Produced by hekula03, Barry Abrahamsen, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)






[Illustration:

  REV. L. M. HAGOOD, M.D.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                            THE COLORED MAN


                                 IN THE


                      Methodist Episcopal Church.


                                   BY


                      THE REV. L. M. HAGOOD, M.D.,

                      OF THE LEXINGTON CONFERENCE.



                         ---------------------


                              CINCINNATI:
                           CRANSTON & STOWE.
                               NEW YORK:
                             HUNT & EATON.
                                 1890.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                              Copyright by

                            _L. M. HAGOOD,_

                                 1890.




------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                PREFACE.

                               ----------


The history of the relations existing between the Methodist Episcopal
Church and the colored man—or rather, the status of the colored man
within the Church—so far as known, has never been written. There are
many cogent reasons why such a history should be written. From the time
of the landing of a cargo of twenty African slaves at Jamestown,
Virginia, in 1620, until this hour, the colored man has been the subject
of much discussion. Touching his status as a man, there have always been
two sides: one in favor of enslaving him, and the other objecting to
enslaving him. Both sides of this vexed question have always been
represented within the Church. The fact that there has always been a
majority in the Church opposed to enslaving him; that therefore the
Church early enlisted in the cause of his emancipation,—has kept up a
continuous though bloodless warfare within the Church.

Thus the colored man early learned to love Methodism, and soon large
numbers were brought into its communion. The emancipation and
enfranchisement of the race did not put a quietus upon the agitation of
the question. Many white and colored members are not conversant with the
history of our Church touching this subject. It has always been a
question to many, why men of the race within the Church have not been as
ready to write the _actual facts_ in the case, as some of the race in
other Churches have been to record many _half truths_ relating thereto.
It is true that while the public eye and ear appear always open and
attentive to anything written or spoken by those who can claim kin with
Jefferson, Clay, Sumner, Lincoln, or Grant, there is an apparent
unwillingness to give audience to those who have always been subjected
to ostracism.

These lines are written because it is believed that our Church has had
to suffer because only _one side_ of the story has been told by any
person of the race, and in nearly, if not every instance, by those
unfriendly to the relation the colored man has sustained to the Church;
because some wrong impressions may be righted by the collation of facts
that lay bare the glaring inaccuracies hitherto related concerning the
imposition of the white members of the Church upon the colored; to show
that, so far as the question goes, the heart of the Methodist Episcopal
Church has always been right; and that, though errors may have been
committed, they have been, in most instances, from the head and not from
the heart of the Church; that it has come as near reaching the proper
solution of the question, “What shall be done with the colored man?” as
any other organization that has had to do with the question.

There has been no intentional reflection or false or prejudicial
statement made herein. Many “_stubborn facts_” have been left out, that
might have been properly included. Though the story has not been told
with the polished language of a Chesterfield, nor the logical acuteness
of Aristotle, nor with the erudite diction of one born in the college,
it is hoped that some good, and _no harm_, may be accomplished thereby;
those of the race who have not had the opportunity to know some facts
herein related may be enabled to teach their children that there is no
need of blushing when the past history of the Church touching this
question is being recited; but that it is a benefit to the race, as well
as an honor, to be numbered with the million and a half members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CONTENTS.

                               ----------


                               CHAPTER I

                                                      PAGE.
             BEFORE THE WAR,                             17


                               CHAPTER II

             THE COLOR-LINE SECESSIONS,                  35


                              CHAPTER III

             THE CRISIS—ITS CAUSE,                       64


                               CHAPTER IV

             THE COLORED PASTORATE,                      83


                               CHAPTER V

             THE RETROSPECT,                            104


                               CHAPTER VI

             DURING THE WAR,                            116


                              CHAPTER VII

             THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1864,            130


                              CHAPTER VIII

             THE BEGINNING OF A GREAT WORK,             148


                               CHAPTER IX

             THE COLORED BISHOP QUESTION,               167

                               CHAPTER X

             WHY ASK FOR A BISHOP OF AFRICAN DESCENT?   192


                               CHAPTER XI

             THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1884,            207


                              CHAPTER XII

             THE PROBLEM,                               230


                              CHAPTER XIII

             THEORY AND PRACTICE—A GENERAL              259
               DISCUSSION,


                              CHAPTER XIV

             WHAT WILL THE HARVEST BE?                  292


                               CHAPTER XV

             UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS,               309


                         ---------------------




                             ILLUSTRATIONS.

                               ----------


             REV. L. M. HAGOOD, M.D.,                 _Frontispiece._

             MORGAN COLLEGE, FOR COLORED STUDENTS,       48

             NEW ORLEANS UNIVERSITY, MAIN BUILDING,      96

             BENNETT SEMINARY, GREENSBORO, N.C.,        144

             REV. A. E. P. ALBERT, D.D.,                192

             MEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE, NASHVILLE,        240
               TENN.,

             ART DEPARTMENT OF CLAFLIN UNIVERSITY,      288

             GAMMON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, LIBRARY       312
               BUILDING,


------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             INTRODUCTION.

                               ----------


It is a difficult matter to write of a battle while it is still raging.
The combatants are not usually the best judges of the merits of their
cases. Prejudice, education, preconceived notions of the right or wrong
in the case, prevent the mind from weighing the arguments with equity.
There are principles lying at the foundation of ethics which will not be
denied by Christians. They come with the authority of a “Thus saith the
Lord.” However distasteful these truths may be to the natural man, the
obligation to receive them still remains. The Lord quoted certain
proverbs which were authorities among the Jews, which they had observed
as rules for their action towards others. One was “Thou shalt love thy
neighbor, and hate thine enemy.” Christ gives another, and with divine
authority: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, do good to them that
hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute
you.” Such teachings were not palatable in that day, any more than in
the present. Human nature was no more ready to receive and practice such
truths then than now. But the obligation existed then, and still
survives. Then, too, the Savior taught another lesson equally
unpalatable to the Jew. The man who fell among thieves was left by
priest and Levite to suffer, but was delivered by the Samaritan, who was
considered an enemy. “Who is my neighbor?” was the question that brought
out this answer from Jesus with its illustration; viz., that every one
needing help is a neighbor. The two great precepts of the same Teacher
embrace all that is necessary in the practical treatment of the question
of our relation to others: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;”
and, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to
them.” Whatever apology there may have been for slavery in the past, in
the days of ignorance, when God winked at it, as he did at polygamy, it
is certain that the treatment of the slave as the New Testament requires
would have destroyed slavery. To have educated the slave to read and
write, and otherwise giving him the privilege to develop his mental
faculties; to have secured him his wife—a God-given right; to have given
these parents their rights, in obedience to the Divine command, to train
up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; to secure
to them their right of a fair compensation for their labor, and to use
it as they chose for their own benefit; to have granted them the
privilege of worshiping their Maker as heaven required,—would have
destroyed the whole system of involuntary servitude as it existed in
these United States. More than two centuries slavery continued, while
the enlightened conscience of the nation protested against the system,
against the traffic in human beings, against its demoralizing influences
on the white, and its degrading influence on the black man.

Methodism came into the country, and found slavery intrenched in its
laws and civilization. Its preachers proclaimed a gospel of
regeneration, of love to God, of a personal knowledge of forgiveness of
sins, the witness of the Holy Ghost, of love to neighbors. The converts
declared the religion of Christ: the “love that suffereth long and is
kind.” It turned out the old man and let in the new. White and black
shared alike in the new life. Down in the cabin, up in the “great
house,” alike were heard the shouts of joy over this new-found pearl of
great price. Tears of joy coursed down the ivory and the ebony cheek, as
each spoke of redeeming love. Melted by this divine fire, fused into one
spirit, there came to heart, to conscience, to understanding, as the
white clasped the black hand with loving grip, the whispered voice of an
inner consciousness, “Surely we be brethren.” White Bishop Asbury
declared the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, black Harry by his side
preached the same gospel of the Son of God. The black messenger was
honored by the divine presence attending his Word, as well as the white,
and souls were saved when black Harry pointed sinners to the cross, as
well as when the first bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church called
them to repentance.

Peter was astonished when he was sent to the Gentiles. He was more so
when he saw them receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and heard them
declare the wonderful things of God. But he recognized them as brethren;
and when his people at Jerusalem call him to account for his conduct in
going among the Gentiles, he gives the history of the event, and sums it
all up in these words: “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as
he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I
could withstand God?” This settled the question for Peter, that the
Gentiles were entitled to all the rights and blessings of the Jew, as
followers of Christ. If God honored the blacks with his Spirit’s
presence, filling them with joy and peace, enabling them to show forth
the power of a Christian life in the fruits of holy living; if he
anointed more than one black Harry “to preach good tidings unto the
meek, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” and honored their
ministry in awakening and saving souls, is it a matter of wonder that
there should be the conviction in the minds of Methodists that these
slaves are men like ourselves? If men, then they are our neighbors; if
our neighbors, then we must love them as ourselves. If we love them as
men—as ourselves—then slavery, as it exists here, is wrong. The
enlightened conscience of the Methodists said, “Slavery is wrong;” and
this conviction was soon embodied in the question, which found its way
into the Church law, and held its place there till it received its
formal, practical answer in emancipation, “What shall be done for the
extirpation of the evil of slavery?”

The author of this book has treated of the relation of the Methodist
Episcopal Church to the colored people from this stand-point of a clear
perception of the evil of slavery, and the unrighteousness of one
Christian holding his fellow-Christian, his brother in Christ, as a
chattel. The writer traces the action of the law-making power of the
Methodist Episcopal Church for nearly a hundred years, in her treatment
of the colored man as a member of this Church, as an office-holder, and
as a preacher under the system of slavery.

The author shows that the Methodist Episcopal Church has never swerved
from the recognition of the rights of her colored members, in all her
general and annual conferences. She denounced slavery as an evil to be
extirpated, and at one time required her members to emancipate their
slaves. (Had she adhered to her requirement, what a sea of wasted
treasure, what a world of agony of the slave, what an ocean of bitter
strife, and what a host of precious lives might have been saved!) She
forbade the buying and selling slaves; she tried to enforce rules for
the merciful treatment of the bondmen; she made provision to have all of
the gospel preached to them that the masters would allow or the preacher
thought safe. She did what she could to have the relation of husband and
wife duly recognized. He also tells us that, as soon as the sounds of
battle had ceased, this Church began her work again among the colored
people. She organized them into Churches, took their own men and made
them pastors; although poorly qualified for this work, received them
into conferences with their white brethren, and gave them all the rights
and privileges of members and ministers of the Methodist Episcopal
Church.

The reluctance of some to accept the situation of Negro equality in the
Church led to the discussion of the question, What shall we do with the
Negro? The author gives the outline of this discussion and the action of
the Church authorities in reference to it. The unwillingness to
recognize the manhood and brotherhood of the Negro on the part of some
members and ministers of the Church, gave rise to such treatment of the
colored brethren that they were easily persuaded that the white brethren
did not want to be associated with them in Church or conference
relation. Hence, when the white brethren asked the colored to go out of
the conferences and set up for themselves, the colored brethren did so,
not always because they thought it absolutely best, but best under the
circumstances; not because they thought it right, but because they were
disposed to yield to the desires of the white brethren. The reasons for
the treatment of the Negro are very much the same as the grounds for
neglect of the poor, ignorant, and degraded of any community. People do
not like to come in contact with the uncultivated in intellect and
morals. Hence the fine church, where it is written in the dress and
bearing of the worshipers, “No poor are desired here.” Hence the mission
Churches, where the action of both the poor and the wealthy members of
the Church says: “No rich are expected here.” There is a disposition to
separate the Christian Church into classes corresponding to classes in
social life. The distinctions, so marked in society, are carried into
the Church. In the case of the Negro, this feeling against the
ignorance, uncouthness, which is found in the lowest strata of whites,
is intensified by two circumstances, which belong exclusively to the
Negro. The first is the color. There exists more or less color
repugnance in most persons not accustomed to seeing colored people.
There is less objection to having colored persons about them among the
Southern people than the Northern. The Southern women largely let the
slaves nurse their children, and many of the prominent Southern men and
women speak very kindly of their Negro mammies—color repugnance is not
instinctive. The second great cause of the unwillingness to treat the
Negro as an equal, in State and Church is, no doubt, his former
condition of servitude. That it is not altogether his color is evident
from the treatment that the Indian, the Hindoo, or the Japanese
receives, many of whom are as dark as the great mass of the Negroes. He
was a slave, kept a slave, and wronged by the white man. One of the
hardest things for poor human nature to do is to confess a wrong and
make restitution. That slavery is wrong, is recognized by all the action
of the Methodist Episcopal Church on that subject; and the question
should be, How can we best atone for the wrong, and remove from the
Negro, as speedily as possible, all the effects of this wrong?

That the Negro is an inferior part of the human family is stoutly
asserted by some people, though it has never been proved. Suppose, for
the moment, we admit it; granted that the Negro is inferior in some
respects, no matter what; then we ask, Does this misfortune entitle the
more gifted part of God’s family to the right of treating the
unfortunate ones unjustly, of depriving them of liberty, of the pursuit
of happiness? Does the misfortune of the hunchback entitle the straight
ones to the privilege of abusing him? Does the cripple, on his crutches,
entitle the strong to the right of elbowing him out of the way? Do not
these very misfortunes demand our sympathy and kindly offices? Why not?
If the Negro is unfortunate, let him have our kindness instead of our
kicks? The caricatures of the Negro, seen in the public prints, have
their influence in confirming this low estimate of the colored people.

The history of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in her ecclesiastical
action, is generally worthy of commendation. There are, however, cases
of individual action that are not creditable to these persons or
societies, either as patriots, philanthropists, or Christians. The
Protestant Churches should be as open to the Negro as to any other
division of the human family. The public places should be as easy of
access to them as to others. They should receive just as much for their
money as the white, red, or brown man. This is not in the power of the
Methodist Episcopal Church to bestow; but the membership should bear in
mind that with God there is no respect of persons. The utterances which
the Methodist Episcopal Church has made are all demanded by the
enlightenment of the nineteenth century. What is needed is for the
practice to correspond with these utterances. Why should the Negro be
ostracized any more than any other member of the human family? Why
should our Churches and schools be closed to him? Why should he be
compelled to ride in the smoking-car, when he pays for first-class
accommodations? Why driven from our hotels, and forced to seek shelter
in private families? Why are the colored ministers and members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church compelled to endure these wrongs? The author
might have called attention to the fact that this Church, with its
millions of members and adherents, with its press and its pulpits, has
never raised her mighty voice in a grand protest against these wrongs
perpetrated against a quarter of a million of her membership. What is
needed, perhaps, most of all, is to regard the Negro as belonging to the
human family, and treat him as such. The social question, which is
protruded upon all occasions, must not be a matter of legislation; each
individual must settle that for himself. An intelligent Negro lady, when
asked by a white man, “Shall we admit the Negro to our parlors?”
replied, “If you white gentlemen will stay out of our parlors, we will
stay out of yours.” The social bugbear, that is constantly bandied about
in this discussion, has no more to do with the recognition of the rights
of the Negro than has the question of the annexation of Canada. The
author has given facts of history which all the Church should know; and,
knowing, they will have no reason to be ashamed of the record of the
Methodist Episcopal Church. This subject demands the honest, earnest
consideration of the membership of the entire Christian Church, and
specially of the membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The fact
that there are nearly a quarter of a million of her members who have as
much right to recognition in her sanctuaries as any other class of men,
who are invited and urged to go off by themselves, and be ignorant
teachers of ignorant scholars, because the Heavenly Father has given
them a little darker dress, and because they have been more abused and
wronged than any other part of the human family, is not creditable to
those who profess to be governed by the Golden Rule. The Church should
see to it that the colored members of her communion may feel at home in
her churches, whether they be stone-front palaces in the metropolis of
the nation or cabins in the swamps or mountains of the South. To bring
this about, the Methodist Episcopal Church has not done all she can.
Theoretically, the utterances are all right, but the practice must be
brought up to the theory. The press and the pulpit should give no
uncertain sound. The conferences, annual as well as General, should be
exemplifications of the brotherhood of man and the Fatherhood of God.
This book will wake up thought on a subject on which the membership of
the Methodist Episcopal Church need to think and to act. The millions of
colored people in this country need to be held close to the heart of
Protestant Christianity, so they will be found on the side of the Church
of God in the struggle for the conquest of this world for Christ. The
book well merits a careful reading, as the author speaks from the
stand-point of an intelligent appreciation of the treatment of the
Negro, as he has had some personal experiences which entitle him to be
heard. He writes clearly, and presents his case forcibly, yet without
bitterness, and recognizes gratefully what the Methodist Episcopal
Church has done for the colored man. The spirit of the writer is
commendable, although the conflict is not ended, and he is one of the
combatants.

                                                            JOHN BRADEN.

    CENTRAL TENNESSEE COLLEGE,

          NASHVILLE, TENN., 1889.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                            THE COLORED MAN

                                 IN THE

                      METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

                               ----------




                               CHAPTER I

                            BEFORE THE WAR.


From time immemorial men have differed upon nearly every phase of human
existence; and, for that matter, every other kind of existence. So far
as we know, no organization has ever existed, formed by man, or formed
by Deity for man (it makes no difference for what purpose it was
formed), in which there was not manifested individuality to the point of
wide divergence on most important questions. Unconverted human nature is
the same the world over, and different propensities and dispositions,
coupled with jealousy, have manifested themselves in nearly every family
since that of the first pair driven in shame from Eden.

As strange as it may sound, the Church of God has been no exception to
this rule in general, nor the Methodist Episcopal Church in particular.
The Methodist Episcopal Church was born of necessity, and has
perpetuated itself and prospered in proportion as it has obeyed the
mandates of Almighty God. When, for any reason, the Church has turned to
the right hand or to the left hand out of “the king’s highway,” God has
gently reproved her. It was but a short time after its organization when
it became a recognized, potent factor in God’s hands of ameliorating the
condition of those with whom it had influence. No other Church, since
its organization in this country, has figured more conspicuously than
the Methodist Episcopal Church in all the living, burning questions
touching the salvation of men’s bodies and souls. It may be true that in
many instances the Church has not come up to the ideal of some of its
devotees, or accomplished all it was considered able to do. Probably
instances would have occurred, if it had succeeded in the former, when
it would have displeased God; if the latter, it might have bound error
with a rope of sand, and thus frustrated all effective plans.

From the beginning the Church has gone after “the lost sheep of the
house of Israel.” A Church needs no higher encomium than that the
“common people” hear her ministers gladly. This has been, and we hope
now is, the glory of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Should a time ever
come when this can not be truthfully said of the Church, her pristine
glory will have departed. Worldly popularity has not hitherto been the
acme of her ambition. May it never be! Where duty called, popular or
unpopular, the Church has given the command, “Go forward,” with the
understanding that “it is better to obey God than man.” The wholesome
doctrine of “the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man,” as
taught by the apostle when he exclaimed, “God hath made of one blood all
nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,” has been
taught by the Methodist Episcopal Church ever since John Wesley declared
slavery “the sum of all villainies.”

It may be, as you scrutinize the last sentence, a fear may arise that it
will not remain intact under the electric light of investigation. The
redeeming feature is, that the Methodist Episcopal Church has come as
near preaching and practicing that doctrine as any other American
ecclesiastical organization. This may not be much in its favor, when
taken in reference to the colored man, but it is something. There has
never been an hour since Bishop Asbury preached Jesus and him crucified
to a poor slave on the bank of a river in South Carolina, in the which
the great heart of the Methodist Episcopal Church did not throb with
sympathy for the poor colored man in this country. As evidence, it is
only necessary to look up or remember the Herculean efforts it made on
his behalf as early as 1796, to save him from the cruelty and barbarism
of his subjection. Could the Church, at so early a period, have received
the moral and religious support of the good people of other
denominations, the civil war might have been averted, and the poor slave
rescued from the power of Satan unto God, from the midnight of sin to
the marvelous light and liberty of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The following explains itself on this question, as enacted by the
_General Conference of 1796_:

“_Question._ What regulations shall be made for the extirpation of the
crying evil of African slavery?

“_Answer_ 1. We declare, that we are more than ever convinced of the
great evil of the African slavery which still exists in these United
States; and do most earnestly recommend to the yearly conferences,
quarterly meetings, and to those who have the oversight of districts and
circuits, to be exceedingly cautious what persons they admit to official
stations in our Church; and, in the case of future admission to official
stations, to require such security of those who hold slaves, for the
emancipation of them, immediately or gradually, as the laws of the
States respectively, and the circumstances of the case will admit. And
we do fully authorize all the yearly conferences to make whatever
regulations they judge proper, in the present case, respecting the
admission of persons to official stations in our Church.

“2. No slaveholder shall be received into society till the preacher who
has the oversight of the circuit has spoken to him freely and faithfully
on the subject of slavery.

“3. Every member of the society who sells a slave shall immediately,
after full proof, be excluded the society. And if any member of our
society purchase a slave, the ensuing quarterly-meeting shall determine
on the number of years in which the slave so purchased would work out
the price of his purchase. And the person so purchasing shall,
immediately after such determination, execute a legal instrument for the
manumission of such slave at the expiration of the term determined by
the quarterly meeting. And in default of his executing such instrument
of manumission, or on his refusal to submit his case to the judgment of
the quarterly-meeting, such member shall be excluded the society.
Provided, also, that in the case of a female slave, it shall be inserted
in the aforesaid instrument of manumission, that all her children which
shall be born during the years of her servitude shall be free at the
following times, namely: Every female child at the age of twenty-one,
and every male child at the age of twenty-five. Nevertheless, if the
member of our society, executing the said instrument of manumission,
judge it proper, he may fix the times of manumission of the children of
the female slaves before mentioned, at an earlier age than that which is
prescribed above.

“4. The preachers and other members of our society are requested to
consider the subject of Negro slavery with deep attention till the
ensuing General Conference; and that they impart to the General
Conference, through the medium of the yearly conferences, or otherwise,
any important thoughts upon the subject, that the conference may have
full light, in order to take further steps toward eradicating this
enormous evil from that part of the Church of God to which they are
united.”

During the ensuing quadrennium this all-important question was argued
and studied as never before within the Church. Considerable feeling was
manifested in many instances, showing at once the deep interest the
question had produced. Men within and without the Church continued to
examine the question, until the question of the continuation of human
slavery became _the_ question of the hour. More than one slaveholding
member of the Church declared, with all the earnestness of his soul,
that it was unwise for the Church to shoulder such a stupendous burden.
Others declared it would be suicidal for the General Conference to
interfere with the deep-rooted institution of slavery. As the
quadrennium advanced, the question was more vehemently agitated. Many
tried to conjecture what action the ensuing General Conference of 1800
would take on this subject, while others tried to forestall any
anticipated action. It was openly declared by the more sanguine
slaveholders within the Church that the General Conference would pay no
attention to the question of slavery; that in the event that memorials
or resolutions should be presented touching the question, they would at
once be referred to a committee, which would fail to notice them. Others
as hopefully and boldly declared that no Christian Church could be
consistent and indorse human slavery; that the future hope of the Church
in its effort to spread Scriptural holiness was dependent, in a measure,
upon the attitude it sustained toward human slavery.

Those who have engaged in the heated discussions that have arisen within
the General Conferences since that day, upon questions growing out of
the system of slavery in this country, can probably imagine the
situation at that time. The General Conference of 1800 sat from the 6th
to the 20th of May, in Baltimore. Delegates from each of the eight
annual conferences were present. Each delegate saw the ominous clouds,
and knew the storm was brewing. This question soon came up for
consideration. We give as near as possible a detailed account of the
proceedings touching the question of slavery:

    GENERAL CONFERENCE, 1800.—“Brother Ormond moved, That whereas
    the laws now in force in two or more of the United States
    pointedly prohibit the emancipation of slaves, and the third
    clause of the ninth section of the Discipline forbids the
    selling of slaves, it is evident that the members of the
    Methodist societies who own slaves, and remove themselves and
    families to another State, or to distant parts of the same
    State, and leave a husband or a wife behind, held in bondage by
    another person, part man and wife, which is a violation of the
    righteous laws of God, and contrary to the peace and happiness
    of families; and whereas, it is further observed that the rule
    now existing among us prevents our members increasing the number
    of their slaves by purchase, and tolerates an increase of number
    by birth, which children are often given to the enemy of the
    Methodists,—my mind being seriously impressed with these and
    several other considerations, I move, That this General
    Conference take the momentous subject of slavery into
    consideration, and make such alterations in the old rule as may
    be thought proper.

    “Brother Timmons moved, That if any of our traveling preachers
    marry persons holding slaves, and thereby become slaveholders,
    they shall be excluded from our societies, unless they execute a
    legal emancipation of their slaves, agreeably to the laws of the
    State wherein they live. Superseded.

    _Friday Morning, May 16th._—“Brother Snethen moved, That this
    General Conference do resolve, that from this time forth no
    slaveholder shall be admitted into the Methodist Episcopal
    Church. Negatived.

    “Brother Bloodgood moved, That all Negro children belonging to
    the members of the Methodist society, who shall be born in
    slavery after the fourth day of July, 1800, shall be
    emancipated—males at — years, and females at — years. Negatived.

    “Brother Lathomus moved, That every member of the Methodist
    Episcopal Church holding slaves shall, within the term of one
    year from the date hereof, give an instrument of emancipation
    for all his slaves, and the quarterly-meeting conference shall
    determine on the time the slaves shall serve, if the laws of the
    State do not expressly prohibit their emancipation. Negatived.

    “Moved, That when any of our traveling preachers become owners
    of a slave or slaves by any means, they shall forfeit their
    ministerial character in the Methodist Episcopal Church, unless
    they execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such
    slave or slaves, agreeably to the laws of the State wherein they
    live. Agreed to.”

    This motion was originally offered by Brother Timmons, and was
    conceived by the secretary to have been superseded in the
    progress of the business upon slavery. But the conference voted
    that they would act upon it, with the amendments, the same as a
    new motion.

It can be plainly seen by the foregoing report into what a strait the
General Conference was brought by this question, as well as how
earnestly and faithfully that General Conference strove to ascertain
“the mind of the Holy Spirit” as to the question. Just think of the fact
that in _one day_ of that General Conference six different phases of
this question were presented. Amid these were: (1) To prevent the
separation of husband and wife; (2) To change a former rule that allowed
a Methodist to buy a husband or wife when they belonged to separate
parties, so as to prevent a separation. Even in this form the buying and
selling of human beings was objected to strenuously. It was considered
“doing evil, that good might come therefrom.”

As we stop to contemplate it, we shudder to render a decision. They
voted down every proposition that looked in any way like buying or
selling human beings. It is not superstition to say, they attempted to
“avoid even the appearance of evil.” They consented to allow, (1) The
expulsion of _any minister_ of the Church “who shall marry a woman
owning slaves;” (2) No slaveholder to be received into the Church; (3)
All traveling preachers who owned slaves to forfeit their ministerial
character. It is no wonder that such action was taken, when it is
remembered that the Church was even then recognizing and licensing
colored local ministers, and employing them to preach. It now concluded
not only nominally to recognize local preachers, but to ordain them as
well. As early as 1784, at “the Christmas conference,” rules prohibiting
slavery had been enacted. And these rules were not simply hanging about
the necks of slaveholders as mere ornaments; for it was positively
declared by the Church, “every person concerned, who will not comply
with these rules, shall have the privilege quietly to withdraw.” We know
of _no instance_ in the history of the Church in which there has ever
been a single human being directly driven from her ranks, pews, or
pulpit because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Then
why wonder when such a Church ordains one of her sons, and sends him
forth to tell with simplicity the story of the cross?

Many objected to going so far with the slaves, for fear of offending the
slaveholder. But the Church paid no attention to such cries; hence the
following action was taken by the General Conference, under the heading

     “A REGULATION _respecting the ordination of colored people to
                        the office of deacons_:

    “The bishops have obtained leave, by the suffrages of this
    General Conference, to ordain local deacons of our African
    brethren in places where they have built a house or houses for
    the worship of God: _Provided_, they have a person among them
    qualified for that office, and he can obtain an election of
    two-thirds of the male members of the society to which he
    belongs, and a recommendation from the minister who has the
    charge, and his fellow-laborers in the city or circuit.”

    This action at once recognized the efforts of the race at
    elevation, and gave the colored people to understand, that
    though in bondage to earthly task-masters, they were
    fellow-heirs of the inheritance of the saints, heirs of God, and
    joint heirs with Jesus Christ, the righteous. The gainsaying,
    slaveholding world stood aghast as it read and re-read the
    action taken by that General Conference on the question of human
    slavery. God pulled back, as it were, the curtains of the upper
    world, and blandly smiled approval. A general baptism of the
    Holy Ghost ratified the action in that such a revival of
    religion followed that again the world cried, as Methodist
    preachers began to preach Jesus and him crucified: “They that
    have turned the world upside down are come hither also.”

In the General Conference that met in the city of Baltimore, Md., from
May 7th to 28th, 1804, much discussion was had on the question of
slavery. Notwithstanding other questions of Church polity claimed the
attention of this conference to such a degree that Bishop Asbury refused
to vote on one of the questions put, the conference sympathized with the
colored man enough to legislate in his behalf.

A variety of motions were proposed on the subject of slavery, and, after
a long conversation, Freeborn Garrettson moved “that the subject of
slavery be left to the three bishops to form a section to suit the
Southern and Northern States, as they in their wisdom may think best, to
be submitted to this conference.” This motion was submitted to the
conference, and was carried.

The report of the Committee on Slavery which, with amendments, was
adopted by the Conference, and forms section nine, “Of Slavery,” reads:

    “1. We declare, that we are as much as ever convinced of the
    great evil of slavery, and do most earnestly recommend to the
    yearly conferences, quarterly-meeting conferences, and to those
    who have the oversight of districts, circuits, and stations, to
    be exceedingly cautious what persons they admit to official
    stations in our Church, and in the case of future admission to
    official stations, to require such security of those who hold
    slaves, for the emancipation of them, immediately or gradually,
    as the laws of the States respectively and the circumstances of
    the case will admit; and we do fully authorize all the yearly
    conferences to make whatever regulations they judge proper in
    the present case respecting the admission of persons to official
    stations in our Church.

    “2. When any traveling preacher becomes the owner of a slave, or
    slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character
    in our Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal
    emancipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the
    State in which he lives.

    “3. No slaveholder shall be received in full membership in our
    society till the preacher who has the oversight of the circuit
    or station has spoken to him fully and faithfully on the subject
    of slavery.

    “4. Every member of our society who sells a slave, except at
    the request of the slave, in cases of mercy or humanity,
    agreeably to the judgment of a committee of three male
    members of the society, appointed by the preacher who has
    the charge of the circuit or station, shall, immediately
    after full proof, be excluded the society; and if any
    members of our society purchase a slave, the ensuing
    quarterly-meeting conference shall determine on the number
    of years which the slave so purchased should serve to work
    out the price of his purchase; and the person so purchasing
    shall, immediately after such determination, execute a legal
    instrument for the manumission of such slave at the
    expiration of the time determined by the quarterly-meeting
    conference; and in default of his executing such instrument
    of manumission, or on his refusal to submit his case to the
    judgment of the quarterly-meeting conference, such member
    shall be excluded the society: _Provided_, that in the case
    of a female slave, it shall be inserted in the aforesaid
    instrument of manumission that all her children who shall be
    born during the years of her servitude shall be free at the
    following times, viz.; every female child at the age of
    twenty-one, and every male child at the age of twenty-five:
    _Provided_, also, that if a member of our society shall buy
    a slave with a certificate of future emancipation, the terms
    of emancipation shall, notwithstanding, be subject to the
    decision of the quarterly-meeting conference. Nevertheless,
    the members of our societies in the States of North
    Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia shall be exempted from
    the operations of the above rules.

    “5. Let our preachers from time to time, as occasion serves,
    admonish and exhort all slaves to render due respect and
    obedience to the commands and interests of their respective
    masters.”

The intention of the whole of the foregoing resolutions in general, and
the last part in particular, was to preserve peace between master and
slave, and prohibit the former from having occasion to chastise the
latter, because the latter might use his religious privileges to his own
harm. Though the Church had already a fixed purpose and established
regulations touching the question of slavery, the General Conference of
1808, held in Baltimore, Md., from May 6th to 26th, discussed it, and
took action upon it again. An effort was adroitly made to change certain
paragraphs in the Discipline against slavery. The following settled the
question at that General Conference. It was moved, by Stephen G. Roszel,
and seconded by Thomas Ware, “That the first two paragraphs of the
section on slavery be retained in our Discipline, and that the General
Conference authorize each annual conference to form their own
regulations relative to buying and selling slaves.” The motion was
carried.

