A History of the Methodist Church, South, in the United States

Contents

THE METHODISTS, SOUTH.

PAGE

CHAP. I. — Preliminary History. — Introduction. — The Situation in the Colonies. — Early Legislation. — Case of Mr. Capers. — Bishops' Address, 1840. — Withdrawal of the Wesleyans I

Preface

In a history confined to brief limits, only a general outline of leading events can be given. The leading events in the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, took place, for the most part, in connection with the General Conferences. This fact has largely determined the plan and order of treatment in the present instance. It is true, also, that in the case of the Southern Methodist Church the action of the various General Conferences has been, throughout, representative, in a singular degree, of the thoughts, views, and status of the membership at large. But for these considerations the scheme of treatment according to General Conferences might seem arbitrary and artificial.

The author has drawn largely upon the original sources, and has introduced what may appear frequent and lengthy extracts from the original documents. This seemed better than to give his own abstract of their contents. The reproduction of essential portions of the original documents will give to the history a reality and authority, and to the reader a corresponding sense of satisfaction, which could not come from any summary, determined and colored, as that would be, by the author's interpretation of the originals. These are accessible to only a few. With the ex-

xi xii PREFACE.

tracts given in the following pages, the general reader will be in a position to form his own judgments and to draw his own conclusions.

The task of the author was confessedly a difficult one. A minister, conversant with the history, humorously said to him :

" Lo, on a narrow neck of land 'Twixt two unbounded seas you stand."

The difficulty of the task was rendered still greater by the limitations of time and space which were imposed. That mistakes have been made it is almost certain; that the work will meet the approval of all readers cannot be hoped. The writer has performed his task not as he would, but as, under the circumstances, he could. No one can be more sensible than he of the imperfections of the work. He bespeaks the charitable judgment of his readers. Those who occupy a different point of view will doutless find much to criticise.

My thanks are due and are given to my colleagues, Dr. Charles Forster Smith, Prof. Collins Denny, Prof. O. E. Brown, and to Dr. E. E. Hoss, editor of the " Nashville Christian Advocate," for looking over proofs, and for many helpful suggestions. No one, however, is responsible for the views herein expressed but the author himself.

G. A.

Theological Department, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., January 24, 1894.

THE METHODISTS, SOUTH.

Chapter I. Preliminary History

In i 766, Methodism, which had turned old England upside down, came hither also, to this new world. It planted itself, as if by a prophetic instinct, simultaneously in two places, one of them in the South, one of them in the North. From these two centers and throughout these two regions it extended itself in every direction, through New York, New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, through Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Nevertheless this Methodism was one,

One army of the living God,

coalescing more and more under the plastic hands of Asbury and Rankin, and taking organic form in the conference of 1773 and those that followed. It was not Northern Methodism and Southern Methodism ; it was Methodism, — Christianity in earnest, seeking and saving the lost. To the influence and the extension of this common Methodism the North contributed and the South contributed. If the North gave to Methodism such men as Nathan Bangs and Freeborn Garrettson and Joshua Soule, the South furnished her quota of such as Philip Bruce and Jesse Lee and William McKendree. If increasing and incredible thousands were annually added to the rolls of the church and the number of the saved in New York and New England, answering thousands were added in Virginia and the Carolinas, in Georgia and Tennessee. In all that Methodism accomplished and in all that Methodism was, the North had an equal part with the South and the South had an equal part with the North — unless in point of numbers the North had somewhat the advantage. But while this was true, in another respect, the South had an advantage over the North, due, however, in no way, to the fault of the North. The Rev. Dr. Bristol, fraternal delegate of the Methodist Episcopal Church, said, at the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1890: " I am not ignorant, brethren, of the fact that the colored people of the South are indebted to your fathers for their Christianity and for their Methodism." If there was, then, a department of the great work to which the one section of the church had access and the other had not, except in a very limited way, it was the opportunity and privilege of giving the gospel to the African slave population of the United States. This the Methodists in the South did, for the most part ; with what success is partially indicated in the fact that in 1844 there were about 125,000 of these sons of Ham enrolled as members of the church and sons of God — a larger number of practically heathen converts than all the missionary societies of America had gathered upon all the fields of the heathen world. So that while the portion of the church which operated in the North had the preponderance in numbers, the Southern portion, besides having gathered a membership of 350,000 whites, had, with infinite and unrecorded patience and toil, reached and Christianized a

INTRODUCTION. 3

practically heathen population of over 100,000 souls. On the whole, then, it was about an even stand, and neither portion could boast of any great superiority over the other. Neither had made the Methodist Episcopal Church without the other : neither was the Methodist Episcopal Church without the other.

