History of the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South

Front matter

CORNELL

UNIVERSITV LIBRARY

Cornell University Library BX8241.R31

Preface

MoEE than a quarter of a century has elapsed since the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The men who were prominent in the General Conference of 1844, the extrajudicial legislation of which body resulted in the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States into two separate and distinct ecclesiastical organizations, with but few exceptions, have passed away. The names of Olin, Bangs, Finley, Elliott, Collins, Harriline, and of Bascom, W™^is> Longstreet, Capers, Smith, and Fowler, no longer appear on the roll of the Conferences where, for so many years, they were the bulwarks of the Church. Bishop Morris, the senior Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, (North,) alone remains of the men who composed the College of Bishops at that period. No longer able to go in and out before his brethren, he enjoys a serene old age, and is joyful in contemplation of the heavenly inheritance. His colleagues have passed over the river, and entered upon " the rest that remaineth to the people of God." The names of Hedding and Waugh will ever be dear to the memory of Methodism in the North ; while those of Soule and Andrew, whose graves are yet damp

VI PEEFACE.

with the tears of the Church, will always be cherished with a sacred fondness by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

Since the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, a new generation has come upon the scene, who are not familiar with the circumstances that Jed to the separation. The object of this work is to place in a permanent and enduring form the proceedings of the General Conference of 1844, so far as they bear upon this question, together with all the official documents and papers necessary to a full understanding of the reasons by which the Southern Delegates in that body were governed in the declaration they made that " a continuance of the jurisdiction of that General Conference over the Conferences they represented, was inconsistent with the success of the ministry in the slaveholding States."

The success that has attended the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, since it became an independent organization, is cause of thanksgiving to Almighty God. The approving smiles of Heaven have rested upon it, indicating not only the propriety but the necessity of the separation.

A. H. EEDFORD.

Nashville, Tehh., April 4, 1871.

Contents

CHAPTEE I.

The General Conference of 1844— The Compromise-law of 1816 — The peaceful relations under this law between the Northern and Southern portions of the Church— The prosperity of the Church— Occasional agitations on the subject of Slavery— Petitions to the General Conference of 1844:— Committee on Slavery— The Appeal of Francis A. Harding— Speech of Dr. "Wm. A. Smith— Speech of John A. Collins — State of feeling in the South —The decision of the Baltimore Conference in the case of Harding affirmed—Sketch of William A. Smith 9

Chapter II

The influence of the action of the General Conference in the case of Francis A. Harding— Resolution of Drs. Capers and Olin — Speeches of Drs. Ohn and Durbin— Committee of Pacification appointed — Dr. Durbin's resolution, proposing a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer — The committee fail to agree on any plan of compromise— Resolution of Mr. Collins in reference to Bishop Andrew— Report of the Committee on Episcopacy — Bishop Andrew's statement— The report of the committeo made the special order of the day for the 22d of May— Great interest felt— Alfred Griffith's speech — Benjamin M. Drake's motion to amend the preamble— Bishop Soule addresses the Conference — Speeches of Peter P. Sandford and Dr. William Winans— Speeches of Elias Bowen and Dr. Lovick Pierce— Speeches of Jerome C. Berryman, Seymour Coleman, Dr. Smith, and Thomas Stringfi eld— Sketch of Thomas Stringfield— Speech of Thomas Crowder-— Sketch of Thomas Crowder— Speech of Dr. Nathan Bangs .'. 148

Chapter III

Resolution of James B. Finley— Speech of Dr. Olin— Speech of Benjamin M. Drake— Speech of George F. Pierce— Speech of Jease T. Peck- Speech of Bishop Andrew— Bishop Soule addresses the Conference

Speech of Dr. Capers— Address from the Bishops— The adoption of Mr. Finley's Resolution , 206

Chapter IV

The effect of the action of the General Conference on the Church in the South— Notice given by Dr. Pierce that the Soutlicrn Deleg.ites would enter their Protest— Resolutions offered by Henry Slicer— Resolutions offered by Dr. Caper.s— Referred to a Committee— Declaration of the Southern Members— Dr. Elliott proposes its reference— Speech of Peter. P. Sandford— Reply of Dr. Longstreet— Dr. Olin's Remarks— Declaration referred— Resolution of Instruction to the Committee— Protest of the

VIU CONTENTS.

