored—the one for freeing 
 his country from the oppression of Great Britain, and the 
 other for freeing it from the infinitely greater curse of 
 slavery.”*° Fully approving all these sentiments, Eddy kept 
 alive the agitation in favor of the radical move.*® 
 
 During the two months after the President first presented 
 the Proclamation to the Cabinet, there were two events of 
 special interest for our study. The first was the publication 
 of Horace Greeley’s “The Prayer of Twenty Millions,” in 
 which the President was rather roughly handled ;** and the 
 reply of the President to this attack.48 The editor of the 
 Northwestern Christian Advocate commented upon the cor- 
 respondence between Greeley and Lincoln and concluded: 
 “We admit the great duty of the President is to save the 
 Union, and we are sure he cannot save it and slavery, HE 
 CANNOT. Now let him go ahead and ‘SAVE THE 
 UNTONY ise 
 
 The second event of interest was the visit of the Com- 
 mittee of clergymen from Chicago to President Lincoln, just 
 nine days before the proclamation was issued.5° Dr. William 
 Patton and Dr. John Dempster, first president of Garrett 
 Biblical Institute, composed the committee, who represented 
 the Christian men of Chicago.°t According to the unsym- 
 

 
 Answered Prayer 329, 
 
 pathetic Chicago Times, they represented “the religious com- 
 munity of Chicago” who “believe that the country is now. 
 suffering under Divine judgments for the sin of oppression, 
 and who favor the adoption of a memorial to the President 
 of the United States, urging him to issue a decree of eman- 
 cipation, as a sign of national repentance as well as a mili- 
 tary necessity.” The Times pointed out that Providence 
 would presumably be against the South, since that section 
 held more slaves than the north, but the success of the Con-. 
 federates did not indicate that such was the fact.*! 
 
 In his, reply to the ministers, Lincoln said he had been 
 considering the subject for months. He had received op-. 
 posite opinions “from religious men who are equally certain 
 that they represent the divine will.” One side must be mis- 
 taken, and perhaps in some points both were in error. Said 
 Lincoln: “I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that 
 if it is probable that God would reveal his will to others on 
 a point so connected with my duty, it would be supposed he 
 would reveal it directly to me; for unless I am more de- 
 ceived in myself than I often am, it is my earnest desire to 
 know the will of Providence in this matter. And if I can 
 learn what it is I will do it. These are not, however, the 
 days of miracles, and I suppose it will be granted that I am 
 ‘not to expect a direct revelation. I must study the plain 
 physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible, and 
 learn what appears to be wise and right.”°? 
 
 The President then presented some of the difficulties in the 
 way of emancipation. After reciting incidents which had 
 come to his attention to show that there was considerable 
 difference of opinion as to the advisability of issuing such a 
 document, he raised the question of the proclamation’s utility. 
 “What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me 
 do, especially as we are now situated? I do not want to 
 issue a document that the whole world will see must neces-. 
 sarily be inoperative, like the Pope’s bull against the comet. 
 Would my word free the slaves, when I cannot even enforce 
 the Constitution in the rebel States? Is there a single court, 
 or magistrate, or individual that would be influenced by it. 
 there?” He then spoke of the laws of Congress in regard © 
 to the slaves of rebels and declared that so far as he knew: 
 
330 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 no slave had been induced to come to the Union lines by — 
 acts of Congress, And if they should come, he asserted that 
 the North could not care for the millions of negroes in the 
 South. Concerning the effect of the proposed document 
 upon the border states, Lincoln said: “I will mention 
 another thing, though it meet only your scorn and contempt. 
 There are fifty thousand bayonets in the Union armies from 
 the border slave States. It would be a serious matter if, in 
 consequence of a proclamation such as you desire, they 
 should go over to the rebels.” He admitted that the procla- 
 mation might help some in the North and some in Europe, 
 “though not so much, I fear, as you and those you represent 
 imagine.’’>2 
 
 This severe lecture could not have been very comforting 
 to the committee. The Chicago Times gave the following 
 account of the mission: “The Reverend Dr, Patton and com- 
 pany, who bore the memorial of the religious anti-slavery — 
 fanatics of this city to the president in favor of a decree of 
 immediate and universal negro emancipation, seem not to 
 have gleaned any very essential satisfaction in their inter- 
 view. ‘The President received the committee kindly, and 
 informed them that the subject was one near his heart, but 
 that he could not agree with the gentlemen that the time 
 had come for such a measure’. And so the Reverend Dr. 
 Patton and company came away. ‘Great cry and little wool,’ 
 as somebody said when he sheared the hog.’ 
 
 President Lincoln’s idea that the Emancipation Proclama- 
 tion was a war measure received scant consideration from 
 northern Methodists.°* The Western Christian Advocate 
 printed the proclamation with very favorable comment.5® 
 The editor of Beauty of Holiness commended Lincoln but 
 urged that he should have freed all the slaves instead of 
 excepting those in loyal states.°° The Christian Advocate 
 and Journal contained an article favorable to the President’s 
 action,®? while Zion’s Herald showed its approval by an 
 article two and one-half columns in length.°® Eddy was 
 among the most enthusiastic supporters of the proclamation. 
 In part he said: “The proclamation is not all we wish or 
 look for, yet it is much, and perhaps may be enough at 
 present.”59 But he declared that it had sounded the death 
 
Answered Prayer 331 
 
 knell of slavery, “and pealed the herald note of our coming 
 victory and triumph.’®° The chaplain whose statement in 
 regard to Lincoln on a previous occasion had been termed 
 “hyfalutin,’®! must have taken considerable satisfaction in 
 Eddy’s appraisal that “if this be followed up, as we believe 
 it will, as age succeeds age, brightest among the names of 
 our statesmen and deliverers, will shine that of ABRAHAM 
 LINCOLN! THE GREAT EMANCIPATOR!?’6 
 
 The resolutions of Illinois and Genesee conferences con- 
 cerning the Proclamation are typical of all those passed by 
 northern conferences. The former endorsed it “as justified, 
 not only by military necessity, but by the moral sense of the 
 civilized world.”®% Genesee conference, by a unanimous 
 vote, heartily approved the Proclamation “as being a neces- 
 sary war measure and directly calculated to bring about a 
 sure and lasting peace, by removing the great cause of our 
 past national disturbances and of the present Civil War.”’® 
 
 Together with the emancipation of slaves, northern Meth- 
 odists insisted that the National Government should employ 
 negroes as soldiers. Eddy urged the policy within four 
 months after the war started. He said Tennessee had 
 ordered the conscription of all negroes between the ages of 
 eighteen and fifty-five years, and his conclusion was that 
 the North ought to arm them. He admitted that those 
 favorable to the South would raise the cry of “servile war,” 
 but he considered such an. attitude without justification since 
 the South had set the example. He asserted that there were 
 four million slaves held in the South and many negroes in 
 Canada who desired to go south “under the folds of the 
 star-spangled banner and to the sound of martial music.” 
 The question was whether or not these should be used. The 
 South was compelling negroes to work for them. The North 
 must therefore “offset that by proclamations of freedom and 
 by the employment of African muscle, endurance and 
 pluck.”® | 
 
 But over sixteen months passed before President Lincoln 
 announced his intention of using negroes in the Federal 
 army.®? So satisfactory was the service which these recruits 
 rendered that Erie conference passed the following resolution 
 in 1866: “That the negro soldier in many a well-fought 
 
B32 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 battle has vindicated his manhood against the slanders of 
 those who have sought to degrade his character, as an excuse 
 for reducing him to the condition of a brute. We trust that 
 the day has dawned on his long night of bondage.’”® 
 During 1864 and 1865 Congress passed®® and three-fourths 
 of the states ratified an amendment by which all slavery in 
 the nation was forbidden.*° From the time that an amend- 
 ment to the Constitution seemed possible, northern Methodist 
 leaders gave their whole-hearted support to the proposed 
 measure, Maine conference, April 13, 1864, approved “of 
 the efforts being made so to change the Constitution of the 
 United States as to exclude slavery forever from all our 
 borders.”"1 In 1865, New Jersey conference approved the 
 amendment and condemned the New Jersey legislature for 
 refusing to sanction the measure.”* The Methodist, an ad- 
 mittedly conservative paper, petitioned the Government for 
 the universal emancipation of the slaves.‘* Other confer- 
 ences and leaders added their approval to this radical depar- 
 ture from the position held by a majority of the people in 
 1861.%4 
 
 The destruction of slavery in the Nation had as a corallary 
 the extirpation of slavery from the Methodist Church. That 
 the war was distinctly the work of Providence was the 
 opinion of many Methodist leaders. The course of the war 
 was considered as conclusive proof that God had somehow 
 led and guided the North and confounded the South. By 
 others the result was regarded “as an answer to the prayers 
 of the church, which have been specially and increasingly 
 earnest during the last forty years.”"® After Lincoln issued 
 his Emancipation Proclamation, Ohio conference said: “Re- 
 solved, That we adore the Lord for at last virtually answer- 
 ing for us a question long and anxiously asked by the Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church, ‘What shall be done for the. extir- 
 pation of the evil of slavery among us? ”?7 And New 
 Hampshire conference declared that God was “sublimely 
 answering” the same question which had been “so long 
 dubiously asked.” 78 
 
 It is a curious fact that many ministers of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church continued to cling to the opinion that the 
 Church had always been opposed to slavery. Wyoming 
 
Answered Prayer 333 
 
 conference congratulated themselves and the Church that 
 they had “been permitted for nearly a whole century in this 
 country to witness against the great evil which has caused 
 the present rebellion. With more or less steadiness of pur- 
 pose and earnestness of effort we have sought its extirpation 
 from the country.”’? Southern Illinois conference said that 
 the Church had “ever held that slavery is a heinous sin 
 against God and nature.’’®° But Oneida conference was more 
 truthful, declaring in 1861 that, “however humiliating it may 
 be, candor compels the acknowledgement, that in the adminis- 
 tration of the Discipline we have not been true to our princi- 
 ples. We have denounced the sin, but fellowshipped the 
 sinner.”’®! It must be apparent that the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church had not always “denounced the sin,” but on the 
 contrary had constantly protected slaveholding by members 
 of the Church. 
 