During the ensuing quadrennium the question of slavery was not agitated
to any great degree. While the one faction rested upon its laurels, the
defeated faction was recuperating its numerical strength pursuant to
another attack.

At the General Conference of 1812, nothing of importance on this
question was done or needed to be done, more than had already been
accomplished. The city of New York, where the General Conference was
held, had in it the oldest Methodist Episcopal Church, the John St.
Church. Among its first members were colored people, who had worshiped
there in peace all along. Philadelphia, where a number of colored people
resided, had long been celebrated as “the City of Churches.” Colored and
white Methodists for years had worshiped together there in peace. But
now a storm was brewing that threatened not only to inundate the Church,
but the roaring thunder of which would likely rend the Church in twain,
so far as the two races within it were concerned.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER II

                       THE COLOR-LINE SECESSIONS.


When it is remembered that the African slave-trade in this country was
intrenched behind the venerated Constitution, it is not strange that
nearly every conflict the Methodist Episcopal Church has had touching
slavery aroused bitter opposition within and without the Church. In most
instances it is conceded that defeated or desperate enemies, when
opposing a third inveterate foe, will, if an opportunity is afforded,
unite against a common enemy; or, in other words, Pilate and Herod will
unite. Working out from within is often found the more effectual way,
whether it be a prison, a political or ecclesiastical party, or the
disruption of a Church. It was thus done in the secession of colored
members from our Church in 1816 and 1820. Among the number of colored
members belonging to St. George’s Methodist Episcopal Church of
Philadelphia in 1815 was a local preacher, Richard Allen, who afterward
organized and became the first bishop of the “Bethel Connection,”
afterwards known as “the African Methodist Episcopal Church.” The
colored members, under his leadership, formed a nucleus of a society for
themselves, aside from, and out of the jurisdiction of, the pastor of
St. George’s Church. The entire affair was local, and the result of the
dissatisfaction that arose was the same as it would be to-day if a local
preacher, white or colored, were to organize a society in opposition to
the wishes of his pastor, purchase Church property for the congregation,
or part of it, and then deed it to a few individuals instead of the
Church. It has been intimated by persons whose reputation rests more or
less upon that and similar transactions, that it was the outgrowth of
neglect on the part of pastor and people of St. George’s Church. Let
Bishop Allen answer that question. He says: “I was then working for
George Giger. Before this, Bishop Asbury asked me to travel with him.
The bishop proffered me what he was receiving, my victuals and clothes.”
Rev. R. Allen refused this offer, as he says: “I told him that I thought
people ought to lay up something while they were able, to support
themselves in time of sickness and old age. But I made up my mind that I
would not accept of his proposals. Shortly after, I left Hartford
Circuit and came to Pennsylvania, on Lancaster Circuit. I traveled
several months on this circuit with the Revs. Peter Moriarty and Ira
Ellis. The elder in charge in Philadelphia frequently sent for me to
come to the city. February, 1786, I came to Philadelphia. Preaching was
given out for me for five o’clock A.M., in St. George’s Church. I strove
to preach as well as I could, but it was a great cross to me; but the
Lord was with me. We had a good time, and several souls were awakened,
and were earnestly seeking redemption in the blood of Christ. I thought
I would stop in Philadelphia a week or two. I preached at different
places in the city. My labor was much blessed; I soon saw a large field
open in seeking and instructing my African brethren. I preached wherever
I could find an opening. I established prayer-meetings; I raised a
society in 1786 of forty-two members. I saw the necessity of erecting a
place of worship for the colored people of the city; but here I met
opposition. But three colored brethren united with me in erecting a
place of worship.”

Now let us rest and contemplate for a moment the situation. Here we find
a local preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church was invited by the
pastor and presiding elder of St. George’s Methodist Episcopal Church to
come to the city, and preach to his congregation at an usual hour for
service, five A.M. He came; success attended his labors. He then,
encouraged by success, began going hither and thither to preach in the
city. He, of course, found a following. What effort of the kind was ever
made that did not find a following? Does it appear a repetition of the
story of Absalom? But let us not stop now to consider that phase of it.
In St. George’s Church, though welcomed, he “found it a cross to preach”
there. Why was it a cross to preach the gospel there? Have we not in the
above sentence a key to the entire situation? Was it not the effort to
avoid having to preach to those who had formed an idea of what a sermon
should be from the ministrations of the pulpit of St. George’s Church
that brought about the other complaints? Do not such things grow? Rev.
Richard Allen had preached but a short time to his “African brethren”
until a _necessity_ for a separate Church arose. He says himself that
the leading colored members refused to go with him. It was natural,
therefore, that the above-mentioned _necessity_ would arise. Why was it
that, as he determined to form another society and erect a church, when
he presented the project “to the most respectable colored people of
Philadelphia, they bitterly opposed it?” Now, if it was entirely
regular, Christ-like, and therefore right, why was it that but three
colored men—Absalom Jones, William White, and Darius Ginnings—would
unite in that project? Rev. Richard Allen says: “These united with me as
soon as it became public and known by the elder, who was stationed in
the city.” Why this secrecy? Who were instigating, abetting, and
encouraging Richard Allen in this move? Let us suppose it was members of
another denomination in that city, or some of the white members of St.
George’s Church. They could only have taken sides and pushed the matter,
because, (1) They opposed meeting and worshiping with colored people,
and could use him—Mr. Allen—to help them; or, (2) They opposed the
pastor of St. George’s Church, and wanted a complaint against him; or,
(3) They believed the colored members of St. George’s Church were being
imposed upon by the white members; or, (4) They wished to germinate
schism within St. George’s Church. If the colored members were being
imposed upon, could Mr. Allen not have remedied the matter by remaining
and combining the strength of the imposed upon with that of the good
white members of St. George, and fighting the matter to the end?

But Rev. Richard Allen capitulated. Is capitulation on the part of a
general attacked an exhibition of leadership or prowess? General Sigel,
in the late war, became famous at it; but only among a certain class of
soldiers. When it is remembered that our African brethren were in such a
fort as St. George’s, the capitulation seems to take on the air of
cowardice. Instead of that Church being a monument and outgrowth of a
desire of our white members to _drive_ the black ones out, it is just
the opposite—the outgrowth of an effort to _keep them within our
communion_. Mr. Allen, after reciting his action in the premises,
relates what followed. One conversant with the polity of our Church,
after knowing what had gone before, can shut his eyes and tell what
followed, especially if the presiding elder, Dr. Roberts, and our
pastor, then stationed at St. George’s Church, knew and dared do their
duty. Notwithstanding this, as strange as it may appear, we hear from
the lips of some ministers of the African Methodist Episcopal Church
that their dear African brethren, members of St. George’s Church, “were
pulled off their knees while at prayer in the church, because of their
color;” nearly every young minister entering some of their conferences,
ignorant of Methodist history, gives the above answer to the question,
why he prefers _that_ connection to all others. Of course, the tyro
knows nothing to the contrary. It is known by every one conversant with
our history, that even after the “Allenites,” as they were called, had
gone out and erected a building for Church purposes, the presiding elder
and pastor of St. George’s Church were willing to let them go on with
their separate worship, not exercising, or desiring to exercise, a tithe
as much authority over them as almost any one of their own presiding
elders does over their Churches in this country to-day. The presiding
elder, having an appointment to preach for them one Sabbath, was
surprised to hear them exclaim as he walked up the aisle of their church
that day, “Pray, brethren, pray; here comes the devil!” Such language as
that in God’s house shows the _animus_ that actuated that side of this
question. With such a spirit actuating them, the matter could hardly
have been settled otherwise than it was, or they had to remain under the
supervision of our Church. The question has often been asked if Richard
Allen was in the Church on the occasion when that outcry was made. The
answer has been, time and again, that “_he first began the cry_.”

When it is remembered that the “Absalom Jones” mentioned as having
joined Richard Allen in this movement, was _a priest in the Protestant
Episcopal Church_, and that Richard Allen had acquired considerable
wealth, more light falls on the dark background. Notwithstanding the
fact that many thousands of colored members had joined the Methodist
Episcopal Church, and were considered in general orderly and exemplary
members, some of the more intelligent males possessing gifts, grace, and
usefulness, as such, had been licensed, and several ordained deacons and
elders, and that the colored members under Richard Allen had formed an
organization, having built a respectable church and were under the
oversight of one of our white presiding elders, they were restless, and
chafed in the harness. In April, 1816, one month before the session of
the General Conference that met in Baltimore, upwards of _one thousand
colored members_, under the leadership of Richard Allen, had withdrawn
from our Church. Why? A General Conference was called immediately after
the formation of a Church by Rev. Richard Allen, and _he_ was elected
their first bishop! The most wonderful thing concerning this whole
affair is the _constant_, _regular succession of events_! These,
however, are the straws in the winds. It is, therefore, but little
distance to the prime cause of that secession. Of the 42,304 colored
members remaining in the Church during the quadrennium, many of them
were praying that the unpleasant episode at Philadelphia would end
there, and give the Church peace. Notwithstanding the trouble with the
Allenites, as they were called, the Church still sympathized with the
race, and the Committee on Slavery at the General Conference gave no
sound for retreat from the vantage ground assumed. The whole report read
thus:

    “The committee to whom was referred the business of slavery beg
    leave to report that they have taken the subject into serious
    consideration, and, after mature deliberation, they are of
    opinion that, under the present existing circumstances 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.

    “Your committee find that in the South and West the
    civil authorities render emancipation impracticable, and
    notwithstanding they are led to fear that some of our members
    are too easily contented with laws so unfriendly to freedom,
    yet, nevertheless, 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. Your
    committee have attentively read and seriously considered a
    memorial on the above subject, presented from several persons
    within the bounds of the Baltimore Annual Conference. They have
    also made inquiry into the regulations adopted and pursued by
    the different annual conferences in relation to this subject,
    and they find that some of them have made no efficient rules on
    the subject of slavery, thereby leaving our people to act as
    they please, while others have adopted rules and pursued courses
    not a little different from each other, all pleading the
    authority given them by the General Conference, according to our
    present existing rule, as stated in our form of Discipline. Your
    committee conclude that, in order to be consistent and uniform,
    the rule should be express and definite, and, to bring about
    this uniformity, they beg leave to submit the following
    resolution:

    “_Resolved_, by the delegates of the annual conferences in
    General Conference assembled, That all the recommendatory part
    of the second division, ninth section, and first answer of our
    form of Discipline after the word ‘slavery,’ be stricken out,
    and the following words inserted: ‘Therefore, no slaveholder
    shall be eligible to any official station in our Church
    hereafter, where the laws of the State in which he lives will
    admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy
    freedom.’”

The following was enacted by the _General Conference of 1820_:

    “_Resolved_, That the Committee on Slavery be instructed to
    inquire into the expediency of expressing our approbation of the
    American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color of the
    United States, and of recommending the same.

    “_Resolved_, That no person shall hereafter be licensed as a
    local preacher or exhorter, nor shall the annual conference
    receive any one as a traveling preacher on trial or into the
    traveling connection, who holds slaves.”

No one will certainly charge that the Methodist Episcopal Church at so
early a date was simply caring for her colored members because of their
influence and wealth. They had neither. The Church then, as now, desired
to benefit the race in every conceivable way. Nor was it obligatory on
her to follow up such persons as would rather _rule_ under great
disadvantages than serve under the most auspicious circumstances; nor
yet offer any extraordinary emoluments to retain those who, at that
time, could do no more than increase anxiety and labor on the part of
the Church. Rev. R. Allen also mentions the fact that there were others
who wished him to unite with them in opposition to the Methodist
Episcopal Church. _Did Richard Allen consider the work he was then doing
opposition to the Methodist Episcopal Church?_ Whether the question be
answered or not, the spirit of secession among our colored members in
Philadelphia was rife, as the legitimate outgrowth of his efforts. This
fever soon spread, or rather was conveyed, by being carried in the
clothes of Rev. R. Allen to New York City as well. Immediately after his
election to the episcopacy, the year he organized his Church in
Philadelphia, he went to New York City, and disturbed the tranquillity
of our colored members, who hitherto had found joy and comfort in
worshiping God without reference to their color or ancestors. He
succeeded in establishing a small Church there, as the harvest from the
seeds of dissension he had sown. His next step was the ordination of a
preacher by the name of Miller, to whom he gave the charge of the Church
he had formed. _This man Miller was taken out of our Church for
ordination._ Our colored membership in that city then numbered near
fifteen hundred souls, among whom were several other local preachers
besides Miller—men of piety and talent. This membership was under the
care of a white presiding elder. They had regular preaching services
every Sabbath, and the sacraments were duly administered to them. The
other appointments were filled by their own colored preachers. When the
trustees of the white Churches expressed an opinion that some of the
expenses should be paid by the colored members as well, some of the
colored members began to object. It was but a short time until this
became a source of complaints, too. Pretty soon a feeling began to show
itself, from some cause, that it was “degrading for them in any way to
be dependent upon white folks for the administration of the ordinances
and the government of the Church.” During this year, as before, every
effort was made by the Church to remove all these complaints. Concession
after concession was made, but all to no purpose. The removal of the
supposed evil was not the desideratum with the provoking cause.
Notwithstanding they were harassed until they left the Church, instead
of uniting with Richard Allen’s faction, they chose to establish a
Church of their own. Some say they did not have full confidence in Rev.
R. Allen. In 1819 they decided to withdraw from the Methodist Episcopal
Church. The fact that our Church had not recognized colored men as
traveling preachers was the complaint under which they left. By this
secession we lost fourteen local preachers, and nearly one thousand
members, including class-leaders, exhorters, and stewards.
Notwithstanding many strange stories originated with or grew out of
these secessions, the Rev. N. Bangs, the second Methodist historian,
expresses the feelings of our Church when he said: “We can not do
otherwise than wish them all spiritual and temporal blessings in Christ
Jesus. Though formally separated from us in name, we still love them as
our spiritual children, and stand ready to aid them, as far as we may,
in extending the Redeemer’s kingdom among men.”

If these secessions had occurred among those who were in bondage, it
might have appeared less strange. If those who led them had even
professed the belief that the secession would ameliorate the condition
of the suffering millions of the race then in bondage in the South, it
might have assumed the role of race pride. But, alas! the condition of
the poor slave in the South, whose interests every General Conference,
and the one soon to meet in the city of Baltimore, had carefully
considered and did all it could to emancipate him, was not written in
their bond. _Those secessions did nothing toward bettering the condition
of the slaves at the South._ If they did anything touching human slavery
then existing in this country, it was to leave the suspicion of
ungratefulness on the face of every struggling slave in the South. It is
but a truism to say, it strengthened the belief that the race did not
thank the Methodist Episcopal Church for what it was even then trying to
do for them, and yet, notwithstanding this, the following was the action
of the _General Conference of 1824_:

    “_Resolved_, 1. That all our preachers ought prudently to
    enforce upon our members the necessity of teaching their slaves
    to read the Word of God; and also that they give them time to
    hear the Word of God preached on our regular days of divine
    service.

    “_Resolved_, 2. That our colored preachers and official members
    have all the privileges in the district and quarterly-meeting
    conferences which the usages of the country, in different
    sections, will justify: _Provided_, also, that the presiding
    elder may, when there is a sufficient number, hold for them a
    separate district conference.

    “_Resolved_, 3. That any of the annual conferences may employ
    colored preachers to travel where they judge their services
    necessary: _Provided_, they be recommended according to the form
    of Discipline.

    “_Resolved_, 4. That the above resolutions be made a part of the
    section in the Discipline on slavery.”

[Illustration:

  MORGAN COLLEGE, BALTIMORE, MD.
]

Since nothing aside from the action already taken by the Church on this
subject was done until the year 1836, when the General Conference met
for its twelfth session in Cincinnati, Ohio, we pass from the General
Conference of 1824 to the General Conference of 1836. The agitation of
this question went steadily on, however, and the Abolitionists kept it
warm. From Maine to Louisiana, from Canada to Florida, it was being
agitated. Since so much was said concerning the question at that General
Conference, some of which, if not retrogression, was akin to it, we give
the following resolutions. In reading the same, and judging them, we
must remember that the seeming opposition to Abolitionism was
attributable, in a measure, to the aversion to politics; that the tide
of agitation was even then so high that the strongest of strong men
trembled; that the Church had time and again put itself on record as to
the question at issue. Though it, for the time being, condemned the
action of the two “lecturing delegates,” it never once relaxed its grip
upon the throat of slavery, nor assayed to compromise a single principle
of right. So far removed from the scenes that greeted the General
Conference that year in Cincinnati, and remembering how thoughtless some
advocates of measures can sometimes be or appear, and how easily a zeal
without knowledge can injure a good cause, we do not wonder at the
action taken in the case of those two brethren. But when the enemies of
human liberty construed the condemnation of the action of those two
brethren by the General Conference as a weakening by the Church on the
question of slavery, the ensuing General Conference disabused their
minds of their error, and sent the enemies of liberty to grass again.

The following are the resolutions above referred to, enacted by the
_General Conference of 1836_:

    “WHEREAS, Great excitement has prevailed in this country on the
    subject of modern Abolitionism, which is reported to have been
    increased in this city recently by the unjustifiable conduct of
    two members of the General Conference in lecturing upon and in
    favor of that agitating topic; and WHEREAS, such a course on the
    part of any of its members is calculated to bring upon this body
    the suspicions and distrust of the community, and misrepresent
    its sentiments in regard to the point at issue; and WHEREAS, in
    this aspect of the case, a due regard for its own character, as
    well as a just concern for the interests of the Church confided
    to its care, demand a full, decided, and unequivocal expression
    of the views of the General Conference in the premises;
    therefore,

    “_Resolved_, by the delegates of the annual conferences, in
    General Conference assembled, That they disapprove, in the most
    unqualified sense, the conduct of two members of the General
    Conference, who are reported to have lectured in this city,
    recently, upon and in favor of modern Abolitionism.

    “2. 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.

    “3. That the foregoing preamble and resolutions be published in
    our periodicals.”

The report of the Judiciary Committee is here given also, touching this
question at another point:

    “The Judiciary Committee, to whom was referred the petition of
    the official members of the Methodist Episcopal Church on
    Lancaster Circuit, Baltimore Conference, report, that the
    petition referred to them is an able document, drawn up in the
    most respectful language, and signed by twenty-nine individuals,
    who claimed to be official members of the Methodist Episcopal
    Church on Lancaster Circuit.

    “The petitioners first invite the attention of the General
    Conference to the section of the Discipline which states that
    ‘no slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in our
    Church hereafter, when the laws of the State in which he lives
    will admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to
    enjoy freedom,’ etc. They then produce an extract of the laws
    from the commonwealth of Virginia, showing their extreme rigor
    in this matter, ‘That any emancipated slave (with exceptions too
    rare to be looked for in one case out of many) remaining in the
    commonwealth more than twelve months after his or her right to
    freedom shall have arrived, contrary to the provisions of this
    act, shall be sold by the overseers of the poor, in any county
    in which he or she may be found, for the benefit of the literary
    fund.’ In view of this act they claim that they, as official
    members, are protected by the Discipline of the Church, as they
    deem it to be precisely one of the exceptions to the General
    Rule provided for in the Discipline; and especially as under the
    existing laws of the commonwealth to emancipate their slaves
    would, in many cases, be an act of cruelty to the slaves
    themselves. The matter of complaint by the petitioners is, that
    the construction put upon this rule by the Baltimore Annual
    Conference, in certain acts respecting individuals connected
    with this section of the work, is subversive of their rights and
    oppressive in its bearings; that they require the same
    submission to the rule of persons in that State as of those in
    sections where the legal disability to comply with it does not
    exist, regardless of the exceptions. And they respectfully
    solicit the interference of the General Conference, either to
    revise the rule, or give it such construction as to afford them
    relief in the premises; or, finally, if neither be done, to
    cause them to be set off to the Virginia Conference.

    “It is due to the Baltimore Conference to say that the cases
    referred to as evidence of their improper application of their
    rule, are stated in terms too vague and indefinite to
    authorize the inference drawn by the petitioners. It is
    represented that a young man applying to be received into the
    itinerancy is prevented by application of this rule; that it
    is in vain for him to urge upon a majority of the conference
    the impracticability of his complying with the rule, in
    consequence of the laws under which he lives, or any other
    consideration in favor of his being received; because he will
    not comply with the rule, he must be rejected. The same, it is
    assumed by the petitioners, is done with respect to those who
    apply for ordination. And it is inferred by them, that if the
    conference act consistently, stewards and leaders may be
    expected soon to be called upon to comply with the rule, or
    forfeit their official standing in the Church.

    “Your committee view this subject in a very different light. In
    admitting a preacher to travel, or electing one to orders, a
    conference must have the right to act freely; and in cases which
    are not successful, it is wholly an assumption, on the part of
    the applicants or their friends, to say what particular
    considerations dictated the vote, unless such considerations be
    distinctly avowed by a majority of the conference. And it is
    known to all conversant with the transactions of an annual
    conference, that no person applying to be received or ordained
    ever enters as a party before the conference, pleading his own
    cause, and hearing and answering the objections which may be
    urged against his application. Any act of conference, then, in
    these cases, can not be justly urged as evidence that the
    conference denies the party concerned the benefit of the special
    provision in the rule. A conference or other deliberative bodies
    possess, and in the nature of the case must possess, the right
    to determine its own course, and vote freely in all such
    individual cases. Your committee, therefore, can not see that
    the privileges claimed by the petitioners have been contravened
    by an act of the Baltimore Conference.

    “Having said this much respecting the alleged grounds of
    grievance, your committee agree in the opinion that the
    exceptions to the General Rule in the Discipline, referred to by
    the petitioners, clearly apply to official members of the Church
    in Virginia, according to the laws of the commonwealth, and do
    therefore protect them against a forfeiture of their official
    standing on account of said rule. In addition to the petition of
    the official members of Lancaster Circuit, a resolution of a
    quarterly conference of Westmoreland Circuit has been referred
    to your committee, by which it appears that the members of said
    conference concurred in said petition. Should the General
    Conference agree in the opinions stated by the committee in the
    report, it is respectfully recommended that, after adopting it,
    they cause a copy of it to be forwarded to the official members
    in each of the above-named circuits. All of which is
    respectfully submitted.

    “The committee to whom were referred sundry memorials from the
    North, praying that certain rules on the subject of slavery,
    which formerly existed in our book of Discipline, should be
    restored, and that the General Conference take such measures as
    they may deem proper to free the Church from the evil of
    slavery, beg leave to report:

    “That they have had the subject under serious consideration, and
    are of opinion that the prayers of the memorialists can not be
    granted, believing that it would be highly improper for the
    General Conference to take any action that would alter or change
    our rules on the subject of slavery. Your committee, therefore,
    respectfully submit the following resolution:

    “_Resolved_, etc., That it is inexpedient to make any change in
    our book of Discipline respecting slavery; and that we deem it
    improper further to agitate the subject in the General
    Conference at present.

    “All of which is respectfully submitted.”

The pastoral address presented to and accepted by that General
Conference, at once puts forever at rest any shadow of a doubt as to any
disposition of the Church to compromise with slavery. We quote the
closing part touching this question, viz:

    “It can not be unknown to you that the question of slavery in
    these United States, by the constitutional compact which binds
    us together as a nation, is left to be regulated by the several
    State Legislatures themselves, and thereby is put beyond the
    control of the General Government, as well as that of all
    ecclesiastical bodies; it being manifest that in the
    slaveholding States themselves the entire responsibility of its
    existence or non-existence rests with those State Legislatures.
    And such is the aspect of affairs in reference to this question,
    that whatever else might tend to ameliorate the condition of the
    slave, it is evident to us, from what we have witnessed of
    Abolition movements, that these are the least likely to do him
    good. On the contrary, we have it in evidence before us that the
    inflammatory speeches and writings and movements have tended, in
    many instances, injuriously to affect his temporal and spiritual
    condition by hedging up the way of the missionary who is sent to
    preach to him Jesus and the resurrection, and by making a more
    rigid supervision necessary on the part of his overseer, thereby
    abridging his civil and religious liberties.”

GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1840.—Test cases touching slavery were continually
arising. That of Silas Comfort was among the most noted. No one will,
for a moment, deny that this noted case was as complicated as noted, and
was, we believe, on the whole as we now see it, settled for the best
interests of the Church and the colored race. The decision was not what
could have been expected; but, then, “discretion is the better part of
valor.” There were, of course, two sides—two separate and distinct
parties concerned. While the interests of a class within the Methodist
Episcopal Church were at stake, the unity and tranquillity of the Church
were on the altar. The action of Rev. Silas Comfort was an entering
wedge between the two parties within the Church. Many earnest, honest
men thought it a strange procedure when that General Conference declared
it “inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher 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.” This was passed
by a vote of 74 to 46. Twenty-two members of that General Conference did
not vote at all. Whether the spirit that gave birth to the Wesleyan
Methodist Church three years afterward kept them from voting, is not
recorded. Whether that decision hastened the organization of the
above-mentioned Church or not, many believe it did. The decision, since
in it the word “denied” appears, was probably the best the General
Conference thought it could do under existing circumstances, coupled
with the restriction to those “States where they are denied that
privilege in trials at law.” The reason for rendering such a decision
probably rested upon the fact that otherwise it might have led to
internal wranglings in the general Church, and imposed additional
hardships upon the colored man, in that masters would probably have felt
it incumbent upon themselves to prohibit any slave from enjoying the
benefits derivable from membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
and thus added injury to insult, and left them a prey to “the false
accuser of the brethren.” Notwithstanding the construction others put
upon that decision, or what we now think of it, the colored members of
the Methodist Episcopal Church were not well pleased, as a protest from
Sharp Street Church declares. The author of “The Anti-slavery Struggle
and Triumph in the Methodist Episcopal Church,” at page 148, says: “At
the General Conference of 1840 a memorial was prepared by forty official
members of Sharp Street and Asbury Churches, in Baltimore, protesting
against the colored-testimony resolution. It was put in the hands of
Rev. Thomas B. Sargent, and by him given to one of the bishops. Through
the efforts of Dr. Bond and others the memorialists were pacified
without the conference knowing anything of the document.” The Rev. Dr.
Elliott declared that “the colored members of the Church were greatly
afflicted. This matter had like to have done great mischief.” The
document was afterward published. Among other things equally pungent,
the memorialists said:

    “We have learned with profound regret and unutterable emotion of
    the resolution adopted May 18th, which has inflicted, we fear,
    an irreparable injury upon eighty thousand souls for whom Christ
    died; souls which, by this act of your venerable body, have been
    stripped of the dignity of Christians, degraded in the scale of
    humanity, and treated as criminals, for no other reason than the
    color of their skin. The adoption of this soul-sickening
    resolution has destroyed the peace and alienated the affections
    of twenty-five hundred members of the Church in this city, who
    now feel that they are but spiritual orphans or scattered sheep.
    The deed you have done could not have originated in that love
    which works no ill to his neighbor, but in a disposition to
    propitiate that spirit which is not to be appeased, except
    through concessions derogatory to the dignity of our holy
    religion! And, therefore, they protest against it, and conjure
    you to wipe from the journal the odious resolution.”

This was strong language, prompted by a stronger feeling.

The members of Sharp Street Church did not protest against the decision
of the Church in this case, because they doubted the expressed fidelity
made prior to this, that was self-evident. But they knew that times
change and men change with them. This to them looked like a compromise
with the spirit of slavery that stalked abroad in the land. That
decision, viewed from this distance to-day, to some, assumes a different
aspect altogether. How could they keep from protesting? What could they
do more, how dare do less? How did they curb their feelings enough to
express their thoughts in such mild language? Why should not those
burden-bound colored men and women protest against, while compelled to
submit to, a decision that to them was humiliating in the extreme? Shall
the crawling, loathsome worm of the dust be allowed to squirm when trod
upon, the venomous snake to hiss, the vicious beast to defend himself,
and then deny the right to protest? Could the Church of God deny them
the privilege of exculpating themselves in the eyes of the public from
what to them appeared an undeserved reproach, thrown upon them because
of their color or helpless condition, casting thereby away from them the
protection of all save that of God? As they probably thought, why thus
insult them? Aye; rather why insult justice and God by demanding of them
a reason for protesting, since it appeared to them that the Methodist
Episcopal Church—the Church, and only Church, that from the beginning
had stood manfully in their defense—by that decision “had failed to
manifest the spirit that worketh no ill to its neighbor?” Whatever the
protestants in this instance may have thought or said, viewed at that
time from the _ignis fatuus_ of the then existing African Churches in
the North, “it was calculated to drive out of the Methodist Episcopal
Church every intelligent and manly colored man,” into one or the other
of these Churches. Viewed, however, under the light of the Address of
our bishops at that time, it assumes a more rational and philosophical
aspect. The bishops said: “We can not withhold from you at this eventful
period the solemn conviction of our minds, that no ecclesiastical
legislation on the subject of slavery at this time will have a tendency
to accomplish these most desirable objects, to wit: Preserve the peace
and unity of the whole body, promote the greatest happiness of the slave
population, and advance generally in the slaveholding community of our
country the humane and hallowing influence of our holy religion.” By
this we judge that at that time the Church had come to the conclusion
that it was impossible by “ecclesiastical legislation” to benefit in any
way the colored man; that extra legislation on the question would be not
only supererogatory, but in all probability only beneficial in goading
the slaveholder. We infer (1) that civil legislation touching slavery
was not objected to; but that (2) the objection to the admission of
colored testimony had been raised by the civil courts, and it was not
considered being “subject to the powers that be” to demur; at least,
that it was the duty of the Church “to live in peace with all men” as
much as possible. We are not ignorant of the fact that there have been,
and will yet be, times when forbearance ceases to be a virtue, and when
the Church of God can not afford to be loyal “to the powers that be.”
But what could be accomplished by the opposition of _one Church_ to the
slave oligarchy that was then rife in this country? As to this we can
only say:

                  “Deep in unfathomable mines
                    Of never-failing skill,
                   God treasures up his bright designs,
                    And works his sovereign will.”

As we now see it, there was no use for Methodism to push slavery harder
at that time, since God was behind the movement. Long before this time
the bishops and other far-seeing and right-minded men saw that all the
speeches made and actions taken pro and con relating to slavery, by the
Church, would, without the interposition of God, culminate in splitting
the Church. This in itself gave promise of what actually grew out of
it—a long, bitter, but bloodless ecclesiastical war between the two
factions. Seeing signs of an approaching crisis, they were anxious to
avert it as long as possible, and at the same time prayed to God, “Thy
will be done, and not mine;” that when the on-sweeping tidal wave, even
then within the bounds of the Church, in opposition to holding slaves,
did come, that, so far as those who were leading in opposition to the
accursed traffic were concerned, their consciences might be clear, and
that if the separation came in their life-time, their side should bear
the marks of God’s approbation.

Without multiplying evidence going to show the interest the Methodist
Episcopal Church took in the colored man from its origin to the time at
which we have arrived, we wish now to note the result of the
unwillingness of the Church to compromise with slavery. We have seen
that in every case where it was possible to make concessions to the
colored man, to train, protect, and elevate him, the Church has done it
where it was proper and best for him. It has in every case, as far as
practicable, tried to remedy the wrongs perpetrated upon him as well as
lessen his burdens. Not, of course, always as the colored man thought it
ought to have been done—for he was not in condition to even judge what
was best for him—nor yet as some who appeared more radical would have
had it done; but the Church stood by and for the colored man as no other
denomination occupying the same territory and similar circumstances
would do. To know what was contemplated by the Church in this case we
have but to trace out the legitimate results. During the interregnum
from 1836 to 1844 “God moved in a mysterious way his wonders to
perform.” The question of the abolition of American slavery was
discussed at each General Conference with animation and seriousness.
Many declared the radical action taken by the Church on the question
would eventually rend the Church in twain. Many earnest prayers ascended
to the throne of God in behalf of the tranquillity of the Church, but
were not answered because “his brother” was in need; and those prayers,
if answered, would not only have riveted his shackles, but bathed his
face in tears, and consigned the poor colored man and his posterity, not
to perpetual banishment—that would have been tolerable—but to a slavery
worse than that of the Russian serf. As many more prayed that the
prediction as to the split in the Church might come to pass. As a
result, each succeeding General Conference was marked by the friends of
slavery as the beginning of the end of a united Methodism in America.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                              CHAPTER III

                         THE CRISIS—ITS CAUSE.