There came a time, however, when, for reasons sufficient and irresistible, in their opinion, the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the South thought that,^ in view of the condition of affairs which had arisen, they could best conduct their work and operate their field under the jurisdiction of a separate General Conference. To this the representatives of all the Annual Conferences of the undivided Methodist Episcopal Church, in General Conference assembled, in the city of New York in 1844, agreed, by a majority little less than unanimous ; and for this they made provision in what is known as the Plan of Separation, conditioned upon the necessity of a separate General Conference, that necessity to be determined by the Annual Conferences of the Southern States.

In accordance with this plan of separation, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, consisting of all the Annual Conferences in the Southern and Southwestern States, was organized as a distinct ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in the month of May in the year 1845. As to the cause or causes of this event, we shall be better able to decide after tracing the history of the events that led to it. It is enough, at present, to say that it was in connection with the problems arising out of the existence of African slavery and its relations to church and state.

It is unnecessary to recite here the facts, that slavery existed at one time in all the original colonies of the American Union; that the business enterprise of New England, as well as that of old England, was active in supplying African slaves for American markets ; and that originally it was chiefly the accidents of climate and cotton and rice and sugar, and not the superior morality of the people of other sections, that determined the preponderance of numbers and the permanence of slavery in the South. " In the Eastern and Middle States the system of slave-labor was gradually abolished, being unprofitable," says a Northern and a Methodist historian of the United States.1

Says another : " Slavery was unprofitable in the Northern States, and in the course of time the opinions and sentiments of the best people were arrayed against it. If it had been profitable in the North, the people there, according to the infirmity of our nature, might possibly have remained unconvinced of its evils."

It is sufficient to say that at the time when our history begins, slavery had gravitated to the South, and was, for the most part, confined to the South; although, in the beginning, some of the Southern colonies had opposed and resisted the introduction of the abomination. The colonial legislature of Virginia, for example, in 1726 undertook to check the importation of slaves by imposing a heavy tax on the traffic ; but the British Government repealed this law, and, as Madison afterward said, " constantly baffled the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to this infernal traffic, for the avowed reason that ' the slavetrade was very advantageous to Great Britain.' "2

The colony of Georgia, also, the year after it was chartered (1734), forbade by express law the introduction of slavery, and it was not until George Whitefield, co-founder

1 Ridpath's " History of the United States," p. 487.

2 Matlack's " Antislavery Struggle," p. 29.

Note. — From 1699 to 1772 twenty-three acts were passed to arrest or prohibit the further introduction of slaves, but all were disregarded by the King of Great Britain. — Minor's " Institutes," p. 164.

THE SITUATION IN THE COLONIES. 5

with Wesley of Methodism, went from Georgia to England and persuaded the trustees of the colony to allow it, that slavery was introduced (1751). He is reported to have said, " I should think myself highly favored if I could purchase a good number of slaves, in order to make their lives comfortable and lay a foundation for bringing up their posterity in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

Twenty years afterward he died, leaving seventy-five slaves in connection with his Orphan House plantation in Georgia. For without repealing the law of 1734, the colony had from 1 75 1 allowed slave-traders to sail to Savannah and sell their heathen victims to the highest bidder. A slight resistance was kept up by the Moravians, but even they finally yielded to the conviction that African slaves might be employed in a Christian spirit, and that their treatment in a Christian manner might prove their change of country to be a great benefit to them. This view was encouraged by a message from the Moravians of the fatherland, which declared, " If you take slaves in faith with the intention to conduct them to Christ, the action will not be a sin, but may prove a blessing."1 Possibly this view of the Moravians of Germany was, in some measure, due to the influence of the words of the great Reformer, Martin Luther, who wrote in the sixteenth century, " He that says that slavery is opposed to Christianity is a liar." Sanctioned by such examples and defended with such plausible arguments, it is not surprising that, little by little, the people laid aside their scruples and finally adopted the system. In fact, it seemed equal to the liberation of slaves for kind masters to purchase them from heartless and cruel slave-traders.

When Methodism came upon the scene, about 1766, under Robert Strawbridge in Maryland and Philip Em-

1 Matlack's "Antislavery Struggle," pp. 30, 31.

6 THE METHODISTS, S0U7H. [Chap. I.

bury in New York, slavery was already established and in vogue from Massachusetts to South Carolina, but particularly in the South ; and as Wesley had borne strong testimony against it in England, so did Asbury, Garrettson, and others in America. But it was not until the meeting of the conference at Baltimore in 1780 that conference action was taken on the subject. It will be necessary, at this point, to give a brief survey of the course of legislation on the subject of slaveholding, so as better to understand the situation at the critical period, in 1844. Up to 1780 there was no written rule on the practice of slaveholding. The following questions, propounded and recorded at that conference, will show that at that time slaves were held by Methodists, and even by Methodist preachers :

Question. Ought this conference to require those traveling preachers who hold slaves to give promises to set them free?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do we pass our disapprobation on all our preachers who keep slaves and advise their freedom?