Minority— Communication from Bishops Soule, Hedding, Waugh, and Morris— Eeply of the Conference— Report of the Committee of Nine— The Report discussed — Its adoption — The Adjournment of the General Conference 316

Chapter V

The Meeting of the Southern Delegates iu New York — Plan of action recommended to the Annual Conferences— Their Address to the members of the Church in the Slaveholding States and Territories — Excitement throughout the Church— Resolutions adopted in Virginia, in Alabama, in North Carolina, in South Carolina, iu Georgia, in Louisiana, in Tennessee, in Kentucky — Dr. Elliott advocates Division — The action of the several Annual Conferences— Bishop Andrew's position — Letter from Bishop Soule to Bishop Andrew— Letter from Bishop Soule in reply to Dr. Bond — Communication from the College of Bishops 375

Chapter VI

Excitement along the Border— Rev. Joseph S. Tomlinson, D.D. — The Minerva Circuit, Kentucky Conference — Convention meets in Louisville, Kentucky, on the first day of May, 1845 — Of whom composed — Bishops Soule, Andrew, and Morris present — Bishop Soule's address to the Convention—Committee appointed to consider the necessity of a Southern Organization— Resolutions offered by Dr. Winans — B. M. Drake's Resolution—Resolution offered by Drs. Smith and Pierce— Resolution offered by James E. Evans— Withdrawn— Dr. Smith's Resolution adopted — Report of the Committee on Organization — Its adoption — Resolutions requesting Bishops Soule and Andrew to unite with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South — Reply of Bishops Soule and Andrew — Pastoral Address—Adjournment of the Convention- Border Conferences 413

Chapter VII

The first General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South — Bishops Soule and Andrew present— Bishop Soule's Communication — Referred to a Committee— Report of Committee — Dr. Pierce appointed Fraternal Messenger to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church— Dr. Dixon from the British Conference, Dr. Richey, and Revs. J. Ryerson and A. Green from the Canada Conference — Fraternal intercourse with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, declined — Dr. Pierce's popularity in Pittsburgh— His Report to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1S50— The Property Question— The Lawsuits— Decisions in favor of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South— Position, duty, and prospects of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South .' - 504

Appendix

(A) List of Delegates of the General Conference of 1844 591

(B) Action of the Southern Conferences in regard to the Division of the Church 694

(C) Correspondence Concerning Union 629

(D) Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 64J

HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION

OF THE

M. E, CHUKCH, SOUTH.

Chapter I

The General Conference of 1844 — The Compromise-law of 1816 — The peaceful relations under this law between the Northern and Southern portions of the Church — The prosperity of the Church — Occasional agitations on the subject of Slavery — ^Petitions to the General Conference of 1844 — Committee on Slavery — The Appeal of Francis A. Harding — Speech of Dr. Wm. A. Smith — Speech of JohjuA. Collins — State of feeling in the South — The decision of the Baltimore Conference in the case of Harding affirmed — Sketch of William A. Smith.

The General Conference which assembled in the city of New York in 1844, on the first day of May, will be ever memorable in the annals of American Methodism. The strength and influence of the Church represented by that body — its

1* (9)

territorial extent spreading over a country reaching from British America on the North to the Gulf of Mexico on the South, and from the Atlantic Ocean on the East to the very verge of civilization on the Western frontier; the importance of the questions vFhich occupied the attention of the Conference, together with the extrajudicial legislation in the cases of Francis A. Harding, an appellant from the Baltimore Conference, and Bishop James 0. Andrew, of the State of G-eorgia, which resulted in the division of the " Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States" into two separate and distinct organizations, iuA^ested this General Conference with an interest and importance that cannot be claimed for any session that preceded it.