The General Conference of 1844 sat in the city of New York, from May 1st
until June 10th—forty-five days. It has gone down into history as the
most noted of any General Conference of the Church. There was at stake
the peace, unity, and strength of Methodism in this country. The
question most prominent, and that was calculated to stir up most
enthusiasm, was that of the abolition of American slavery. An
unprecedented, as well as strange case, came up for consideration. Rev.
James Osgood Andrew, one of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, who was elected at the General Conference of 1832, a few months
before the session of the General Conference of 1844 had married an
estimable lady of the best families of Georgia, who was the owner of
slaves. This act on the part of the bishop, from the very nature of
things, caused much excitement and more comment. This was a trying
attitude for the Church. There had arisen within a party in the North
that accused it of being pro-slavery in sentiment—at least to a certain
extent. Notwithstanding it hitherto had occupied such strong positions
on the question of human slavery, the above sentiment arose to such a
height in 1842 as to cause a secession, and the formation of the
Wesleyan Methodist Church. It did, therefore, seem strange that such a
thing had happened.

But now it appeared as if the crisis had been reached. Just what action
that General Conference could or would take now on the question of
slavery in general, and the bishop’s case in particular, was hard to
imagine. The natural supposition with the Abolitionists was that the
same vituperation and obloquy would be manifested against slavery as of
yore; that the rules relating to slavery would be adhered to, even where
it involved a popular bishop of that Church. It was a trying situation.
Others declared it impracticable and irrational for the great Methodist
Episcopal Church to interfere with the personal rights of the bishop by
declaring that he was in the wrong, when he did not claim the slaves as
his property. Some declared the Church would now back down, and thus
verify the allegations of the Wesleyan brethren. If it had not been for
the confidence the Church had in the bishop, and in many others who
professed to believe slavery right, they could easily have concluded
that a trap had been set to catch the General Conference, because the
bishop was not the only one involved. A member of the Baltimore Annual
Conference had also, by marriage, become a slaveholder and refused to
manumit his slaves. In the State of Maryland emancipation was possible.
After the Baltimore Conference had carefully considered his case, he was
suspended from the ministry of the Church. He appealed from the decision
of his conference to the ensuing General Conference. When the case came
up on the appeal, the decision of the lower court was sustained by a
large majority. In the meantime the Committee on Episcopacy waited upon
Bishop Andrew. He informed the committee that he had married a wife who
inherited slaves from her former husband; that her husband had secured
them to her by a deed of trust; and that she could not emancipate them
if she desired to do so. The committee, however, aware of the fact that
it was possible for the bishop to remove from the State of Georgia where
emancipation was not possible, to a State where it was possible, took
the case under consideration.

Here were two factions—one in favor of standing up for the emancipation
of slaves, supported by thousands of influential Northern and Eastern
men and money; the other, supported by not less than fifty thousand
members, institutions of learning, and the slaveholding States and
slaveholding sympathizers from the Atlantic to the great West, from the
Lakes to the Gulf, and every slaveholding country in the entire world.
Speeches, noting these facts, and declaring a bitter unwillingness to
crouch before the spirit of freedom, manifested by that part of the
Church which opposed the holding of slaves, began to make a breach in
the Church that eternity alone, we fear, can only close. The Board of
Bishops were divided on the question. From North to South, from East to
West, the Church of God was disturbed. Not only this, but the world knew
that if the Methodist Episcopal Church split then and there on that
question, and any respectable portion opposed slavery, it would be the
beginning of the end of slavery on American soil. Therefore, even the
political and mercantile worlds were anxiously waiting, as well as
earnestly working, either to reconcile the affair or compromise it. Any
way in the world not to divide on _that question at that time_. God only
knows how many colored people in this country sent up prayers from the
rice-swamps of the Carolinas, the cotton-fields of Mississippi, and the
cane-brakes of Louisiana, that “the God of Elijah, who answered prayer
by fire,” would bow the gentle heavens and visit New York City with a
baptism of the Holy Ghost, that that General Conference—the men of God
therein—might have victory in favor of the Church, suffering humanity,
and God. If there was ever any time at which more prayers besieged the
throne of grace than another, it surely must have been during the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1844. It is not
an exaggeration to say the eyes and ears of the world were turned toward
that General Conference. And why not? Were not even then the interests
of every Methodist in the known world, of every colored man, woman, and
child, and children of the race then in the womb of the future—aye, the
future destiny of him who pens these lines, with that of our holy
Christian religion at stake? Most assuredly it was so.

Some declared that Bishop Andrew would have willingly yielded to the
opinions of the General Conference had not his brethren in the
slaveholding States and others persuaded him that it was his duty to
stand by them on this question, involving their personal rights. While
we do not stop to express a doubt as to whether, indeed, this was
uppermost in his mind, we are glad to note that, notwithstanding the
interests at stake, and that the Church at that time could have saved
itself much trouble, filled its coffers with “golden ducats,” increased
its popularity, and the sound of its applause would have resounded on
earth from sea to sea and from shore to shore, after a protracted
discussion, that General Conference, by a vote of 110 to 68,

    “_Resolved_, That it is the sense of this General Conference
    that he [Bishop Andrew] desist from the exercise of his office
    so long as this impediment remains.”

At this action the Southern conferences felt deeply aggrieved. A clap of
thunder from a clear sky could not have spread greater consternation and
excited more feeling than did this action. Like wildfire the news began
to spread. So far as the United States mails could carry it, the news
was spread before a fortnight. What was to be the outcome but few
hesitated to say. What could it be but that which had been repeatedly
predicted, the separation of the Southern conferences from the Methodist
Episcopal Church?

At once meetings were called by the Southern delegates, and steps were
taken looking to the organization of a Church in the South. The
following year the organization was accomplished, showing that the
matter had been thoroughly canvassed, and a conclusion reached by the
slaveholding element that was not to be surrendered. Is he a philosopher
who sees in this a counterpart to the drama of Pharaoh and the Hebrews?
Is it not possible to trace the finger-marks of Providence all along the
pages of every resolution offered by the Methodist Episcopal Church on
this question from 1796 to date? Does not it appear in all this that our
God,

                    “Deep in unfathomable mines
                      Of never-failing skill,
                     Treasures up his bright designs
                      And works his sovereign will?”

The chief part of the membership in the entire slaveholding territory,
with the exception of the States of Maryland and Delaware, separated and
formed the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The grand old Methodist
Church, by adhering to her anti-slavery principles in this particular
case, lost nearly five hundred thousand members, the control of much
Church property, and many institutions of learning; incurring thereby
the ill-will, everywhere, of every man, woman, and child who was
pro-slavery in theory or practice. But what effect had this action of
the Church on the minds of the colored people? Did they really believe
it meant what the pro-slavery element declared it meant, that the
Methodist Episcopal Church was an inveterate enemy to what Wesley called
“the sum of all villainies?” Any one who doubts the fact that the
colored man everywhere, who was capable of properly appreciating
philanthropy, appreciated the situation, has but to note the fact that,
comparatively, the States of Maryland, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and South Carolina, so far as Methodism among our people is concerned,
_belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church_; some of the most intelligent
colored men of the Church are there. The saying, “It is an ill wind that
blows nobody good,” was verified in this instance. The colored
membership within the Church renewed its resolutions, redoubled its
diligence, and had its faith strengthened in the integrity of Methodism.
They recognized in the Church a mother whose tender solicitude and
maternal care were not based upon anticipated future benefits derivable
from the colored membership, but, commensurate with their integrity and
Christianity, she expected to help them; that she was a mother who not
only labored to have them “flee from the wrath to come,” but to save
them, as well, from the rigorous burdens of the unrequited toil of
slavery; that she was a mother who loved them for Jesus’ sake, and stood
by them when it was neither profitable nor pleasant to do so. A new
inspiration seems to have come to the entire Church. But was not that to
have been expected as a matter of course, under the command with
promise, “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, and prove me
herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of
heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough
to receive it. And all nations shall call you blessed.” Had not the
Church planted itself upon the Ten Commandments—the rock of ages; and
was there not to be seen everywhere the bright, shining light from the
Sermon on the Mount athwart the path of the Church in its onward march
in favor of the recognition among all men, of whatever complexion, of
the wholesome doctrine and practice of the common Fatherhood of God and
the brotherhood of man? As a result, that part of the Methodist
Episcopal Church that believed it better to obey God than man, to be
unpopular and sneered at, but right; that “bore unmoved the world’s
dread frown, nor heeded its scornful smile,” received a new baptism of
the Holy Ghost, and continued receiving it until _a new door was opened
unto the Church_.

Notwithstanding the fact that nearly five hundred thousand members left
the Church on account of the decision on slavery, by no means all left
who wished the colored man would leave or be forced out of the Church
into one of the two colored organizations. It may as well be said now,
that there has always been a faction within and without the Church that
has used, or attempted to use, the colored man in opposition to the
Methodist Episcopal Church. In the first place, they use him as a wedge.
When they are foiled in an attempt to carry any certain thing, they at
once declare that the Methodist Episcopal Church has been, and is now,
taking advantage of the poor colored man. If this does not answer, they
find it convenient to let him (the colored man) understand that he is an
intruder in the Church, and respect for his manhood demands that he go
out and “paddle his own canoe;” that white men will think more of him if
he exhibit “the self-reliance and ability displayed by those members who
are in separate Churches to themselves.” When this proved abortive, they
found it convenient to demonstrate it. They at once invited some
minister of one of the two colored organizations to occupy their (white)
pulpits, and leave the colored minister within our Church without such
invitation. The result was almost inevitable. Pretty soon the more manly
members of our Church, in the community where such tricks were played,
would begin to say: “Well, that’s passing strange, that white ministers
of our Church prefer African ministers to our own. It must be because of
their independence. If that’s so, we want some of it also.” That an
undercurrent of this kind has flowed along the stream of Methodism ever
since the colored membership question has been discussed, is easily
proven. Now the class of which we have just spoken is to be
distinguished from the class who honestly believed that it would be
better for the white and the colored members to be separate. Not that
they (the whites spoken of) were unwilling to aid the colored members,
nor yet because they did not want them saved, but because the loud
professions and _announced_ success of the separate colored
organizations blinded their eyes. These considered, and rightly so too,
all such persons their best allies. The African and African Zion
Churches whispered continually, and sometimes preached, that the colored
membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church was a burden to the white
folks. These organizations, though supported by some within our Church,
saw there were but two ways in which they could induce the colored
element in the Methodist Episcopal Church to join them,—by loud
professions of “race pride,” and appeals to their ignorance and
prejudice. This they attempted by appeals to the dignity of our colored
local preachers; by telling the more ignorant that they were being
imposed upon by “white folks.” They told the local preachers,
class-leaders, etc., among our members, that it was a shame for them to
have white masters during the week and white masters on the Sabbath-day
also; that they were as well qualified literarily to have charge of
congregations with white members as some of the white pastors; that they
possessed intelligence enough to do business for themselves. Then,
again, they would say: “There will never come a time when the Methodist
Episcopal Church will allow one of you colored members to preside as
their presiding elder or pastor; that all the property you buy belongs
to ‘white folks,’ and not to you.”

The language of their most accurate historian will give a faint idea of
the pressure we speak of, which was and is now brought to bear upon our
people in some localities. He says: “It is true our colored brethren
within the communion of the Methodist Episcopal Church worship in a
large number of churches in Maryland, Delaware, and other of the
Southern States, and many of them are fine ones; but the question is:
‘To whom do they belong—the congregations worshiping in them, or the
Methodist Episcopal Church?’ We all know that it is our glory, that our
churches belong to no one congregation or body of trustees in
particular, but to the connection in general.” Again, _ibid_: “It would
have been a source of unspeakable joy had he been able or permitted
truthfully to record that your Church had acknowledged your full and
true manhood, and not denied it both in practice and in law; that it had
opened its school-doors to you, as did other Christian bodies, and like
them, too, have received you into conference upon a perfect ministerial
equality; but, alas! the doors of its schools, and of its conferences as
well, were locked, and bolted, and barred against you.” He was quoting
and commenting upon the words of another. Such strong talk, mixed as it
was with braggadocio, pretty soon had the desired effect upon two large
classes amongst us—the ambitious illiterates and the pompous, aspiring
for recognition, minus merit. These two classes were soon, after such a
process of pumping, inflated until their sides puffed nearly to
bursting. A number of the above-mentioned classes soon concluded that
they must be in a Church where there was a favorable chance for every
member of an annual conference to be put forth before the world as a
noted preacher, appointed presiding elder or a General Conference
officer, or elected to the bishopric. It is difficult for any one, who
understands in some sort the feelings of white men when they are
ambitious for notoriety or office and fail, to say or appreciate the
feelings of a disappointed colored man who has known nothing save
ostracism. To expect him to refuse preferment, emolument, or office,
when tendered, is to expect an ox in August to refuse the shade.
Notwithstanding the disadvantages the colored man has labored under
hitherto, he has found out that in a nation of blind men the one-eyed
man ought to be, and is, king. To this day but few white people have
learned that it is not always the most profitable thing to exchange an
old lamp for a new one; that “it is better to bear the ills we have,
than fly to others we know not of.”

To say that at no time a single colored member within the Methodist
Episcopal Church imagined the wool was being pulled over his eyes by men
of lighter hue, is going too far. To say there never was a white man in
the Methodist Episcopal Church who refused to recognize or affiliate
with the colored members because of their color, who refused to do for
him there what he would have done if he had been elsewhere, or had been
“manly and independent like some others, and paddled his own canoe,” or
that all such have left the Methodist Episcopal Church, is going farther
than truth warrants or the case requires. To say that any organization
among men is absolutely perfect, is preposterous; for even the Methodist
Episcopal Church in this country is not what it can and will be. I fear
much of the unrest, and seventy-five per cent of the withdrawals of our
colored membership since 1812, could directly or indirectly be
attributed to the actions of those within and without the Church who
think more of caste than Christ, more of popularity than right, and more
of men’s opinions than of God’s Word. Notwithstanding this, we hazard
the statement that, during that time, there has not been an hour when
the heart of Methodism in general, and the Methodist Episcopal Church in
particular, did not beat in unison with that of the Christ of God, the
blessed Master, who, in the midst of a gainsaying world, said: “I call
you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth; but I
called you brethren.” And yet, in nearly every instance of attack made
by the two colored organizations upon the colored members in our Church
up to this time, and for that matter all time, the exceptions among our
white and colored membership have by them been spoken of as the rule.
Their statements as to the intelligence or ignorance of our colored
membership was the natural if not legitimate outgrowth of the
disposition, action, and words of some of our white members who remain
in, but were not in spirit of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This is
true of some of the ministers as well as white members of our Church.
When the bishops, General Conference officers, pastors, or members of
the two colored organizations visited communities where we had churches,
_they were welcomed as no other colored Methodists were_, if for no
other than for the reason that they were high in authority within their
own Church. This distinction was not always clear in the minds of our
members. There is no doubt that this caused us much trouble as well as
loss of preachers and lay members. In those States where our membership
was the largest and most influential, and where our churches were better
and finer, the effects of such stuff were more telling because of the
spirit of the people. Our members saw at once that one of three things
had to be done to hold our members: a complete colored organization had
to be formed among us; or else join with the one or the other of those
organizations; or else have separate annual conferences within our
Church, so that the presiding elderate, pastorate, trusteeship, and
stewardship would be in the hands and charge of our colored members.

It was not in the mind of the two eagles that stirred up this nest, that
matters would turn out as they did—that instead of an exode from the
mother of Methodism into the bosom of the daughter, a separate perch
could and would be prepared. The anticipation was that all the colored
members in the Church would flock into the two African Churches. This
hope kept those two organizations from uniting, while each thought its
numbers would soon be increased by the coming of the colored members
from our Church. The more intelligent colored men in our Church saw and
felt that something _had to be done_, and done quickly. I could wish
they had opened their eyes sooner. Those two organizations knew well
enough that if the colored members within the Methodist Episcopal Church
in the North, East, and the States bordering on the above sections
decided to leave, one or the other, or both of these, would get them.
There was no other Church into which they could go. Hence they worked
and faithfully watched every movement of our Church touching the colored
people. They well knew that if all the colored members in the Methodist
Episcopal Church joined in a body either one of their organizations, the
result would be one great, grand colored Methodist Church. I truly
believe the good men in the Methodist Episcopal Church, among which we
put our bishops, saw it in that light. I believe other white members in
our Church were laboring every day for the sole object of bringing about
a union of all the colored Methodists. They believed that the colored
man had been a source of annoyance; that the good brethren who left the
Church in 1844 would return if the colored members all left the
Methodist Episcopal Church; that it would be a great set-back as well as
rebuke to the “hot-headed Abolitionists” who kept it in an uproar about
the colored man, and would prove conclusively that the radical element
within it was all wrong and the conservative element was all right.

When the General Conference of 1848 met in the city of Pittsburg,
several petitions from the colored members of our Church in
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland were presented. The petitioners
asked that, since the Church had ordained colored ministers, they be
given the charge of the congregations over which white pastors had
presided; that a separate conference be granted them within the
Methodist Episcopal Church. These petitions were not only received, but
respectfully and carefully considered. The petitions were properly and
promptly referred to the Committee on the State of the Church. In due
time the above-named committee reported as follows:

    “We find among the papers presented for our consideration
    memorials from different places within the slave States from our
    colored membership, praying for recognition, in that colored
    ministers be sent to them; for the organization and manning of
    districts; and that they be granted a separate annual
    conference,—which memorials are signed by 2,735 members.”

Thus it is clearly seen that much unrest was caused by the delay on the
part of our Church in granting a separate conference. Our work to-day
would have been as strong, comparatively, in the Eastern and Northern
States as either of the African Churches, had it not been for the delay
in granting us a separate conference. As a result nearly all the colored
members of our Church in the North and East were persuaded to unite with
one or the other of the African Churches which were under the fostering
care in some way of our Church, while they desperately fought the
colored element within it. Of course, this is strange. A fact remains,
that the great Methodist Episcopal Church felt that while under
obligations to help the colored man, and more able to do so than others,
she was unwilling to have him _driven_ away, whether by centrifugal or
centripetal force. The committee above referred to continued its report
as follows:

“We recommend the following:

    “_Resolved_, That we recognize all persons in these United
    States, who were members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
    1844, who have not separated from said Church by withdrawals or
    expulsion according to the Discipline of the Church, and who
    express a desire to be recognized as under our care and
    jurisdiction, as members of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and
    that we regard it our duty, as far as practicable, to supply all
    such with the preaching and ordinances of the gospel.”

The special report in this case on the petition from the Sharpe Street
Church of Baltimore, asking for a separate conference, reported as
follows:

    “That having carefully considered the memorials, and feeling an
    earnest desire to do all that can be done to promote the
    spiritual interests of our colored people, they recommend to the
    General Conference for adoption the following resolutions:

    “_Resolved_, That the organization of such (separate)
    conferences at present is inexpedient.

    “_Resolved_, That the Discipline be so amended that the fifth
    answer in section 10, part 2, shall read as follows: ‘The
    bishops may employ colored preachers to travel and preach where
    their services are judged necessary: _Provided_, that no one
    shall be so employed without having been recommended by a
    quarterly conference.’”

Thus the work of the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church
began as the great Church itself began, evolving out of necessity, and
guided by Providence.

The already existing Churches—the African and African Zion—were not
allowed to operate to any great extent in the Southern States by the
customs and laws of these States; hence, without giving any reason, it
was wise to conclude that at that time, and in that territory, the
organization of a separate colored conference among our people, within
the Church, was “inexpedient.” And yet the Church was willing to do what
it thought best under existing circumstances. The colored ministers
within the Church were henceforth to travel and preach at the discretion
of the bishops. This was the beginning of colored traveling preachers in
the Methodist Episcopal Church.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER IV

                         THE COLORED PASTORATE.


The employment of colored ministers in the traveling connection in the
Church, like Methodism itself, was a child of necessity. It has grown to
be a man, however, and is the father of several children.
Notwithstanding the secession of nearly all our white conferences and
Churches—500,000 members in the slaveholding States before mentioned—the
record is not written where the Methodist Episcopal Church extended
overtures to them to return that in any way involved the relinquishment
of its hold on the throat of slavery, or that equaled that offered by
our revered president, Abraham Lincoln, to the Southern Confederacy, if
they would return to the Union. The whole question of opposing slavery
by the Church seems to have been, all along, a work of conscience, not
to be repented of; that the work had to be done, because the seal of
God’s approval rested upon it. The action and firm stand taken by the
Church in 1844 put a quietus upon all who professed to believe the rules
relating to slavery would not be enforced during the ensuing
quadrennium.

The General Conference of 1852, that met in the city of Boston, was
called upon to consider the expediency of separate conferences for
colored members. The custom of the Church had usually been to leave all
colored congregations, in the appointments, “to be supplied.” But as the
work progressed and the colored membership found the braggadocio of
those “who went out from us” was invading the rank and file of their
work; that each year it increased with telling and disheartening effect,
and the more ambitious members among us were becoming restless and
wavering in their opinions, threatening with dissolution the work of the
colored members within the Church, the members within the bounds of the
Philadelphia and New Jersey Conferences—at any rate from members of our
Church in Pennsylvania and New Jersey—sent up, not only memorials to
this General Conference, but representative men of the more intelligent
class, to represent them and see, at the same time, the way the great
Methodist Episcopal Church would treat colored memorialists. When the
memorials were presented, asking again for separate conferences, they
were promptly referred to the Committee on Missions. After careful
examination of the memorials, they called before them the
representatives. “An open and free discussion of the interests at stake
and the benefits anticipated therefrom, was had.” The committee then
submitted to the General Conference the following:

“The Committee on Missions, to whom was referred the petition of our
colored brethren from Philadelphia, asking that the pastors within the
Philadelphia and New Jersey Annual Conferences may be formed into an
annual conference, under the supervision of the bishops and of the
presiding elders of said conference within whose bounds their (the
colored pastors’) work may lie, beg leave to report that the committee
have given due consideration to the petition, and have heard the bearers
of it in person, and have obtained all the information within their
reach, and have come to the following conclusions:

    “1. That it is very desirable that the colored pastors mentioned
    in the petition aforesaid should have an opportunity to meet
    together once a year, in the presence, or under the supervision,
    of the bishop or bishops, in order to confer together with
    respect to the best means of promoting their work, and to
    receive the assignment of their work from the bishops to the
    Churches usually left in the Minutes ‘to be supplied.’

    “2. That in this meeting it is desirable that the presiding
    elders, in whose bounds the colored Churches and congregations
    lie, should be present to assist the bishop in the assignment of
    the work.

    “3. _Provided_, upon due inquiry by the bishops, they shall find
    a sufficient number of colored preachers of sufficient
    qualifications to justify an annual meeting. Having arrived at
    these conclusions, the committee have agreed on the following
    resolution, which is reported for adoption by this General
    Conference:

    “_Resolved_, That we advise that the colored local preachers now
    employed, or who may be employed, within the bounds of the
    Philadelphia and New Jersey Annual Conferences, be assembled
    together once in each year by the bishop or bishops, who may
    preside in said conference, for the purpose of conferring with
    the said colored local preachers with respect to the best means
    for promoting their work, and also for the purpose of assigning
    their work, respectively; and that the presiding elders within
    whose bounds and under whose care the colored Churches and
    congregations are, be present and aid the bishop or bishops in
    said annual meeting of local preachers: _Provided_, that upon
    due inquiry the said bishop or bishops shall find such annual
    meeting aforesaid to be practicable and expedient.”

So far as we have gone, we have seen a disposition on the part of the
Church to give the colored man all the rights and benefits practicable
and wise that are accorded other members. It was not to have been
expected that he would demand what was not best for him as he saw it, or
that he should be given what he asked for when it was as impracticable
as unwise. There is no parent that is willing to allow a child to have
its _own way in everything_—_i.e._, if a wise parent. When at the
General Conference of 1848 the committee reported a separate conference
for the colored members within the Church “inexpedient,” what was
thought of it? Was it, under the then existing circumstances,
impracticable and inexpedient? It was most assuredly impracticable, in
that but few localities would allow slaves to have a meeting of their
own in the absence of some white person. The Lord Jesus said: “I came
not to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law.” He verified this by
paying taxes, and observing (and having others do the same) the Jewish
law. Suppose the Church, at that time, had given them a separate
conference for Maryland and Delaware, could they have enjoyed the
benefits of it? Most assuredly not. On the other hand, it would have
undoubtedly weakened the influence of the Church with the masters, and
subjected the colored members to restrictions of privileges, and brought
upon them uncalled-for hardships.

The tasks imposed upon the poor Hebrews in Egypt were increased, as well
as the inflictions of punishment, as soon as they began to believe in
Moses’ plan of a “three days’ journey into the wilderness to worship
God.” When a desire for a separate conference came from those who could
enjoy it without let, it was at once arranged for them. I believe the
more intelligent colored men listened to the words of advice and wisdom
of the General Conference with confidence. And yet it must be declared
that many of the influential colored members of our Church were urged up
to the belief that it was refused them from mere jealousy on the part of
‘the white folks,’ because they did not want the colored man elevated;
because they wished to boss him in Church matters as his master did in
every-day affairs.

Very many advantages were offered the African Churches by the failure of
our Church to grant the requests made by our members for separate annual
conferences. Whether they took advantage of them or not, a great many
people in these United States believe they did. Every time the General
Conference was asked to grant separate conferences, and it did not do so
because of its impracticability, it was not strange that they were
vexed, hearing everywhere, “I told you _colored folks_ so.” As a result
of such failure we lost, from 1844 until we were granted separate
conferences, not less than one-fourth of the membership of the African
Churches in this country at that time. As strange as it may seem, it is
really true. But probably the Church was not to be blamed altogether for
not doing for the colored members that which would have inevitably
worked hardships for them in the slaveholding States. But why did not
the Church at once form separate conferences for our people in those
States where the African and African Zion Churches were then operating?
As we turn these questions over in our minds, several valid reasons
occur to us. Either because the Church loved the colored man, and wanted
him to have his own choice when allowed to enjoy it—whether for separate
congregations, conferences, or Churches—even though they all declared a
desire to unite with one of the two colored organizations, or both of
them, already in existence, and thus become a religious power in those
States where it was practicable, in the which they could still aid them;
or because the Church thought the world would declare—had they organized
another colored Church—that they were following with opposition and
spite those two bodies, by setting up a “colored Church” within a white
one to break those two down; or the Church did not want to move in the
matter until somewhat of the outcome of the Negro question could be seen
or known; or else, because they really thought it the duty of the
Methodist Episcopal Church to look after those colored members in the
slave States where “the colored organizations” could not go, and abandon
all other colored members as material for the upbuilding of their work.
The latter, I believe, is nearer the truth. And by this is not meant
that they refused to allow colored members to join the Church, or to
commune with it in the “free States,” but that _no special pains were
put forth to induce them to join the Methodist Episcopal Church where
either of those bodies had charge_. This is one of the advantages they
have enjoyed over the colored members remaining in the Methodist
Episcopal Church. Again, may it not be surmised that since ours is “the
Prince of peace,” and rivalry in ecclesiastical, as other matters,
usually is followed by strife, that the refusal of the Church to grant
separate conferences to the colored members in those States was but an
effort to avoid strife? Again, for the Church to have granted separate
conferences, as a stay against the secession spirit manifested in 1816
and 1823, would have been considered by a great many good people—and
used to advantage by the seceders—as a declaration of the charges made
by the African Churches that “the whites were anxious to get rid of the
colored element within the Church.” From whatever point we take
cognizance of that matter, it would appear as if the Church tried to do
what was for the best. Every conceivable thing was done to pacify and
keep the colored members within the Church. The secession of the
Wesleyans had a great deal to do with the complication of this matter,
for they were, in many instances, naturally the main stay for African
Methodism.


      THE FIRST COLORED BISHOP IN THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

The interest the Methodist Episcopal Church had in the colored man was
not confined to America.

                 “The old Church sought her sheep,
                   The parent sought her child;
                  She followed him o’er vale and hill,
                   O’er deserts waste and wild;
                  She found him nigh to death,
                   Famished, and faint, and lone;
                  She bound him with the bands of love.
                   She saved the wandering one.”

The first foreign mission-field of the Methodist Episcopal Church was
Africa. When the “freed people” of these United States began to move to
the west coast of that country, the Church began to follow them by
sending over missionaries to look after her colored members and others
who would accept the service. From time to time the membership
multiplied, and in 1833 a mission was organized and then an annual
conference. This missionary field may have been the outgrowth of the
seeds sown by Dr. Coke, who in 1814, on his voyage to India, left a
missionary at the Cape of Good Hope. The work continued to increase
until it was declared by some the leaven that was to leaven Africa. In
1834, in company with Rev. John Seys, was sent Rev. Francis Burns from
New York, he having been ordained deacon and elder by that man of God,
Bishop Janes. In 1849 he was appointed presiding elder of the Cape
Palmas District of the Liberia Annual Conference. When the General
Conference of 1856 convened in the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, a new
phase of the colored membership question came up. Africa was knocking at
the door of the conference, asking for a missionary bishop. The General
Conference at once took up the cry, examined the matter, and requested
the Liberia Annual Conference to select the man. This was done by the
selecting of Rev. Francis Burns. He at once prepared to return to
America for ordination.

Why did the Methodist Episcopal Church not send a bishop by the West
Coast of Africa and have him ordained there? Why bring him back to
America, where the colored man was only recognized as a chattel, a
bondman, a serf? And yet, to her praise be it said, she did for the
colored man in America what _no other denomination_ found it convenient
to do—ordained a colored man to the episcopacy. When Rev. Francis Burns
arrived he was given all the honor any man could have expected. He was
accordingly ordained at the session of the Genesee Conference, October
14, 1858, the services being conducted by Bishops Janes and Baker. But
after all this, what did the Church really think and say concerning this
colored man at that time? The assembly that witnessed his ordination,
and those who grasped his ebony hand and bid him God-speed, declare in
the words of Dr. Robie, who was present: “Though of ebony complexion, he
had gained wonderfully on the affection and respect of all who had made
his acquaintance, and especially those privileged to an intimate
association with him. His manner is exceedingly pleasant, and his spirit
kind, sweet, and good as ever beamed from human heart or disposition. He
seems to be lacking in none of the qualifications of the gentleman and
Christian minister. He possesses also an intelligent and cultivated
mind, speaks readily and fluently, and even eloquently, and is in all
respects a model African. Such is the man whom the Liberia Conference
has selected for a bishop, and such the one the highest authorities of
our American Church have set apart for the sacred and responsible
position.” We add, Thus shall it be done to _the colored man_ whom the
Methodist Episcopal Church delights to honor on slave soil, where
prejudice against the race grew as rank as wild weeds.

The election and ordination of Bishop Burns was not a subterfuge, for
the Church elected another colored man to the episcopacy—Rev. John W.
Roberts, in 1866—one year after the war closed. He was consecrated in
St. Paul’s Methodist Episcopal Church, in New York City, June 20th of
that year.

With the interests of the race at heart, what more could she have done?

But the advance steps already taken by the Church on that question were
twisted by those who opposed the Church in her efforts to do God’s will
toward the downtrodden race, into every shape but the proper one. The
cry still went up from at least two sources that the Church was not
willing to recognize the colored ministry and members within her
borders. The colored members within the Church where such attacks were
made still felt that a further step _must_ be taken by the Church to
save the colored membership. So there came up to that General Conference
from the colored members within the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New
Jersey Conferences one or more memorials, all of which were referred to
a special committee, which reported as follows:

“The committee to whom were referred the memorials of colored members
within the bounds of the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New Jersey
Conferences, after due consideration, report the following for the
adoption of the conference, and recommend that it be inserted in the
Discipline as a distinct chapter, entitled,

    “CHAPTER VIII. OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF OUR COLORED
    MEMBERS.

    “1. Our colored preachers and official members shall have all
    the privileges which are usual to others in quarterly
    conferences, where the usages of the country do not forbid it.
    And the presiding elder may hold for them a separate quarterly
    conference when in his judgment it shall be expedient.

    “2. The bishop or presiding elder may employ colored preachers
    to travel and preach, when their services are judged necessary:
    _Provided_, that no one shall be so employed without having been
    recommended by a quarterly conference.

    “3. The bishops may call a conference once in each year of our
    colored local preachers, within the bounds of any one or more of
    our districts, for the purpose of conferring with them with
    respect to the wants of the work among our colored people, and
    the best means to be employed in promoting its prosperity; at
    which conference the presiding elder within whose district, and
    under whose care the colored charges and congregations are,
    shall be present: _Provided_, that the holding of said
    conference or conferences shall be recommended by an annual
    conference, and the bishops, upon due inquiry, shall deem it
    practicable and expedient.”

Again, by this action, the Church recognized the colored members within
her communion as being _eligible to all privileges_ usual to other
members, showing at once that her heart was all right.


                     THE FIRST EDUCATIONAL EFFORT.