Answer. Yes.

At the famous Christmas Conference held in Lovely Lane Chapel in Baltimore in 1784, at and by which the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America was effected, a general rule, in addition to those prepared by Mr. Wesley for the societies in England in 1743, was adopted, prohibiting " the buying or selling the bodies and souls of men, women, or children with the intention of enslaving them."

Other special rules were also adopted at this conference, " designed to extirpate this abomination from among us." These rules were the most rigid that were ever enacted by the General Conference of the Methodist Church in America. They indicate the high-water mark of conference legislation against slavery. They were found, how-

EARLY LEGISLATION. J

ever, to be too rigid; and the Discipline of 1786 marks the beginning of a recessive movement. If, from the beginning, non-slaveholding had been made a rigid condition of entrance into the Methodist Church, that might have worked, and all the after trouble might have been avoided. But this was not done. Slaveholders had been admitted — when and where and how it may not now be possible to say — but the sensitive and excited tone of the legislation on the subject all through this period indicates that the church had considerable and increasing numbers of slaveholders. An attempt was made at the General Conference of 1800 to pass a resolution prohibiting thereafter the admission of a slaveholder. " Friday morning, May 16th, Brother Snethen moved that this General Conference do resolve that from this time no slaveholder shall be admitted into the Methodist Episcopal Church ;" but it seemed now too late to adopt such a rule, for it was " negatived." 1 Not only so, but another rule was enacted, " That all slaveholders asking admission as members must be spoken to freely and faithfully by the preacher on the subject of slavery " These two actions revealed the vacillation of the church and the General Conference on the subject of slaveholding. They were hesitating over the question,

Shall we shut the door And keep it out? or shall we let it in And see if we can get it out again?

Moreover, the subject now began to be complicated with civil legislation. Already in the General Conference of 1800 we begin to meet with clauses that become very familiar in later legislation : " Whereas the laws in two or more of the United States pointedly prohibit the emancipation of slaves ; " and again, " shall execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slave or slaves, agreeably to the laws of the State wherein they live." *

As they had failed to make non-slaveholding a condition of membership from the beginning; and as, when fully awakened afterward to the nature and meaning of slavery, they had even then definitely refused to introduce non-slaveholding as a condition of membership, but, on the contrary, made implicit provision for the continued admission of slaveholders on condition of a talk to the candidate by the preacher; and as conference legislation was becoming more difficult and unmanageable by reason of its embarrassing complications with State legislation — they found it necessary to abandon their untenable position, to make further concessions, and to put themselves in line with the laws of the slaveholding States and the crystallizing public opinion of the people in those States, or else they would have practically to abandon them. Hence there is a tone of increasing moderation in the legislation of the General Conference down to 1816, when the law known as the " Compromise Law " of the church on the subject of slavery was passed. The action of that conference is as follows :

Your committee find that in the South and West the civil authorities render emancipation impracticable, and they are constrained to admit that to bring about such a change in the civil code as would favor the cause of liberty is not in the power of the General Conference. They beg leave to submit the following resolution :

Resobied, That no slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in our church where the laws of the State in which he lives will admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom.2

After 1 8 16 there was practically no change in the legislation of the General Conference on the subject of slavery until the session of 1836; but an event occurred at the

1 " Journal of the General Conference of 1800," pp. Tfl, 44.

CASE OF MR. CAPERS. 9

General Conference of 1828 which showed that the moderate and conciliatory view of the question had been accepted and was generally held. At the General Conference of 1824 that body instructed the bishops to choose and appoint a representative and send him to the British Conference at its session in 1826. At a meeting of the bishops held in Baltimore in April, 1826, Bishop McKendree and Bishop Soule had favored the appointment of Mr. Capers, of South Carolina, while Bishops George and Hedding gave their support to the great Dr. Wilbur Fisk. The ground of their objection to Mr. Capers was that he was a slaveholder. This difference of opinion led to a postponement of the matter till the General Conference of 1828, when the subject was formally brought up in the address of the bishops. The General Conference indorsed the preference of Bishops McKendree and Soule, and elected Mr. Capers over Dr. Fisk, notwithstanding the fact that he was a slaveholder. It may be interesting to add that Mr. Capers was received by the British Conference with cordiality and enthusiasm ; and they

Resolved, 1. That the cordial thanks of this conference are due to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America for the appointment of their excellent representative, Mr. Capers, whose amiable manners, devout spirit, and acceptable ministry have greatly endeared him to the preachers now assembled, and have confirmed their feelings of respect and attachment toward their American brethren at large.