From the time of the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, the question of slavery had occupied the attention of both Annual and General Conferences. In 1816, a law was enacted, known as the Compromise-law of the Church, on this subject, which d'&elared slaveholders inehgible to any official station in the Church, where " the laws of the State in which they live will admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom."

From 1816 to 1844, this compromise-law was recognized by the Church, and, with the exception of a few restless persons who occasionally appeared on the tapis, no dissatisfaction was expressed either North or South. While, without this spirit of accommodation, it would have been impossible for Methodism to obtain a foothold in the South, yet, under it, the Church had grown and prospered. Between the two sections the greatest harmony prevailed, each rejoicing in the prosperity of the other. The ecclesiastical history of the North and South was one history, and the achievements of the Church were the common property of the entire Connection.

Under this compromise-law the General Conference had met quadrennially for twenty-eight years, enjoying peace, fraternal confidence, and Christian love : under it, the Church, North and South, East and West, enjoyed a prosperity and power for the accomplishment of good, and attained to a position occupied by no other body of Christians on this continent. The light of her countenance and the brightness of her smiles were felt alike in homes of opulence and in the cottages of the poor, a,nd from hearts gladdened by its blessings, from cabin and from palace, praises were continually ascending to Heaven.

The General Conference of 1844 was looked to by the Church with feelings of uncommon interest. During the quadrennial term that preceded it, the increase in the membership had been greater than during any four years previous, and the imprcssioa was general, if not universal, that the session would be unusually harmonious. The Southern portion of the' Church was willing to submit to the law as it existed and had been executed, and it was not believed that the North desired to introduce any new terms of membership.

At no period since the introduction of Methodism into this country, had so great a calm been enjoyed. Scarcely an adverse breeze was stirring. Christian confidence and fraternal intercourse pervaded the whole Church. It was the calm, however, that precedes the tempest.

The question of slavery and abolition had been discussed in the councils of the nation^ and political demagogues were courting political preferment, by appealing to the prejudices and inflaming the passions of the people on this subject; and these discussions occasionally disturbed the tranquillity of the Church. It was not, however* belieA^ed in the South that there would be any serious agitation in the General Conference of this or kindred questions.

Just previous to the convening of the General Conference, h,owever, petitions on the subject of slavery were gotten up in several of the Northern Conferences. On the third day of the session, a petition from the Providence Conference was presented, which called at once to the floor several members of the body. It was moved by Mr.

Slicer, of the Baltimore Conference, "that it lie on the table until a committee should be appointed to whom to refer it." To this Mr. Crowder, of Virginia, objected, and called for its reading. In this opinion Mr. Drake, of Mississippi, concurred, and the motion was withdrawn, and the memorial was read.

Mr. Collins, of Baltimore, then moved "that the memorial be referred to a committee of one from each Annual Conference, to be called a Committee on Slavery." Dr. Capers, of South Carolina, objected to raising any such committee, as well as to the reference of the inemorial, and "moved that the motion to refer lie on the table." This, however, was lost. On the motion to raise the committee, a spirited debate was elicited, in which Mr. Collins, of Baltimore, Dr. Capers, of South Carolina, Mr. Dow, of New Hampshire, and Mr. Early, of Virginia, took a part. The motion to lay on the table was lost, and the memorial was referred to a committee to be composed of one from each Annual Conference.

The petition from the Providence Conference was not the only one that was presented and referred. New England, Maine, New Hampshire, Black River, Pittsburgh, Rock River, Ohio, and other Conferences, also presented petitions on the same subject, which were referred to the Committee on Slavery.

On the eth of May, Dr. W. A. Smith, of Virginia, offered the following resolution :

^'Resolved, That the committee to whom the memorials on slavery are referred, be, and hereby are, requested to report directly on the points, the alleged facts and arguments, submitted by the memorialists, and present their report as soon as practicable."

Dr. Smith supported this resolution by a speech remarkable for its cleai-ness and force, eliciting an animated discussion, in which Crandall and Adams, of New England, Dow and Cass, of New Hampshire, Sheer, of Baltimore, and Green, of Tennessee, were prominent.