By this is not meant that no interest in the education of the race had
been manifested prior to this. The education of Bishop Burns, alone,
would refute such an idea. But the Church began to see and feel that
something on a larger scale ought to be done for the higher education of
the colored youth within the Church. The very idea points out the fact
that the Church saw for her colored members a better day coming. At the
General Conference above mentioned, _Wilberforce University_, now in the
hands of our brethren of the African Church, at Xenia, Ohio, was
purchased by a number of individuals, and was under the patronage of the
Cincinnati Conference of our Church, and was “devoted to the higher
education of colored youth.” Rev. J. F. Wright, D.D., its efficient
agent, presented its claims to the General Conference. He traveled in
its interest, and it continued to flourish. Rev. R. S. Rust, D.D.,
became president of this institution in 1859. Our brethren of the
African Church began to feel the need of a better educated ministry, and
having no outlook for such an institution turned their attention toward
this institution. Bishop D. A. Payne, having formed the acquaintance of
President Rust, began negotiations for the transfer of that property to
the African Methodist Episcopal Church; and, in 1863, it accordingly
“passed into their hands for _a nominal sum_.” Thus the beginning of the
educational work in the African Methodist Episcopal Church was but the
outgrowth of the generosity of the Methodist Episcopal Church toward the
colored race, whether within or without the Church. It is true that but
little, if any, credit is ever given to the Church that was represented
in the matter by our own Dr. R. S. Rust. They sometimes—and Bishop Payne
all the time—mention gratefully his name, but no public acknowledgment
by that Church has yet been made to us for the advantages given them in
this transaction; and hence many a student, who has attended there, has
gone away ignorant of these facts. That transaction is but another proof
of the fact that but little, if any, opposition or rivalry has ever been
allowed from our Church toward their Church.

[Illustration:

  NEW ORLEANS UNIVERSITY—MAIN BUILDING.
]

It did seem that, ecclesiastically as well as politically, “Providence
had wisely mingled their cup.” When one phase of the question touching
slavery had been met, another phase developed. If ecclesiasticism met
this “sum of all villainies” in its way, and struck it down, leaving it
wounded, bleeding, and dying, it would, phœnix-like, the next day appear
in the political field. Like “Banquo’s ghost,” it would not down at the
bidding. The General Conference of 1856 had hardly adjourned before the
political world was startled by the case of a colored man—Dred
Scott—which was brought before the courts for decision. The appeal was
brought up to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Taney, speaking for the
court, declared in this case that “Negroes, whether free or slaves, are
not citizens of the United States, and they can not become such by any
process known to the Constitution.” This decision caused a ripple, not
only on the sea of politics, but over the placid stream of Methodism;
for it must not appear or be considered egotism when it is said nothing
relating to the interests of the colored man has transpired in this
country in which Methodism did not take part. And yet, as strange as it
may appear, the Church has always objected to mixing politics with
religion; but believing the converse admissible, our Church papers began
to wage war in favor of this colored man, as if he had been a member of
the Methodist Episcopal Church.

This excitement had not subsided when Abraham Lincoln, as the nominee of
the Republican party, was elected President of the United States. The
relation our Church sustained to that conflict will be better understood
when it is remembered that Torrey and Lovejoy, the two martyrs to the
Abolition cause, were New England ministers; that the New England
Methodists very early identified themselves with this cause, and poured
hot shot into the foul slave oligarchy. As early as June 4, 1835, the
New England Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church had organized
an anti-slavery society—not simply a non-partisan, namby-pamby sort of a
stay-at-home-and-pray society, but active, vigilant, and progressive—on
the basis of the immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery. North
Bennett Street Methodist Episcopal Church, in Boston, was opened in that
year for Rev. George Thompson to preach a sermon against slavery.
William Lloyd Garrison spoke of that meeting as follows:

    “In these days of slavish servility and malignant prejudices, we
    are presented occasionally with some beautiful specimens of
    Christian obedience and courage. One of these is seen in the
    opening of the North Bennett Street Methodist Episcopal
    meeting-house in Boston to the advocates for the honor of God,
    the salvation of our country, and the freedom of enslaved
    millions in our midst. As the pen of the historian, in after
    years, shall trace the rise, progress, and glorious triumph of
    the Abolition cause, he will delight to record, and posterity
    will delight to read, that when all other pulpits were dumb, all
    other churches closed on the subject of slavery in Boston, the
    boasted ‘cradle of liberty,’ there was one pulpit that would
    speak out, one Church that would throw open its doors in behalf
    of the downtrodden victims of American tyranny, and that was the
    pulpit and Church above alluded to. The primitive spirit of
    Methodism is beginning to revive with all its holy zeal and
    courage, and it will not falter until all the Methodist Churches
    are purged from the pollution of slavery, and the last slave in
    the land stands forth a redeemed and regenerated being.”

Notwithstanding the above, such Methodist ministers as Rev. Gilbert
Haven and others kept the ball rolling. It is said of one of our
bishops: “Throughout the late contest Bishop Simpson did much to
strengthen the hands of President Lincoln, and to nerve the spirit of
the nation to endure any sacrifice for the cause of the Union.” Is it
any wonder, then, that the Church, in one way or the other, was
connected with nearly every effort for the emancipation of the slaves?
Therefore the eighteenth session of the General Conference that convened
in the city of Buffalo, May, 1860, was anticipated with much anxiety.

The great debate on the question of slavery at the last General
Conference had, during this entire quadrennium, proven sufficient to
keep up the agitation all along the line. Dr. Abel Stevens, then editor
of the _Christian Advocate_, addressed an “Appeal” to the general Church
“concerning what the next General Conference should do on the question
of slavery.” This appeal aimed simply to have the next General
Conference declare “the sense of the Church on the whole subject,” with
“a note, put in the margin of the General Rule,” that declared “the only
cases of slaveholding admissible to our communion are such as are
consistent with the Golden Rule.” Drs. Nathan Bangs and J. H. Perry, at
the head of a “Ministers’ and Laymen’s Union,” formed within the New
York Conference in 1859, and the Anti-slavery Society, with Dr. Curry
leading, hurled their anathemas against Dr. Stevens’s proposition.
Resolutions favoring a new rule on slavery, prior to the General
Conference of 1860, were voted upon as follows: Cincinnati, 319 votes
for, 1,212 votes against it; Providence, 1,242 for, and 1,329 votes
against it; Erie, 1,795 for, and 1,416 votes against it. It was conceded
that the cause of human liberty would receive a fresh impetus from the
ringing speeches that would be delivered, and from the solid resolutions
that would be passed at that General Conference. Accordingly two classes
of petitions were presented: “Those asking for the extirpation of
slavery from the Church,” and “those asking that no change be made in
the Discipline on the subject of slavery.” A special committee was
ordered to receive resolutions of this kind. There was also appointed “a
Committee on our Colored Membership.” Several memorials and petitions
from our colored membership were presented. After due consideration,
notwithstanding the excitement on account of the agitation of the
question of slavery, that committee reported as follows:

    “The Committee on Colored Membership, to which were referred
    certain memorials from colored local preachers, respectfully
    represent: That having examined said memorials, they find that
    they request this body, (1) To extend the bounds of the
    conference of colored local preachers, called in accordance with
    the provisions introduced into the Discipline at the last
    General Conference; (2) To grant them the power to try and expel
    their own members; (3) To confer upon the conference of colored
    local preachers power to elect to deacons’ and elders’ orders;
    (4) To invest said conference with all the powers of a regular
    annual conference; (5) To admit colored preachers to membership
    in our annual conferences. Your committee find that the first
    two objects prayed for are, in substance, covered by provisions
    already existing in the Discipline, which appear to have been
    overlooked by the petitioners. In regard to items three and
    four, referred to above, your committee find that the prayer of
    the memorialists could not be granted without doing violence to
    our usages and Disciplinary regulations. The fifth item embraced
    in the memorials before us was withdrawn by the representative
    of the petitioners, who appeared in person before the committee.
    In view of the whole of the foregoing, your committee recommend
    that the whole subject be dismissed. All of which is
    respectfully submitted.

                                           “S. Y. MONROE, Chairman.”

When the Committee on Slavery reported, there were submitted a
“majority” and a “minority” report, a substitute for the majority
report. The first resolution of the committee was:

    “_Resolved_, by the delegates of the several annual conferences,
    in General Conference assembled, That we recommend the amendment
    of the General Rule on Slavery, so that it shall read: ‘The
    buying, selling, or holding of men, women, or children, with an
    intention to enslave them.’”

This motion was lost, since it required a two-thirds vote; and 138 voted
for it, and 74 against it. The second resolution was:

    “_Resolved_, That we recommend the suspension of the fourth
    Restrictive Rule, for the purpose set forth in the foregoing
    resolution.”

The first resolution having failed, this was laid on the table. The
third was:

    “_Resolved_, by the delegates of the several annual conferences,
    in General Conference assembled, That the following be, and
    hereby is, substituted in the place of the seventh chapter on
    Slavery: _Question._ What shall be done for the extirpation of
    slavery? _Answer._ We declare that we are as much as ever
    convinced of the great evil of slavery. We believe that the
    buying, selling, or holding 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.”

This was necessarily the last work of the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church on behalf of the colored man before the
terrible Civil War in this country, that began during the ensuing
quadrennium.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER V

                            THE RETROSPECT.


Who has not, ere this, declared slavery a vice? We have seen that the
Methodist Episcopal Church in 1796 not only warned its members against
the vice of holding their fellow-men, their brethren, as slaves, but
required a guarantee from applicants for membership that, if owners of
slaves, they would manumit them at the earliest possible moment; if not,
that they would not engage in it while in the communion of the Church;
that if “any among us do not wish to abide by this rule, they shall have
the privilege quietly to withdraw.” Such a spirit was in keeping with
the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Not only this, but any
member of the Methodist Episcopal Church who should sell a human being
for any reason, was to be expelled. In cases where members of the Church
bought colored people, even though done for the purpose of keeping
husband and wife together, or from being separated, it was stipulated
that such should only be held in servitude a sufficient time to pay back
to the purchaser the price paid for him or her. This plan, in itself,
was not only a wise business transaction for the liberation of slaves,
but humane and just; creditable to the Church and honorable in the
purchaser when done willingly, as well as elevating in its very nature,
and calculated to put the slave under perpetual gratitude to his
liberator. The plan was unique, and if it had been observed in every
such case throughout the length and breadth of this fair land, our
American civilization would have become the ideal of the world. If our
government had but consented to adopt some such measure looking to the
gradual liberation of the slaves, is it not rational to believe the late
Civil War could have been averted, and many precious lives and much
property been saved? But the American people apparently did not view it
in that light. It came at last, as of old, the arbitrary Pharaoh rushed
on pursuing his slaves, notwithstanding the terrible warnings given,
until ingulfed in the boisterous waves of the mighty Red Sea. How true
is it that “the wicked pass on, and are punished!” No more fearful
punishment ever came upon any nation than came upon ours because of
slavery. Although the above plan was adopted by the Church, it declared
that if a Methodist person purchased a slave woman, all her
children—whether her husband was a free man or not—were to be free from
birth. Thus the Church sought at once to begin emancipation.

The General Conference of 1800 declared slavery among ministers or lay
members not only “reprehensible,” but that “such slaveholders must
consent to manumit all such persons held in bondage or leave the
Church,” even though purchased to prevent the separation of husband and
wife, or parents and children. Thus the Church unmistakably declared its
unutterable opposition to the heretical doctrine of “doing evil that
good may come of it.” That General Conference, if possible, went further
still when it declared: “Any minister who marries a slaveholding wife
must be expelled.” If this was not strong language, then there is none.
The Church, at that period, sought not only to protect, but to give “the
colored members within its communion all the rights and privileges
guaranteed by the Discipline to any other members.” Was it strange,
after this action, that the Methodist Episcopal Church decided that even
colored men were eligible to ordination? From henceforth the Church saw
no valid reason, as there was none, why it should not be done; and hence
the Church began to ordain colored men as “deacons in the Church of
God.”

We have seen that at each General Conference of our Church from the
beginning, the question of human slavery was discussed, opposed, and
anathematized by the Church. And yet during that time many strange
things occurred. In the General Conference of 1804, that met in the city
of Baltimore, Freeborn Garrettson moved that the question of the buying
and selling of slaves be left to the three bishops for regulation. Just
what this meant does not appear on the surface. It could have meant that
the Church knew the hearts of the three bishops were right, and that
they would therefore oppose anything like a compromise with the system
of human slavery then in vogue. It could have meant that they were
conservative, and would not, therefore, likely precipitate any trouble
upon the Church on account of this vexed question. Viewed from any point
at this distance, it assumes a strange attitude. It may have been
intended as a measure to “bring peace out of confusion;” but “peace,”
“peace,” when there could be no peace, had been the slaveholders’ cry
all along. It was considered a conciliatory measure. It proved to be
exactly the reverse. It resulted in confusion; for the following General
Conference, in 1808, declared that the question of “buying and selling
slaves must hereafter be left to the discretion of the several annual
conferences for decision.” Though this action was taken seventy-nine
years ago, it appears as inexplicable to the writer as it did to some
men at that day. Its consistency and spirit do not even to-day present a
single redeeming feature. Every General Conference had moved a notch
higher in opposition to slavery, and now the whole subject was ordered
out of the General Conference, to be decided by the annual conferences,
in the which were some probably, if not slaveholders, sympathizers with
slavery. This was done, too, in face of the well-known fact that the
United States government had become so disturbed on account of the
discussions arising out of the question of human slavery and other
causes, as to prohibit the importation of any more African slaves into
America. It could have been one of those peculiar proceedings that occur
now and then, in the which “certain inalienable rights, among which
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” have no consideration; but
in the which “expediency,” and not principle, obtain. It is thought by
some that the action taken by that General Conference on the question of
slavery was regretted by many afterward. The motion by which that
question was sent down to the annual conferences was a repetition of the
political idea of the doctrine of States’ rights, with the colored man’s
interests not considered.

When the General Conference met in the city of Baltimore in 1812, the
persistency of the friends of the colored man in pushing his claims
showed him not friendless. The colored man, like other men, feels very
keenly impositions, and yet we think it is conceded that he is of a
religious turn of mind, docile and humble, but has his preferences as
clearly as other men. He does not like to be considered a bone of
contention, a cat’s-paw, or an intruder. He does like to have his
manhood respected. But suppose the above action of the General
Conference of 1808 was a mistake, is it not admissible that it was
possible to turn the head of the Church in the opposite direction now
and then, if even for a time only? It was a perplexing question, indeed;
and as the law of the land supported it—for slavery shielded itself
behind the venerated Constitution—what more could the Church do, since
some conferences were in Massachusetts and some in South Carolina?
However, that General Conference declared that under existing
circumstances but little, if anything, could be done to abolish human
slavery in America outside of political powers; that the Church of God
in general, and the Methodist Episcopal Church in particular, could not
reach the question as effectively as the civil law. But the civil law
had only then begun to take notice of the foul system of slavery in this
country.

In the despondency of that day and hour—for there was despondency behind
the action of that body on the question of slavery—the attention of that
General Conference was called to consider the advisability of looking
after the interests of “the free people of color.” In some States the
manumission of slaves was prohibited, except they were at once moved out
of that State. In cases where this was not done some complaint would
usually be lodged against them, and they were incarcerated in prison,
and, “as a penalty for violation of the law, were sold again into
slavery by sheriff’s sale.” Colonization in Africa was seemingly the
only hope. Hence, when a report was presented to the General Conference
from the American Colonization Society, it was commended to the generous
public. Such cases as that of Dred Scott discouraged many people who
wished to manumit their slaves from doing so, for fear they might be
re-enslaved. The General Conference declared the idea of colonizing the
“free people of color” in Africa as a wise measure in the right
direction. What less could the Church have done for the race? What less
ought it to have done? When the General Conference of 1816 met, the
question of slavery, and the proper recognition of the colored members
of the Church came up for consideration. The Church must have seen by
that time that a mistake had been made by refusing to grant its colored
members a separate conference. Not that the Church had given colored
members of intelligence “cause for complaint,” but that it did not
sooner see that an insidious foe was in its very vitals, stealing away
its life. If the Church, however, had been an institution dependent upon
the whims of the human family, whose strength and perpetuation were
dependent wholly upon its agreement with the slave oligarchy, the action
taken by the Church in defense of her colored members would have
appeared fool-hardy. But it was not, for it had the support of Him who
said, “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it.”

The secession of the “Allenites” alienated quite a number of Christian
men from the side of the defense of the colored man. Why should it not,
when a few of the faithful white men had not only jeoparded their future
prospects, blighted their present fame, brought down upon them the
vituperation and obloquy of the slave oligarchy within and without the
Church, simply because they professed to believe “a man’s a man for a’
that, and a’ that?” Is it not strange that some were so unwise as to be
misled by a misguiding or ambitious spirit, when they were not able to
add one cubit to their stature or make one hair white or black?

During the ensuing quadrennium “the color question” was discussed pro
and con. When the General Conference of 1824 met in Baltimore, and
declared that colored preachers were entitled to equal privileges “with
others,” it was a commendable step. Such action was calculated to
restore to the fold the seceders of 1816 and 1820, had their ambition
not reached beyond justice and right. Although the Methodist Episcopal
Church did all in its power, apparently, by General Conference action
and episcopal supervision, to reclaim the seceders, they persistently
refused either to be comforted or to return to the fold. Probably
sufficient cause can be found in Bishop Allen’s reasons for not wishing
to accept Bishop Asbury’s invitation to travel and preach with him, when
the reason as given by him to the bishop was, that he thought “that men
should lay up something for a rainy day.” There was never a promise made
by the Master to give any man a large salary to hunt up “the lost sheep
of Israel.” Because of the failure to conciliate those offended brethren
some looked askant at Methodism; because, forsooth, they knew not the
bottom facts. From the General Conference of 1824 to that of 1836, which
met in Cincinnati, Ohio, the agitation of the question continued. The
condemnation of the two premature lecturers by this General Conference
gave great offense to the Abolitionists everywhere, and depressed
woefully the spirits of the colored members without the Church. Poor,
ignorant, and deluded men would naturally and rightfully conclude that
in the hearts and bosoms of those men their dearest interests were
planted, and hence the disposition to put a quietus upon them was
equivalent to the non-recognition of the rights of the colored man
within and without the Church to the bright anticipation of ever being
allowed the enjoyment of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
As a natural result of the supposed compromise with slavery made by the
“Conference Rights” act, many conferences complained by memorial that
they had difficulty after difficulty in properly adjusting the matter of
slavery. Hence came the next step—legitimate child of previous action—a
declaration that the question of slavery was one of those peculiar cases
where only the civil law could properly adjust and act upon it. From
1836 to 1844 the war on slavery and in favor of slavery was unceasingly
waged within and without the Church. The thought of the regular
succession of events is not to be questioned when we remember the
struggles of the General Conference of 1840 at Baltimore over the appeal
of Silas Comfort, and that of the marriage of a Baltimorean preacher and
a Georgian bishop to slaveholding women. The Silas Comfort decision was,
on the whole, the best thing possible for the peace of the colored man
within and without the Methodist Episcopal Church. The decision was all
that could have been asked so far as the then present peace of the
colored man was concerned. But the Lord Jesus at one time said: “I came
not to bring peace on the earth, but a sword.” If we have the proper
conception of his meaning, there are times when peace is not the best
thing possible. When the General Conference received the protest from
Sharp Street Church against the decision, it only exhibited the fact
that men and Churches do not always see themselves as others see them.

But if in the Silas Comfort appeal decision the enemies of human rights
scored a victory over the friends of human freedom, the latter turned
the tide and scored a more glorious as well as righteous victory at the
General Conference of 1844, that met in the city of New York, when the
resolution that had been carried and placed on record denouncing the
action of “the two Abolition lecturers” was ordered to be expunged
therefrom. At that General Conference a petition was presented from the
colored ministers within the Church asking admission into the annual
conferences. This was refused for some reason. Then there followed a
petition for a separate conference. The wisdom of the refusal to grant
said separate conference is now apparent to all who are either concerned
or have the interests of the race, as such, at heart. No argument is
needed to substantiate the above proposition in the minds of any
intelligent person. Notwithstanding this, the historian of African
Methodism said in his “Apology:” “It would have been a source of
unspeakable joy had he been permitted truthfully to record that your
Church had acknowledged your full and true manhood, and not denied it
both in practice and in law—had received you into conference upon a
perfect ministerial equality; but, alas! the doors of its conferences
were locked, and bolted and barred against you.” Such thrusts as the
above, if there was no other sufficient reason for asking it, were
certainly calculated to urge the matter forward, because the
restlessness of the members, begotten by such unsolicited and
sophisticated sympathy, showed it necessary. Just why separate
conferences were not given them in the free States does not appear on
the surface. Those who were in authority at that time no doubt had good
and sufficient reasons for not granting the privilege of membership with
white ministers in the annual conferences on the one hand, nor separate
conferences on the other hand. While it does not appear that it would
have been wisdom to have granted them the latter in the slave States, we
submit, now, without questioning the wisdom displayed by those godly
fathers. Those who wish to speculate may do so; we are satisfied. All
this but declares

               “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
               As to be hated, needs but to be seen;
               Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
               We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER VI

                            DURING THE WAR.


The Abolition Church! If there was any one denomination of Christians in
this country, north of Mason and Dixon’s Line, that was anathematized
beyond another, declared by many in the South one of the most forward
instigators and abettors of the late Civil War, it was the “Northern” or
“Abolition Methodist Church,” as they called our Church. Well do I
remember the “yarns” told by the soldiers of General Sterling Price’s
army on a preacher they captured from the Union soldiers in Missouri.
The preacher was a noble specimen, and looked more like a Norman king
than any of those about him. This minister of the Lord Jesus was
terribly abused by his captors. Not so much, as they said, because he
was a Union soldier—that was bad enough—but he belonged to the
“Northern” or “Abolition Methodist Church.” “The Methodist Episcopal
Church, South”—or as it is, and was, better known as “The Southern
Methodist Episcopal Church”—is a relative term or name. It was natural,
therefore, for the Southern Confederacy to adopt it, and grant it a kind
of supremacy above every other denomination. Did it not lead the
secession movement in favor of slavery? It is no stretch of imagination
to say some people united with it for that very reason. It was to have
been expected that the two Churches, wherever they met, would sustain
the same relations that the Jews and Samaritans used to sustain to each
other. It was impossible to expect anything less than bitter opposition
to the “Northern Church.” There was a time in the South when he who
spoke favorably of our Church was not only suspected as a “lover of
niggers,” but one to be “let alone,” for all intents and purposes, as a
traitor. That times have changed but very little in the South along
these lines, but few doubt.

If there never comes another time and cause when the Methodist Episcopal
Church will interest herself in the politics of this country, no sane
person will deny the fact that she was so interested when the question
of the abolition of human slavery was being discussed, and while the
Civil War was being waged. If there has never been a time when “the two
branches of Methodism” hung on exactly opposite sides of the parent tree
with about equal weight since the secession of 1844 until the Civil War
began, they occupied the above-named attitude during the bloody scenes
of those four years. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, as such,
supported the Confederacy, while the Methodist Episcopal Church
supported the Union. And now if the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
closed her doors that the pastor might lead his official lay members
into the war—praying, preaching, singing, and fighting every day of the
week and Sunday, too—the Methodist Episcopal Church did as much to
counteract this. The evidence of this is found in the fact that for
upwards of twenty years—ever since the secession of 1844 to 1864—the
Methodist Episcopal Church had been practically excluded from the South,
and only ventured to plant outposts along the border States, where she
found admittance by some compromises to the conservative element that
came to her there. Not only so, but President Lincoln declared it “no
fault of other denominations that the Methodist Episcopal Church
furnished more money and men to suppress the Rebellion.” As a rule our
bishops and ministers and membership, wherever they went, preached,
lectured, exhorted, and prayed for the overthrow of the terrible slavery
that bound hand and foot four and a half million human beings in a
bondage more terrible than that of Pharaoh and more demoralizing than
that of the Russian empire. It was said of one of our bishops:
“Throughout the late war Bishop Simpson did much to strengthen the hands
of President Lincoln, and to nerve the spirit of the nation to endure
any sacrifice for the cause of the Union.”

The class of men elected to General Conference positions at the General
Conference of 1860, showed unmistakably the attitude of our Church
toward slavery and the war. Her standing rule that “non-slaveholding”
henceforth was to be one of the conditions of membership in the Church,
the periodicals of the Church being put in the hands of anti-slavery
editors were straws in the wind. Everybody knows that Dr. Daniel Wise
was considered “an offensive partisan” on the question of slavery. Dr.
Whedon, who was barely elected at the General Conference of 1856 because
of his radicalism, was at this General Conference (1860) unanimously
re-elected editor of our _Quarterly Review_. When that General
Conference adjourned it was plainly to be seen that our Church had put
on ecclesiastical war-paint, and was therefore prepared to push the
battle of human freedom to the gate. If any one doubts this, proof is
forthcoming in the fact that, the conservative element in our Church
seeing the status of affairs, a newspaper, known as _The Methodist_, was
established by them in New York City. The following March, when the
Baltimore Annual Conference met, it resolved, by a unanimous vote, that
it was “determined not to hold connection with any ecclesiastical body
that makes non-slaveholding a condition of membership in the Church.”
Indeed, so high did opposition to the position the Church had taken on
slavery rise, that another secession, similar to that of 1844, came near
taking place. When Rev. Mr. Hedrick was presented by the Baltimore
Conference for ordination to Bishop Scott, he publicly excepted the new
chapter on slavery. Bishop Scott then arose and said: “I regard myself
restrained from ordaining any one who declines to take upon him the
ordination vows without qualification or exception. Hence, I can not
ordain Mr. Hedrick.” This caused considerable commotion, but the bishop
stood like the rock of Gibraltar. “There were giants in those days” all
about him, whose reputation for wisdom and influence was enviable. The
lay conference was in session at the same time in the city. When they
were informed of the refusal of Bishop Scott to ordain Mr. Hedrick, and
the reasons given, they took action declaring a disposition to ignore
the entire subject of slavery in the Discipline. When it is remembered
what class of people our Methodism claims in the State of Maryland;
their means, influence, and their disposition to lead matters, since it
(Baltimore) may be considered one of the principal cradles of Methodism,
and has all along been in the van of Methodist movements; that some of
the most influential, eloquent, and popular men in the Methodist
Episcopal Church “were born in her,” it adds intensity and alarm to the
situation. But Bishop Scott, like most of our bishops, knew the heart of
the Church; knew that he was in full accord with the Church on the
question of slavery, and therefore the Lord was on his side, and stood
like Martin Luther before the Diet at Worms, trusting in God. When such
an expression of opinion on the question of slavery was given by “the
sinews of war”—the laymen—it was an inspiration to the clerical brethren
of the Baltimore Annual Conference. The soul of Bishop Scott was
severely taxed, the Methodist Episcopal Church was disturbed, while the
very air seemed laden with dust from the recent conflict, and more
especially when the Baltimore Annual Conference responded to the
expression of opinion given by the lay conference, by declaring in open
conference: “If three-fourths of all the annual conferences will, within
the year 1861, agree with us, we agree with the action of the laymen and
the Baltimore Conference, and will not reunite with them in Church
fellowship.” When this was presented to the conference, Bishop Scott
announced that he could not entertain a motion contemplating a division
of the Church. He permitted the secretary, Rev. J. S. Martin, to put the
question. But when the bishop came to the chair he ordered the following
paper spread upon the journal:

    “The whole action just had on what is called the ‘Norval Wilson
    propositions’ is, in my judgment, in violation of the order and
    Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and therefore is
    null and void, regarded as conference action. I, therefore, do
    not recognize such action as infracting the integrity of this
    body, and so I shall proceed to finish the business of the
    present session.

                                                       “LEVI SCOTT.”

The East Baltimore Conference was also on the eve of seceding, while the
Philadelphia Conference signified its willingness, by a vote of 174 to
35, to have the Rule on Slavery changed. These facts were enough in
themselves to cause the South to look askant at the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and probably caused the Church to be nicknamed “the Abolition
Church.”

By this time the rumors of war had reached a climax. We find a proper
description in the language of the historian Ridpath, who, in speaking
of the capture of Fort Sumter by the rebels, says:

“The news of this startling event went through the country like a flame
of fire. There had been some expectation of violence, but the actual
shock came like a clap of thunder. The people of the towns poured into
the streets, and the country folk flocked to the villages to gather the
tidings and to comment on the coming conflict. Gray-haired men talked
gravely of the deed that was done, and prophesied of its consequences.
Public opinion, both in the North and the South, was rapidly
consolidated. Three days after the fall of Fort Sumter, President
Lincoln issued a call for seventy-five thousand volunteers to serve
three months in the overthrow of the secession movement. On the 19th of
April, when the first regiments of Massachusetts volunteers were passing
through Baltimore on their way to Washington, they were fired upon by
the citizens and three men killed.”

The sounds of preparation for war were heard in every direction. No less
spirit was being manifested throughout the Methodist Episcopal Church.
And yet, notwithstanding the fact that the Baltimore Annual Conference
withdrew by resolution from the Methodist Episcopal Church, because the
Church stood up for the poor slave, not a single compromise at that time
was made by the Church with slavery. To get some idea of the condition
of affairs at the time, or directly thereafter, when Bishop Levi Scott
stood up in the face of the whole world and let his light so shine that
men might see his good works and those of the Church he represented,
when he declined to ordain the Rev. Mr. Hedrick in the presence of the
Baltimore Conference, we quote the language of a man whom every colored
man and most good white men love to honor—Gilbert Haven, D.D.—who says
in his description of the “First War Sunday:”

    “That Sabbath-day’s journey ought to be chronicled. We marched
    through saintly Boston in the gray twilight to the tune of
    ‘Yankee Doodle.’ All along the route cannons and bells, bands
    and flags and waving handkerchiefs, soldiers and crowds upon
    crowds, gave us a hearty hail and farewell. At Hartford we were
    told the women were all at home driving their sewing-machines,
    and the men busy making cartridges for their troops. All the
    town left their churches and gathered around the depot, where
    they had had preaching and singing while waiting for us. They
    had also provided refreshments enough for five thousand persons,
    and plied us with sweetmeats and benedictions. The force of the
    fever could go no farther.”

The colored man from one end of this country to the other had always
recognized the Methodist Episcopal Church as a friend to him and his, a
friend whose sympathies were worth a great deal. But whenever he was
reminded that it was “The Abolition Church” and one of the prime causes
of the war—which was usually taught him whenever the poor, deluded
colored men imagined, as they would naturally at times, that the war
imposed additional hardships and burdens—he sometimes shuddered. But
when the Union forces went South, and any of the colored people were
seen, they usually spoke kindly to them. If about religious matters,
they usually found the colored man either a Baptist or a Methodist. If
the latter, and the interlocutor, or any one of the company, was a
Methodist, the poor colored man learned of the interest the Church was
taking in his welfare and liberation. When colored men ran within the
Federal lines, they never failed to find the chaplain or some one of the
company a member of the Methodist Church, who deeply sympathized with
him, and did all possible to make him comfortable. While all this was
true, another aspect presented itself.


    THE ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH AS SEEN BY GENERAL CONFERENCE ACTION.

It was not enough that the General Conference had repeatedly stood forth
the friend of the Union, but individual conferences gave no uncertain
sound at that time. It is almost literally true that the hitherto
unmistakable factional lines within the Church faded so much that the
anti-slavery, conservative, and radical elements united in some sort,
for the purpose of rallying to the national standard to find shelter
beneath “the Star-spangled Banner.”

The New York East Conference in April, 1861, led by Rev. J. S. Inskip,
unanimously declared its unqualified sympathy and support of the
government in its defense of the Constitution. In June of the same year
the New York Conference followed, led on by the manly report submitted
through Rev. J. B. Wakeley, on the State of the Country. In that report
was delineated, in unmistakable language, “the formation of the Southern
Confederacy ... its seizure of the forts, mints, custom-houses, vessels,
and arms of the United States, ... and unnatural war against the
government.” And the report went on and patriotically declared: “No
treasure is too costly, no sacrifice too great, no time too long, to put
down treason and traitors, and to place our Union on a rock so solid
that neither enemies abroad nor traitors at home can move it.” Indeed,
so arrogant and flagrant had the unpunished crimes of the slave
oligarchy become, that the East Baltimore Conference in March, 1862, by
a vote of 132 yeas to 15 nays—led on by Revs. A. A. Reese and G. D.
Chenoweth—not only expressed its “abhorrence of the rebellion,” but
declared, “We approve and indorse the present wise and patriotic
Administration, and in the inculcation of loyal principles and
sentiments we recognize the pulpit and press as legitimate
instrumentalities.” Not only so, but the Philadelphia Conference, in
March of that same year, received and unanimously adopted the report of
their Committee on the State of the Country as presented by the
chairman, Rev. Charles Cook, which affirmed: “We do hereby express our
utter abhorrence and opposition to the present rebellion, being the
offspring of treason, ... and that we pledge our influence to encourage
and assist the army and navy, to protect the honor of our flag, the
integrity of the Constitution, and the maintenance of our glorious
Union.” The New Jersey Conference followed with equally patriotic
resolutions.