 Although most northern conferences were opposed to 
 slavery, there was no concerted action in favor of changing 
 the General Rule on Slavery. Black River conference 
 wanted non-slaveholding made a requisite for membership 
 in the Church. Slaveholders then in the Church—and it was 
 admitted that there were such—were to be permitted to with- 
 draw from the same, but if they refused they were to be 
 dealt with as in cases of immorality.82 New Hampshire 
 conference delegates were instructed to see that the General 
 Conference so changed the rule on slavery “that no prying 
 eye of criticism or sympathy for ‘the peculiar institution’ ”’ 
 should find an excuse for slavery to remain in the member- 
 ship of the Church or mistake their “entire and earnest con- 
 demnation of the great evil.”®% East Genesee conference, 
 which had been very conservative during the war, was the 
 only body that adopted a resolution embodying a specific and 
 drastic change. They proposed that the rule on slavery 
 should be revised so that it would forbid ‘“Slaveholding: 
 buying or selling slaves.’’®4 
 
 But since this proposal was not accepted by two-thirds of 
 all the ministers of the Church, the question of changing the 
 rule must be left to the General Conference of 1864 which 
 met May 2, at Philadelphia. In all the General Conferences 
 prior to 1864 the bishops had refused to recommend that 
 
334 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 slavery be excluded from the Church. But in their address 
 at the beginning of this Conference, they proposed that no 
 more slaveholders should be permitted to join the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. Elliott declared that the concurrence of 
 annual conferences was not necessary to make a change of 
 the rule valid, because “the decision of the General Confer- 
 ence of 1784, requiring freedom in all cases, but which the 
 civil power had suspended for eighty years, could now be 
 carried out to the letter by the General Conference’ without 
 that approval.®> The majority recommendation, forbidding 
 “Slaveholding : buying.or selling slaves,” was adopted, 207 to 
 9.86 It was considered advisable to secure the concurrence 
 of annual conferences.®? 
 
 The reason for the action of the General Conference of 
 1864 needs some explanation. It was certain that it was 
 only a matter of months until slavery would be abolished by 
 constitutional amendment, and the General Conference legis- 
 lation was therefore unnecessary. Ridgeway says that the 
 Conference passed the measure because “the General Gov- 
 ernment needed all the moral force the Conference could give 
 it in grappling with the Rebellion, whose inspiration was 
 slavery.”8’ But this could have been and was done by reso- 
 lutions in support of the President and his war program. 
 
 Prickings of conscience because in previous years the 
 Church had refused to exclude all slaveholders from the 
 Church, and the assurance that their action would be popular 
 throughout the Church and Nation are the more probable 
 explanations. Bishop Haven, writing of this event, says 
 that “when the war was over and not a slave remained in 
 the country, the barren exploit of inserting the word ‘slave- 
 holding’ in the Rules was performed. Had I been a member 
 of that General Conference I should have opposed it. The 
 word is as much out of place as ‘cannibalism’ or ‘the offering 
 of human sacrifices’ would be. I wrote an article to that 
 effect, but the tide was too strong for sober thought. For 
 one, I regret that the Discipline is changed from that under 
 which the Methodist Episcopal Church took its noble posi- 
 tion, and fought so hard to maintain. If any change had 
 been made it should have been, and might well be now, to 
 strike out all allusion to slavery whatever. The battle is 
 
Answered Prayer 33d 
 
 fought and the victory won. Why maintain a useless breast- 
 work and the ashes of burnt powder?’’’ But his protest 
 was without avail, for “Slaveholding: the buying and selling 
 of slaves” is still prohibited by the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church.®*? | 
 
 To the mind of Methodism, the Civil War was God’s 
 answer to prayer. None of the proclamations of the Presi- 
 dent or acts of Congress had given Methodist leaders suffi- 
 cient courage to abolish slavery in the Church, but the pro- 
 posed Thirteenth Amendment affected all the people, North 
 and South, loyal and disloyal. No appeal could be made by 
 the southern Church to slaveholders; northern Methodists 
 could not lose members by their proposed act. It was in 
 this spirit that the General Conference enacted, and annual 
 conferences approved what was already certain to be attained 
 by the National Government. The Thirteenth Amendment 
 was declared in affect on December 18, 1865.99 The req- 
 uisite number of northern conferences had ratified the 
 General Conference action by the Spring of the same year 
 so that it became the law of the Church, but appeals could 
 be taken to the ensuing annual conferences if slaveholding 
 members desired, For all practical purposes, therefore, both 
 branches of Methodism became free from slavery at the same 
 time. 
 
 1. Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1863, pp. 22-4; Minutes 
 of the Genesee Conference, 1862, pp. 12-13; Minutes of the Rock 
 River Conference, 1861, p. 15; Ibid., 1862, pp. 28-9. 
 
 2. Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II., p. 527; 
 Minutes of the Black River Conference, 1862, pp. 30-31,34; Minutes 
 of the Michigan Conference, 1861, pp. 33-6; Minutes of the Wyom- 
 ing Conference, 1862, p. 33; Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 
 1862, pp. 12-13; Minutes of the New England Conference, 1864, p. 
 24; Minutes of the Detroit Conference, 1861, p. 36; Ibid., 1864, pp. 
 10-12: Minutes of the Maine Conference, 18638, pp. 21-22; Minutes of 
 the Rock River Conference, 1861, pp. 14-16; Ibid., 1862, pp. 28-9; 
 Ibid., 1864, pp. 26-7; Minutes of the Providence Conference, 1862, 
 pp. 21-2. Cf. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 
 324, col. 6; October 9, 1861; and Ibid. p. 347, col. 3; October 
 30, 1861 and Ibid., Volume X., p. 358, cols. 5-6; November 5, 1862, 
 The Detroit conference of 1861 said: ‘‘That as slavery is the real 
 cause, and liberty or slavery the real issue, of the contest, we are 
 in favor of the humane, but vigorous, prosecution of the war until 
 the irrepressible conflict between the two is finally settled in the 
 utter overthrow of rebellion, in the utter destruction of treason 
 with its twin monster secession, and in God’s own good time, in 
 the utter abolition of American slavery.’’ The Minnesota con- 
 ference committee declared that they were convinced ‘‘that slavery 
 is the cause of all this war,’’ 
 
336 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Weston, Progress of Slavery in the United States, p. 175. 
 Hosmer, The Appeal to Arms, pp. 52-3. 
 
 F aeptiee ue Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 4, col. 2; January 
 2, 1861 
 
 Ibid., p. 188, cols. 2-3; June 12, 1861. 
 
 'Ibid., p. 249, col. 2; August 7, 1861. 
 
 Ibid., p. 196, cols. 2-3; June 19, 1861. These papers were the World, 
 the Independent and Atlantic Magazine. 
 Ibid., p. 252, col. 3; August 7, 1861. 
 
 . Ibid., p, 268, col. 5; August 21, 1861. 
 . Nicolay and Hay (editors), Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, 
 
 Volume II., pp. 78-81. Cf. Hosmer, The Appeal to Arms, p. 79. 
 
 . The Methodist, Volume II., p. 276; September 7, 1861. 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 324, col. 6; 
 
 October 9, 1861. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 347, col. 3; October 30, 1861. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 292, cols, 1-2; September 11, 1861. 
 
 . Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1861, p. 15. 
 
 . Hosmer, The Appeal to Arms, pp. 205-7. Cf. Nicolay and Hay 
 
 (editors), Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume II., pp. 
 129-130; and The Methodist, Volume III., p. 188, cols, 3-4; June 21, 
 1862. 
 
 . Minutes of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1862, pp. 34-5. 
 . Minutes of the New York East Conference, 1862, pp. 21-2. 
 . Minutes of the New England Northern Conference, 1862, pp. 21-2. 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 84, col. 1; March 
 
 12, 1862. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 100, col. 5; March 26, 1862. 
 . For an account of Lincoln’s favorable attitude, see Nicolay and 
 
 Hay (editors), Abraham Lincoln—A History, Volume V., pp. 215-17. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 140, col. 1; April 
 
 30, 1862. 
 
 . Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1862, p. 28. 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 1382, cols. 1-2; 
 
 April 23, 1862. 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIX., p. 148, cols. 1-2; May 
 
 7, 1862. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 372, col. 5; 
 
 November 20, 1861. 
 
 . Ibid., Volume X., p. 148, cols. 4-5; May 7, 1862. 
 . Ibid., Volume IX., p. 824, col. 6; October 9, 1861. Cf. Ibid., Volume 
 
 xX., p. 84, col. 1; March 12, 1862; and Fradenburgh, History of Erie 
 Conference, Volume II., p. 528. 
 
 . Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1861, p. 15. 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., Dy 84, col 3s March 
 
 12, 1862. The article was entitled “Confiscation.” 
 
 . Ibid., col. 1. Probably one of the papers referred to was the 
 
 Chicago Times, a Democratic paper. 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVIII, p. 330, cols. 4-5; 
 
 October 16, 1861. 
 
 . [bids {Volume 2EXLX.,pi 225, cols.1-3; culy 16, 4862 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XXXVIL., p. 65, col. 6; 
 
 February 27, 1862. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 268, cols. 2-3; April 21, 1862. 
 . Hosmer, The Appeal to Arms, p. 208. 
 . Bancroft, Speeches ete. of Carl Schurz, Volume I., p. 209. The 
 
 letter was from Sumner to Schurz, July 5, 1862. 
 
 . Welles, Diary, Volume I., pp. 70-71. The announcement was made 
 
 on the way to the funeral of Secretary Stanton’s child. The mem- 
 bers of the party were amazed at his changed sentiments. 
 
 . Nicolay and Hay (editors), Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, 
 
 Volume II., pp. 479-80. Cf. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 
 374. 
 
48. 
 
 Answered Prayer 337 
 
 . Welles, Diary, Volume I., pp. 142-4, 
 - Minutes of Upper Iowa Conference, 1862, p. 42, Passed September 
 
 10. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 358, cols. 5-6; 
 
 November 5, 1862. The resolution was passed before September 22. 
 
 . ibid., col. 5; November 5, 1862. Resolutions were passed 
 
 September 8. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 288, col. 2; September 10, 1862 and Ibid., p. 300, cols. 3-4; 
 
 September 17, 1862. 
 
 . New York Tribune, August 20, p. 4, cols. 2-4. This was an open 
 
 letter to the President. He maintained that the people who elected 
 him were sorely disappointed. The following charges and sugges- 
 tions or demands were set forth: (1) Lincoln was not executing 
 the laws, especially the more important ones. (2) He was remiss 
 in regard to emancipating slaves according to the provisions of 
 the Confiscation Act, (3) He was unduly influenced by the repre- 
 sentatives and menaces of the ‘‘fossil politicians’’ of the border 
 states. (4) The Government was too timid in dealing with rebels. 
 (5) The Union cause was suffering from the deference being shown 
 to rebel slavery. If the President had served notice in his inaugu- 
 ral address that no loyal person could be held in slavery if a 
 rebellion were begun, slavery would have been struck a stagger- 
 ing, if not a fatal blow. (6) The Confiscation Act was habitually 
 disregarded by generals in the field. (7) Negroes were killed at 
 New Orleans by northern troops when they came expecting free- 
 dom. (8) He declared that it was impossible to put down the 
 rebellion and save slavery. (9) Finally, Greeley called upon the 
 President to execute the laws, and especially the Confiscation Act. 
 Lincoln’s reply to this attack was that his chief purpose was to 
 save the Union and that whatever he did had that object in view. 
 The question of slavery was subordinate to the larger purpose. 
 If he could save the Union and free the slaves, he would do that; 
 if he could save the Union by not freeing the slaves, he would do 
 that; and if he could best serve the interests of the nation by 
 freeing some slaves and not others, he would proceed to do so. 
 He also promised that when he made mistakes and they were 
 pointed out to him, he would endeavor to correct them (The 
 source is the same as footnote 49, below). 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 276, cols. 4-5; 
 
 August 27, 1862. 
 
 . Welles, Diary, Volume I., p. 130; September 13, 1862. 
 . Chicago Times, September 5, 1862, p. 2, col. 1. Cf. Northwestern 
 
 Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 292, cols. 1-3; September 10, 1862, 
 
 . Nicolay and Hay (editors), Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, 
 
 Volume II., pp. 234-6. 
 
 . Chicago Times, September 18, 1862. 
 . An exception is noted in Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Confer- 
 
 ence, p. 275. 
 
 . Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIX., p. 314, cols. 5-6; 
 
 October 1, 1862. 
 
 . Beauty of Holiness, Volume 13, No. 10, p. 326. 
 . Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XXXVII., p. 324, col. 1; 
 
 October 9, 1862. 
 
 _ Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXXIII., 158, cols. 
 
 2-4; October 1, 1862. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., 316, cols. 1-2; 
 
 October 1, 1862. 
 
 . Ibid., p. 324, col. 5; October 8, 1862. 
 . Supra, p. 324. 1 
 _ Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 316, cols. 1-2; 
 
 October 1, 1862. 
 
 . Minutes of the Illinois Conference, 1863, p. 26. Cf. Western 
 
 Christian Advocate, Volume XXIX., p. 355, col. 1; November 5, 1862. 
 
 . Conable, History of the Genesee Conference, Pp. 672, 
 
338 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 65. 
 
 66. 
 
 67. 
 68. 
 
 69. 
 
 Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1862, p. 138. For other con- 
 ferences, see Minutes of the Ohio Conference, 1863, p. 16; Minutes 
 of the Maine Conference, 1863, pp. 21-2; Minutes of the Rock River 
 Conference, 1862, pp. 28-9; Minutes of the New Hampshire Confer- 
 ence, 1863, pp. 22-4; Minutes of the New York Conference, 1863, 
 p. 82; Minutes of the New York East Conference, 1863, p. 32; 
 Fradenburgh, History of Erie Conference, Volume II., pp. 530-31 
 (Meadville District), The Minutes of Michigan conference relative 
 to slavery and emancipation are to be found in the Northwestern 
 Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 339, cols. 3-4; October 22, 1862 
 and the Wisconsin conference resolutions in Ibid., p. 355, col. 5; 
 November 5, 1862. 
 
 In all these resolutions the idea of ‘‘military necessity’ was 
 minimized, while the moral results of the proclamation as well as 
 the moral necessity of such a document were emphasized. 
 Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 260, cols. 2-3; 
 August 14, 1861. 
 
 In the final Proclamation of Emancipation, January 1, 1863. 
 Fradenburgh, History of Erie Conference, Volume II., p. 534. This 
 sentiment was probably shared by most northern Methodists. Cf. 
 Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1865, p. 35; and Minutes of 
 the Rock River Conference, 1863, p. 26. 
 
 The project failed twice in the House of Representatives but after 
 the election of 1864, when the amendment was advocated by the 
 Union party, the necessary two-thirds vote was secured, January 
 31, 1865. By December 18, 1865, three fourths of the states had 
 ratified the amendment to the Constitution. 
 
 . Hosmer, The Outcome of the Civil War, pp. 124-7, 148, 150-52, 
 
 221-2. 
 
 . Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1864, p. 24. 
 
 finutes of the New Jersey Conference, 1865, p. 24. 
 
 . The Methodist, Volume YV., p. 108, cols. 4- 5: April 9, 1864. 
 . Minutes of the Illinois Conference, 1866, p. 24; Minutes of the 
 
 Rock River Conference, 1865, pp. 28-9; Minutes of the New England 
 Conference, 1864, p. 24; Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Vol- 
 ume XXXVI., p. 90, col. 3; June 7, 1865. 
 
 . Minutes of the New York Hast Conference, 1864, p. 40; Minutes of 
 
 the Rock River Conference, 1865, pp. 28-9. 
 
 . Minutes of the Minnesota Conference, 1865, p. 36. 
 . Minutes of the Ohio Conference, 1863, p. 16. 
 . Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1865, p. 21. The 
 
 resolution is as follows: “God is sublimely answering the question 
 which was so long dubiously asked,—‘What shall be done for the 
 extirpation of slavery?’ The slaveowners, grown insolent and bold 
 by the concessions and compromises of the Church, he has al- 
 lowed to plunge into a mad rebellion, which has involved them 
 and their peculiar institution in an overthrow, entire and conspic- 
 uous as the fall of Pharaoh and his host. President Lincoln’s 
 emancipation proclamation was one stamp of almighty justice on 
 the neck of oppression; the constitutional amendment of congress 
 is another; and the fierce blows of our gallant army on rebellion 
 have hewn its carcass to pieces. Now, let it be drawn forth with- 
 out funeral, to rot in the last ditch, with the wreck of the Con- 
 federacy.”’ 
 
 . Minutes of the Wyoming Conference, 1862, p. 33. 
 
 . Minutes of the Southern Iinois Conference, 1863, pp. 36-7. 
 
 . Minutes of the Oneida Conference, 1861, p. 29. 
 
 . Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 155, col. 3; May 
 
 15, 1861. 
 
 . Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1864, p. 21. 
 
 . Minutes of the Mast Genesee Conference, 1864, p. 7. 
 
 . Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 411. 
 
 . Journal of General Conference, 1864, p. 167. A conservative minori- 
 
 ty report was also presented (Ibid., p. 377). 
 
 . Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, p. 275. 
 
88. 
 
 89. 
 90. 
 
 Answered Prayer 339 
 
 Haven, Autobiography (Stratton, editor), p. 126. The same 
 thought was expressed in the General Conference of 1864 by John 
 B. Wentworth of Genesee conference. He suggested that, owing 
 to the proposed constitutional amendment, the General Rule ‘‘must 
 soon become obsolete, and could have no practical effect, but only 
 serve as a memorial of the former complicity of Church and State 
 with this stupendous wrong, by which the civilization and Christ- 
 ianity of the nineteenth century in our country have become 
 lastingly disgraced, without the use of extraordinary means for 
 perpetuating their shame: therefore 
 
 “Resolved 1. That the Committee on Slavery be instructed care- 
 fully to consider the wisdom and propriety of recommending in 
 their forthcoming report, not any amendment of our present Rule 
 on Slavery, but an elimination of that Rule, by the action of this 
 Conference and the concurrent action of a constitutional majority 
 in the Annual Conferences.’’ (Journal of General Conference, 1864, 
 pp. 105-6). 
 Hoctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1924, 
 Paragraph 30. 
 Rhodes, History of the United States, Volume V., p. 540. 
 