On the 7th of May, the subject of slavery came before the General Conference in a more imposing form. The Rev. Francis A. Harding, a member of the Baltimore Conference, had become connected by marriage withslavery, and having failed to manumit these slaves, had been suspended, and had appealed from the decision of the Baltimore Conference. The case had been referred to a committee of the Baltimore Conference, with the following result :

" The committee reported that Mr. Harding had become possessed of five slaves : one named Harry, aged fifty-two ; one woman, named Maria, aged fifty; one man, named John, aged twentytwo ; a girl, named , aged thirteen ; and a child, aged two years; and recommended the following preamble and resolution for adoption :

'"Whereas, the Baltimore Conference cannot, and will not, tolerate slavery in any of its members—

"'■Resolved, That Brother Harding be required to execute a deed of manumission, and have the same enrolled in the proper court, and give to this Conference, during this present session, a pledge that this shall be done during the present year.'

"Brother Harding having stated the impossibility, with his views, of his compliance with this resolution, Mr. Collins moved for his suspension until he gave sufficient assurance of his compUance.

"The matter was again referred to a committee of five, for farther investigation, who reported that they had entirely failed to induce Brother Harding to comply with the wishes of the Conference.

"Brothers Collins and Emory moved the following resolution, which was adopted :

" 'Resolved, That Brother Harding be suspended until the next Annual Conference, or until he assures the Episcopacy that he has taken the necessary steps to secure the freedom of his slaves.'"

Although the question of slavery had frequently been brought before the General Conference, yet on no previous occasion had it assumed such a commanding aspect as now. The Baltimore Conference had previously acted with the South in resisting the encroachments of abohtionism, and had wielded a potent influence in arresting its tide. The action of that body in the case of Mr. Harding had been extrajudicial, and from their decision he had very properly appealed to the General Conference, where he had the right to expect protection. Bishop Soule was in the chair when the appeal was presented, and remarked that "the question will arise, according to the Discipline, whether the General Conference will admit this appeal." On motion, the appeal was admitted, upon which Bishop Soule called upon the appellant to state the ground of his appeal.

The discussion in the case of Mr. Harding was quite protracted. It commenced on the 7th of May, and was concluded on the 11th. Dr. William A. Smith, of Virginia, conducted the appeal on the part of Mr. Harding, whUe John A. CoUins, of Baltimore, had charge of the case on the part of the Baltimore Conference.

The speeches delivered on that occasion by these distinguished gentlemen, were equal to their reputation.

The speech of Dr. Smith, so masterly in argument, so replete with proof, and so overwhelmingly convincing, merits preservation. Dr. Smith said:

I appear before the General Conference, at the ■ instance of the appellant, to state his case to the best of my ability. In entering upon this duty, especially as the case involves the question of slavery, it is proper that I should make some preliminary remarks personal to myself.

I am aware, from the use that has been made of my name within the last few years in various journals, in different sections of the country, it is reasonable to suppose that I entertain personally hostile feelings toward those who differ from me. I wish to disavow it. My own opinions on the subject have been made up for years. But these opinions have never been permitted with me, so far as I am competent to understand myself, to originate unchristian feelings to any honest man who differs with me. I have always held myself to be, and now do, an antislavery man — not, however, an abolitionist in any sense of the word. And in this I differ not from my Methodist brethren in the ministry and out of it. The sense which I attach to antislavery wiU, in the course of the observations I shaU make on the merits of this case, be explained. In the present case I do not know if I am not called upon to represent an aboKtionist, though a Southern man myself. I do not symbolize with the brother on the subject of slavery. I differ with him almost as widely as I do from any abolitionist, North or East. And I do,

18 Organisation of fhe

sir, with the more' cheerfulness enter upon the defense of this case, being actuated by a sense of justice, because I believe, whatever may have been the design, (and I have not a solitary doubt that the design was a good one,) this brother has been wronged, and deeply wronged, by the decision in his case.