                        MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS.

As if afraid its influence would not be potent enough by its General and
annual conference action on the question of slavery, several of the
annual conferences sent up memorials to Congress and to President
Lincoln. The New York East Conference—when the bill freeing “slaves used
for insurrectionary purposes” was approved, August 6, 1861, and another
forbidding the return of fugitive slaves by persons in the army, March
13, 1862, and the abolishment of slavery in the District of Columbia by
Congress, April 16, 1862—adopted a report drawn up by James Floy, which
declared “the system of American slavery is evidently, in the good
providence of God, destined soon to come to an end; that the recent
action of our national authorities, by which the nation has been
unequivocally committed to the cause of freedom, meets with our entire
approbation.” The same body, with the New York Conference, in 1864,
memorialized Congress, praying the enactment of an amendment to the
Constitution for the abolishment of slavery a year and a half or more
before it was done. The New England Conference sent up the following,
which, for historic accuracy, prophetic ken, and loyalty to the cause of
human freedom, has rarely been surpassed, and will stand in the
forefront of the reputation of that conference for level-headedness and
right doing. We here reproduce it:

    “After thirty years of exciting but healthful agitation on the
    subject of slavery, the present aspects of our cause furnish
    abundant motive for devout thanksgiving to God. The two
    antagonistic tendencies of public sentiment existing and
    increasing in the nation for so many years, have at length
    reached their legitimate crisis of mutual and final conflict, of
    which the issue can not be doubtful. By its own diabolical act
    [slavery] has been placed in a position where it can claim no
    constitutional protection, and where there is no prudential
    motive for its retention; and the voice of the people, which
    evidently coincides with the voice of God, says: ‘Let it
    perish!’ In the Church the progress of the anti-slavery
    sentiment has been equally gratifying. Instead of a continued
    and meager minority which regarded slavery as a sin, a great
    majority of the representative assemblies of the Church register
    their solemn verdict of its criminal character, and demand that
    it shall cease, not only in the ministry, but in the whole
    membership.”

The Black River Conference also gave no uncertain sound when it
declared: “The signs of the times give evidence that the hitherto
dominant and domineering slave power is rapidly approaching its end, and
even now we may witness its horrible death-throe. The time is rapidly
approaching when the last fetter will be broken, and the last bondman be
released.”

Of all the above and many more conferences that took action in support
of the Union, none of them is more worthy of honor because of the action
taken than the Central Ohio, which adopted resolutions as early as 1861
contemplating a proclamation of emancipation as the only conceivable
solution of our national difficulties. The _Christian Advocate_ of
October following, reports the action taken by said conference at its
session in Greenville, September 22, 1862:

    “_Resolved_, That we believe that the time has fully come that,
    from a military necessity for the safety of the country, such a
    proclamation should be made; and we earnestly beseech the
    President of the United States to proclaim the emancipation of
    all slaves held in the United States, paying loyal men a
    reasonable compensation for their slaves.”

This was, by order of the conference, forwarded to the President of the
United States. But before it reached him, as if verifying God’s promise,
“Call, and while you are calling, I will answer,” the President issued
September 22, 1862, the Proclamation, to take effect January 1, 1863.
This Proclamation was not intended to free all the slaves, but only
affected “all persons held as slaves within any State, or any designated
part of a State, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against the
United States on the first day of January, 1863.” Hence it only reached
the States of Arkansas, Louisiana—leaving out some parishes—Texas,
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and
Virginia, in all of which States and parts of States all slaves were
henceforth to be free. Other exceptions, such as parts of Virginia,
Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Delaware, and Maryland
were also included in the above, leaving the slaves in the
non-designated parts in slavery.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                              CHAPTER VII

                    THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1864.


Almost one year after the Emancipation Proclamation took effect by
reason of the refusal on the part of the South to return to the Union,
the nineteenth session of the General Conference met in the city of
Philadelphia. That body was composed of two hundred and sixteen
delegates. Just how any body of men, whether met for political or
religious interests, could properly attend to affairs, even to the
minutiæ, under the then existing circumstances of so exciting character
as those that occurred from May 1, 1864, until the adjournment of that
General Conference, is hard to conceive. And yet the proceedings of that
body were characterized by patient, wise, and prudent action. Some of
the delegates to that General Conference had their thoughts, however
hard they strove to prevent it, on Church interests upset, as they took
up the newspapers and found an account of the atrocious butchery of
colored troops at Fort Pillow by that enemy of the human family, General
Forrest. Before leaving the cars upon which they were traveling, they
were startled by the cry of the newsboys at every station, as they
announced the startling news that the governors of the Western States
had offered the United States government eighty-five thousand men for
one hundred days, and that the President had accepted the offer; again,
that the victory was still in the scales. They had been in session but
four days until the wires flashed the news that the irrepressible Grant
had crossed the Rapidan in Virginia, and commenced operations in the
Wilderness! The next day news came that the armies of the North and
South had met in the Wilderness—the former under that invincible hero,
and the latter under the intrepid Lee. Since our own Grant was pushing
Lee before him nearly everywhere, and knowing how the Church had begun
to love General Grant, and that her prayers and influence and sons were
with him for the preservation of the Union, it is pretty hard to
understand just how that General Conference found time and disposition
to work as it did. Its session was during the crisis of the war. As they
understood it, “God expects every man to do his best,” and they had then
an opportunity to view the whole scene, knowing that God himself was
interested, since

                  “Right forever on the scaffold,
                    Wrong forever on the throne;
                   But that scaffold sways the future,
                    And behind the dim unknown
                   Standeth God within the shadows,
                    Keeping watch above his own.”

So it was on the gory field of battle as well as in that General
Conference.

“The conference adopted a new rule on slavery, by a vote of 207 yeas to
9 nays. The small minority of dissenters were delegates from within the
then slaveholding States of West Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky—so
that the Methodist Episcopal Church alone, of all the Churches in
America, within whose communion slaveholding had been allowed, enacted a
prohibitory law abolishing slavery, even within the States where it was
allowed to continue by President Lincoln’s Proclamation of 1863. Moving
forward on the same line, in advance of all the Churches, the same body,
already more sweeping in its prohibition of slavery than the civil
authorities, yet further anticipated the action of the government in a
formal address to the President.”

At that General Conference the special Committee appointed on the State
of the Country reported as follows:

    “The committee have carefully considered the following subject,
    submitted to them by the General Conference, namely:

    “WHEREAS, It is a well-known fact that the Methodist Episcopal
    Church was the first to tender its allegiance to the government
    under the Constitution in the days of Washington; and _whereas_,
    the fair record of the Church has never been tarnished by
    disloyalty; and _whereas_, our ministers and people are deeply
    in sympathy with the government in its efforts to put down
    rebellion and set the captives free; therefore,

    “_Resolved_, That a committee of five be appointed, whose duty
    it shall be to proceed to Washington to present to the President
    of these United States the assurances of our Church, in a
    suitable address, that we are with him in heart and soul in the
    present struggle for human rights and free institutions.

    “The committee, after further consideration of the subject of
    the delegation it is proposed to send with an address to the
    President of the United States, beg leave to report that they
    have instructed their chairman to present, for the approval of
    the General Conference, the address contemplated in the
    resolution referred for consideration. The committee still
    further report that they have nominated as the delegation,
    Bishop E. R. Ames, Rev. George Peck, Rev. Joseph Cummings, Rev.
    Charles Elliott, Rev. Granville Moody.”

On motion of Thomas C. Golden, seconded by K. P. Jervis, the report was
adopted. The committee at once began to prepare the address, and in due
time the following was presented:

    “TO HIS EXCELLENCY, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
        STATES:

    “The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, now
    in session in the city of Philadelphia, representing nearly
    seven thousand ministers, and nearly a million of members,
    mindful of their duty as Christian citizens, take the earliest
    opportunity to express to you the assurance of the loyalty of
    the Church, her earnest devotion to the interests of the
    country, and her sympathy with you in the great responsibilities
    of your high position in this trying hour.

    “With exultation we point to the record of our Church as having
    never been tarnished by disloyalty. She was the first of the
    Churches to express, by a deputation of her most distinguished
    ministers, the promise of support to the government in the days
    of Washington. In her Articles of Religion she has enjoined
    loyalty as a duty, and has ever given to the government her most
    decided support.

    “In this present struggle for the nation’s life many thousands
    of her members, and a large number of her ministers, have rushed
    to arms to maintain the cause of God and humanity. They have
    sealed their devotion to their country with their blood on every
    battle-field of this terrible war.

    “We regard this dreadful scourge now desolating our land and
    wasting the nation’s life, as the result of a most unnatural,
    utterly unjustifiable rebellion, involving the crime of treason
    against the best of human governments, and sin against God. It
    required our government to submit to its own dismemberment and
    destruction, leaving it no alternative but to preserve the
    national integrity by the use of the national resources. If the
    government had failed to use its power to preserve the unity of
    the nation and maintain its authority, it would have been justly
    exposed to the wrath of heaven and to the reproach and scorn of
    the civilized world. Our earnest and constant prayer is that
    this cruel and wicked rebellion may be speedily suppressed; and
    we pledge you our hearty co-operation in all appropriate means
    to secure this object.

    “Loyal and hopeful in national adversity, in prosperity
    thankful, we most heartily congratulate you on the glorious
    victories recently gained, and rejoice in the belief that our
    complete triumph is near.

    “We believe that our national sorrows and calamities have
    resulted, in a great degree, from our forgetfulness of God and
    oppression of our fellow-men. Chastened by affliction, may the
    nation humbly repent of her sins, lay aside her haughty pride,
    honor God in all her future legislation, and render justice to
    all who have been wronged!

    “We honor you for your proclamations of liberty, and rejoice in
    all the acts of the government designed to secure freedom to the
    enslaved.

    “We trust that when military usages and necessities shall
    justify interference with established institutions, and the
    removal of wrongs sanctioned by law, the occasion will be
    improved, not merely to injure our foes and increase the
    national resources, but also as an opportunity to recognize our
    obligations to God and to honor his law. We pray that the time
    may speedily come when this shall be truly a republican and free
    country, in no part of which, either State or Territory, shall
    slavery be known.

    “The prayers of millions of Christians, with an earnestness
    never manifested for rulers before, daily ascend to Heaven that
    you may be endued with all needed wisdom and power. Actuated by
    the sentiments of the loftiest and purest patriotism, our
    prayers shall be continually for the preservation of our country
    undivided, for the triumph of our cause, and for a permanent
    peace, gained by sacrifice of no moral principles, but founded
    on the Word of God, and securing, in righteousness, liberty and
    equal rights to all.

    “Signed in behalf the General Conference of the Methodist
    Episcopal Church.

                        “JOSEPH CUMMINGS, Chairman.

        “PHILADELPHIA, May 14, 1864.”

To this address the President responded:

    “GENTLEMEN,—In reply to your address, allow me to attest the
    accuracy of its historical statements, indorse the sentiments it
    expresses, and thank you in the nation’s name for the sure
    promise it gives.

    “Nobly sustained as the government has been by all the Churches,
    I would utter nothing which might in the least appear invidious
    against any; yet, without this, it may be fairly 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 hospitals, and more prayers to
    Heaven, than any. God bless the Methodist Church! Bless all the
    Churches! And blessed be God, who, in this our great trial,
    giveth us the Churches!

                                                       “A. LINCOLN.”

Memorials were sent up to this General Conference, also asking for a
colored pastorate and conference organization. Several petitions from
the colored members within the District of Columbia and the States of
Delaware and Maryland were presented, praying for this. The wisdom of
the petitioners is best seen by noting the fact that most of the best
work among the colored people within the Church is in the bounds of the
territory from whence came most petitions for a colored pastorate and
separate conferences. The Church began to see a new door open at the
sesame of belching cannons for her admission into the South. She then
declared: “As a Church we have never sought, do not now seek, to ignore
our duty to the colored population.” And besides this, the Church at
that conference declared: “Justice to those who have been enslaved
requires that in all the privileges of citizenship, as well as in all
the other rights of a common manhood, there shall be no distinction
founded on color.” These were strong words at that early day, and meant
what the Church has been teaching ever since. That General Conference
created a special committee to look after the interests, hear the
appeals, consider what ought to be done by that conference to further
the work among the colored members It was known as “the Committee on the
State of the Work among the Colored People,” to whom all such petitions
and memorials were referred. This was not one of the regular standing
committees, but a special one appointed for the occasion. After the
General Conference had been in possession of said petitions and
memorials two weeks or more, they submitted a report, in which they said
that they based their report on “direct information from delegates to
the General Conference familiar with the work; from intelligent and
trustworthy local preachers who have been deputed by the colored charges
in Delaware and Maryland and the District of Columbia to represent them
before the committee, and from various memorials setting forth the
wishes of our colored members.”

That the Church trusted and desired to honor her sable sons, no one
doubts. That she was proud of feeling herself loved by them, and an
instrument in God’s hands of helping to uplift them, is told in the
following expression of that conference: “If it be a principle potent to
Christian enterprise that the missionary field itself must produce the
most efficient missionaries, our colored local preachers are peculiarly
important to us at this time.” The memorialists were filled with ecstasy
when the committee reported the following:


                           COLORED PASTORATE.

    “(1.) Our colored members, ministers, and laymen feel that the
    times are auspicious to the development of their mental and
    moral power, and request from us the facilities necessary to
    this end.

    “(2.) A colored pastorate they recognize as among the most
    important of these facilities, securing to them a ministry
    adapted to their wants, encouraging their young men to enter the
    ministerial field, and offering motive and opportunity for
    general ministerial advancement.

    “(3.) They do not, however, propose to secure this by—indeed,
    they are utterly opposed to—separation from our Church, either
    with a view to a union with another, or to independent
    organization. With such a feeling on their part, the General
    Conference can not consistently with its own responsibility,
    with their constitutional rights, or with any decent recognition
    of their loyalty to our Church in all the troubles through
    which, on their account, she has passed, adopt any measure which
    shall, even indirectly, look to such a result.

    “(4.) Conference organization is asked for from two quarters;
    other memorials urge that the requests should be granted. The
    local ministers who have been before us have shown deep
    solicitude in this direction....

    “(7.) From this exhibit of facts two convictions are natural,
    namely: We must retain the oversight of this people; we must
    give them efficient colored pastors.

    “To retain these pastors as mere local preachers, subject to
    appointment by white presiding elders, will impair rather than
    increase their efficiency; will promote congregationalism among
    them rather than itinerant missionary enterprise.

    “To propose their incorporation with the existing annual
    conferences will be attended with difficulties too formidable
    every way to be readily disposed of, and the delay incident to
    such a proposition is incompatible with the urgent requirements
    of the times.

    “In view of these considerations, we recommend to the General
    Conference for adoption the following preamble and resolutions:

    “WHEREAS, In the present circumstances of our country, the
    colored people occupy a position of peculiar interest, appealing
    to our Christian sympathy, and inviting our missionary
    enterprise; and

    “WHEREAS, This enterprise can not now be made efficient by the
    policy of our Church hitherto pursued toward them, and especial
    measures have therefore become necessary; and

    “WHEREAS, The exigencies of the case require to efficiency
    prompt action; therefore, be it

    “1. _Resolved_, by the General Conference of the Methodist
    Episcopal Church in Conference assembled, That it is the duty of
    our Church to encourage _colored pastorates_ for _colored
    people_ wherever practicable, and to contribute to their
    efficiency by every means in our power.

    “_Resolved_, That the efficiency of said pastorates can be best
    promoted by distinct conference organizations, and that
    therefore the bishops be, and they are hereby, authorized to
    organize among our colored ministers, for the benefit of our
    colored members and population, mission conferences—one or
    more—where, in their godly judgment, the exigencies of the work
    may demand it, and, should more than one be organized, to
    determine their boundaries until the meeting of the next General
    Conference, said conference or conferences to possess all the
    powers usual to mission annual conferences: _Provided_, that
    nothing in this resolution be so construed as to impair the
    existing constitutional rights of our colored members on the one
    hand, or to forbid, on the other, the transfer of white
    ministers to said conference or conferences where it may be
    practicable and deemed necessary.

    “3. _Resolved_, That our General Missionary Committee be
    requested to take into careful consideration the condition of
    our colored people, and should conferences be organized among
    them, make to them—consistently with other demands upon its
    funds—such appropriations as may be essential to success.”

Annual or mission conferences being composed of traveling preachers, it
was necessary that some colored local preachers be admitted into the
traveling connection before they could be formed into a conference,
which gave rise to a question upon which the same committee made a
report, which was adopted, as follows (Jour. 1864, p. 253):

    “We, the committee to whom this subject was finally referred,
    beg leave to report that we are not aware of any legal obstacle
    to the reception of colored preachers into our annual
    conferences.”

This General Conference at a later day made more specific and direct
provision for the Delaware and Washington Conferences in the following
resolution (Jour. 1864, p. 263):

    “The Washington Conference shall embrace Western Maryland, the
    District of Columbia, Virginia, and the territory south.

    “The Delaware Conference shall embrace the territory north and
    east of the Washington Conference.

    “_Resolved_, That in order to constitute the first conferences
    of colored members, the rule of Discipline requiring a probation
    of two years, be so far suspended as to allow the bishops to
    organize into one or more annual conferences such colored local
    elders as have traveled two or more years under a presiding
    elder, and shall be recommended by a quarterly conference, and
    by at least ten elders who are members of an annual conference.”

The Delaware Conference was organized July 28, 1864, and the Washington
Conference October 27, 1864. It will be noted that “the constitutional
rights of our colored members” were recognized, as well as the
difficulties of incorporating the work.

Let us now examine the above resolutions more closely.

Blessings seldom come unattended. At a glance any one can see that the
requests of the colored members had been granted. Henceforth they were
to have (1) colored pastorates, the very thing for which they had
prayed. No one doubts, we think, that the granting of that very thing
gave birth to all the other race questions that do or may arise touching
the relations of the two races within the Church. The wisdom of that
General Conference peered away out into the future. It probably saw a
time when advanced ideas would lead men within the Church to advanced
work. These pastorates created by that General Conference were to be for
“colored people.” They were to be allowed (2) separate conferences.
There was no way to avoid them where there were “colored pastorates for
colored people.” Just so. These separate conferences, however, were (3)
“not to impair existing rights of our colored members, nor yet (4) to
forbid the transfer of white ministers to said conferences where it may
be practicable and deemed necessary.” What “existing rights” had colored
members? To remain in any Church they chose within Methodism, or join
with and worship in any congregation within the Methodist Episcopal
Church. It did not stop there, but action was taken looking to the
education of the race. The General Conference Committee on Education
reported as follows:

    “The committee have had before them the memorial of Rev. J. F.
    Wright in reference to the Wilberforce University, and, in view
    of its peculiar character and relation to the Church, we offer
    for adoption the following resolution:

    “_Resolved_, That we heartily sympathize with the noble purpose
    contemplated in the establishment of Wilberforce University and
    we do hereby earnestly commend the institution to the prayers
    and liberal contributions of the friends of humanity.”

Just what “the peculiar character and relation” were, is not stated. It
may have been that the enterprise was sprung upon the Church before it
had been duly authorized. It may have been that its “peculiar character
and relation” meant that it was to be exclusively colored. It makes no
difference as to what was meant, some way or other that institution soon
passed into other hands.

[Illustration:

  BENNETT SEMINARY, GREENSBORO, N.C.
]

Again, it would have been folly to grant separate conferences for the
colored membership and leave standing the old rule, and allow it to
apply in this case, requiring a probation of two years before being
admitted to an annual conference. This was brought forward at once, and
the animus of the General Conference on the subject was at once
manifested by the following resolution:

    “_Resolved_, That in order to constitute the first conference of
    colored members, the rule of the Discipline requiring a
    probation of two years be so far suspended as to allow the
    bishops to organize into one or more annual conferences such
    colored local elders as have traveled two or more years under a
    presiding elder and shall be recommended by a quarterly
    conference and by at least ten elders who are members of an
    annual conference.”

This was a wise and prudential action. Wise in that it at once
dissipated any thought that might have arisen in the minds of the less
stable members, that the matter was simply put in a complicated shape to
keep the colored members at bay, and thereby eventually drive out of the
Methodist Episcopal Church all the colored people. To have kept them
waiting under the probationary rule would probably have done much harm.
Prudential in that even the local elders were to come up well
recommended: (1) By their own people, among whom they lived and worked,
and who therefore could testify as to their moral, religious, and
literary fitness for the traveling connection. (2) To be recommended “by
at least ten elders (white) who are members of an annual conference.”
Who were better qualified than such elders to know who were and who were
not qualified for traveling preachers—our own people had no experience
in matters of that kind—in that they would naturally be able and more
willing to speak against those “wolves in sheep’s clothing” who
sometimes “climb up some other way” into our annual conferences for the
purpose of fleecing, instead of feeding, the flock of God? Our own
people might have been in some way related to the applicants or ignorant
of their devices. Why should not some precautions be observed when
clothing with authority those who, even then, must have been witnessing
“the pains, the groans, the dying strife” of an institution that had
grown gray in crime and debauchery—under which for two hundred and
forty-four years the race had suffered in more ways than the Hebrews in
Egypt? They had never enjoyed even the privilege of elementary training
in any way fitting them for happiness and usefulness in the world. They
were poor and ignorant. Poor in that even the good name of the race was
gone; and who does not know that a

       “Good name, in man and woman,...
        Is the immediate jewel of their souls?
        Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
        ’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
        But he that filches from me my good name
        Robs me of that which not enriches him,
        And makes me poor indeed.”

We do not know that additional weight attaches to the above by knowing
that Shakespeare put these words into the mouth of Iago; but it is a
fair statement of the condition of the race when the Emancipation
Proclamation was issued. The morality of the race under the old _régime_
is the prodigy of the age! And yet they knew nothing theoretically of
morality, and had opportunities for but _few examples of it_. They knew
nothing of home economics, and not five in one hundred of the rank and
file could count correctly ten dollars in small change. Hence the Church
was wise in throwing around this people safeguards as well as charity.
They knew but little, if anything, of the comforts of home life, the
proper training of children; while the fantastic mode of dressing
immediately after the war tells a tale at which a heathen should blush.
They knew comparatively nothing either of Church polity or moral
science. Those who have found occasion to laugh at the huge mistakes of
some of our ministers, as well as some others who had enjoyed better
opportunities, must find a sufficient explanation in the previous
condition of the race. Was the Methodist Church not right in doing as it
did?


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                              CHAPTER VIII

                     THE BEGINNING OF A GREAT WORK.


The beginning of a work among these images of God cut in ebony is found
in the following resolutions looking to the protection of the interests
of the colored man by the civil government. It is nothing against a
system that it was badly managed or fell into bad hands, or else our
venerated Constitution is involved. That General Conference (1864) in
its report on freedmen, said:

    “(1) _Resolved_, That in the events which have thrown the
    thousands of freed people upon the benevolence of the humane and
    loyal people of the North, we recognize a providential call to
    the Christian public for contributions for their physical relief
    and mental and moral elevation and especially to the Church of
    Christ for the means of their evangelization.

    “(2) _Resolved_, That the best interests of the freedmen of the
    country demand legislation that shall foster and protect this
    people, and we do hereby respectfully but _earnestly urge_ upon
    Congress the importance of establishing, as soon as practicable,
    a Bureau of Freedmen’s Affairs, as contemplated in the bills now
    pending.”

What did this mean? If it meant anything, the Church meant to practice,
at its earliest convenience, the doctrine it had been preaching for the
last eighty years and more,—that the poor enslaved colored man should be
properly trained to enjoy this life and that which is to come. It meant
that just as soon as the alarms of war had sufficiently subsided and God
opened the way, or signified that an entrance could be gained, to go at
once up and down through the Southland carrying the gospel of free
salvation to the downtrodden, poverty-stricken, and demoralized colored
man. While but few, if any, believe the only mission of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the South was to the poor colored man, but few will
doubt that, had it no other call to go into the South, that were enough.
But few rational Christians believe the Church had no call into the
South.

That the Church was needed there, no one will question when the
condition of the colored man at that time is considered, as well as the
relation the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, sustained to the colored
man before and during the war, and that other significant fact that the
colored man, as such, was, and for that matter is, peculiarly either a
Baptist or a Methodist. From the beginning Methodism took hold of him,
and he learned that, wherever found, a true Methodist was his friend.
This in itself is sufficient explanation of the peculiarity referred to
above. What was the condition of the colored man at the close of the
war? When the black smoke of battle arose from a hundred battlefields
the entire colored population—four and a half millions—came forth
ignorant, superstitious, degraded, and poverty-stricken. The only beam
of hope rested entirely on the education of the race. The emancipation
was followed by the enfranchisement of these ignorant and superstitious
people. The cry of opposition was heard vociferously in the South, while
in some places in the North leading newspapers and men expressed doubts
as to the wisdom of the thing. Who, under the then existing
circumstances, doubted the earnestness of those who cried out as they
saw the colored men clothed with freedom and franchise, yet slaves to
superstition and ignorance:

           “A poor, blind Samson is in our land,
            Bound hand and foot, and prone upon his back;
            But who knows that, in some drunken revel,
            He may rise and grasp the pillars
            Of our temple’s liberties, shake the foundations
            Till all beneath its broken columns lie in ruins?”

Amid the religious training received from that part of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, that trained them at all, did not appear
anything different from the system of slavery in vogue, save the promise
of an eternal Sabbath. It is true a colored membership was reported by
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; but this did not mean that the
colored people within that Church were permitted to worship God in their
own congregations, or that there were any colored pastors or
class-leaders among that membership. If slavery had continued, the
condition of the colored man religiously could never have become better.
Just how—unless force of circumstances played a part in the drama—a
brotherly feeling could have arisen or existed in the bosom of the poor
colored man under that _régime_, we can not, for the life of us,
surmise. But all that was ended with the war, and still there was but
little, if any, change. The withdrawals at first opportunity of colored
people from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, meant something. The
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was then, at any rate, unwilling to
educate the colored man. In proof of the last assertion, we turn to page
148 of Dr. A. G. Haygood’s book, “Our Brother in Black.” The following,
published in 1881 by this leading philosopher and clergyman in the
Methodist Episocopal Church, South, is as significant as sound. He says:

    “If the work of educating the Negroes of the South is ever to be
    carried on satisfactorily, if ever the best results are to be
    accomplished, then _Southern white people must take part in the
    work of teaching Negro schools_. There have been some very sad
    and hurtful mistakes in the relations assumed by most of us of
    the South to this whole matter, and especially in the fact that,
    with very rare exceptions, our people have steadfastly refused
    to teach Negro children, especially since they were made free,
    for love or money. They have recoiled from Negro schools as if
    there were personal degradation in teaching them. Perhaps the
    state of things that existed at the South for a full decade
    after the war, and for which Southern people were not alone
    responsible—a state of things that made it impracticable for
    Southern white men and women to teach Negro schools—was
    inevitable. But so it was; they could not do it without ‘losing
    caste.’ As I am trying to state facts honestly, I should add,
    the prevailing sentiment of the South would not even now look
    favorably upon such teachers; but I must say we are growing in
    sense as well as grace on this subject.”

Without further comment, the above corroborates the statement that the
condition of the freedmen in the South directly after the war,
temporally, spiritually, morally, and intellectually, was a loud enough
call, and the mission of enough importance to warrant the action of the
General Conference of 1864 in its action that virtually announced the
intention of the Methodist Episcopal Church to go into the South. The
fact that conferences had been opened in the South for colored people
was sufficient proof.


                        THE CHURCH IN THE SOUTH.

When the General Conference of 1868 met in the city of Chicago, Ill.,
for its twentieth session, among other things it took up the subject of
the relation of the Church to the colored man. There were present at
that General Conference two hundred and forty-three delegates. When the
General Conference of 1864 authorized the formation of mission
conferences in the South for colored people, as a Church, it “had been
practically excluded for twenty years” from Alabama, North and South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas,
and Texas, while a generation had grown up under the immediate care, as
if were, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. It is true that the
Methodist Episcopal Church had held on in some sort in the city of
Baltimore—this being her strongest fort—while through some parts of
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri it had a foothold.
Our Church in 1863, in the last-named States, claimed 332 effective
preachers, 84,673 members, and 919 church-buildings. By the next year,
when the General Conference of 1864 met for its nineteenth session in
Philadelphia, it claimed in the above-named five slave States 309
effective preachers, 87,072 members—15,898 being colored—and 982
churches, being an increase in these five States of 2,399 members, not
including probationers, and a decrease of 23 effective preachers, and an
increase of 63 church-buildings. Thus it may be seen that a wise
Providence proclaimed the mission of our Church; and there was then, as
we see now, no mistake made on the part of our Church when it heard and
obeyed the commission in this case, “Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every creature.” The crowning act touching the
subject we discuss was given by the General Conference of 1864 in these
words: “We are not aware of any legal obstacle to the reception of
colored preachers into our annual conferences.” Touching the work done
by the last General Conference, and showing somewhat of the results
attained, the Bishops’ Address to the Twentieth General Conference
contained the following:

    “They [the Delaware and Washington colored conferences] now
    contain one hundred and one ministers and twenty-six thousand
    four hundred and eighty-seven members and probationers. The
    creation of these conferences was hailed by our colored
    ministers and membership with great joy, and has, we believe,
    been productive of much good. The ministers are becoming
    familiar with the mode of conducting business, and many of them
    are rapidly improving. At their recent sessions they elected
    representatives to this body according to the form of the
    Discipline for electing delegates. Whether these representatives
    should be admitted, you alone have authority to decide. In our
    judgment, the success of this work demands all the encouragement
    which the General Conference can properly give.”

The regular and natural succession of action touching the relation of
the Church toward the colored man seems to declare, to our mind at any
rate, that it has the divine sanction. The submission of the above
resolution brought at once before the General Conference of 1868 the
question of the advisability of admitting—not colored testimony, or
testimony from people of color—but colored delegates to equality in the
General Conference of one of the largest denominations in the world. The
Christ-like spirit of the bishops in presenting the matter, supported by
their modest indorsement of it, was manly. They said: “In our judgment,
the success of this work demands all the encouragement which the General
Conference can properly give.” It may have been that it was not
thoroughly settled in the minds of all the delegates of that General
Conference. The result, however, was satisfactory, in that James Davis
and Benjamin Brown were seated as delegates, and thereby the equal
rights of our colored members were not only recognized, but everything
looking to their elevation, done by the Church, was stamped with
approval. The adjournment of that General Conference did not take place
until provision for other conferences for our people, at their own
request, was made. The year preceding that General Conference a colored
presiding elder had been appointed over a district in Kentucky; nine
mission conferences had been organized in our Southern field; colored
preachers had been received into the Kentucky and Missouri Annual
Conferences. Notwithstanding this, wherever a mission conference was
organized a new inspiration seemed to overshadow the entire work. The
provision above referred to was as follows:

    “‘_Resolved_, 1. That the bishops who may preside in the
    Kentucky Conference during the next four years, are hereby
    authorized to organize the colored ministers within the bounds
    of said conference into a separate annual conference, if said
    ministers request it; and if, in the judgment of the bishops,
    the interest of the work requires it, to be called the ——
    Conference: _Provided_, that nothing in this resolution shall be
    construed to impair the existing constitutional rights of our
    colored members on the one hand, or, on the other, to forbid the
    transfer of white ministers to said conference, whenever it may
    be deemed desirable or expedient.’

    “So soon as this resolution was taken up, a motion was made to
    lay it upon the table, which was lost.

    “A motion to amend by inserting, ‘_Provided_, that colored
    members may remain in the Kentucky Conference,’ was laid on the
    table.

    “A motion to strike out the words ‘the interest of the work,’
    and insert ‘the unity and success of the Church,’ was laid on
    the table; and the resolution was adopted as matured by the
    Committee on Boundaries.”

The motions subsequently made show at once the animus of the white
brethren of that conference at that time. While many were anxious to
have restrictions, others objected to it _in toto_. But, as in the
General Conference, so it has been in nearly every annual conference,
that a wide difference of opinion on the color-line question existed. It
is well that it was so.