Pash tac en Se ae ey 
 ne fi aa ; si De Pe ict ‘ an very. ; 
 iy . x ! mh ef he. LA . ? q : i ; hay G ¥} 
 gj ie) va it ae he 
 : til Dial a 7 
 pa WR es, 5) 
 
 re iM 
 yen Wa 
 ca vt 
 
 wel hs 
 
 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 A. PRIMARY SOURCES 
 
 I. CONFERENCE REcorps. 
 
 1. Histories of Annual Conferences. 
 1. Allen, Rev. Stephen, D. D., and Pilsbury, Rev. W. H., History 
 of Methodism in Maine, 1793-1886. Augusta: Press of Charles E. 
 Nash — 1887. 
 2. Armstrong, James Edward, History of the Old Baltimore Con- 
 ference (From the Planting of Methodism in 1773 to the Division 
 of the Conference in 1857). Baltimore: Printed for the author by 
 King Bros., Printers — 1907. 
 3. Bennett, Rev. P. S., and Lawson, Rev. James, History of 
 Methodism in Wisconsin. Cincinnati: Cranston & Stowe — 1890. 
 4, Bennett, Rev. William W., Memorials of Methodism in Vir- 
 ginia, from its introduction into the state, in the year 1772, to the 
 year 1829. Richmond: Published by the Author — 1871. 
 5. Conable, Rev. F. W., History of the Genesee Annual Con- 
 ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, from its Organization 
 by Bishops Asbury and M’Kendree, in 1810 to the Year 1884 (Sec- 
 ond edition). New York: Phillips & Hunt — 1885. 
 6. Crawford, Rev. Geo. A. (editor), The Centennial of New 
 England Methodism. Boston: Crawford Brothers, 36 Bromfield 
 Street — 1891. 
 7. Fradenburgh, J. N., History of Erie Conference (two volumes). 
 Oil City, Pa.: Published for the Author by Derrick Publishing 
 Company —: 1907. 
 8. Graham, Rev. Henry, History of the Troy Conference. Albany, 
 N. Y.: J. B. Lyon Company — 1908. 
 9. Gregg, Samuel, History of Methodism within the bounds of 
 the Erie Annual Conference (two volumes). New York: Nelson 
 & Phillips, 805 Broadway — 1873. 
 10. Herrick, H. N., and Sweet, W. W., A History of the North 
 Indiana Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Indianap- 
 olis: W. K. Stewart Company — 1917. 
 11. M’Ferrin, John B., History of Methodism in Tennessee (three 
 volumes). Nashville: Published by A. H. Redford, Agent, for the 
 M. E. Church, South — 1871 to 1891. 
 12. Mudge, James, History of the New England Conference, 1796- 
 ~ 1910. Boston: Published by the Conference, 36 Bromfield Street— 
 1910. 
 13. Price, R. N., Holston Methodism: from its origin to the 
 present time (third thousand). Nashville: Publishing House of 
 the M. E. Church, South — 1904 to 1908. 
 14. Redford, A. H., Western Cavaliers: embracing the History 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Kentucky from 1832 to 1844 
 
 341 
 
342 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 (fifth thousand). Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House 
 —1876 
 
 15 Shipp, Rev. Albert M., The History of Methodism in South 
 Carolina. Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing Company— 
 1884. 
 
 16. Smith, George G., Jr., The History of Methodism in Georgia 
 
 and Florida, from 1785 to 1865. 
 
 Macon, Ga.: Jno. W. Burke & 
 
 Coes tery: 
 
 17. West, Rev. Anson, A History of Methodism in Alabama. 
 
 Pub- 
 
 lishing House, Methodist Episcopal Church, South — 1893. 
 
 1 
 
 Church for the year 1862 (Volume IX). 
 
 Minutes 
 
 Porter. 
 2. Minutes and Annals of the Baltimore Annual Conference (now 
 
 2. Minutes of Annual Conferences. 
 of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal 
 New York: Carlton & 
 
 of the M. E. Church, South), 1862-66, in Baltimore and Maryland. 
 3. Minutes of the Baltimore Conference, 1863. 
 
 4. Minutes of the Black River Conference, 1862. 
 
 5. Minutes of the Delaware (Ohio) Conference, 1857, 1859. 
 
 6. Minutes of the Detroit Conference, 1856, 1861, 1864. 
 
 7. Minutes of the East Baltimore Conference, 1859, 1860. 
 
 8. Minutes of the East Genesee Conference, 1861-64. 
 
 9. Minutes of the East Maine Conference, 1852, 1858, 1860. 
 
 10. Minutes of the Erie Conference, 1850-51. 
 
 11. Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1856, 1862, 1864-65. 
 
 12. Minutes of the Illinois Conference, 1859, 1863, 1866. 
 
 13. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1843-46, 1850-52, 1854-57, 
 
 1860, 1863-64. 
 14. Minutes of the 
 15. Minutes of the 
 16. Minutes of the 
 
 Michigan Conference, 1855-56, 1861. 
 Minnesota Conference, 1865. 
 New England Conference, 1845-48, 1852-54, 1856- 
 
 58, 1860-62. 1864. 
 
 17. Minutes of the 
 18. Minutes of the 
 
 New England Conference, 1862. 
 
 New Hampshire Conference, 1845-48 18653, 
 
 1861, 1863-65. 
 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 
 25. Minutes 
 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 . Minutes 
 
 of the New Jersey Conference, 1865. 
 
 of the New York Conference, 1858, 1860, 1862-63. 
 
 of the New York East Conference, 1862-64. 
 
 of the North Indiana Conference, 1850-51, 1853. 
 
 of the North Ohio Conference, 1853-54. 
 
 of the Ohio Conference, 1863. 
 
 of the Oneida Conference, 1861. 
 
 of the Philadelphia Conference, 1862-64. 
 
 of the Pittsburg Conference, 1857. 
 
 of the Providence Conference, 1854-55, 1861-62. 
 
 of the Rock River Conference, 1854-57, 1861-65. 
 
 of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1855-59, 1862-63. 
 of the Troy Conference, 1840, 1845-50, 1854, 1860, 1862. 
 of the Upper Iowa Conference, 1857, 1860, 1862, 1864. 
 of the Vermont Conference, 1848, 1850-53, 1855-57, 1861. 
 of the West Wisconsin Conference, 1862. 
 
 of the Wisconsin Conference, 1850-51. 
 
Bibliography 343 
 
 36. Minutes of the Wyoming Conference, 1862. 
 3. General Conference Records. 
 
 1. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, 1796-1836, Volume I. 
 2. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church (Volume II., 1840, 1844, together with the Debates of 
 1844) New York: Carlton & Lanahan; San Francisco: E. Thomas; 
 Cincinnati: Hitchcock & Walden. 
 3. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, Volume III., 1848-1856. New York: Carlton & Porter, 
 200 Mulberry Street - 1856. 
 4. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, 1860. New York: Carlton & Porter - 1860. 
 5. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, 1864. New York: Carlton & Porter - 1864. 
 6. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, South, 1846 and 1850. 
 
 Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, South, 1854. 
 8. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church, South, 1858. 
 
 Il. CoNTROVERSIAL WorkKS. 
 
 1. Bartlett, David W., Modern Agitators: or Pen Portraits of 
 ice American Reformers. New York: Miller, Orton & Mulligan 
 — 1856. 
 
 2. Bascom, H. B.; Greene, A. L. P; Parsons, C. B. (Southern Com- 
 missioners for the settlement of the Property Question between 
 the two churches) Brief Appeal to Public Opinion in a Series of 
 exceptions to the Course and Action of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, from 1844 to 1848, affecting the Rights and Interests of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Louisville, Ky. : Published 
 by John Early, Agent for the Methodist E. Church, South; Morton 
 & Grimswold, Printers, — 1848. ° 
 
 3. Dixon, James, Methodism in America. London: Printed for 
 the author; sold by John Mason, 66 Paternoster-Row, and by James 
 Peart, Birmingham — 1849. 
 
 4. Elliott, Charles, History of the Great Secession from the Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church in the year 1845, eventuating in the organ- 
 ization of the New Church, entitled the “Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, South.” Cincinnati: Swormstedt & Poe — 1855. 
 
 5. Elliott, Charles, South-Western Methodism — A History of 
 the M. E. Church in the South-West, from 1844 to 1864 (revised 
 by Rev. Leroy M. Vernon) Cincinnati: Poe & Hitchcock — 1868. 
 6. Fuller, Erasmus Q., An Appeal to the Record: A Vindication of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church in its policy and proceedings to- 
 wards the South. Cincinnati: Hitchcock & Walden; New York: 
 Nelson & Philips — 1876. 
 
 7. Jay, William, Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery. Boston: 
 John P. Jewett, & Company; Cleveland, Ohio: Jewett, Proctor, and 
 Worthington; London: Simpson Low, Son and Co. — 1853. 
 