2. That the warmest thanks of the conference are hereby presented to Mr. Capers for the great ability, Christian spirit, and brotherly kindness with which he has discharged the duties of his honorable mission, and that their most fervent prayers will attend him on his return to his native country.1

The journal of the General Conference of 1836 records a remarkable action. It is as follows :

Whereas great excitement has prevailed in this country on the subject of modern abolitionism, etc.,

Resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Conferences in General Confer-

1 " Life of Bishop Capers," p. 258.

IO THE METHODISTS, SOUTH. [Chap. i.

ence assembled, That they are decidedly opposed to modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave as it exists in the slaveholding States of this Union.1

One hundred and thirty-seven voted in favor of this resolution, and "none in the opposition."

The great excitement referred to in the preamble was an effect of the organization and operation of the New England Antislavery Society, begun in 1832, and the American Antislavery Society, organized in 1833. These societies took extreme positions and precipitated widespread agitation.

In 1835 the New England and New Hampshire conferences organized Antislavery Societies, and an " Appeal " was issued, signed by La Roy Sunderland and others, and addressed to these two conferences. In the same year appeared a " Counter- Appeal," written by D. D. Whedon and signed by Wilbur Fisk, Abel Stevens, Bishop Elijah Hedding, and others. The signers of this counter-appeal replied to the position taken in the appeal, that " no slaveholder is truly awakened, and that no slaveholder can rightly be permitted a place in the Christian Church," by saying:

That in the primitive church at Colosse, under the apostolic eye and with the apostolic sanction, the relation of master and slave was permitted to subsist ; that there were already such in the church of Ephesus ; that the New Testament (in Ephesians vi. 5-9 and elsewhere) enjoins obedience on the slave as an obligation due to a present, rightful authority ; that I Timothy vi. I, 2, presents an impregnable demonstration that slaveholding is not in all cases and invariably sinful ; that we may not say that no slaveholder is truly awakened ; and that it does not of itself form a ground of exclusion from the Christian Church.2

The counter-appeal maintained also that the Bible is opposed to slavery as a system, and disclaimed all pur-

2 Matlack, pp. 87, 88.

BISHOPS' ADDRESS, ISIfi. II

pose of defending the system. What it opposed was the position that all slaveholding is sinful and therefore should be universally and immediately abandoned.

The address of the bishops at the General Conference of 1840 is a notable document. It presents a calm survey of the situation, takes broad views of the jurisdictional questions involved, and counsels moderation and justice in and toward all sections of the church. Among other things they say :

They have no disposition to criminate their brethren in the South who are unavoidably connected with the institution of slavery, or to separate from them on that account. In all enactments of the church relating to slavery a due and respectful regard has been had to the laws of the States, never requiring emancipation in contravention of civil authority, or where the laws of the State would not allow the liberated slave to enjoy his freedom. The simple holding or owning of slaves, without regard to circumstances, has at no period of the existence of the church subjected the master to excommunication.1

In the reply of the bishops to the fraternal address of the British Conference, which contained references to the subject of slavery, they say :

In some of our States slavery exists so universally and is so closely interwoven with their civil institutions, that both do the laws disallow of emancipation and the great body of the people (the source of laws with us) hold it to be treasonable to set forth anything by word or deed tending that way. Our church is extended through all the States, and as it would be wrong and unscriptural to enact a rule of discipline in opposition to the constitution and laws of the State on the subject, so also is it not equitable or Scriptural to confound the position of our ministers and people (so different as they are in different States) with respect to the moral question which slavery involves. Under the administration of the venerated Dr. Coke this plain distinction was once overlooked, and it was attempted to urge emancipation in all the States ; but the attempt proved almost ruinous, and was soon abandoned by the doctor himself. Methodism has always been, except in this single instance, eminently loyal and promotive of good order, and so we desire it may ever continue to be both in Europe and America. We conclude the subject with the corroborating language of your noble missionary society, by the revered and lamented Richard Watson, in their instructions to missionaries published in the report of 1833, as follows :

"As in the colonies in which you are called to labor, a great proportion of the inhabitants are in a state of slavery, the committee most strongly call to your remembrance what was so fully stated to you when you were accepted as missionaries to the West Indies — that your only business is to promote the moral and religious improvement of the slaves to whom you may have access, without in the least degree, in public or private, interfering with their civil condition."