Following hard upon the above action in the interest of the colored man,
this General Conference paid special attention to its work so grandly
begun in the sunny South. While the discussion of the status of the
colored delegates elicited much animation, the restrictions were removed
from the conferences of the Church in the South, irrespective of color,
by a vote of 197 to 15. All our benevolent societies were instructed to
redouble their diligence to meet the exigencies of the case; our Book
Concerns were to publish one or more papers adapted to the new order of
things within the South; transfers, if needed, were to be sent into this
fruitful field; training-schools and theological schools were ordered
for the special training of the colored people of the South within our
Church and without, if accepted. The bishops were requested to give the
colored work special episcopal supervision. As a finale of the action of
that General Conference, an “enabling act” for the establishment of the
third annual conference among our colored members was passed, with the
provision that in every case the _rights_ of every preacher were to be
fully and carefully, as well as impartially, considered. The white
preachers and teachers who were sent by the Church into the South to
carry out this plan of work were, in too many cases, not only subjected
to insult, but cruel scourgings and false imprisonment, as if ostracism
was not cruel and wicked punishment enough. But many of those thus
treated were men and women of God, and therefore consistent but firm and
true heroes and heroines.

Dr. Walden (now bishop), in an address, Aug. 13, 1883, at the
anniversary of the Freedmen’s Aid Society, spoke of this work. The
following needs no comment, as he speaks of the period in our work in
the South at which we now are, and we insert it here as a retrospect:

    “Two courses were open—one to delay employing colored preachers
    until they could be educated, the other to put these untutored
    men to work at once. No people ever needed the gospel more than
    did the freed people. Standing in the midst of new relations,
    the possessors of a new-found freedom for which they had never
    been trained, they needed both the restraints and the
    inspiration of the gospel. The Wesleyan prescience of our Church
    recognized this need, and at the same time the fact that these
    unlearned preachers, if divinely called, could so tell the story
    of the Cross as to benefit their people. The lives of many of
    these men had been an unbroken period of slave-toil; but the
    sequel proves that they knew enough of the saving power of
    Christ and the fullness of his love to instruct their hearers in
    the way of life, and we now see that their relation to this work
    was not unlike to that of the first of Wesley’s lay preachers to
    their work among their own classes in England.

    “With this illustration before us of the general principle
    that a people may and must be instrumental in their own
    evangelization, let us study some of the results of our
    itinerant system among the freedmen—of our itinerancy and its
    auxiliary agencies. All understand our itinerancy to be the
    general superintendency and the pastorate; by auxiliary
    agencies I mean our sub-pastorate, in which the class-leaders
    stand, our Church literature, and our Sunday-schools. The mere
    suggestion of the fact leads you at once to see that the real
    function of each and all of these is to re-enforce both the
    general and the particular work committed to the itinerancy or
    three fold pastorate—the bishops, presiding elders, and
    pastors of our Church. The very fact of taking this
    comprehensive system to a people who had no system, of
    beginning at once to build them up into it, could not be
    without producing some marked and favorable results. I mention
    the more obvious of these:

    “(_a_) The freedmen who were recognized as having a call to
    preach could do little more than exhort, but they were put into
    the pastoral relation; a great Church committed to them a new
    and solemn trust, and laid upon them grave responsibilities;
    they were under the leadership of the superintendents of the
    missions—good, prudent, self-sacrificing men—men who in their
    devotion to duty represented the highest life of their Church.
    Such things could not be without affecting these untutored
    preachers. Crude as all they did may have been at first, their
    pastorate benefited the people they served, and was to
    themselves a means of training, of real and rapid progress; and
    there are still in the effective ranks of the conferences which
    came from such beginnings many pious, able, and successful
    preachers, who were thus transferred from the cotton and rice
    fields and sugar plantations to, and trained in, our itinerant
    ministry.

    “(_b_) As the work progressed, these colored men acquired by
    observation and experience, and such study as was possible with
    them, a wider knowledge of their work; and in due course the
    bishops began to appoint some of them as presiding elders,
    investing them with all the honors and responsibilities of this
    important office. It should also be stated that the Church that
    acted thus through her bishops was constantly displaying to them
    an encouraging interest in them by furnishing means to aid in
    the support of their Church work.

    “(_c_) In the annual conferences they were and are brought under
    the presidency of our bishops—the most efficient presiding
    officers in this or any other country, a fact that became most
    obvious at the Ecumenical Methodist Conference. The very methods
    of business in our annual conferences, and the promptness with
    which it is dispatched under this presidency, have had such
    influence on the older conferences that the advantages of like
    administration to the colored conferences are obvious. The
    influence of the conference session ought also to be named, as
    these annual meetings of the preachers have all along affected
    most favorably the character of Methodism. These colored
    preachers have been coming together, as do their brethren in
    older conferences, to report and review the year’s work, to pass
    upon the character of each one, to consider the various
    connectional and benevolent causes, to attend to all the
    business that is usually presented, and to enjoy the social
    privileges and religious services to which all our preachers
    look forward with deep interest. Every such session tends to
    make them wiser and more effective in their work.

    “(_d_) Under our system of study for probationers and deacons,
    the colored preachers are steadily improving, and their
    conferences are becoming more careful as to the qualifications
    of those who are received into the ministry. I well remember the
    class taken on trial in the South Carolina Conference in 1867;
    near a dozen of them were then uncouth and ill-clad men, who
    seemed to have come direct from the plantations; little or
    nothing was said as to even elementary education; they were
    taken as they were, and sent out to do work for the Master, who
    ordaineth strength even out of the mouths of babes. But it is
    radically different in that conference now; at its session, last
    January, I heard the report of examinations, and learned thereby
    that the standard of qualification is applied more rigidly each
    succeeding year. I rejoiced in this as a fact common to all
    these colored conferences; and yet I also rejoiced to remember
    that when the exigencies required it, our Church dared to send
    out the earlier members of that and other conferences,
    illiterate as they were, to the work of winning souls.

    “(_e_) These early colored preachers, coming as they did from a
    condition in which there was no home, in the better sense of
    that word, soon came to know something of the importance that
    our Church attaches to Sunday-schools. They were organized,
    often in the crudest form; but they have been improved, and now
    nearly two thousand are reported in the twelve conferences. This
    work is important there, not only because it is in behalf of the
    youth and children, but also because there has been, and is, a
    relatively great demand for such work in the South. It is a fact
    that the ratio between the number of Sunday-school scholars and
    Church members of any and all Protestant denominations in the
    South is far below what it is in the North. The schools
    organized in our “new Southern field” have been aided with
    papers published by our Church, and especially adapted to the
    condition of the scholars. All the teachers employed by the
    Freedmen’s Aid Society have done good and faithful service in
    these Sunday-schools. Through them the Church has been, and is,
    furnishing moral and mental instruction to about one hundred
    thousand of the youth and children, that will be of incalculable
    value to them, and through them to the Church and the nation.

    “(_f_) The Methodist newspapers published in the South—within
    this new field—by our Church, in order to furnish a literature
    specially adapted to the condition and needs of the people, have
    been potent for good. We may not be able to estimate the force
    of the fact that papers have been provided for them which they
    in a special sense regarded as their own. It was no mean fact
    with them that a part of the capital of the Book Concern was
    being employed to publish papers which, by their very location,
    must chiefly be for them. And the presence of a depository of
    books at Atlanta tended to impress the lesson, taught in so many
    ways, that our Church was ready and anxious to help them in
    their every effort to reach the plane of a higher and better
    life.

    “Other facts might be named to show how every thing that is
    forceful in our itinerancy and its auxiliary agencies has been
    constantly, wisely, and effectively employed to reach,
    evangelize and elevate these colored people. It has been more
    than a formal recognition of Christian equality; it has been the
    continuous presence and power of educational relations as well
    as educational agencies among them. The Church, during these
    years, has recognized the divine call into her ministry of more
    than a thousand of these men, thereby reposing a confidence and
    conferring an honor that has been a special inspiration to them,
    and, in good degree, to their people. Ministerial position and
    pastoral duties, prerogatives and responsibilities, shared in
    common with the largest corps of preachers in our country, have
    been made realities to them. When that whole people shall come
    to the plane and glory of a true manhood and womanhood, it will
    be known that the impartial planting of our system of itinerancy
    among them was one of the early and potent means of their
    elevation.

    “3. The aim of the Methodist Episcopal Church is to enlist every
    local society in the support of her benevolent enterprises. She
    would give to every person converted at her altars the
    opportunity to do work for the Master. For this reason, all her
    pastors are charged with the duty of presenting to their
    congregations the claims of the Missionary, Church Extension,
    Freedmen’s Aid, Sunday-school, Tract, and Educational causes,
    and of affording to all the opportunity to contribute thereto
    according to their ability. Into each sphere of work represented
    by these causes, the Church has been led by a marked providence,
    and her efforts in them have been attended with her Lord’s
    signal favor. The presentation of these causes in the relation
    they hold to the world’s evangelization, the end for which
    Christ established his Church, teaches with special emphasis the
    magnitude of her mission, and indicates the certainty of
    ultimate success. How the faith of God’s people has enlarged
    under the inspiration of this widening work! These causes have
    been presented more or less fully to our new societies in the
    South.

    “The colored preachers and people have taken a ready interest in
    the Missionary Society because it carried the gospel to them.
    The preachers were not learned, and the people were poor; but
    what if the earlier missionary sermons were crude presentations
    of a world-wide cause? what if but a few pennies were collected
    in a charge? the people were thus coming into contact with the
    genius of the gospel, and beginning to have some part in the
    movement that is conquering the world. Among the many wise
    things done during the administration of the revered Dr. Durbin
    as missionary secretary, the one of all others that has affected
    and will continue to affect our Church the most, was providing
    for the organization of the Sunday-schools into missionary
    societies; wise and potential, because thus, in a practical and
    methodical way, the idea of the world’s evangelization is fixed
    in the thought of the youth and children, by far the greatest
    idea touching the human race that can be given to the human
    mind.

    “The colored preachers have been learning this fundamental idea
    of the missionary cause and the purpose of each of the other
    benevolences of our Church, and in their own way it may be
    presenting them to their people; but the result has been a
    measure of enlightenment in these directions, an increasing
    knowledge of the far-reaching plans of the Church to which they
    belong, a clearer consciousness that by being brought within her
    pale they have part in one of the great aggressive Christian
    movements of the age. Standing as they do in the dawn of a new
    day, this conscious identification with all the benevolent plans
    of the Church that brought them the gospel can not do less than
    enlarge their views of Christian duty, and inspire them with
    zeal for and devotion to causes grand in themselves and glorious
    in their results.

    “4. The preaching that is distinctively Methodistic has had its
    influence in this as in other fields. While we hold the
    fundamental truths of Christianity in common with other
    evangelical Churches—points of agreement, each of which is
    infinitely more important than all the questions in regard to
    which there is a difference—all do not place the same emphasis
    we do on some of these truths. Our preachers in the ‘new
    Southern field,’ as elsewhere, have given special prominence to
    the willingness and power of Jesus to save every one who comes
    to him; the universal call and the gracious ability of every one
    to come; the radical character of the change wrought in
    conversion—a new life through divine power; the adoption into
    the divine family, and that adoption clearly, satisfactorily
    attested through the witness of the Holy Spirit; the complete
    cleansing power of the blood of Christ, and the keeping power of
    the promised grace. Need I say in this presence that the
    emphasis given to these Scriptural doctrines by our ministry has
    molded the experience of Methodists in every society, and made
    the meeting for testimony, whether love-feast or class-meeting,
    a part of our Church life? The preaching of these doctrines in
    the earnest Methodist way among the colored people, the building
    up of a Church among them under the molding and inspiring effect
    of such truths, the leading of the members up to a clear,
    well-defined religious experience, is giving them a Church life,
    the advantage of which is best known from what Methodism has
    done for other peoples. Already the advance of Christian
    morality, the growing habits of industry and economy, the
    increasing spirit of benevolence and liberality, the new
    home-life where home was so recently unknown—the fruits of an
    evangelical gospel faithfully preached—show what we have done,
    and are the promise and pledge of a pure, strong, and active
    Church in every part of our new Southern field in the near
    future.”


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER IX

                      THE COLORED BISHOP QUESTION.


The quadrennium from 1868 to 1872 exhibited a marvelous growth among the
colored membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This was but the
pulsation started by Methodism among her hitherto downtrodden children,
by her labor of love in carrying to them the gospel of free salvation
through the agency of her benevolent societies, the class of bishops,
General Conference officers, and the consecrated and self-denying white
teachers from the North, who left their homes of comfort and joy to go
South and put themselves upon God’s altar for the elevation, morally,
financially, intellectually, and spiritually, of their “brother in
black.” The work done, and its effects in so short a time, seem now the
marvel of the age! The scattered sheep had been gathered from the hills
and valleys, the cane-brakes and swamps, from the villages and the
larger cities, into societies nearly everywhere. Wherever possible they
had been organized into conferences as had been provided by the action
of the General Conference of 1864. With the application for recognition
came that also for separate conferences. Two separate annual conferences
had been organized before 1865—the Delaware Conference, July 28, 1864,
and the Washington Conference, October 27, 1864. Besides this, the Rule
of the Discipline, requiring a probation of two years, had been
suspended so far as to permit our bishops to organize annual conferences
with such colored local elders as had traveled two or more years under a
presiding elder, who were recommended by a quarterly conference and by
at least ten white elders. Thus the constitutional rights of the colored
membership of the Church had been recognized, and the marvelous growth
among them during this quadrennium was but a manifestation of
appreciation on the part of the religious colored people of the South,
evidence of their preference for Methodism, pure and simple.

The fact that colored delegates were recognized by the General
Conference of 1868, and provision made for the organization of the
Lexington Annual Conference, that had hitherto been mixed with the
Kentucky Conference, white; that separate annual conferences had been
formed; indeed, that every practically conceivable thing was being done
by the Church for her colored members,—caused many to flock toward her
that had fled for safety in another direction. The tide was soon checked
by the ministry and membership of the two colored denominations—the
African Zion and the African Methodist Churches—that were toiling in the
same field, by crying out “the Methodist Episcopal Church will never
permit a colored man to be elected a bishop.” Consternation seized many
of our members when they were told that the Methodist Episcopal Church
would only tolerate a black membership as “hewers of wood and drawers of
water.” It at last became to many, as they said, “self-evident, that to
retain the better class of colored people there must be no
discrimination anywhere in Methodism on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.” Many, many hard battles were fought,
not with the enemy of souls, but with our brethren of the above-named
two denominations. From 1868 to the adjournment of the General
Conference of 1872 a bitter religious warfare was waged. At last, as the
quadrennium drew to a close, it was evident that the agitation of the
question of a bishop of African descent had not only done much injury,
poisoning and unsettling the minds of our colored membership, but that,
in one way or the other, the question must be put and answered by the
ensuing General Conference. This was one of the most important questions
considered by the General Conference of 1872, sitting in Brooklyn, New
York. This, the twenty-first session of our General Conference, will be
remembered as the largest ever held by our Church up to that time, there
being four hundred and twenty-one delegates. Several of our colored
conferences sent up memorials in favor of the election of a bishop of
African descent. As they were presented they were respectfully referred
to the Committee on Episcopacy, composed of one delegate from each
annual conference, colored or white. The petition for a bishop of
African descent from the preachers’ meeting of New Orleans received the
following reply:

    “The special committee to which was referred the memorial of the
    New Orleans preachers’ meeting of May 23d, asking for the
    election of an additional bishop, who shall be of African
    descent, respectfully report: That at a meeting of the
    committee, held May 30th, the statements of the memorialists and
    their requests were carefully considered. The very reasonable
    demand, that at least some action may be taken which shall
    assure our people that the Methodist Episcopal Church invites to
    her altars peoples of every nation, and extends to them equal
    rights in her worship and government, was responded to with
    great unanimity by the following declaration of facts which, we
    are persuaded, will be entirely satisfactory to the
    memorialists.”

Then follows the report of the Committee on Episcopacy, viz.:

    “The Committee on Episcopacy report to the General Conference
    concerning the election of a colored bishop: (1) That they are
    deeply impressed with the Christian spirit manifested by those
    memorializing the General Conference on this subject. The rapid
    progress our brethren of color are making in all that elevates
    mankind is most commendable, and we have no doubt there is a
    future of great promise before them. Your committee would
    further report that, in their judgment, there is nothing in
    race, color, or former condition that is a bar to an election to
    the episcopacy, the true course being for us to elect only such
    persons as are, by their pre-eminent piety, endowments, culture,
    general fitness, and acceptability best qualified to fill the
    office. (2) The claims of our numerous and noble-hearted
    membership of African descent to a perfect equality of relations
    with all others in our communion are fully recognized by the
    Discipline, and amply demonstrated in the administration of the
    Methodist Episcopal Church. There is no word ‘white’ to
    discriminate against race or color known in our legislation; and
    being of African descent does not prevent membership with white
    men in annual conferences, nor ordination at the same altars,
    nor appointment nor eligibility to the highest office in the
    Church. (3) Election to the office of bishop from among
    candidates who are mutually equal can not be determined on the
    ground of color or any other special consideration. It can only
    be by fair and honorable competition between the friends of the
    respective candidates. And yet the presentation of a
    well-qualified man of African descent would, doubtless, secure
    very general support in view of the great interests of the
    Church, which would thereby be more abundantly promoted. No such
    opportunity, however, has been afforded at this General
    Conference.”

Quite a while before the assembling of that General Conference the
colored bishop question had been widely discussed, receiving very
general consideration and favorable mention in some localities. It,
however, was not of a demonstrative character. The fair, plain,
Christian statements of that General Conference put an end to the “color
question” within the Church, _so far as special ecclesiastical
legislation goes_. May we not hope that it put a quietus upon those
without the Church who prefer to arrogate to themselves a kind of
aristocratical attitude, because they have solved the Negro problem by
divorce, but who willingly join in any outcry that will have a tendency
to condone any action relating to “the vexed question” they have taken,
or seem to shadow any spirit of unkindness that would naturally attach
to such a wicked divorce? The manliness, Christian spirit, and
unwavering fidelity of the Methodist Episcopal Church toward the colored
man from his arrival in this country, so far as the heart of the Church
is concerned, ought to be “read and known of all men.” That General
Conference said all on the colored bishop question that could be said;
and, for that matter, all on the race question that needs to be said for
all time to come.

While glancing backward and beholding what the Methodist Episcopal
Church has done, and is now doing, for the amelioration of the condition
and giving the colored man in general, and the colored membership within
the communion of the Church in particular, prestige, we feel as if the
ignorance of any colored man in this country who dares say the Church,
as such, has not loved and respected the race, is inexcusable,
reprehensible, and hate-provoking. In many instances the Church did not
do what we asked; in others it did not do what others thought it should
have done; but time and experience have taught us it did generally what
was best. It was feared that much harm would come to Methodism among our
people if a bishop of African descent were not chosen at that General
Conference. Ought we to say it was the hope of some? In the rural
districts, where the general intelligence of the race was not above par,
it may have caused friction because of the omnipresence of “colored
bishops,” “General Conference officers,” “college presidents,” etc. The
years that are to come, unless a strange influence not related to that
of the Church of the past comes upon our Methodism, will show that up to
this time it was better as it happened. The election of a man of African
descent was urged and expected: (1) To tighten our hold upon our people
by offsetting outside statements that the Church would never elect a
colored man to the bishopric; (2) To remove any lingering doubts, if
there remained any, as to the intention of the Church touching the
relation of the colored man to it. We doubt not many, without the
Church, who persistently _pushed_ this matter, urging it through their
Church papers, the secular press, and in nearly every public place, and
on nearly every occasion; who did this for the specific purpose of
demoralizing and scattering our membership, though done with a seeming
gravity and earnestness worthy of a better cause, did not honestly
believe it possible that the great Methodist Episcopal Church would even
go as far as it did; believing that it was an impossibility, as much so
as it would be to elect a _white_ man to the bishopric in one of the
distinctively colored organizations, were there the same number of white
people within the communion of those three Churches, comparatively, that
there are colored in our Church, and that the Church would not only
passively refuse, but would plainly say so. This would naturally have
weakened their faith, and they would have doubted the sincerity of the
professions of the Church made in favor of the colored man by it in the
past. On the contrary, the action of that General Conference _had no
such effect_ where the truth of the matter was properly told, or where
the intelligence of our people made them conversant with the past
history of the Church on the color-line question.

The discussion of the question was kept up until the assembling of the
session of the _General Conference of 1876_. Without stopping to speak
of the spirit manifested in the discussion of this question, pro and
con, outside of the General Conference, nor to speak our views then or
now, wishing to give as complete an account of the manner in which that
General Conference was brought to see this question, we simply state
that the discussion was carried into nearly, if not every congregation
in the Church during the quadrennium. The whole matter, phœnix-like,
came to the surface at the call for resolutions and memorials. The
Mississippi Conference led with the following, presented by Moses Adams:

    “WHEREAS, The Methodist Episcopal Church has under her care one
    hundred and fifty thousand members of African descent; and
    _whereas_, the said Church meets with great opposition from
    other Methodist bodies, I therefore respectfully ask this
    General Conference to elect a man of African descent to the
    office of bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church. This is
    asked for two reasons: (1) That the Church needs one to help
    defend her cause. Nothing, in my judgment, would build up the
    Methodist Episcopal Church more than the election of a bishop
    from the membership of African descent. (2) The race is not
    fully represented in the Methodist Episcopal Church without one
    such being elected to that high office of trust.”

From the West Virginia Conference the following was presented by G. W.
Atkinson:

    “_Resolved_, That the Committee on Episcopacy consider the
    expediency of electing a German bishop and one or more African
    bishops, to supervise the German and African conferences of the
    Methodist Episcopal Church in America.”

The Delaware Conference sent up a memorial in favor of the election of a
bishop of African descent, which was presented by H. Jolley. The
petition in favor of the same sent up from the Georgia Conference was
presented by Rev. C. O. Fisher, signed by himself and sixteen others.
The Mississippi Conference sent up a similar petition by A. C. McDonald.
The foregoing gives a faint idea of the scope of the question.

Just how that General Conference would handle the question, striking the
happy, golden mean between the two extremes, without reflecting upon the
past history of the Methodist Episcopal Church relating to the colored
membership on the one hand, or, if necessary to refuse, how it could
avoid injuring the work already established among the race, was a
perplexing question. Each memorial was given a careful and respectful
investigation and promptly and properly referred to the Committee on
Episcopacy. At last, after many guesses and prophecies by friends of the
measure, and others, the work of the Committee on Episcopacy was
finished. When the committee signified its readiness to report, on
motion of General Clinton B. Fisk, Report No. 2 of the Committee on
Episcopacy was taken up. When the secretary arose to read it, it
appeared as if a peculiar spell had come over a great many members of
that General Conference who knew nothing of the decision of the
Committee. The report was as follows:

    “We have had before us certain papers asking the election of a
    man of African descent to our episcopal office, and other papers
    asking that the residence of such bishop be in Liberia. It is
    claimed in these petitions that the circumstances of the people
    of African descent are such that the efficiency of the work of
    our Church among them demands the election of a man of African
    descent to our episcopacy; that such election, more than any
    other fact, would establish beyond all gainsaying the relation
    of our Church to its members of African descent; that it would
    give them a bishop that could mingle freely with them without
    embarrassment to the work among them in any locality; that these
    ends would be reached, and the needed administration in Liberia
    be secured, by fixing the residence of such bishop in that
    colony. Your committee have considered these facts; but in view
    of the statement received from the present Board of Bishops as
    to their ability to discharge the duties of the superintendency,
    we recommend the adoption of the following:

    “_Resolved_, (1) That this General Conference elect no bishops.

    “_Resolved_, (2) That the facts presented in the several
    petitions above mentioned are entitled to careful consideration
    whenever the election of additional bishops shall become
    necessary.

    “_Resolved_, (3) That we reiterate the declaration of the
    General Conference of 1872, touching the relation of a man of
    African descent to our episcopal office, and assert that race,
    nationality, color, or previous condition is no bar to the
    election of any man to the episcopal office in our Church, nor
    any other elective office filled by the General Conference.”
    (Journal 1876, p. 353.)

The fact that “papers asking that the residence of such bishop be in
Liberia” had also been presented, though coming in all probability from
opposition to the election of a man of African descent to the bishopric,
like Thomas doubting his risen Lord, demonstrates the fact that that
General Conference, by its Committee on Episcopacy, would have granted
the petitioners in favor of the election to the episcopacy of a man of
African descent their request, if they had produced a suitable man of
African descent; or that the election of a missionary bishop for Liberia
would put a quietus upon the agitation. If not this, then it declares
that there were those in that General Conference who had expressed
themselves as favoring every move touching the colored membership in the
Church that would elevate and inspire them with hope for the future. The
entire proceeding is, to my mind, inexplicable, were it not for the
omnipresent fact that, so far as the Church is concerned, “God is in the
midst of her.” The plea of the petitioners was not granted by that
General Conference; but that is not stranger than the fact that other
plans failed to be carried out at that General Conference, and for that
matter every General Conference in the history of the Church from 1844
until to-day, that were, so far as arrangements, etc., go, already well
supported before the meeting of the General Conference. Going back to
the day of the adjournment of _that_ General Conference, we say, we can
wait.

THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1880.—During the following quadrennium up to
this General Conference the colored bishop question was more generally
discussed than before. The official papers of the Church began to take
notice of the question, while our brethren of the African and Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, joined in to help on the good work—the former,
in all probability, because of the supposed predicament it put the
colored members into; and the latter, because they wished to push what
they were pleased to call “the thorn in the flesh” farther into the
quick of the white membership in the Church. The Baltimore District of
the Washington Annual Conference passed a series of resolutions touching
this question. Those resolutions were, in all probability, too radical
when they declared the election of a man of African descent to our
episcopacy “the only way the Church can hope to prove its good faith or
respect for the numerous colored membership within the Church.” The fact
is, the Church was not required to bring forth fruits to exhibit any
such thing.

The _Central Christian Advocate_, our official organ at St. Louis, thus
spoke on this subject:

“A few weeks ago the members of the Baltimore District Conference,
Washington Annual Conference, passed a preamble and resolutions, in
which they declare that members of African descent in the Methodist
Episcopal Church do not enjoy practically the fullest recognition of
Church fellowship and communion; that the only way to prove to them and
the world that they are recognized as equals in the Church is the
election of a man of African descent to the office of bishop; and they
recommend their brethren to ‘agitate’ the question and, if necessary, to
‘demand’ the election of a colored bishop at the General Conference to
be held in May, 1880. This is the action of a single district
conference; to what extent it represents the opinions of the colored
ministers of the Church we have no means of knowing; for, so far as we
have observed, no other district conference has yet taken action on the
subject.

“The action of a single district conference, however influential and
worthy of consideration, scarcely brings a question before the Church
sufficiently to make it at once a subject for general discussion in the
official papers. We proposed, therefore, to wait and see whether the
Baltimore District Conference represented the convictions of others than
itself. But our editorial brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, caught it up at once as a choice morsel, which afforded them a
nice opportunity to worry, as they believe, the white membership of our
Church, and to sow dissension among the colored members. The Richmond
_Advocate_ declared that intense mortification and confusion would seize
upon the whites when this action of their colored brethren became known,
and that not an official paper of the Church would dare mention what had
taken place. It was a false prophet. And it must have been doubly
surprised when the New York _Methodist_, which is presumed to represent
the more conservative element in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
promptly pronounced in favor of the election of one or two colored
bishops. The Louisville _Methodist_ thinks we have ‘a difficult problem’
on our hands, and, with an air of compassionate concern, informs our
colored brethren ‘that all the important offices of the Methodist
Episcopal Church will be filled by white men, notwithstanding the
resolutions of the Baltimore District.’

“But the Louisville _Methodist_ is too anxious to make out a case. It
says that the colored members of our Church were greatly disappointed
that a colored bishop was not elected in 1872. Had the editor consulted
the published proceedings of that General Conference instead of drawing
upon his imagination for his facts, he would have scarcely made such a
statement. There was but one memorial before the conference on the
subject, and it had only four signatures attached. The Committee on
Episcopacy, to which it was referred, reported ‘that, in their judgment,
there is nothing in race, color, or former condition that is a bar to an
election to the episcopacy, the true course being for us to elect only
such persons as are, by their pre-eminent piety, endowments, culture,
general fitness, and acceptability, best qualified to fill the office.’
And no more eloquent speech was made during the conference than that of
Hon. James Lynch, of Mississippi, a colored lay member, declaring that
the colored men asked no favors on account of race, and that when they
produced a man as fit for the place as those about them, it would then
be time enough for action.”

The spirit manifested by our Southern brethren in the discussion of this
question within our Church smacks of officiousness. They are in no way
to be affected whether it is or is not done. While they have a perfect
right to take part in any and all discussions worthy of public
attention, anything like an attempt to sow the seeds of dissension among
the members of any other denomination is, in the eyes of an ignorant
black man, reprehensible, not to say unchristian. It gives room for
complaint from the world that Southern “Methodists are no better than
other folks.” The colored man who is simply a member of the Methodist
Episcopal Church for the sake of “important offices” had better _leave
it—the sooner the better_. No Christian white man remains in any Church
for that sole reason; and, as Bishop Simpson once said: “A white man is
as good as a colored man, if he behaves himself.” One thing is certain,
that every such office-seeking colored man in the Church will fail to
receive the support of every intelligent colored Christian within the
Church. It is true that, on general principles, it was but a short time
until the desire of the brethren of the Baltimore District became that
of many others; that is, that it was thought necessary that a colored
man should be elected to the bishopric.

When the General Conference of 1880 met in Cincinnati for its
twenty-third session, this question again came up for discussion.
Memorials and resolutions on this subject were presented from Washington
Conference, by Henry A. Carroll; from Delaware Conference, by W. F.
Butler, Zoar Church and Cambridge charge; J. C. Hartzell, from New
Orleans preachers’ meeting; by John H. Dunn and J. H. Shumpert, from
Mississippi, _et al._; and C. O. Fisher presented an extract from the
journal of Savannah Conference and from Atlanta District. On Wednesday,
May 12th, on motion, the rules were suspended to allow E. W. S. Hammond
to present the following paper:

    “WHEREAS, It is clearly evident, from the memorials and
    petitions on the subject, and which were duly referred to the
    Committee on Episcopacy, that the colored people of the
    Methodist Episcopal Church desire a bishop of their own race;
    and _whereas_, the election of a colored bishop would be a
    practical recognition of our full manhood by the Church, and a
    grand influence in the extension of our work in the United
    States and in other lands; and _whereas_, the General Conference
    of 1872 did declare, and the General Conference of 1876 did
    reaffirm, with emphatic significance, that race, nationality,
    color, or previous condition is no bar to the election of any
    man to the episcopal office in our Church; and _whereas_, the
    General Conference of 1876 did recommend that the memorials,
    petitions, etc., on the above-named subject should be entitled
    to a careful consideration whenever the election of additional
    bishops shall become necessary; and _whereas_, the necessity for
    the election of additional bishops is apparent, and the way is
    now open for the practical operation of the above resolution; be
    it, therefore,

    “_Resolved_, That this General Conference recommend the election
    of a colored man to the episcopacy.”

He supported the above preamble and resolution by a vigorous and timely
speech, through courtesy of the General Conference, lasting over fifteen
minutes.

On motion of L. C. Queal, the foregoing paper was laid on the table _for
the present_. The memorials, followed hard by that resolution and
speech, seemed to put the General Conference to thinking on the subject
as never before.

It is not exactly certain that there was _no_ opposition to the question
at that General Conference. Why need any one demand a thing to which
there is no objection? It would come as a matter of course. Some spirit
of opposition anon manifested itself in a way as unfair as uncalled for.
For instance, the following presented by A. W. Milby, of Wilmington
Conference:

    “WHEREAS, The question of a colored bishop is with great
    persistency urged upon the attention of the General Conference;
    and _whereas_, it is a question to be determined, not by appeals
    to sentiment, but by arguments and facts addressed to the reason
    and the understanding; and _whereas_, we believe that the
    records of the benevolent societies and the statistical reports
    of the several annual conferences, composed of colored
    preachers, will furnish the best data for a wise and godly
    judgment; therefore,

    “_Resolved_, That the Committee on Episcopacy be, and are
    hereby, instructed to inquire into and report to this conference
    at an early day, the following items in respect to the
    conferences composed, in whole or in part, of colored preachers,
    to wit: (1) The amount of money contributed by said conferences
    to the Episcopal Fund during the last quadrennium. (2) The
    amount contributed to the missionary cause. (3) The amount
    contributed to the Church Extension Society. (4) The amount
    contributed to the Freedmen’s Aid Society. (5) The amount
    received by said conferences from the Missionary Society during
    the quadrennium. (6) The amount received from the Church
    Extension Society. (7) The amount received from the Freedmen’s
    Aid Society.”