344 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 8 Lee, Rev. Luther, and Smith, Rev. E, The Debates of the Gene- 
 ral, Conference of the M. E. Church, May, 1844. New York: Pub- 
 lished by O. Scott, for the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of Amer- 
 ica; L. J. McIndoe, Printer — 1845. 
 
 9. Leftwich, Rev. W. M., Martyrdom in Missouri: A History of 
 Religious Proscription. Two volumes. _ St. Louis: S. W. Book 
 and Pub. Co. — 1870. 
 
 10. Long, John Dixon, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State. 
 Philadelphia: Published by the author — 1857. 
 
 11. Matlack, Lucius C., The History of American Slavery and 
 Methodism from 1780 to 1849; and the History of the Wesleyan 
 Methodist Connection of America. New York — 1849. 
 
 12. Myers, Edward H., The Disruption of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, 1844-1846: Comprising a Thirty Years’ History of the 
 Relations of the two Methodisms. Nashville: A. H. Redford, A- 
 gent; Macon, Ga.: J. W. Burke & Co. — 1875. 
 
 13. Old South Leaflets, Volume IV., No. 80. Boston: Directors 
 of the Old South Work, Old South Meeting House. Boston. 
 
 14. Peck, George, Slavery and the Episcopacy: being an examination 
 of Dr. Bascom’s Review of the Reply of the Majority of the late 
 General Conference of the M. E. Church, in the Case of Bishop 
 Andrew. New York. G. Lane & C. B. Tippett — 1845. 
 
 15. Prindle, C., The Methodist Episcopal Church, Constitutionally 
 and Disciplinarily always Anti-Slavery. Cleveland: Mount & Co. — 
 1882. 
 
 16. Pullen, William H., The Blast of a Trumpet in Zion. Webb 
 Millington & Co. — 1860. 
 
 17. Scott, O. The Grounds of Secession from the M. E. Church, 
 or Book for the Times. New York: C. Prindle — 1848. 
 
 18. Smith, William A., Lectures on the philosophy and Practice 
 of Slavery (Edited by Thomas O. Summers). Nashville: Steven- 
 son and Evans — 1856. 
 
 19. Sunderland, Rev. La Roy, Anti-Slavery Manual (Third Edition). 
 New York: Printed by S. W. Benedict — 1839. 
 
 20. Sutton, R. (Special and Congressional Reporter), The Methodist 
 Church Property Case (Report of the Suit of Henry B. Bascom 
 and others vs. George Lane and others) — heard before the Hon 
 Judges Nelson and Betts, in the Circuit Court, United States, for 
 the Southern District of New York, May 17- 29, 1851. New York: 
 Lane & Scott — 1851. 
 
 III. Duiscrprines oF THE METHODIST CHURCHES. 
 
 1. Discipline of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America, 
 The. New York: Published by O. Scott, for the Wesleyan Methodist 
 Connection — 1845. 
 
 2. Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 1924, The. New York and Cincinnati: The Methodist Book Con- 
 cern. 
 
 3. Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South, The. Charleston: Published by John Early, for the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church, South — 1846. 
 
Bibliography 345 
 
 4. Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South, The. Nashville: Stevenson & Owen — 1854. 
 
 5. Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South, The. Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House—1859. 
 6. Emory, Robert, History of the Discipline of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church (Revised and brought down to 1856, by W. P. 
 ’ Strickland). New York: Carlton & Porter — 1843. 
 
 IV. MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS. 
 
 1. Andrews, E. A., Slavery and the Domestic Slave-Trade in the 
 United States. Boston: Light and Stearns — 1836. 
 2. Fleming, Walter L., Documentary History of Reconstruction— 
 Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational & Industrial, 1865 
 to the Present Time (two volumes). Cleveland: The Arthur H. 
 Clark Company — 1907. 
 3 .Gorrie, Rev. P. Douglas, Episcopal Methodism, As it Was, and 
 Is. Auburn: Derby and Miller — 1852. 
 4. Handbook of the Baltimore Conference, Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, South. Baltimore: King Brothers — 1871. 
 5: Helper, Hinton Rowan, The Impending Crisis of the South: How 
 to meet it. New York: A. B. Burdick — 1860. 
 6. History of the Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South: comprehending all the Official Proceedings of the General 
 Conference: the Southern Annual Conferences, and the General Con- 
 vention; with such other matters as are necessary to a right under- 
 standing of the case. Nashville: compiled and published by the 
 editors and publishers of the South-Western. Christian Advocate, 
 -for the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, by order of the Louis- 
 ville Convention — 1845. 
 
 McTyeire, Holland N., A History of Methodism. Publishing 
 House — 1885. 
 8. Nicolay, John G., and Hay, John, Abraham Lincoln—A History. 
 Ten Volumes. New York: The Century Co. — 1890. 
 9. Olmstead, Frederick Law, Journeys and Explorations in the 
 Cotton Kingdom (two volumes). London: Sampson Low, Son 
 & Co. — 1861. 
 10. Weston, George Melville, Progress: of Slavery in the United 
 States. Published by the author. Washington, D. C. — 1857. 
 
 V. NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES. 
 
 1. Methodist Papers. 
 
 1. American Wesleyan Observer, 1844—Jotham Horton and Orange 
 Scott, Publishers. (This paper was published for the purpose of 
 furnishing the readers of the Wesleyan papers with the news of 
 the General Conference of 1844 of the Methodist Episcopal Church.) 
 2. Baltimore Christian Advocate (March 31, 1860 copy only) 
 Thomas E. Bond, M. D., editor. 
 
 3. Beauty of Holiness—edited by Rev. M. and Mrs. A. M. French, 
 Columbus, Ohio (The paper was first published in 1848. Volume 
 13 — 1860 — was used.) 
 
346 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 4. Christian Advocate and Journal, The, Volumes I-XI, XVI, 
 XVIITI-XIX, XXXVII. (This paper was first published in Sep- 
 tember, 1826 and was the first official paper of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. In 1828 “Zion’s Herald” was absorbed by the 
 Advocate, the combination being known as “The Christian Advocate 
 and Journal & Zion’s Herald.” August 30, 1833, the former name 
 was resumed). 
 
 Christian Sentinel, The, Volume II. (The paper was first 
 published in 1832 at Richmond, Virginia. Ethelbert Drake was 
 the editor.) 
 
 6. Methodist, The, Volumes II-V. (This publication first ap- 
 peared in 1860, following the General Conference of that year, 
 for the purpose of preventing border conferences from seceding 
 from the Methodist Episcopal Church.) 
 
 7. New England Christian Advocate, Volumes I and II, 1841-43. 
 (Conducted under the superintendence of a committee of New Eng- 
 land, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont Conferences of the 
 M. E. Church. Luther Lee was the editor). 
 
 8. New England Christian Herald, Volume II. The first number 
 was issued October 6, 1830. (Conducted by a Committee of New 
 England, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont Conferences of the 
 M. E. Church. The paper was published at Boston. In 1833, 
 this paper was united with Zion’s Herald—cf. The Liberator, 
 Volume III., p. 155, col. 5; September 28, 1833). 
 
 9. Northwestern Christian Advocate, The, Volumes I-IV, 1853-56; 
 and Volumes VIII-X, 1859-62. (The paper was published in Chicago. 
 James V. Watson was the first editor; T. M. Eddy served in that 
 capacity during the Civil War.) 
 
 10. Pittsburg Christian Advocate, The, Volumes XI-XIII, 1844-46 
 and Volumes XVII and XVIII, 1850-51. 
 
 11. Richmond Christian Advocate, The, Volumes XI-X VIII, 1843-50. 
 12. Southern Christian Advocate, The, Volumes VI-X, 1842-47; and 
 XIV, 1850-51. The paper was published at Charleston. 
 
 13. Southwestern Christian Advocate, The (Published at Nashville, 
 After 1844 it was the leading official paper of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church, South. It was published under several different names. 
 Until July 12, 1846 it was known as the “Southwestern Christian 
 Advocate.” Then the name was changed to “Nashville Christian 
 Advocate.” About 1850 the name was again altered, becoming 
 “The Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate,” and on July 1, 
 1854 it became “The Christian Advocate.” The period covered by 
 these volumes is from 1834 to 1861. The paper was suppressed 
 during the Civil War.) 
 
 14. True Wesleyan, The. J. Horton and O. Scott were the editors. 
 The first number was issued January 7, 1843. Volumes I and II. 
 were used. 
 
 15. Virginia Conference Sentinel. (Published at Richmond, Vir- 
 ginia—Leroy M. Lee, editor). This is a continuation of the “Christ- 
 ian Sentinel.” The first number was issued in March, 1836. 
 
 16. Western Christian Advocate, The. (Published at Cincinnati, 
 Ohio. This was an official paper of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 The first copy was issued in 1834. The files of this paper are very 
 
Bibluography 347 
 
 important for the present study. T. A. Morris, L. L. Hamline, and 
 Matthew Simpson—all of whom became bishops of the Church— 
 and Charles Elliott, who did as much as any other man to create 
 bitterness between the two Methodist Churches, were the editors dur- 
 ing the period from 1834 to 1862.) 
 
 17. Zion’s Herald (This unofficial paper was first issued in 1823. 
 In 1828 it was united with “The Christian Advocate and Journal.” 
 Later, this connection was dissolved and “The Wesleyan Journal’ 
 was united with Zion’s Herald.) 
 