(Signed) R. R. Roberts, Joshua Soule, Elijah Hedding, Jas. O. Andrew, Beverly Waugh, Thos. A. Morris.i

At this same General Conference of 1840 a memorial was presented from the. official members of the Westmoreland Circuit, in Virginia, complaining that, while geographically they were subject to State laws under which emancipation could not take place, the Baltimore Conference, to whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction they belonged, refused to elect certain of their local preachers to orders or to admit them into the traveling connection, because they were slaveholders. The conclusion of the report on the subject adopted by the conference is as follows :

In conclusion, your committee would express the deliberate opinion that while the general rule on the subject of slavery relating to those States whose laws admit emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, should be firmly and constantly enforced, the exception to the general rule, applying to those States where emancipation is not practicable, should be recognized with equal firmness and impartiality. Therefore,

Resolved, by the delegates of the several Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled, That, under the provisional exception of the general rule of the church on the subject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves or mere ownership of slave-property in States or Territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slaves to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the election or ordination of ministers to the various 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.

WITHDRAWAL OF THE WESLEYANS. 13

The action of the General Conference of 1840 marks the furthest limit of concession to the views and sentiments of the Southern section of the church. It was more than the abolition wing of the church could stand. They prepared to secede, and in 1842-43 they did secede; and at a convention held in Utica, N. Y., in May, 1843, they organized the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America, with non-slaveholding as a condition of membership. Within about a year and a half they had enrolled a total membership of fifteen thousand. This secession produced a reaction. A great awakening occurred in the church generally, resulting in some localities in Methodist conventions. One of these declared that " slaveholding is sin," and that " the Methodist Episcopal Church is responsible for slavery in its pale." Another one declared that " the only way to prevent an entire dissolution among us, as a church, is an entire separation from the South." 1

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. Dr. Whedon, in the " Quarterly Review" for October, 1865, says: "The secession of the Wesleyans, as we believe, saved our church in 1844 from accepting a slaveholding bishop." It was the opinion of Bishop Thompson, expressed in 1866, that the Wesleyans by withdrawing- from the church in 1843 constrained a development of antislavery activity in the church, which they could not have accomplished by remaining in it. This reaction was shown in the vigorous controversy which was at that period carried on in the Methodist journals of the time, North and South.

On the other hand, the legislation in the General Conferences of 1836 and 1840, the defeat of the abolition

1 Matlack, p. 152.

party and their subsequent secession from the church, gave the supporters of the Southern view increasing confidence in their position. So that while the secession of the Wesleyans seemed, at the time, to afford " general relief," and did afford temporary relief, yet in fact and in the end it had the effect to reawaken the convictions of the one side and to strengthen those of the other. The crisis was approaching, and soon came. All the alterations of the rule, modifications of method, attempts at reconciliation, had brought the two parts of the church no nearer together. On the contrary, all their experiments and efforts, all the demands of the one side and all the concessions of the other, all the actions and reactions, showed that the question was utterly unmanageable, and that they were in reality wider apart than ever before. It seems amazing to us that the men of '44, on both sides, did not see that it was simply impossible to reconcile the differences and perpetuate the union, and that the best thing would have been to make a friendly division of the church and let each section work its own territory, pursue its own methods, and manage its own problems. An enforced and irritating union is incomparably worse than a friendly separation. So it appeared even to some of the apostles (compare Gal. ii. 9 and Acts xv 39). An opportunity for a peaceable separation came in the General Conference of 1844.

Chapter II. The General Conference Of 1 844

WITHOUT the preliminary review given in the foregoing chapter, outlining the course of events preceding the General Conference of 1844, it would be difficult to understand the situation or to comprehend the action of that historic body. There were forebodings of evil in the hearts of both Northern and Southern delegates as they assembled in the city of New York, in the flowery month of May, to attend the ninth delegated General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and in the air were the whispered fears of an impending conflict. The General Conference was composed of the best men of all sections, men of really great abilities, profound convictions, deep piety, and devotion to the church. The radicals had gone off in 1843. The leaders of 1844 were, for the most part, conservatives. There were Soule and Hedding and Bangs and Olin and Morris and the Pecks and Durbin and Hamline and Porter and Collins and Thompson and Ames and Simpson and Cartwright and Scott ; there were the Pierces and Capers and Paine and McFerrin and Green and Bascom and Kavanaugh and Winans and Smith and Andrew and Hamilton and Wightman and Early. No less than thirteen of the delegates to that memorable body afterward became bishops — six in the Northern Church and seven in the Southern.