On motion, the above resolutions were referred to the Committee on
Episcopacy. The unfairness of such a proposition, as well as the
unchristian spirit that produced it, become at once apparent, when it is
remembered that in the Church of God the good to be done for our brother
is not to depend either upon his willingly accepting it, demonstration
of appreciation, the amount of wealth possessed by the recipients, or
the amount of money they can or will produce. “How much will he bring at
auction?” was the language of slave-traders in the past. The amount
given for almost any cause by almost every person is dependent upon the
intelligence possessed or communicated relating thereto, and the
interest taken therein, coupled, of course, with financial ability. If
the resolutions above referred to were germane, why not have each of the
above conferences also report: (1) How many souls have been converted
during the quadrennium? (2) How much religious fervor, comparative
consistency in religious life, has been manifest among them? (3) How
much time have they had, and under what circumstances, to be prepared to
accumulate wealth, and then give it “as the Lord prospers them?” (4)
What have they given, _per capita_, in comparison with their white
brethren’s wealth, time, and influence, for the spread of the kingdom of
God among men? (5) What proportion do they sustain to the rest of the
membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church, numerically? (6) What per
cent of their actual wealth do they give for the cause of Christ? If any
special attention was paid to those resolutions, those in charge of our
benevolent societies have no knowledge of it. The _Church of God will
never require such a test_. Were the Methodist Church to do it, Satan
would certainly be warranted in affirming that a dollar in her scales
weighs more than an immortal soul.

The crisis in the question of a colored bishop came May 20th, when
Report No. 3 of the Committee on Episcopacy was presented, as follows:

    “The Committee on Episcopacy, having considered the memorials
    and petitions referred to it on the election of a bishop of
    African descent, adopted each of the following resolutions by a
    vote of thirty-nine to eight:

    “_Resolved_, 1. That the best interests of our Church in
    general, and of our colored people in particular, require that
    one or more of our general superintendents should be of African
    descent.

    “_Resolved_, 2. That we recommend that this General Conference
    elect one bishop of African descent.”

J. S. Smart moved to adopt; thereupon Alfred Wheeler presented the
following minority report, and moved that it be substituted for the
report of the majority:

    “A portion of your Committee on Episcopacy, differing widely
    from the majority, both as to the necessity and expediency of
    electing a colored bishop at the present time, feel constrained
    to express our dissent by a minority report. After listening
    attentively to prolonged discussions upon the subject, and
    giving due weight to the arguments urged in its favor, and to
    full representation of the state of our religious work among the
    colored people of the South, representations made by themselves
    as well as by their white co-laborers, we are convinced that
    sound policy forbids the adoption of the recommendation of the
    majority.

    “_Resolved_, therefore, That we deem it inexpedient to elect any
    more bishops at this General Conference.”

John Lanahan moved that the whole subject be indefinitely postponed. On
motion of Emperor Williams, the yeas and nays were called, and the
motion to postpone indefinitely was carried by two hundred and
twenty-eight votes to one hundred and thirty-seven.

To show the interest manifested, of the three hundred and ninety-nine
delegates, all were present and voted on that resolution save
thirty-four. At page 282 of General Conference Journal of 1880 we have
the list of names. There appear names of persons who voted indefinitely
to postpone that question that surprises us a little; and not very much,
either. However, a quietus was thus put upon that question for _that
session at least_.

Let us look back for a moment. Has it not appeared in nearly every
instance, when the colored membership have memorialized the General
Conference, that not only has respectful attention been given, but
concessions made? Has it not appeared as clearly, all the way through,
that the Church, as such, is ready whenever the race presents a proper
man? The voice of the Church not only declares its willingness, but even
hints that while “race, color,” nor other special considerations are to
be helps or hindrances, _it is possible_ to elect a colored bishop by
“fair and honorable competition between the friends of the respective
candidates.”

There is no man within the Methodist Episcopal Church who would feel
worse than the writer, were any General Conference of our Church to
elect a white man to the episcopacy because he had been an Abolitionist,
a Federal soldier, was a Japanese, or who had been a foreign missionary,
but, aside from these things, had no other qualification. Just the same
way would it be if any General Conference should elect to the office of
bishop in our Church a _colored_ man, simply because he had been a
slave, or because he could make a passable speech, or deliver an
acceptable sermon, or was pastor of a small congregation, but, aside
from this, had no literary attainments, but little or no executive
ability, and but little practical experience in general Church work. It
would be no particular advantage under such circumstances, while it
might do incalculable injury, not only to the general Church, but to the
interests of the race in particular.

Hon. James Lynch, of Mississippi, declared in the General Conference of
1872, that no favors were asked on account of race. Rev. E. W. S.
Hammond, in the eloquent speech delivered before the General Conference
of 1880, in Cincinnati, said that the plea being made was not for a
_colored bishop simply for the colored people_, but a bishop for the
Methodist Episcopal Church. And now the way is not only open, but wisdom
at the threshold of the bishopric in our Church cries to all, “There is
nothing in race, color, or previous condition, a bar to entrance here,
but the true course given me is to admit only those who, by their
pre-eminent piety, godly judgment, and literary qualifications, are best
fitted to fill the office.” There is not an intelligent Christian of
color within our Church that does not bow assent to this sentiment. When
as a race we are to be represented on our bench of bishops, we want a
man who is, and will be, a credit to the Church, an honor to the race
and to himself, an equal among equals in every respect—a representative
man, “blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, modest, given
to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy
of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that
ruleth well his own household; not a novice, lest being lifted up with
pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have
a good report of them which are without, lest he fall into reproach and
the snare of the devil.” Then, and not till then, ought a colored man be
elected as “one of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church.”


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER X

                WHY ASK FOR A BISHOP OF AFRICAN DESCENT?


Do not the attitude sustained by the colored man to the Church, from his
admission into the John Street Church in New York, and the actions taken
by the Church relating to his interests, based as they have been upon
the integrity and fidelity of the race, up to the granting of separate
Conferences, warrant it? If not, why were not our German brethren
satisfied until they were represented nationally or linguistically
therein? The Church has hitherto carried out the most natural, as well
as rational order of succession in this matter, that, if it leads
anywhere, leads up, _necessarily_ leads up, to _this point_. The colored
ministers were recognized, licensed, given appointments, quarterly
conferences, district and annual conferences, the presiding eldership,
admitted as delegates to the General Conferences, elected to General
Conference offices, and the Church declared that “race, color, or
previous condition” was “no bar to election to the episcopacy in our
Church.” If we are required and expected to go on to perfection, will
any one deny that election to the episcopacy will push the whole race a
step higher in the Divine life? Not simply because of this alone, but
because the colored man, like white men, believes the bishopric a step
higher, in office at least, than the eldership in our Church. He
believes, like other men, that progression is the watchword of the hour.
Who does not now know that a bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church is
considered the most influential minister in the State, county, city,
village, and in the general Church? No other office is paramount. The
fact that there is to be allowed _no_ discrimination on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude within the Church, it is
claimed, guarantees to them not only the right to ask, but to _expect_
help in securing the same, since it will never be possible for it to be
done by the race alone within the Church.

[Illustration:

  REV. A. E. P. ALBERT, D.D.,
  EDITOR OF SOUTHWESTERN CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE,
  NEW ORLEANS, LA.
]

It is therefore declared by many of both races within the Church, that
_justice to the race demands it as it could not for any other class of
members within the Church_. Nothing less than injustice can withhold
that which is justly due. Now the colored members, whose influence has
brought them forth into prominence in the Church, have never asked the
General Conference to elect a bishop of African descent because our
bishops have been one thing to white members and another to colored
members, nor because our bishops, when coming among the colored members,
have been “overseers” instead of superintendents, nor because they are
not acceptable to the colored membership. Far from it. Our bishops
to-day hold a place in the hearts of the colored membership of the
Church that any man of African descent, elected to the episcopacy in our
Church, could only desire, since he could not dislodge his white
colleague. But it is asked for the same reason the Church gave years ago
for the proper recognition of colored ministers when it said, it is “a
principle patent to Christian enterprise that the missionary field
itself must produce the most efficient missionaries.” Is not this an
argument at once logically true in the case of a bishop of African
descent? The reasons given by representatives from the South when asking
for a separate conference were: (1) “It will secure greater efficiency
in the prosecution of the work, since many things of great interest to
an annual conference and to the Church never get farther than the
humblest hearthstone.” (2) “It will relieve us from the taunts and
sneers of designing men,” and secure the communion and friendship of
many who would not otherwise unite with us. (3) “It will relieve the
Church of even a suspicion of a spirit of caste, and make us feel as
men, and the peers of our white brethren. (4) It will be no innovation
upon any principle of Christianity or of our beloved Church,” but will
mightily help in “rending the veil” and breaking down the middle wall of
partition Satan has built between brethren out of the remains of slavery
that existed in this country. Another reason is offered on the score of
the numerical standing of the colored membership.

According to the statistics of 1884, there are now not far from
1,800,000 members within the Church. Of this number, there are about
300,000 colored members. “The constitutional rights of the colored
members” being recognized, indeed all their rights and privileges, it
would follow that, on general principles, one member in the Church has
as many and varied rights as another. The colored members in the Church
make up one-sixth of its membership. They would on this scale,
therefore, be entitled to one representative on our bench of bishops for
every six, and so on.

Will the time ever come when a colored bishop will be elected by the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church? This the future
will tell. However ignorant we may now be as to whether it will ever be
done or not, we can easily imagine the result of such an election. It
would no doubt be as the bursting forth of some pent-up fountain which
sends forth streams in opposite directions. Doubtless if there remain
any within the Church who fear man more than God, they would likely flow
outward toward more congenial climes, where the nursing of wrath brings
imaginary peace. It is impossible to turn a mighty stream all at once
out of its channel without some commotion. But then the onsweeping tide
would soon wear another channel, and no more would be seen of the
commotion than anon a ripple in the mighty stream. The other stream,
flowing in the opposite direction, would be, to the Christian men and
women of this land, “a stream that makes glad the city of God.” It would
send a thrill of renewed vigor and confidence in God and Methodism all
over this world. Every community where infidelity, skepticism, or
Romanism now predominates would be hopelessly stunned, while a
gainsaying world would not only stand aghast, but fall back before the
enthusiastic shout of seven million hitherto rejected and ostracized
images of God cut in ebony. It would be an incentive to Christians
everywhere in general, and the three hundred thousand colored members,
old and young, within the Church in particular, to live better lives and
do better work. The older men who now hold positions of prominence in
the Church would have more time in which to do their work, and would
probably do it better, at any rate more hopefully. Instead of having to
fight caste prejudice, and repel the insults heaped upon them hitherto
by that hateful spirit, they would quietly prosecute their work. The
younger men, who are already within the colored conferences would feel a
desire, even if they were unable to make amends for lost time, better to
prepare themselves for future usefulness. The colored annual conferences
would at once begin to fasten the breaches in their fences, through
which candidates for clerical orders have been creeping at times. The
young men who would come flocking to the doors of the conferences for
admission would find written over the archway, “No _young_ man admitted
to this conference until he shall be found possessed with the necessary
qualifications,—‘gifts, grace, and usefulness.’”

Our college alumni, who have gone elsewhere seeking employment, would
return. How much more proficient does that man try to be who knows there
is a future before him, than the one who suspects there is none!
Thousands of our talented young people have left us because they said
they saw but little hope in the future for the colored ministry in our
Church. Indeed, there was a time in the history of our colored work when
the professional man, the mechanic, and the man of means among us, were
all about to leave us in some localities, because it had been told them
that within the Church we were but “hewers of wood and drawers of
water.”

There was also a time when graduates of our institutions, in many
instances, were given work by other denominations because we had none
for them before they took their diploma from the campus of their _alma
mater_. Why, it is impossible properly to educate a man, and then keep
him from thinking, looking, and speaking for himself. It is only
recently that the younger people of the race have become interested in
our work. This is directly attributable to our separate conferences;
while many who left us for “sufficient reasons” would return, and we
could more securely hold those we now have.


        THE SEGREGATION OF THE RACE INTO COLORED ORGANIZATIONS.

It is impossible to build up a first-class membership out of
second-class material. This has been one of our weak points. Such
efforts as “Tanner’s Apology” were aimed along this line. Now, why is it
that in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and, for that matter,
everywhere in this country except in the Southern States, the colored
man has sought a colored organization? Why the segregation of the race
in the North, where slavery never came? Dr. A. G. Haygood believes, with
many others, that race instinct segregates them. He says: “Instinct
never yet surrendered to arguments; it is their race instinct, deep and
strong and inexpugnable,” as Carlyle would say. Who that heard their
impassioned speeches at Cincinnati, in May, 1880, could not see that
their appeal came, not from the cold conclusions of the reason, but
red-hot out of their hearts, from the irresistible promptings of
instinct? Listening to their speeches, I felt strongly the mighty
under-current that their words but feebly revealed, and I felt—“They are
right; they do well to ask this conference for a bishop of their own
race.” Listening to the words of the white leaders of the conference,
and looking at the subject in the light of cold judgment, I said to
myself: “This conference is also right to decline the request.” This
instinctive disposition to form Church affiliations on the color basis
may be wise or unwise. But it is in them—deep in them. The tendency is
strengthening all the time. This instinct will never rest satisfied till
it realizes itself in complete separations. The movements that grow out
of race instincts do not wait upon the conclusions of philosophy; nor do
they, for a long time, take counsel of policy. We may, all of us, as
well adjust our plans to the determined and inevitable movements of this
instinct, that does not reason, but that moves steadily and resistlessly
to accomplish its ends. It is a very grave question to be considered by
all who have responsibility in the matter, whether over-repression of
race instincts may not mar their normal evolution; may not introduce
elements unfriendly to healthful growth; may not result in explosions. I
have seen a heavy stone wall overturned by a root that was once a tiny
white fiber. Instinct is like the life-force that expresses itself in
life or death.

Let us see. “Is it race instinct” that tends to segregate the colored
man? We answer, No. His desire to segregate is only a self-defensive
measure. The colored man in this country is _desperately_ in earnest in
his effort to remove every vestige of the prejudice against him arising
from his previous condition of servitude. In the North he found that the
white people knew him only as a slave or a freedman. If the former, then
he was considered a mendicant—ignorant, superstitious, and immoral, as a
natural result of slavery. They could not think of taking him into their
homes—cultured, refined, and religious homes—to be at once associated
with the members of their families. As to their Churches, he was wholly
unfitted for their mode of worship; for to him it appeared foolishness,
fashion, and fastidiousness, void of “the true, heart-felt religion” of
the plantation where “his sons and his daughters prophesied, his old men
dreamed dreams, and his young men saw visions.” As a result, he pretty
soon began to feel uneasy, and sighed for “the seasons of the past.” The
white man of the North _could not possibly meet the social or religious
demands of the slave_. If he put him in the parlor or school-room with
white children, or in the congregation of the Lord—though given a front
seat, and in every conceivable way made welcome—he was uneasy. Rev.
Richard Allen says that it “was quite a task for me to preach the gospel
in St. George’s Church, in Philadelphia.” The white man of the North
could not make the colored man from the South feel at home. If he had
had a separate building in which to allow him and his family to live, it
would have appeared more like home to him. I do not here speak of the
many noble exceptions, for we all know “what’s bred in the bone is not
easily eradicated from the flesh.” It is a hard matter, indeed, in after
years to change all at once the habits of men’s past lives, whether they
be religious, moral, or temporal. Again, the white man of the North had
no work the colored man of the South was adapted to do. The house-work
usually was done either by “the hale housewife with busy care,” or by a
foreign domestic. The same was true of the out-door work. All this in
the South the colored man enjoyed without a rival. The whole affair was
in an abnormal condition with the colored man from the South. Those who
doubt these statements have but to note the line of demarkation that is
not even yet effaced between the “free colored man of the North” and the
former slave colored man of the South, to-day, everywhere. Their mode of
Church polity, songs, prayers, sermons, dress, deportment, and all, are
different. This to-day makes—for awhile at least—the colored man of the
South in the North shy, not to say uncomfortable. What relation could be
farther from the wishes of the poor, ignorant, and superstitious colored
man of those days than the social equality granted him? What could make
him wish more to be carried “back to his old Kentucky home?”

Every effort or advance made by the white man toward the colored man
found his superstition of white men repulsive. First, the thought would
come to him, “I should suspect some danger nigh, where I possess
delight.” Again, the colored man of the South knew nothing of business
principles in general, and of the _Yankee_ idea of business principles
in particular. When the rigid rules of active business life were exacted
of him by his white Northern neighbor or employer, it was but a sad
contrast to the loose and illegitimate business principles he had been
under in the South, and it was but a short time until he naturally began
to suspect that the Northern white man thought he was a thief. Again,
after the war the better class of colored men—such as the land-owner,
the stock-raiser, the mechanic, and the farmer, and those who had some
learning—did not go North. In 1870 there were residing in sixteen
Southern States, beginning with Missouri, west with Texas, and east with
the Carolinas, 4,609,541, being 15.8% of the whole population; leaving
but 726,521 colored people elsewhere in these United States. As late as
1880 there were 6,200,646 colored people in the United States, while
there were but 180,393 residing in Northern States. It took but very
little inducement to make the colored man believe, therefore, that while
the white man of the North had helped to free him, he now cared but
little for him. It is true that “birds of a feather do flock together,”
especially young birds; at any rate, throughout the animal, vegetable,
and mineral kingdoms the example is given by nature to man, in that all
these only flourish _in congenial climates and soil_, while for all his
life the colored man had been taught to suspect the Yankee as only
loving him for what he could get out of him. Again, in the South the
colored man had seen and become conversant with the irresponsible,
careless plantation life, and with the prodigality of his master, who
thought nothing of tossing him a quarter now and then. Up North the last
farthing was exacted from him; he was expected to pay his house-rent,
grocery bill, keep clean, and make but little noise around his home, at
Church, and on the public thoroughfares. This to him—recently
liberated—was all new and strange. If he became disorderly, the white
man of the North, instead of laughing at him, and passing on the other
side, would at once have him arrested; if dishonest, punished. He had
been used to “better things,” as he thought; and hence it took but
little persuasion for him to believe the white man of the North not as
friendly as the Southern white man.

To say that the cultivation of such superstition on the part of some of
the so-called leading colored men was an advantage; that such talk from
the “book-learned colored man,” who either _thought_ he spoke the truth
or perjured himself, had the effect of segregating the colored people
into separate Churches, is apparent to all. The statement of the colored
man who is reported to have established a bank for colored folks is, to
my mind, illustrative at this point. When he had accumulated two or
three thousand dollars of the money of his people he tacked a card on
his front door with this inscription: “This bank am busted.” When his
depositors came in great crowds about his door, and loudly called for
him, he came forth and said: “Now, gentlemuns and ladies, we is free. We
must act jus’ like white folks do. White folks put money in der banks
and de banks burst; and when dey see it, den dat’s de end ob de matter.
So it mus’ be wid us.” This is said to have satisfied the creditors.

When some colored men saw the advantage of segregating the colored
people, they found a great amount of _gratuitous help_. Every white man,
woman, and child, who objected to “Negro equality,” at once lent his or
her aid. The white orator and editor and preacher of this class joined
with the so-called leader in segregating the colored people. _This no
sane man will deny._ And now, in these latter days, philosophers arise
and declare it “instinct.” Everything was in favor of the segregation. A
great many white men, as well as a great many good colored men,
deprecated this, and fought desperately against it. In “Chauncey Judd”
we have an illustration of this spirit, even as early as Colonial days.
A Presbyterian minister was invited to marry a free colored couple. The
bargain the groom made with the clergyman was, that if he would marry
him like a white man he would pay him like a white man. The bride was
very pretty, but as large and black as pretty. The guests were of both
races. It was customary at that day for the clergyman to kiss the bride.
This the clergyman forgot to do, for some reason. When about to take
leave of the couple the clergyman incidentally remarked that the
ceremony was incomplete without “the fee.” “Why,” said the groom, “I
sticks to de contrac’.” “Well, that is right,” said the clergyman, “for
you said if I would marry you like a white man you would pay me like a
white man.” “That’s jus’ so,” said the groom, “but you didn’t kiss the
bride.” “O well,” said the clergyman, “that is no matter, any way.” “O
well, it’s no matter ’bout de fee, any way,” said the groom.

Colored men who aspired to leadership among the colored people, and were
willing to stoop so low, when they knew better, saw that the support of
colored men, politically, religiously, or morally, would at once bring
them prestige, influence, and power with white men. To segregate the
colored people would, as Rev. Richard Allen intimated, create “a
necessity” for his services. If they remained associated with white
people, there would soon come a time when it would be impossible for him
to be of service to his people so as to benefit himself pecuniarily. We
do not aim here to charge all leaders of the race, political or
ecclesiastical, with perfidy, but to prove that it is not “instinct”
alone that is responsible for the segregation of the race, or that this
instinct will not allow them to associate on perfect equality with white
people; that it is not ordained of God that colored members must be
under colored pastors in colored Churches, controlled by colored men
_exclusively_. That the disposition of the more intelligent colored man
of the North rather seeks separation or independency, than segregation,
is being ocularly demonstrated annually, and becoming more acceptable as
he becomes more cultured. If this be not so, why is it that the cultured
young colored man, who “tips” his education in some Eastern or Northern
college, comes back South, dissatisfied to remain? Dr. Haygood must find
some better and more philosophical answer.

It is a fact that a great many colored men who aspire to leadership
politically and ecclesiastically, will deny what we have here said.
Indeed, we would have hesitated to speak so plainly were it not that we
wish, as much as possible, to give the bare facts of the case as they
appear to us, aside from any personal consideration. We believe, with
all the earnestness and candor of soul and mind, that this whole
“color-line” question, from beginning to end, lies at the feet of those
aspirants; that most of the opprobrium, ostracism, and caste prejudice
that did and do now exist against the race in this country, can be, and
is, impartially and legitimately traced to that source; and that the
separate African Churches in this country are the parents of not less
than ninety-five per cent of this hue and cry against Negro social
equality. They are easily conceived, therefore, to be the causes of all
other ecclesiastical unrest and “color-line” separations in this
country. This is so evident that he who runs may read it.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER XI

                    THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1884.


To the General Conference of 1880 there was presented a memorial from
“the leading educators (fifty in number) in our white schools in the
South,” asking that the work of the Freedmen’s Aid Society be extended
so as to aid the schools of the Church in the South where only white
pupils attended. No special emphasis was put upon the matter, save that
of “aiding” the above-named schools. The Committee on Freedmen’s Aid
Work in the South carefully considered the subject, and reported to that
conference as follows:

    “Your Committee on Freedmen’s Aid and Southern Work respectfully
    report:

    “1. That, in its judgment, the present organization of the
    Freedmen’s Aid Society should remain unchanged.

    “2. That under the phrase ‘and others’ of Article II, in the
    Constitution of the Freedmen’s Aid Society, we see the way clear
    to aid the schools which have been established by our Church in
    the Southern States among the white people, and hereby ask the
    General Conference to recommend to the Board of Managers of this
    society to give such aid to these schools during the next
    quadrennium as can be done without embarrassment to the schools
    among the freedmen.”

As soon as the report was read, considerable feeling was apparent. The
question had hitherto seemed of small importance. While the report was
pending the feeling manifest found vent in “a motion to appropriate
twenty-five per cent of all moneys raised by the Freedmen’s Aid Society
to schools among the whites.” It was laid on the table. After this there
seemed a determination to separate, if possible, the educational work of
the Church in the South among the whites from that of the blacks. Rev.
A. J. Kynett, therefore, offered the following as a substitute for the
second item:

    “_Resolved_, That the Board of Education be, and is hereby,
    instructed to make such provisions as may be necessary and
    practicable for the aid of our educational institutions in the
    South not aided by the Freedmen’s Aid Society.”

Had this substitute been accepted, we certainly would have had two
separate and distinct educational societies within the Church; the
Educational Society would have been so burdened as to have had to
withdraw, to a certain extent, from the plan of aiding indigent students
as hitherto, or increase its resources. That, at any rate, to have thus
burdened it would have crippled, if not killed it, is suspected. That
substitute was covered by the following as a substitute for the whole:

    “_Resolved_, That in the judgment of this General Conference the
    present organization and perpetuity of the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society should remain unchanged.”

But both these substitutes were laid on the table. The other extreme
view was manifested by the following substitute, which went the way of
the preceding:

    “_Resolved_, 1. That the collections of the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society shall be wholly appropriated to aid the schools for the
    colored people.

    “_Resolved_, 2. That the Committee on Education be requested to
    make provisions for giving aid to schools among the white people
    of the South.”

That a disposition to separate the educational work of the Church in the
South between the races prevailed, appears on the face of the foregoing.
The report, as given above, was then adopted. It is plainly seen that
the Church did not, even in this, intend to be partial on account of
race or color. One would naturally infer from the foregoing and that
which follows, that considerable feeling was manifested. In Report No. 2
of the Committee on Freedmen appears the following:

    “_Resolved_, That our pastors, in presenting the claims of this
    society to the Church, should remind our people that a portion
    of the appropriations of the society will be made for the
    education of the white population connected with our Church in
    the Southern States, but not to the embarrassment of the work
    among our people of color.”

This, in itself, showed that the friends to the educational work of the
Church among the white people of the South were on the alert; that the
next General Conference would have to speak out as to aiding them.

During the quadrennium following the adjournment of that General
Conference the question of changing the name of the Freedmen’s Aid
Society was discussed. During the discussion it was very evident that
“the color-line” was being crossed and recrossed, denied and affirmed,
objected to and supported, execrated and declared a blessing. Some
declared that the reason for wanting the name of the society changed
was: (1) Not simply that the society might help more largely in carrying
on educational work begun by our white membership in the South, but (2)
to make them eligible to such aid without being considered second to the
colored man, or seeming to have to accept the crumbs that fall from the
colored man’s table, prepared for him by the Methodist Episcopal Church
in the presence of his enemies; (3) that those who are willing to aid in
the educational work of the Church among the whites, without _any_ of it
being used to help colored students, may have a chance thus to display
their liberality; (4) that those within the Church who have all along
refused to contribute to the support of the benevolences of the Church
because of their objection to the bringing in of this Gentile proselyte
on an equal footing, may have a chance to empty their liberal gifts into
the coffers of the Church. Indeed, so high ran this discussion during
the quadrennium, that some even went so far as to declare it an effort
to fan anew the slumbering but not quenched embers of caste prejudice;
to keep verdant the rank weeds of race prejudice that continue to grow
rank and prolific in the swamps and bayous, on the mountains and
hill-sides, the plains and valleys of some of our Church-work in the
South. This question, in many minds, swung around to the previous
conditions of the two races within the Church in the South. To give some
idea of the previous conditions of the two races within the Church in
the South hitherto, we quote from the address of the president of the
society, Bishop Walden, the following:

    “Our Church had access to two classes on entering this
    field,—the whites in North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia,
    Alabama, Arkansas, and Texas, and the colored people in all of
    the States from which she had been excluded. The condition of
    these classes was different. The whites were impoverished by the
    war, but they had some possessions and some kinds of business;
    they had church-buildings, however dilapidated; but in some
    places all Church organizations had been disbanded, and in other
    places the connectional bonds were broken; they were ready,
    however, for reorganization, and in Eastern Tennessee almost an
    entire conference (the Holston) voluntarily sought and was given
    a place among our annual conferences. The colored people had not
    lost property, for they had none to lose; they had no Church
    organizations nor buildings, and their Church membership, at
    best, was only nominal; all they had was their recently
    proclaimed freedom and their hands trained to toil.

    “Picture to yourselves for the moment those to whom our Church
    found an open door—the impoverished and almost churchless white
    people, and the colored people, who were not only without homes,
    but without the relations of the home; not only without earthly
    possessions, but impoverished in the best elements of their
    nature. It may be no marvel that societies were soon gathered
    and conferences soon organized among the whites, for with them
    it was chiefly a work of reorganization and edification. But
    what of the work among the freed people—those who had only
    toiled as house-servants and slave-mechanics and field-hands?
    Here, among them, the very foundations of Church-work had to be
    laid, and our first movement in this direction—the necessary and
    the right movement—was to give them, at once, their normal
    relation in and to the Church.”

Let us examine the status of these two classes. The whites had been (1)
“impoverished by the war,” whether they took sides with the Union or
against it. If the latter was the case, it is evident that they had been
slaveholders themselves or friendly to the slave oligarchy. And yet
these same people had left them some “possessions and some kinds of
business.” They had “church-buildings, however dilapidated. They were
ready for reorganization.” It was not so with the colored people. “These
were without homes, without the relations of home; not only without
earthly possessions, but impoverished in the best elements of their
nature.” These poor colored people had never had the advantages of any
enlightening influences save such as came to “house-servants,
slave-mechanics, and field-hands.” How true is it that “here among them
the very foundations of Church-work had to be laid.” The Methodist
Episcopal Church went down South hunting “the lost sheep of the house of
Israel,” for whom no denomination seemed to care much at that time. The
whites had for twenty years, more or less, worshiped with, or were
members of, the Southern Methodist Episcopal Church; a few standing
alone and waiting till a better day appeared. Here was an opportunity
also to turn aside and give aid to this other class of our membership in
the South, by teaching them the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God and
the brotherhood of man. Such men as Rev. John P. Newman and Bishop
Gilbert Haven went down to help. Their eloquence, erudition, religious
and moral force, told only here and there. Such men made but little
headway toward the bringing in of “whole annual conferences” among the
whites into our Church. They were unpopular save among the poor
freedmen. Some of the white members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
the South have no interest in the work of the Methodist Episcopal Church
that does not come to them unencumbered by any reminiscences of the past
or present relations of the two races. The growth of our white
membership in the South during the last ten years has been considerable.
Is it not strange that the whites and the blacks within the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the South sustain _to-day_, in some places, the same
relation to each other that the Jews used to sustain to the Samaritans?
Do we not find, just along here somewhere, the key to the situation in
the South within our Church, as well as cause for the action of the
General Conference above referred to?

If required to state from our own knowledge what is positively believed
to be an ungarnished truth, we would say that so far as a majority of
our white membership in the South is concerned we, as a Church, have not
succeeded in dislodging a _single one_ of the old prejudices against
“race and color.” It is known that there are beautiful exceptions, but
they are like angels’ visits to earth nowadays. The only redeeming
feature has been, that the Church, as such, has never yielded a single
point in favor of caste in the South. We have known instances where
white preachers of white congregations in our Church in the South stayed
away from colored annual conferences to keep from being introduced as
members of our Church. The instances in the South in which the white
ministers demanded a separate conference, because of the relations of
the two races, are not few. The Methodist Episcopal Church understood
all the while that this was the condition of affairs in every nine cases
in ten in the South where “a color-line conference” was desired. Hence,
the heart of the Church being right, she always put in “a proviso” when
authorizing the creation or division of conferences.

The action taken by the General Conference of 1876 on the question,
corroborates the above statement. It is as follows:

    “The committee have, by a large sub-committee, given much time
    to its consideration, and have investigated carefully the
    matter referred to them. They have considered the numerous
    memorials, petitions, and resolutions presented to the General
    Conference on the subject, whether from annual conferences,
    conventions, or private individuals. They have consulted with
    most, if not all, the delegates to the General Conference, who
    represent conferences particularly interested in the question
    of division, and have studied the history of the movements in
    several conferences seeking to effect or prevent division
    within a few years past, and report the following result of
    its investigation.”

Then follows a concise, yet full, statement of the reasons, pro and con,
with this conclusion:

    “From these facts, and after impartially inquiring into the
    whole subject, your committee recommend for adoption the
    following resolutions:

    “_Resolved_, 1. That where it is the general desire of the
    members of an annual conference that there should be no division
    of such conference into two or more conferences in the same
    territory; and where it is not clearly to be seen that such
    division would favor or improve the state of the work in any
    conference; and where the interests and usefulness of even a
    minority of the members of such conference, and of the members
    of Churches in such conference, might be damaged or imperiled by
    division, it is the opinion of this General Conference that such
    division should not be made.

    “_Resolved_, 2. That whenever it shall be requested by a
    majority of the white members, and also a majority of the
    colored members, of any annual conference, that it be divided,
    then it is the opinion of this General Conference that such
    division should be made; and, in that case, the bishop presiding
    is hereby authorized to organize the new conference or
    conferences.” (Journal, 1876, pp. 329–331.)