 18. Zion’s Watchman (Published at New York. The paper was 
 issued by radical abolitionists in the Methodist Church. Only vol- 
 ume IV—for the year 1839—has been usd). 
 
 2. Methodist Magazines. 
 
 ES pert Magazine, The, Volumes II, III, VII. (1819, 1820, 
 2. Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, The, Volumes XII, 
 XVII, XXII (1830, 1835, 1840.) 
 
 3. Methodist Quarterly Review, Volumes XXXVII, XXXIX, LII, 
 LITI. (1855, 1857, 1870, 1871). 
 
 4. Missionary Herald, The, Volume XXXII (1836). This maga- 
 zine was published at Boston. 
 
 5. Quarterly Review, Volume I (1847). This publication was 
 issued by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. This volume 
 contains the decision of the Court in the Maysville Case, as well 
 as valuable records relative to the work of southern Methodists among 
 the slaves. 
 
 3. Secular Papers. 
 
 1. Chicago Times, The (1862). 
 
 2. Democratic Statesman (Published for nine months only, for 
 the purpose of “redeeming” Tennessee from Whiggism to “her 
 CRN democratic position.” A. O. P. Nicholson was editor in 
 1845. 
 
 3. Liberator, The. (William Lloyd Garrison was editor during 
 the whole period from 1831 to 1865. Most of the volumes of this 
 paper are a veritable mine of information and documents on the 
 subject of the churches and slavery.) 
 
 4. New York Tribune, The (1862). 
 
 §. Richmond Enquirer, The, Volume LVII (1860). 
 
 VI. Prrsonat REcorps. 
 
 1. Autobtographies. 
 
 1. Brunson, Rev. Alfred, A Western Pioneer (two volumes in 
 one). Cincinnati: Walden & Stowe; New York: Phillips & Hunt 
 —1880. 
 
 2. Cartwright, Peter, Autobiography (edited by W. P. Strick- 
 land) New York: Carlton & Porter — 1857. 
 
 3. Finley, Rev. James B., Autobiography (edited by W. P. 
 Strickland). Cincinnati: Methodist Book Concern — 1854. 
 
348 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 4. Haven, Erastus O., Autobiography (edited by Rev. C. C. 
 Stratton). New York: Phillips & Hunt; Cincinnati: Walden 
 & Stowe — 1883. 
 
 5. Lee, Rev. Luther, Autobiography. New York: Phillips & 
 Hunt; Cincinnati: Walden & Stowe — 1882. 
 
 6. Parker, The Rev. D., Autobiography. (The original manu- 
 script is in possession of the Rev. D. M. Parker of Fayette, lowa. 
 It is a most interesting document written by a man who was 
 one of the thousands who moved into Ohio in the early days fol- 
 lowing the inauguration of the national government). 
 
 7. Peck, Rev. George, Life and Times of (Written by Himself). 
 New York: Nelson & Phillips; Cincinnati: Hitchcock & Walden 
 — 1874. 
 
 8. Young, Rev. Jacob, Autobiography of a Pioneer. Cincinnati: 
 Poe & Hitchcock — 1860. 
 
 2. Biographies. 
 
 1. Bangs, Nathan, The Life of Rev. Freeborn Garrettson. 
 New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett — 1845. 
 
 2. Birney, William, James G. Birney and His Times (the gene- 
 sis of the Republican party with some accounts of the abolition 
 movements in the South before 1828). New York: D. Appleton 
 and Company — 1890. 
 
 3. Channing, William Henry, The Life of William Ellery Chan- 
 ning (The Centenary Memorial Edition). Boston: American 
 Unitarian Association — 1880. 
 
 4. Clark, Rev. D. W., Life and Times of Rev. Elijah Hedding. 
 New York: Carlton & Phillips — 1855. 
 
 5. Crooks, George R., The Life of Bishop Matthew Simpson: 
 New York: Harper & Brothers — 1891. 
 
 6. Emory, Robert, The Life of Rev. John Emory. New York: 
 George Lane — 1841. 
 
 7. Henckle, Rev. M. M., The Life of Henry Bidleman Bascom. 
 Nashville: E. Stevenson and F. A. Owen — 1856. 
 
 8. Holdich, Joseph, The Life of Wilbur Fisk. New York: 
 Harper & Brothers — 1856. 
 
 9. Holland, Frederick May, Frederick Douglass: The Colored 
 Orator (Revised edition). New York and London: Funk & 
 Waegnalls Company. 
 
 10. Lee, Leroy M., The Life and Times of Jesse Lee. Nashville: 
 E. Stevenson and i E. Evans — 1856. 
 
 11. Marlay, Rev. John F., The Life of Rev. Thomas A. Morris. 
 okie Sow Hitchcock & Walden: New York: Nelson & Phillips— 
 12. Matlack, Lucius C., The Life of Rev. Orange Scott. New 
 York: C. Prindle and L. C. Matlack (Wesleyan Methodist Book 
 Room) — 1847. 
 
 13. Paine, Robert, Life and Times of William A endres (two 
 volumes). Nashville: Publishing House of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church, south — 1874. 
 
 14. Redford, A. H., Life and Times of H. H. Kavanaugh. Nash- 
 ville: Southern Methodist Publishing House — 1885. 
 
Bibliography 349 
 
 15. Ridgeway, Henry B., The Life of Edmund S. Janes. New 
 York: Phillips & Hunt; Cincinnati: Walden & Stowe — 1882. 
 16. Roche, John A., The Life of John Price Durbin (third edition). 
 New York: Hunt & Eaton; Cincinnati: Cranston & Stowe—1890. 
 17. Sanborn, F. B. (editor), The Life and Letters of John Brown. 
 Boston: Roberts Brothers — 1891. 
 
 18. Smith, Rev. George G., The Life and Letters of James Osgood 
 Andrew. Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House—1883. 
 19. Smith, George G., The Life and Times of George Foster 
 Pierce. Sparta, Ga.: Hancock Publishing Company — 1888. 
 
 20. Strickland, W. P., The Pioneer Bishop: or The Life and 
 Times of Francis Asbury. New York: Carlton & Porter — 1858. 
 21. Tyler, Samuel, Memoir of Roger Brooks Taney. Baltimore: 
 John Murphy & Co. — 1872. 
 
 3. Journals and Diartes. 
 
 1. Asbury, The Rev. Francis, Journal (from August 7, 1771 to 
 December 7, 1815 — in three volumes). New York: N. Bangs 
 and T. Mason — 1821. 
 
 2. Coke, Thomas, Journal (in three volumes). 
 
 3. Eddy, T. M., Journal (Manuscript). Dr. Eddy was editor of 
 the Northwestern Christian Advocate during the Civil War. 
 
 4. Stevenson, The Rev. D., Journal (Manuscript). Two vol- 
 umes. Stevenson, though a member of the southern Church, 
 remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War. 
 
 5. Welles, Gideon, Diary (three volumes). Boston and New 
 York: Houghton Mifflin Company — 1911. 
 
 6. Wesley, The Rev. John, Journal (edited by Nehemiah Cur- 
 nock). New York: Eaton & Mains; Cincinnati: Jennings and 
 Graham. 
 
 4. Works and Writings. 
 
 1. Calhoun, John C., Speeches of, delivered in the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, and in the Senate of the United States (edited by 
 Richard K. Cralle’), New York: D. Appleton and Company—1853 
 2. Lincoln, Abraham, Complete Works of (edited by John G. 
 Nicolay and John Hay — two volumes). New York: The Century 
 Co. — 1902. 
 
 3. Schurz, Carl, Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers 
 of (selected and edited by Frederick Bancroft) — 6 volumes. 
 New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons — 1913. 
 
 4. Webster, Daniel, The Writings and Speeches of (18 volumes). 
 Boston: Little Brown & Company; Chicago & St. Louis: E. Hold- 
 away Publishing Company — 1903. 
 
 VII. State Historica, REcorps. 
 
 1. Kansas State Historical Society, Transactions of the, Volumes 
 IX, X, XIII (1905—6, 1907—8, 1913—14). Topeka: State Printing 
 Office. Paes ye | 
 
350 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 VIII. Sermons anp HyMNAL. 
 
 1. Sermons. 
 
 1. Doggett, Rev. D. S., A Nation’s Ebenezer: A Discourse de- 
 livered in Broad St. Methodist Church, Richmond Virginia, Thurs- 
 day, September 18, 1862, The Day of Public Thanksgiving, 
 appointed by the President of the Confederate States. Richmond: 
 Enquirer Book and Job Press — 1862. 
 
 2. Doggett, Rev. D. S., The War and Its Close: A Discourse, 
 delivered in Centenary Church, Richmond, Va., Friday, April 8th, 
 1864, on the occasion of the National Fast. Richmond: MacFar- 
 lane & Ferguson (Published by the Soldiers’ Tract Association, 
 M. E. Church, South) — 1864. 
 
 3. Scarburgh, George P., and 15 others, An Address to the 
 People of the County of Accomac (Collected in the “Virginia 
 Sermon Pamphlets, Volume 2). The date is not given. The 
 purpose was to win over to the Southern Methodist Church the 
 people of Virginia who were in the Philadelphia conference. 
 
 2. Hymn-Book. 
 
 1. Soldiers Hymn-Book for Camp Worship. Soldiers Tract 
 Association, M. E, Church, South — 1863 
 
 B. SECONDARY SOURCES. 
 1. Accounts DEALING Wi1TH SLAVERY. 
 
 1. Encyclopedia, The New International, Volume V. (second 
 edition) — Article on “Colonization Society.” New York: Dodd, 
 Mead and Company — 1917. 
 