I learn from the journals of the Baltimore Conference, and from his own statement, that he entered as a probationer in the ministry in 1839, and in 1843 was ordained, in the regular course, an Elder in the Methodist Episcopal Church. On the 8 th of February, in 1844, he became connected by marriage with Miss Swan, in the State of Maryland. At the session of the Conference in March last he was called up for examination, and from the journal of that body I learn his Presiding Elder stated that, by his late marriage, he had become connected with slavery. The Conference appointed a committee to investigate the subject. That committee reported. Their report you have heard readj it requires him to pledge himself that, during the year, he would execute a deed securing to the slaves their liberty. These slaves belonged to his wife by the demise of her parents. Let that be distinctly remembered. I understand that Brother Harding, for specific reasons, refused to comply with the decision of the Conference. It is due to him to state, that I could have wished tho journals of the Conference had been kept as the rule requires they should be kept; that all the questions and all the answers put to the accused had been matter of record. This, however, is not the case. The proceedings of the Conference alone, so far as regards the resolutions moved and adopted, make up the journals of that Conference, and by consequence we have not the legal, authorized testimony, required by the Book of Discipline. I must, therefore, sir, rely for the facts that are important to a due consideration of this case, upon the correct and honest memory of the representatives of the Baltimore Conference. I therefore say that' if, in relating any thing of importance, not on the records of the Conference, I should be found in their judgment in error — for it is not my purpose to misrepresent the history of this case — they will point out the error. I understand from the individual himself, and from some members of that Conference, that when the decision was read, he refused at once to comply with the demand of the Conference on the following grounds : —

First. That by the nature of the laws of the State of Maryland he did not become the owner of the slaves. They were held by his wife by descent from her parents, and that he had therefore no right to execute the deed required by the Conference.

Secondly. That if it were not so, the laws of the State of Maryland do not permit the liberated slave to enjoy liberty, and that, therefore, under the rule of Discipline, he was not required to comply with the condition. He maintained, therefore, that the pledge was impracticable, and contrary to the rule of Discipline; and, thirdly, that it would be in its practical results inhuman. And why ? Because the demand, if carried out by him, without the consent of these slaves, would separate parents from children and other friends, which, without their consent, he, as a conscientious man, could not consent to do.

But while he thus refused a compliance with the proposed condition, he nevertheless tendered to the Conference the following pledge, in his own name and that of his wife, that he would have them removed to the colony in Africa, or to any free State in the Union, where they might be permitted to enjoy their freedom, at any time when he could do so with their consent. But pledge himself to fulfill the condition made by the Conference, with or without their consent, and thus sever the dearest ties on earth, he, as a humane and conscientious man, could not consent to do. I am now relating what the journals of the Baltimore Conference should have shown. Let the Conference understand that I am repeating the pledges made by this brother in my own language;

but I submit it to the delegation whether I give substantially the pledges he gave. If not, correct me on the spot, and do not leave me to labor in the dark.

Mr. Griffith. I understand you to say that he gave a pledge to remove them to any free State. I have no recollection of such a pledge. If tendered, it would have been accepted, as perfectly satisfactory.

Mr. Gere. Brother Griffith may not have heard the pledge, but he did, more than once, make that pledge in the presence of the Conference.

Mr. Collins. I attended to this case with great particularity, and had something to do with it. If Brother Harding ever made such a pledge, it did not reach my ears. And when he said that, with the consent of his wife and the slaves, he would send them to Liberia, I asked him if that consent could be obtained, and he answered in the negative.

Mr. Gere. Brother Collins is correct in saying that consent could not be obtained; but I clearly recollect the point spoken to. He would have preferred sending them to Liberia; but when the Conference desired it, he said he would permit them to go to any free State.

Mr. Slicer. I have no recollection of his agreeing to their going to a free State ; but I do distinctly recollect that he put the issue of their freedom on their consent to go to Liberia.

Mr. ColKns. On the basis of two ifs. If his wife and if his slaves consented, neither of which could he promise for.

Mr. Davis. What is stated by Brother Sheer is correct. He did say, that if these colored persons were willing to go to Liberia, and if his wife would consent, he should be willing that they should go.