 2. Harrison, W. P., The Gospel among the Slaves; a_ short 
 account of the Missionary Operations among the African Slaves 
 of the Southern States. Nashville: Publishing House of the 
 M. E. Church, South — 1893. 
 
 3. Macy, Jesse, The Anti-Slavery Crusade: a Chronicle of the 
 Gathering Storm. New Haven: Yale University Press — 1919. 
 4. Townsend, W. J.: Workman, H. B.; Eayrs, George, A New 
 History of Methodism (in two volumes). London: Hodder and 
 Stoughton — 1919. 
 
 5. Wilson, Henry, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, 
 (three volumes). Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin and 
 Conipany — 1872. 
 
 II. Genera HistoricaL ACCOUNTS. 
 
 1. Bassett, John Spencer, A Short History of the United States, 
 1492-1920. New York: The Macmillan Company — 1921. 
 
 2. Chadwick, French Ensor, Causes of the Civil War, 1859-1861. 
 (The American Nation: A History, Volume 19). New York: 
 Harper & Brothers — 1906. 
 
 3. Dodd, William E., Expansion and Conflict (The Riverside 
 History of the United States). Boston, New York, Chicago: 
 
Bibliography 301 
 
 Ratan Mifflin Company; Cambridge: The Riverside Press 
 4. Hart, Albert Bushnell, Slavery and Abolition, 1831-1841 (The 
 American Nation: A History, Volume 16.) New ‘York and Lon- 
 don: Harper & Brothers — 1907. 
 
 5. Hosmer, James Kendall, The Appeal to Arms, 1861-63 (The 
 American Nation: A History, Volume 20). New York and Lon- 
 don: Harper & Brothers — 1907. 
 
 6. Hosmer, James Kendall, Outcome of the Civil War, 1863-1865 
 (The American Nation: A History, Volume 21). New York and 
 London: Harper and Brothers — 1907. 
 
 7. Smith, Theodore Clarke, Parties and Slavery, 1850-59 (The 
 American Nation: A History, Volume 18). New York and Lon- 
 don: Harper and Brothers — 1906. 
 

 
INDEX 
 
 Adams, John Quincy, 113 (foot- 
 note 14) 
 
 African Slave Trade, 279, 285 
 (footnote 3) 
 
 Andrew, James O., 13, 41, 119, 
 130, 131 (footnote 39), 140 
 130, 131 (footnote 39), 140, 
 Bale $42 150, Siz 
 
 Andrew Chapel, 163 
 
 Arkansas Conference, 254, 255, 
 256 
 
 pishury Hrancie. Lo SSG) 1S, 
 14, 16, 19, 20, 25, 26, (footnote 
 38), 27, 28, 29, 30, 48; 143 
 
 Atwater, H. C., 236, 251 
 
 Baltimore Christian Advocate, 
 228, 229 
 
 Baltimore Conference, 71, 72, 73, 
 1175419 161,172,°192;193, 194, 
 204, 207, 222, 228, 229, 307, 308 
 
 Bangs, Nathan, 59, 60, 62, 72, 80, 
 94, 95, 96 
 
 Barris, J. S., 84 
 
 Bascom, H. B., 98 
 
 Bedford, Colonel, 2 
 
 Bewley, Anthony, 258, 259 
 
 Bible and Slavery, The, 2, 4, 5, 
 56 (footnote 85), 92 (footnote 
 VAR Ed Hos) 
 
 Birney, James G., 39, 58 
 
 Blackman, Learner, 6, 21 
 
 Black River Conference, 82, 205, 
 206, 333 
 
 Boston Olive Branch, 88 
 Brown, John, 279, 280, 281, 282, 
 285 (footnote 4) 
 
 Calhoun, John C., 287 
 
 Capers,William, 40, 41, 63, 67 
 (footnote 27), 88, 93, 94, 119, 
 120, 137, 140, 143 (footnote 
 5), 168 (footnote 3) 
 
 Cartwright, Peter, 6, 7, 10 (foot- 
 note 17); 21, 22, 24, 26 (foot- 
 note 54), 31, 56 (footnote 86), 
 
 63, 67-8 (footnote 30), 98, 99, 
 
 109, 115 (footnote 44), 151, 
 153, 156-7 (footnote 31), 173, 
 213, 290 
 
 Channing, William Ellery, 103 
 
 Chicago Times, 329, 330 
 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, 
 8, 24, 41, 42, 44,49 50, °53 
 (footnote 31), 54, (footnote 
 48), 79, 82, 109, 111, 150, 205, 
 ALeeZ0y 290.291 327." 3300 Sal 
 
 Christian Sentinel, 41 
 
 Christmas Conference, 3 
 
 Cincinnati, 33, 58, 163 
 
 Cincinnati Anti-Slavery Society, 
 60, 61 
 
 Cincinnati Case, The, 180, 181, 
 182, 183 
 
 Cincinnati Conference, 206 
 
 Clay, Henry, 288 
 
 Coke, Thomas, 1, 2, 4, 14, 16, 18, 
 27,29; 30 
 
 Collins, J. A,. 121, 124 
 
 Comfort, Silas, 97, 98 
 
 Committee of Nine, 138 
 
 Congregational Church, 86 
 
 Corruption, 134 (footnote 67) 
 
 Cryer, Hardy M., 22, 23 
 
 Davis, Jefferson, 311, 313 
 
 Delaware Conference, 221 
 
 Dempster, John, 328 
 
 Detroit Conference, 300, 323 
 
 Doggett. D. S., 316 
 
 Dougherty, George, 13 
 
 Douglas, Stephen A., 272 
 
 Douglas, Thomas L., 6 
 
 Dred Scott Case, 277 
 
 Durbin e252 
 
 Early, John, 59, 63 
 
 East Baltimore, 307 
 
 East Genesee Conference, 
 306, 333 
 
 East Maine Conference, 223 
 
 Edney, Levin, 6 
 
 Election: (1860) 283, 284; 
 (1864) 305 
 
 276, 
 
 303 
 
304 
 
 Elliott, Charles, 151, 152, 156 
 (footnote 18), 158, 159, 167-8 
 (footnote 2), 182, 191, 208, 
 246, 303 
 
 Emancipation, 4, 5, 
 
 Emancipation et ch gen) 
 328, 329, 330 
 
 Emancipator, The, 67 (footnote 
 31), (footnote 12), 92 
 (footnote 36) 
 
 Emory, John, 47, 48, 49, 
 
 nen beet ean Church, 59, 
 
 9 
 
 Erie puters ZO FE 7 ON) oo, 
 84, 91 (footnote 23), 110, 195, 
 196, 203, 204, 273, 306, 307, 4 8 
 322, Bah 332 
 
 Few resolution, 98, 108 
 
 Finley, James B., 10 (footnote 
 PD) 2s 120 
 
 Fisk, Wilbur, 47, 48, 49, 79, 80, 
 94, 137 
 
 Fremont, John C., 322, 323 
 
 Friends, 2,39 
 
 Fugitive Slave Law, 264, 265 
 
 Garrettson, Freeborn, 1, 18, 19 
 
 Garrison, William Lloyd, 39, 42, 
 45, 46, 48, 62, 64, 65, 71, 80, 91 
 (footnote 25), 199, 244 259 
 (footnote 10) 
 
 Gatch, Philip, 1 
 
 General Conference (1780) 17, 
 28; (1784) 17; (1785) 28; 
 (1792) 18; (1796) 4, 18: 
 (1800) 5, 18; (1804) 18, 19; 
 1808) 6, 19; (1812) 20, 21; 
 CISION 223 OLB20)4 S29 + 
 (1824) 28, 29; (1828) 23, 24; 
 (1832) 40, 58; (1836) 59, 60, 
 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67 (footnote 
 wel ie (1840) 94, 95, 96, 97, 
 
 (1844) 117-34, 137-9; 
 (indey 143; (1848) 152, 153, 
 165, 166, 177, 178; (1852) 204, 
 205 ; (1854) 246, "247 « (1856) 
 Zh 21e ela (1858) 247, 248, 
 250 (1860) 
 (footnote 32); 
 333, 334, 339 (footnote 88) 
 
 Genesee Conference, 72, 73, 83, 
 93, 110, 276, 300, 305, 331 
 
 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Georgia Conference, 71, 77 
 (footnote 13), ve 
 
 Greeley, Horace, 328 
 
 ese Jacob, 10 (footnote 17), 
 Zz, 
 
 Halcyon Church, 92 (footnote 
 42 
 
 Harding, F. A., 111, 119, 127 
 
 Harper, John, 13 
 
 Harper’s Ferry, 279, 280 
 
 Haven, E. O., 334 
 
 Haven, Gilbert, 153, 282 
 
 Hedding, Elijah, 40, 47, 48, 49, 
 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 79, 80, 81, 89, 
 97, 103, 121, 122, 124, 176 
 
 Holston Conference, 44 
 
 Illinois Maan ehattt 173, 194, 208, 
 
 DWH 
 
 Inaugural of Lincoln, 286 (foot- 
 note 35) 
 
 Jackson, Andrew 
 
 hace Edmund Sy ‘08, oli veealy 
 2 
 
 Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 273, 274 
 
 Kelly, Charles H., 256 
 
 Kentucky Conference (North). 
 41, 44, 71, 93, 102, 150, 153. 
 221, 220,295 
 
 Kentucky Conference (South), 
 178, 179, 249, 250, 316, 317 
 
 Lee, Luther, 61, 62, 79, 82, 83, 
 86, 87, 106 107, 108 
 
 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 285 
 (footnote 1) 
 Long, J. D., 234, 235, 238 
 
 Longstreet, A. B., 137 
 
 Louisville Convention, 140, 141 
 
 Lovejoy, Elijah P. 79, 90 
 (footnote 4) 
 
 Lundy, Benjamin, 39 
 
 Maine Conference, 74, 75, 81, 
 149, 203, 205, 223, 266, 273, 
 276,274; Bde 
 
 Matlack, Lucius, 71, 210 
 
 Maysville Case, 163, 164 170 
 (footnote 24) 
 
 Methodist, The, 229, 332 
 
 Methodist Anti-slavery 
 tions, 110 
 
 Methodist Magazine, 8 
 
 Methodist Magazine and Quar- 
 terly Review, 45 
 
 Conven- 
 
Index 
 
 Michigan Conference, 85, 214, 
 276 
 
 Minnesota Conference, 323, 328 
 
 Missionary work among the 
 slaves, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34 (foot- 
 note 10), 52 (footnote 14) 
 
 Mississippi Conference, 148 
 
 Missouri Conference (North), 
 164, 253, 254 
 
 M’Kendree, William, 6, 14, 15, 
 19, 20, 21 
 
 Morris, Thomas A., 63, 83, 125, 
 140, 141, 160, 165, 252, 253, 259, 
 300 
 
 Nashville Christian Advocate, 
 EOL 23a) 201; 244,256; ‘263, 
 267, 208,), 275, 280;. 312, 314, 
 318 (footnote 12) 
 
 National Colonization Society 
 OTA MENCA. (OR 52.) OG, a0 
 (footnote 27), 41, 85, 102, 108, 
 208 
 
 New Chapter, The, 226, 227, 229, 
 230, 235 
 
 New England Christian Advo- 
 cate, 46, 104 
 
 New England Conference, 47, 69, 
 70, 80, 93, 94, 102, 110, 120, 
 149, 156 (footnote 29), 195, 
 Sar 210, 219, 220, 223, 224, 279, 
 
 New Hampshire Conference, 48, 
 69, 70, 75, 81, 82, 94, 103, 194, 
 195, 204, 241 (footnote 13), 
 277, 333, 338 (footnote 78) 
 
 New Jersey Conference, 332 
 
 New Orleans Christian Advo- 
 gate, 281) 283,’ 312,313 
 
 New York Case, The, 179, 180, 
 181, 182 
 
 New York Conference, 43, 49, 
 69, 84, 85, 110, 172, 208, 220, 
 2o5 
 
 New York East Conference, 220, 
 2251220) 324 
 
 Northern Christian 
 322 
 
 Northern Independent, The, 236, 
 237, 239, 240, 241, 251 
 
 North Indiana Conference, 172, 
 173, 206 
 
 Advocate, 
 
 395 
 
 North Ohio Conference, 206, 207 
 
 Northwest Indiana Conference, 
 206 
 
 Northwestern Christian. Advo- 
 cate, 209, 210, 235, 280, 281, 
 299.6300, 321+ 322). 323," 324, 
 25.4020, doa; G0L 
 
 Ohio Conierence, 7, 23, 41, 43, 
 49, 93, 149, 161, 162, 163, 207, 
 SACO Ve 
 
 Olin, Stephen, 119, 120 
 
 Oneida Conference, 73, 83, 206, 
 a0 
 
 “Onesimus”, 42 
 
 Parker, Daniel, 53 (footnote 37) 
 
 Parker, Theodore, 209, 217 
 (footnote 51), 267; 270-71 
 (footnote 29) 
 
 Patton, William, 328, 329, 330 
 
 Peck, George, 73, 74, 76, 82, 83, 
 126, 154 
 
 Peoria Conference, 220 
 
 Philadelphia Conference, 71, 103, 
 161, 173, 193, 204, 207, 208, 237, 
 238, 307 
 
 Phillips, Wendell, 87 
 
 Pierce, George, 123, 124 
 
 Pierce, .Lovick, 140, 153, 156 
 (footnote 27), 252, 276, 277 
 
 eeeth Christian Advocate, 
 121 
 
 Pittsburgh Conference, 102, 103, 
 113 (footnote 4), 277 
 
 Plan of Pacification, 90 (foot- 
 note 7) 
 
 Plan of Separation, 138, 139, 140, 
 143-5 (footnote 7), 145-6 
 (footnote 14), 154, 158, 159, 
 160, 161 
 
 Porter, James, 126, 127 
 
 Preston, Benjamin, 84 
 
 Prindle, Cyrus, 82 
 
 Providence Conference, 103, 194, 
 273, 294 (footnote 28) 
 
 Rankin, John, 39 
 
 Richmond Christian Advocate, 
 116 (footnote 68), 149, 154, 
 LSU /4NOCS/,. eae eor ale; 
 273, 279, 280, 291, 292, 315 
 
 Ridgeway, Henry B., 334 
 
 Robertson, Mark, 256, 257 
 
306 
 
 Rock River Conference, 206, 276, 
 te (footnote 29), 305, 324, 
 32 
 
 Roszel, Stephen G., 60, 63, 64 
 
 Rules on Slavery, 3, 4, 5, 19, 64, 
 93, 94.118): 203) 223" 224225, 
 226, 
 
 St. Louis Christian Advocate, 
 268, 313, 314, 318-19 (foot- 
 note 19) 
 
 Scott, Orange, 46, 47, 59, 61, 62, 
 63; 04, 66, 73) (75h 70, 76,79, 
 80, 87; 94, 95" 96, 106, . 117; 
 118 
 
 Simpson, Matthew, 231, 263, 264, 
 265, 266, 290, 301, 302, 304, 
 305 
 
 Slavery in the Northern Metho- 
 dist Church, 192,-8, 234-41 
 
 Slavery in the Southern Metho- 
 dist Church, 188-91, 243-50 
 
 Smith, William, 58, 59, 63, 69, 96, 
 97, 245 
 
 Social Interpretation of the 
 Gospel, The, 15, 16 
 
 Soule, Joshua, 59, 120, 140, 141, 
 142. S150 6251153. be Sw) tee 
 (footnotes 6-7) 
 
 South Carolina Conference, 6, 
 44, 50, 51, 56 (footnote 84), 
 FRING) os WM A bs 
 
 Southeastern Indiana Conference 
 wev,iz2t 
 
 Southern Christian Advocate, 
 149, 202 (footnote 74), 288, 
 289, 312 
 
 Southern Illinois Conference, 
 208, 224, 228, 299, 333 
 
 Southwestern Christian Advo- 
 cate, 288 
 
 Sprague, Seth, 106 
 
 Stanton-Ames Order, 304, 305 
 
 Stevenson, D., 249, 250 
 
 Storrs, George, 70 
 
 Stowe, Harriett Beecher, 272 
 
 Sumner, Charles, 275, 276 
 
 Sunday School Journal, 209 
 
 Sunderland, Le Roy, 50, 69, 75, 
 79, 88, 97, 102 
 
 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 
 
 Taney, Roger B., 10 (footnote 
 17), 184 
 
 Tennessee Conference, 6, 7, 8, 
 19, 20, 21, 22, 41, 44 
 
 Texas Christian Advocate, 256, 
 259, 274, 313 
 
 Thirteenth Amendment, 332, 335 
 
 Trimble, J. M., 123 
 
 Troy, 82, 172 
 
 Wen: ‘Wesleyan, The, 234, 289, 
 290 
 
 Upper Iowa Conference, 230, 328 
 
 Utica Wesleyan Methodist, 104, 
 105, 114 (footnote 16) 
 
 Vermont Conference, 195, 203, 
 205, 234, 266 
 
 Vine St. Church, 163 
 
 Virginia Conference, 15, 17, 23 > 
 
 Virginia Sentinel, 45, 46, 65, 66 
 
 Wesley, John, 1 
 
 Wesleyan Methodist Connection 
 of America, 91 (footnote 23), 
 106, 107, 109 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, 44, 
 45, 105, 114 (footnote 20), 150, 
 174, 198, 204, 275, 280, 283, 
 Fo a 
 
 Western Conference, 5, 6 
 
 Western Virginia Conference, 
 204.205: 221, 222 oe coe 
 (footnote 27) 
 
 Westmoreland District Case, 98 
 
 West Wisconsin Conference, 300, 
 328 
 
 Whitefield, George, 14 
 
 Wiley, W. H., 257, 258 
 
 Wisconsin Conference, 206, 207, 
 VANS ey 8 
 
 Wyandott Indians, 166, 171 
 (footnote 43) 
 
 Zion’s Herald, 9, 31, 33, 43, 43, 
 47, 49, 74, 82, 104, 109, 236, 
 263, 281, 282, 285 (footnote 
 18), 289 
 
 “Zion’s Herald Extra”, 81 
 
 Zion’s Watchman, 49, 65, 69, 85, 
 87, 91 (footnote 27 and 34 ), 
 104, 105, 106 
 

 
we 
 
 
 
 Brodart Co. Cat. #55 137 001 Printed in USA 
 
 
 
“s 
 
 PaC NY aes 
 
 eae” 4: 
 
 
 
viii