Dr. Smith. Brother Gere, do you recoUect distinctly whether Brother Harding said as you have stated ?

Mr. Grere. I think those were the words, to the best of my recollection.

Mr. Drake said he thought oral testimony ought not to be taken.

Bishop Soule. I have admitted it at Brother Smith's instance.

Dr. Smith. What redress would there be without this ? The laws require that the Annual Conference shall keep a record of every question and answer, both great and small. Has that been done?

Mr. Collins. This small matter may be disposed of at once. Brother Harding admitted the fact. We wanted no testimony, and we took none. Brother Harding was testimony against himself.

Bishop Soule. I take it for granted that you have no other proper testimony but what is presented to you in those journals j that there was not a witness called — no testimony given. You have heard the whole of the matter so far as it is on the records, and it is, I presume, to supply this defectiveness that he calls for those points from the delegates.

A memher made some observation, and Bishop Soule answered that Dr. Smith would call for any witness he might want.

Dr. Smith. I do not know, sir, that I would care to meet every member of this Conference on the subject. I know that it is not admissible, but still I have, myself, no particular objection to it, I feel obliged by the reference made to Discipline. What is the meaning of Discipline? That your journal should contain every thing- Mr. Collins. It does.

Dr. Smith (emphatically). Stick a peg there. A resolution is passed at the Baltimore Conference, requiring the appellant to submit to certain conditions. He refuses. Does the journal state under what circumstances? And do not the merits of the case rest on the circumstances? Why, sir, the course pursued shows that the matter rests just there. One says, if Mr. Harding had refused with such a declaration, there would have been no dispute about it. In the judgment of all who had taken any interest in the merits of this case, it turned on the manner and circumstances of his refusal. Then why not record it? It proves a defectiveness in the journal. Upon that journal "we rely for the prosecution, and they upon it for the defense. But behold you, sir, on the very point at issue it is silent! Who shaU suffer the wrong here? The appellant or the Baltimore Conference? "Who are in the wrong that the journal is thus defective? I leave it to this Conference to decide, every man in his own mind. I am, sir, entitled to the oral testimony in the absence of the correct record which it was the duty of that Annual Conference to furnish us with. And that testimony goes to sustain us. What is the testimony? "I clearly remember," says Brother Grere, "as clearly as if I had heard it this morning, that Brother Harding said, over and over again, that with the consent of the servants, he stood pledged, and pledged his wife, to send them to Liberia; or, with their consent, to let them go to any free State in the Union."

Mr. 'Collins. If you understood his wife to be pledged, you are certainly mistaken.

Mr. Gere, on being appealed to, said that, as distinctly as he could remember, the words were, "I pledge on my own behalf, and that of my wife, that, if they consent, they shaU go to a free State."

Mr. Hildt. I think Brother Grere must be mistaken. Conference was deeply interested in this subject, and I think every member would pay

M. E. ChurcJi, South. 25

attention; and I do not recollect that Mr. Harding at any time said that he was willing, with the consent of his wife, that the slaves should go to a free State.

Dr. Smith. Well, if there were twenty pr-esent who did not hear it, that is no proof that it did not take place. Brother Collins was involved in the matter, and the other brethren had their feelings warmly enlisted, and it is no wonder that they did not hear all that Brother Harding said on this subject. I think you will find that they were so enlisted to carry out their own purposes — honest as they felt they were — that they urged the brother to comply with their condition, intending to investigate the propriety of it hereafter. You cannot suppose they would take a course of this kind unless their feelings were excited, and so excited that they did not hear what is in the clear and distinct remembrance of the brother himself, and of many more, if we had them all here. Others not recollecting it, is no proof that it did not take place. But I have positive. proof that he did make this declaration. Its not appearing on the record is not our fault, but the fault of the Conference, and we are entitled to the positive testimony. I shall, therefore, assume that Brother Harding said, that, with the consent of these servants, they should be sent to any State where they could enjoy their freedom. The Conference, however, 2