In the case of the division of the Tennessee Conference, the colored
members retained the original name, and the whites had to find a
descriptive, or rather distinctive, adjective to retain the “Tennessee”
part of the name. In this case, if not in many others, general
dissatisfaction and injury ensued. Aspiring colored men, in a number of
our own colored conferences, allowed their aspirations for honors to
exceed their better judgment, and hence voted “aye” when their hearts
said “nay.” There was, by the time the General Conference of 1884 met in
Philadelphia, a party among the delegates who were determined to do one
of two things; either to bring the white work within our Church (that
was brought under the fostering care of the Freedmen’s Aid Society by
the words “and others” inserted in the constitution) up to an equal
share of the money appropriated by the Church for its work in the South,
or else have the Educational Society take _entire control_ of the
educational work among the whites. This would have shaded the
demarcation caste-line to the satisfaction of his Satanic majesty, and
at the same time turned into other channels the aid hitherto rendered by
that society to indigent colored pupils, and would have, by this, made
it popular indeed to be a white Methodist within the great Methodist
Episcopal Church “without any unnecessary contamination with any
disturbing element.” The friends of humanity, equity, and righteousness
also “trusted God, but kept their powder dry.” The conference had but
fairly got to work when the oncoming storm began to gather. J. M.
Shumpert, under the call, presented the following, which was referred to
the Committee on State of the Church:

    “Inasmuch as there has been a great deal of discussion, both in
    the religious and secular press, of caste in the Methodist
    Episcopal Church; and inasmuch as caste is a curse to any
    nation, and more especially to a religious denomination; and
    inasmuch as we believe that caste prejudice is a sin, and is
    born of ignorance and hate, that it narrows the mind, embitters
    the heart, and harms the American citizens, both as men and as
    Christians; therefore, be it

    “_Resolved_, That it is the sense of this General Conference
    that no trustees of churches, schools, colleges, or
    universities, nor any pastor, principal, president, or any other
    person in authority of church or school property, belonging to
    or under the control of the Methodist Episcopal Church, should
    exclude any person or persons from their churches, schools,
    colleges, or universities, of good moral character, on account
    of color, race, or previous condition of servitude.”

This was the beginning of a conflict. At the General Conferences we all
understand that the “fighting” is all done in the committee-room. That
the spirit of this resolution was opposed in the committee-room no
member of “the Committee on the State of the Church” will deny. To one
who was at a great distance from the scene of action it appeared that
the forty-three colored delegates in that General Conference could
easily be seen to belong to the two elements that usually make up our
General Conferences, the radical and conservative; but not equally
divided. Indeed, there were not more than five “conservative” of the
forty-three. Now I have used the words “radical” and “conservative,” and
mean by these terms just what they have meant in every General
Conference of our Church since, if not before, 1840. The former believe
in “hewing to the line, let the chips fall where they may.” The other
believes it better, for policy’s sake, to be lenient to the extreme of
compromise in some instances. In that General Conference the radicals
desired to march into the field against caste prejudice, floating “the
black flag.” The conservatives wanted to be all things to some men that
they might not lose any, and, at the same time, “save some.” It is easy
to see how the thirty-eight could go home and look their black
constituents squarely in the face and say: “No timidity or other
inducement persuaded me to depart from the wholesome teachings of common
sense and race pride.” Before the intended import of that last sentence
is _misconstrued_ we add, the others, returning home, could easily have
said to their constituents: “We have adopted a policy for future action
that we hope will bring peace out of confusion.” The ardent desire of
the conservative faction to change the name of the Freedmen’s Aid
Society was closely connected, as all can easily see, with the question
of caste prejudice—whether for or against we do not stop now to say. The
question of mixed or separate schools among our members in the South had
been discussed during the quadrennium.

The establishment of the Little Rock University—overshadowing that
section of the country, as well as Philander Smith College, where
colored youth were being educated—with that of the Chattanooga
University, at Chattanooga, Tennessee, helped to agitate the question.
It is said that the items touching this subject were presented in the
General Conference by a resolution adopted without reference to a
committee, through reports from the Committee on Freedmen’s Aid and Work
in the South, and through a resolution from the Committee on the State
of the Church. Any criticism in opposition to work done for the whites
by the Freedmen’s Aid Society was broken by the General Conference
adopting the following:

    “_Resolved_, That we fully indorse the administration of the
    Freedmen’s Aid Society during the past quadrennium.”

This is the resolution above referred to. The following was part of the
work done and reported to that General Conference as its administration
during the quadrennium:

    “The following sums were appropriated to schools among whites:

              In 1879 and 1880,                      0 00

              In 1880 and 1881,                 $2,600 00

              In 1881 and 1882,                 19,453 75

              In 1882 and 1883,                 26,847 25

              ───────────────────────────────────────────
              Total receipts during           $437,986 89
                quadrennium,
              Appropriations for schools        48,901 00
                among whites,
              ───────────────────────────────────────────
              Appropriations for schools      $389,085 89
                among colored,

    “The whites received a little less than one-ninth of the
    receipts, and a little less than one-eighth as much as the
    colored people.”

It is to be remembered that “the schools among the whites” were not
constitutionally eligible to aid from the Freedmen’s Aid Society until
after the General Conference of 1880; that the work had been chiefly
confined to its then legitimate channel, the colored work, and, of
course, appropriations to the work among the colored people began with
the work of the society. Viewed from that point, another phase of
appropriations appears.

Resolutions came rather briskly and presenting many different phases of
the question. On May 12th, Rev. C. O. Fisher, of the Savannah
Conference, presented the following resolution, signed by himself and
twenty-two others, which, on motion, was adopted:

    “_Resolved_, That the General Conference hereby confirms and
    reaffirms the opinion previously expressed that ‘color is no bar
    to any right or privilege of office or membership in the
    Methodist Episcopal Church,’ but we recognize the propriety of
    such administration as will hereafter, as heretofore, secure the
    largest concession to individual preferences on all questions
    involving merely the social relations of its members.”

Now, the above resolution in some way or other, was afterward the cause
of no little dispute as to who was the author of it, and who signed it.
There followed some discussion, through the papers, between Dr. Marshall
W. Taylor and Dr. Fisher as to it. Like Topsy in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, it
seems to have had no parents at all, “but jus’ growed up.” _Its purport,
some declare, was not indorsed by all who signed it._ It, however, was a
tally for the conservative element, whether so intended or not.

Report No. 3 of Committee on Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the South was
adopted May 22d, as follows:

    “Your Committee on Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the South have
    carefully considered the several memorials referred to us,
    involving the question of separate or mixed schools for the
    accommodation of our colored and white membership in the South,
    and as the result of our deliberations present the following:

    “It is an historical fact, highly honorable to the Methodist
    Episcopal Church, that she has been the constant friend of the
    common people, and especially of the colored man.

    “The Freedmen’s Aid Society, organized for the purpose of aiding
    in the education and elevation of the freedmen, is the
    unanswerable proof of our friendship to them in the hour of
    their need. Twenty-four institutions of learning—academies,
    seminaries, colleges, and theological schools—established and
    maintained among them at a cost of more than $1,250,000 for the
    benefit of the colored people, constitute a magnificent
    demonstration of our devotion, which requires no elaboration and
    admits of no denial.

    “The management of this portion of our educational work, we
    believe, in the main, has been wise, efficient, and successful.
    Our effort in this direction should not be relaxed, but
    increased.

    “The establishment of schools for the benefit of our white
    membership in the South we believe to have been a wise and
    necessary measure. Their success has been gratifying. The
    beneficial results have not been confined to those immediately
    interested, but their liberalizing effects upon public sentiment
    have greatly redounded to the advantage of our colored people.
    We regret that, for so great and important a work, so little has
    been done by the Church, and we desire most emphatically to give
    expression to our conviction that the time has come when this
    portion of our educational work should be strengthened and
    placed upon a strong and permanent basis, as its importance
    certainly demands. To the question of mixed schools we have
    given our most serious and prayerful attention. It is a subject
    beset with peculiar difficulties. That the colored man has a
    just and equal right, not only to life and liberty, but also to
    the means of grace and facilities for education, we not only
    admit, but most positively affirm.

    “We are in duty bound to provide for and to secure to every
    class of our membership, so far as possible, a fair and equal
    opportunity in Church and school accommodations. And insofar as
    this is done our duty is performed, and the equal rights justly
    demanded of us thus fairly and fully conceded.

    “Mixed congregations and mixed schools, may in some places, be
    most desirable, and best for all concerned. In other places, one
    class or the other, or both, may prefer separate congregations
    and separate schools.

    “Equal rights to the best facilites for intellectual and
    spiritual culture, equal rights in the eligibility to every
    position of honor and trust, and equal rights in the exercise of
    a free and unconstrained choice in all social relations, is a
    principle at once American, Methodistic, and Scriptural.
    Therefore:

    “_Resolved_, 1. That we most sincerely rejoice in the progress
    made in the work of education among our colored people in the
    South, and pledge ourselves to stand by and assist them in the
    further prosecution of this work, to the extent of our ability,
    and, so far as possible, to the extent of their need in this
    direction.

    “2. That we heartily sympathize with our white membership in the
    South in their efforts to provide adequate educational
    facilities among themselves, and assure them of such
    co-operation and assistance as we may be able to render.

    “3. That the question of separate or mixed schools we consider
    one of expediency, which is to be left to the choice and
    administration of those on the ground and more immediately
    concerned: _Provided_, there shall be no interference with the
    rights set forth in this preamble and these resolutions.

    “4. That the entire educational work in the Southern States
    should be under the direction of one society.

    “5. That in view of the great success of the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society during the past four years in carrying forward the
    educational work in the South, this society ought to have the
    full charge of this work in that section.

    “6. That the pastors, in presenting the claims of this society
    in making appeals for funds, should state plainly that the work
    is among both races, and that all contributors should be
    allowed, whenever they may desire to do so, to designate where
    their gifts shall go.”

    REPORT NO. 2—ADOPTED MAY 23D.

    “_Resolved_, That we fully appreciate the administration of the
    Freedmen’s Aid Society during the past quadrennium.”

    REPORT NO. 4—ADOPTED MAY 23D.

    “_Resolved_, That an appeal be made to the whole Church for half
    a million of dollars as a centennial offering to the great work
    of the Freedmen’s Aid Society, and while through all other
    portions of the Church the usual agencies are employed in
    raising this amount, the Freedmen’s Aid Society is hereby
    authorized and directed to organize and prosecute such financial
    effort among the conferences of the South.”

    REPORT NO. 5—ADOPTED MAY 23D.

    “_Resolved_, That it would be unwise, by addition or otherwise,
    to change the name of the Freedmen’s Aid Society.”

    REPORT NO. 6—ADOPTED MAY 23D.

    “Your committee recommend the following changes in the
    Discipline, so that paragraph 1 shall read:

    “‘For the mental and moral elevation of freedmen and others in
    the South, who have special claims upon the people of America
    for help in the work of Christian education.’

    “Paragraph 310: ‘It shall be the duty of each preacher in charge
    to present this subject to his congregation, or cause it to be
    presented, once each year in a sermon or address; to aid in the
    diffusion of intelligence in regard to the work of the society,
    and to use due diligence to collect the amount apportioned to
    his charge. He shall report to the annual conference the sum
    collected, and the collections shall be published in a column in
    the General Minutes, and in the Minutes of the annual
    conferences. In presenting the claims of this society, the
    preacher in charge shall state plainly that the educational work
    of the society is among both white and colored people.’”

    FROM COMMITTEE ON STATE OF THE CHURCH, REPORT NO. 4—ADOPTED MAY
    28TH.

    “Your committee beg leave to submit the following for your
    adoption, namely:

    “_Resolved_, That this General Conference declares the policy of
    the Methodist Episcopal Church to be, that no member of any
    society within the Church shall be excluded from public worship
    in any and every edifice of the denomination, and no student
    shall be excluded from instruction in any and every school under
    the supervision of the Church because of race, color or previous
    condition of servitude.”


   FROM COMMITTEE ON FREEDMEN’S AID AND WORK IN THE SOUTH, REPORT NO.
                          7—ADOPTED MAY 28TH.

“The following statement of facts and conclusions respecting the work of
our Church in the South is respectfully submitted by the Committee on
Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the South:

    “The growth of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the Southern
    States since the close of the late war is one of the marvels of
    modern Church history. Nineteen years ago—1864—the Church had
    within the border States of Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky,
    and Missouri, 332 effective preachers, 71,037 white
    communicants, and 18,770 colored members. Now, in the sixteen
    former slave States and the District of Columbia, she has twelve
    conferences among the whites, with 693 effective preachers, and
    170,710 communicants; thirteen conferences among the colored
    people, with 678 effective preachers, and 186,326 members. To
    these must be added three mixed conferences—two in Missouri and
    one in Florida—with 218 effective preachers, and 41,054 members,
    most of whom are white persons. These altogether make 28 annual
    conferences, with 1,589 effective preachers, and 398,090
    communicants.

    “This vast membership represents a following throughout the
    South of not less than 2,000,000 of people. Taking the South as
    a whole, this membership and following are divided about equally
    between the white and colored races—about 203,000 white members,
    and about 195,000 colored members. In the border States our
    strength is more largely among the white people; in our new
    Southern work, in the eleven States where the Church had nothing
    at the close of the war, our development has been larger among
    the colored people; but in these eleven States a white
    membership of 51,961 has been gathered. Over 3,500 new church
    buildings have been erected on what was slave territory in 1860.
    The increase in Church parsonage property has been $6,282,723,
    and of membership 308,183. This is an average of over 20,000
    members and $350,000 annually.

    “Nearly one-fourth of the entire membership of the Methodist
    Episcopal Church is now on what was slave territory, where, but
    a few years ago, the Church had no existence except in a few
    localities.

    “Not less remarkable has been the educational development of our
    Church in the South. Since the late war, 48 colleges and
    seminaries have been established, and in these there are 194
    instructors and over 6,000 young men and women. Of these schools
    24 are among the colored people, and 24 among the white people.
    These latter have been established almost entirely by our white
    members themselves. These 48 institutions of learning are nearly
    one-third in number of all the institutions of learning of the
    Methodist Episcopal Church, and have in them 25 per cent of all
    persons being taught by our Church.

    “The day of prosperity for the South is at hand, and the great
    questions affecting its civilization are being rapidly settled,
    and the spirit of fraternity and mutual helpfulness among all
    moral and educational forces at the South is rapidly prevailing.
    The presence and success of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
    the South have tended largely to these beneficent results;
    therefore,

    “_Resolved_, 1. That as a General Conference we render thanks to
    God for the success that has attended the work of our Church in
    the Southern States, by which it has come to be permanently
    planted in every State in that section, so that we are now, in
    the matter of occupation as well as administration, a national
    Church.

    “_Resolved_, 2. That we extend cordial greetings and
    benedictions to all our people, our teachers and pastors in the
    Southern States, and rejoice with them in their success, and
    sympathize with them in their labors; and we pledge to them, in
    behalf of the whole Church, the largest possible co-operation
    and help in every good word and work.”

It can be seen at a glance that there was much conflict over the
questions growing out of the relations of the two races within the
Church in the South in that General Conference. Notwithstanding, it
elected a representative colored man—W. H. Crogman, Professor of Ancient
Languages in our Clark University, at Atlanta, Ga.—one of its
secretaries; elected another—Rev. A. E. P. Albert, D.D., of Louisiana
Conference—secretary of Committee on State of the Church; elected Rev.
Marshall W. Taylor, D.D., editor-in-chief of one of the Church papers;
yet it is difficult for some persons to understand clearly what _was
meant_ by the action taken touching the color question.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                              CHAPTER XII

                              THE PROBLEM.


Just what was intended by that General Conference touching this vexed
question may be easily found out, if allowed to take as a basis the
trite saying, “We have no way of judging the future but by the past.”
The declarations of the several General Conferences of our Church
warrant us in declaring the following as her principles: “(1) God made
of one blood all men for to dwell on the face of the earth; (2) God is
no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and
worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” The Methodist Episcopal
Church is either founded upon and guided by the Word of God, or is
nothing. The Church further declared: “(1) There is no word ‘white’ to
discriminate against race or color known in our legislation; (2) Being
of African descent does not prevent membership _with white men_ in
annual conferences; (3) Nor ordination at the same altars; (4) Nor
appointment to presiding eldership; (5) Nor election to the General
Conference; (6) Nor eligibility to the highest offices in the Church.”
(Journal, 1872, p. 373.) That the actions of that General Conference on
the color question were enigmatical, the following will declare. The
declaration of the General Conference of 1880 naturally led to, if it
did not bring about, the entire discussion. The declaration was as
follows:

    “2. That under the phrase ‘and others’ of Article II, in the
    Constitution of the Freedmen’s Aid Society, we see the way clear
    to aid the schools which have been established by our Church in
    the Southern States among the white people, and hereby ask the
    General Conference to recommend to the board of managers of this
    society to give such aid to these schools during the next
    quadrennium as can be done without embarrassment to the schools
    among the Freedmen.”

If the words “to aid the schools which have been established by our
Church in the Southern States among the white people,” had been “the
schools established in the Southern States among our white members, to
be held sacredly for them to the exclusion of colored pupils,” _it would
have died on the spot, and been buried uncoffined, unknelled, and
unknown_. It may be that a wrong construction is put on the former by
the insertion of the latter words. If so, the sequel will so declare it.
If not, then the phraseology was, and is, misleading. But it was
adopted. What does it say? That the already existing exclusive schools
for the whites, established within the Church in the Southern States,
are to be fostered by the Freedmen’s Aid Society, with the provision
that, as a result, no embarrassment come to the schools for the
freedmen. Does not that provision imply _separate schools_? We are
trying simply to state facts as they exist, without committal on the
subject at this time.

In the last General Conference the second report on Freedmen’s Aid and
Work in the South, offered by Rev. J. C. Hartzell, D.D., indorsed the
administration of the society during the quadrennium. If the discussion
that preceded that General Conference meant anything, it meant that it
did not indorse the Little Rock and Chattanooga enterprises _as
projected_. The resolution offered by Rev. C. O. Fisher, D.D., of
Savannah Conference, and adopted by that General Conference, without
reference to any committee, declared it the sense of the General
Conference that color is no bar to any right or privilege of office or
membership in the Church; that the propriety is recognized of so
administering its affairs as “hereafter, as heretofore, to secure the
largest concession to individual preferences involving merely the social
relations of its members.” No valid objection can be offered to the last
proposition. If it simply means that any and every member of the Church
has the right to attend Church or schools wherever he pleases, without
let or molestation _so far as law goes_, it is simply another way of
declaring the equality of each and every member of the Church _so far as
privileges are concerned_. If the above supposition is true, any
objection on account of race, color, or previous condition, raised by
any one in authority over Churches or schools under the auspices of the
Church, is a flagrant violation of her law. We can conceive of but three
valid reasons for any man offering such a resolution in a General
Conference of a Church that has always conceded such, viz.: (1) To show
liberal-mindedness. (2) That there is no caste or race prejudice
concealed among the colored members within the Methodist Episcopal
Church that would cramp another member, or desires to insinuate itself
upon the rights and prerogatives of others. (3) To prevent any
unnecessary bickerings between the two races within the Church in the
South. On top of the above came the report of the Committee on
Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the South. It declared the Church a friend to
the colored man, and cited as evidence the work done by the
society—twenty-four institutions of learning, connecting with it the
expenditure of $1,250,000. That this management was (a) wise, (b)
efficient, and (c) successful. Then came the other side of the question;
the establishment of schools for the benefit of “the whites” within the
Church in the South was (1) wise, (2) necessary, (3) gratifyingly
successful, and had had a liberalizing effect upon public sentiment
there that redounds to the advantage of the colored man; that it was a
pity no more had been done, and it should be put upon a strong,
permanent basis. Then came the _mixed school question_. As to the
colored man, he was justly entitled to equal rights of not only “_life_
and liberty,” but to the means of grace and proper facilities for
education; that the Church is bound to provide and secure to every class
of its members, as far as possible, a fair and equal opportunity in
Church and school accommodations. _As to mixed congregations and
schools_, they “were in some places most desirable and best for all”
(North, we presume), “in other places [South, we guess], one or the
other, or both, may prefer separate congregations and schools.” The
question of equal rights is declared: (1) “To be the best facilities for
intellectual and spiritual culture; (2) in the eligibility to every
position of honor and trust; and (3) in the exercise of a free and
unconstrained choice in all social relations.” This was declared “a
principle at once American, Methodistic, and Scriptural.” Then come the
resolutions. The first rejoices in the work done among and for the
colored people, supports a pledge to stand by and support it to the
extent of its needs, measured by the ability of the Church. The next two
resolutions are the most objectionable offered, viz.:

    “2. That we heartily sympathize with our white membership in the
    South in their efforts to provide adequate educational
    facilities _among themselves_, and assure them of such
    co-operation and assistance as we may be able to render.

    “3. That the question of separate or mixed schools we consider
    one of expediency, which is to be left to the choice and
    administration of those on the ground and more immediately
    concerned: _Provided_, there shall be no interference with the
    rights set forth in this preamble and these resolutions.”

Let us scrutinize these a moment. The General Conference, by the
adoption of these two resolutions, sympathized with an effort “to
provide adequate educational facilities _among themselves_”—the white
members of our Church in the South. If disposed to hunt objections, we
would say they had already “adequate educational facilities,” as a
result of the educational work done by the Freedmen’s Aid Society, if
they would have accepted them, and without additional efforts on their
part. Again, the General Conference, by its action, desired to “assure
them of such co-operation and assistance as we may be able to render.”
It may be short-sightedness or ignorance to say so, but the way these
resolutions read they certainly seem not only not to object to
discrimination, but to _encourage it_.

By the second resolution the question of mixed or separate schools was
declared: (1) “One of expediency, to be left to the choice and
administration of those on the ground, and more immediately concerned.”
That which is expedient, Webster declares “a means to an end.” Was it so
intended in that resolution? “Those on the ground and more immediately
concerned” were undoubtedly the trustees, teachers, and patrons of the
schools among the whites in our Church. (2) “_Provided_, there shall be
no interference with the rights set forth in this—the foregoing—preamble
and these resolutions.” The preamble declared: “(1) Equal rights to the
best facilities for intellectual and spiritual culture, equal rights in
the eligibility to every position of honor and trust, and equal rights
in the exercise of a free and unconstrained choice in all social
relations as a principle at once American, Methodistic, and Scriptural.”
Now let us put _this_ and _that_ together; who is to decide what are
“the best facilities for intellectual and spiritual culture?” According
to the principle of expediency—“the means to an end”—undoubtedly it must
be decided by “those on the ground and more immediately concerned.” Now,
the question as to whether the contributors—the majority of the most
liberal contributors—are “more immediately concerned,” we do not stop to
say. Having completed the addition, what do we find as a rational
conclusion? What are we to understand by “the exercise of a free and
_unconstrained_ choice in all social relations?” Webster says: “The word
constrain comes from the Latin _constringere_. This is composed of _con_
and _stringere_, to draw tight, to strain; a strong, binding force; to
hold back by force.” The word used is _un_constrained. I suppose we can
conclude it means without constraint. The question naturally arises, Had
there been any _constraint_ in our work in the South? If so, at what
point? Touching what phase of the work? Whatever constraint the work in
the South has been laboring under, the Church was responsible for it.
Was it that “race, color, nor previous condition” should be a bar to the
full and equal rights of its members in Church, school, or office? There
must have been some _constraint_, or the word “unconstrained” is
meaningless, as used. But whatever constrained choice existed
previously, it was so intended, and that resolution did abrogate, if it
has any force at all. What did “those on the ground and more immediately
concerned” understand it to mean? Rather, what naturally grew out of it?


                        THE CHATTANOOGA EPISODE.

An educational convention was held in Athens, Tennessee, in 1882,
composed of delegates from nearly all our conferences, composed
exclusively of white people, for the purpose of “looking after the
educational interests of the work among the whites.” The question of the
establishment of a university for the benefit of the white members and
patrons of our Church in the central South was decided upon, and a plan
was adopted for the co-operation of the conferences and Freedmen’s Aid
Society in founding and locating the same, subject to the approval of
the conferences. “This action was heartily and unanimously concurred in
by the pastors and educators among the whites.” Considering their _modus
operandi_ “the best for intellectual and spiritual culture,” as well as
the most direct and practical “exercise of a free and unconstrained
choice in all social relations, as a principle at once American,
Methodistic, and Scriptural,” it was accepted by “those on the ground
and more immediately concerned,” and “left to their choice and
administration.” Chattanooga was chosen as the seat of the great
university in the central South for whites. Now, if no other reason
could have been given for that choice, the fact that from Lookout
Mountain the rebel soldiers were driven by General Grant during the late
civil war was sufficient for historical prestige. The relevancy of the
following quotation from Ridpath’s History, giving an account of the
movements of General Grant around that city during the civil war, may
not at once appear to all. He says: “General Grant, being promoted to
the chief command, assumed the direction of affairs at Chattanooga.
General Sherman also arrived with his divisions, and offensive
operations were at once renewed. A position seemingly more impregnable
could hardly be conceived of.” Chattanooga having been selected as the
place for “a central university for the South,” fourteen acres of
ground, costing thirty-one thousand dollars, were purchased, and a
magnificent structure, costing forty thousand dollars, was erected
thereon. Of this amount the citizens of the city contributed fifteen
thousand dollars. It has been suggested that some of the contributors of
that sum, at least, gave their money with the distinct understanding
that the university was to be for the benefit of _white pupils
exclusively_. This intelligence was not received from the managers of
the Freedmen’s Aid Society, as such; so that, if at all, it may have
been received from some of “those on the ground and more immediately
concerned.” When the university opened, September 15, 1886, everything
looked hopeful, indeed, to “those on the ground and more immediately
concerned.” But soon it was found that the brightness of those prospects
was but the silver lining of an approaching cloud. Two incidents
happened shortly afterward that gave that institution more prominence
than any other two incidents in its history can possibly ever do. Among
the students who applied for admittance into the institution were four
colored youths of that city or vicinity. The trustees of the institution
refused to admit them. The board of trustees, by contract with the
Freedmen’s Aid Society, reserved the right, not only to appoint the
teachers, but to purchase the property whenever they became able to pay
back seventy-five thousand dollars to the society, and give the
university an endowment of two hundred thousand dollars. But one of the
incidents happened before anything was said about the rejection of
colored students. One of the professors in the university—Professor
Caulkins—met and was introduced to the pastor of our colored Church in
Chattanooga, Rev. B. H. Johnson, by Rev. Dr. T. C. Carter, and he
refused to shake hands with or recognize him “on general principles,” as
he declared. The following, which appeared in the _Western Christian
Advocate_, is explicit and to the point:


                          PROFESSOR CAULKINS.

“In another column will be found a statement from the executive
committee of the Freedmen’s Aid Society, concerning the episode in which
Professor Caulkins and the Rev. B. H. Johnson were the principal
participants. It will be seen that the executive committee acted in the
case with great promptness and decision, the committee’s first action
having been taken within four days after the first rumor of the case
reached any member of the committee.

“The following extract from the minutes of the meeting of October 26th
will show the precise action which was taken at that early day:

    “‘Dr. Bayliss moved that the corresponding secretary be
    instructed to ascertain whether it be true that Professor
    Caulkins, of Chattanooga University, refused to shake hands with
    one of our pastors in Chattanooga because he was a Negro; and
    also in a series of articles made disparaging remarks, and used
    insulting language in reference to the colored people, and that
    if these rumors should prove true, the president shall lay the
    matter before the local board, and ask for his resignation.
    Carried.’

[Illustration:

  MEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE, NASHVILLE, TENN.
]

“If any one should be inclined to the opinion that the inquiry was not
prosecuted as rapidly as it should have been, it must be considered that
immediately after the sub-committee was appointed, Bishop Walden was
necessarily in attendance at the meeting of the bishops; that Bishop
Walden, Dr. Cranston, and the editor of this paper, all of whom are
members of the executive committee, were necessarily at the meeting of
the General Missionary Committee in New York, which was held just after
the bishops’ meeting; that the president of the society was immediately
afterward called to Philadelphia to the annual meeting of the Church
Extension Committee, and that the annual meeting of the Freedmen’s Aid
Society was held in Boston on the 23d of November, at which it was
necessary for both the president and secretary of the society to be
present. Thus the month of November was crowded full of travel and work,
and it was next to impossible to have a meeting of the executive
committee until December 1st, when a meeting was held. The general
history of the inquiry is given in the ‘Statement,’ and need not be
repeated here.

“We have reason to believe that the board of trustees of the university
will act in the case without delay, and we are therefore not disposed at
this time to enter upon any discussion of it. Our views are clear, and
if it shall become necessary we shall have no hesitation in justifying
them. Professor Caulkins’s moral character is not involved in the case.
That he is a fine scholar and teacher, and that he means to be a
gentleman, we fully believe. At the same time we also believe that his
views and feelings upon what is known as the ‘color question,’ or the
‘Negro question,’ are such as to make him an improper person to hold a
position as teacher in a school officially connected with the Freedmen’s
Aid Society. We say this after having heard the case freely stated by
Mr. Johnson, Professor Caulkins, and Dr. Carter, and after hearing the
declarations of others who have knowledge of Professor Caulkins’s views.
At this time, however, we do not think it necessary to discuss the
statements which we have heard, and thus prove the justness of our
conclusions. The trustees of the university have access to all the
parties interested, and we prefer to leave the case in their hands for
final adjudication, as they constitute the body which has the power to
dismiss teachers. We only add that the Freedmen’s Aid Society of the
Methodist Episcopal Church can not, and in our judgment will not,
continue in its employ any person who is capable of showing disrespect,
under any circumstances, to a colored person because he is colored. The
Methodist Episcopal Church is the exponent of a nobler sentiment, and
will not stultify herself by allowing one of her great benevolent
societies to employ as a teacher in one of our schools, any man who
stands for the views which the country has inherited from the
institution of slavery; and in this the Freedmen’s Aid Society is in
exact harmony with the views of the Church. The black man is a man, and
the fact must be recognized.”


                               STATEMENT

 FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE FREEDMEN’S AID SOCIETY IN THE CASE
                         OF PROFESSOR CAULKINS.

    “It has been widely published that Professor Caulkins, of
    Chattanooga University, Tennessee, a school officially connected
    with the Freedmen’s Aid Society of the Methodist Episcopal
    Church, and built and supported for the most part by funds from
    its treasury, refused to shake hands with the Rev. B. H.
    Johnson, pastor of one of the Methodist Episcopal Churches of
    Chattanooga, and that he refused the proffered hand of Mr.
    Johnson because Mr. Johnson is a colored man. It has also been
    reported that Professor Caulkins, in conversation with the Rev.
    Dr. Carter, immediately after the alleged insult to Mr. Johnson,
    used words which indicated his personal prejudice against the
    Negro race.

    “In view of the wide circulation of these accusations, the
    executive committee of the Freedmen’s Aid Society makes the
    following statement of facts:

    “The first report of the case was made to some members of the
    executive committee about the 22d of October, and the president
    of the society, Bishop Walden, did not hear of it until the
    25th. On the 26th a meeting of the executive committee was held,
    the president of the society being in the chair, and at this
    meeting Dr. Rust, the corresponding secretary, was directed to
    ascertain the facts in the case, and, if the disparaging rumors
    concerning Professor Caulkins should prove to be true, Bishop
    Walden was directed to lay the matter before the board of
    trustees of the university, and ask for Professor Caulkins’s
    resignation. The vote of the committee upon this resolution was
    unanimous. Bishop Walden went immediately to New York to attend
    the bishops’ meeting and other annual meetings.

    “Dr. Rust secured written statements from Dr. Carter, Mr.
    Johnson, and Professor Caulkins. At a meeting of the executive
    committee, December 1st, held on the bishop’s return from the
    East, the matter was called up, but no formal report was made,
    it being the wish of the committee that Bishop Walden should see
    the parties on the ground, and ascertain, so far as possible,
    all the facts bearing upon the case. He presented his report to
    the executive committee, Monday, December 20th, the earliest
    date practicable after he had secured a meeting of the parties
    in Chattanooga. Pending the consideration of the report, the
    committee adjourned to Thursday, December 23d.

    “The annual meeting of the board of managers of the Freedmen’s
    Aid Society was held on the 21st of December, and this case was
    called up, and by resolution was left to the executive committee
    to take such action as the facts might require.

    “Dr. Carter and Professor Caulkins being present on the 23d,
    each, by request of the committee, made a full statement. In
    view of these statements it was deemed best to have personal
    statements from other parties, and the committee requested the
    presence of Mr. Johnson, President Lewis, Dr. Manker, and Mr. J.
    H. Bowman at an adjourned meeting held Tuesday, December 28th.
    These were all present at this meeting except Mr. Bowman, and
    each made a statement before the committee.

    “The committee spared neither time nor patient labor in
    investigating the case, and after mature deliberation, the
    entire committee being present, adopted the following:

    “‘1. That we, the executive committee of the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society, strongly condemn an insult or discourtesy to a colored
    person on account of color or previous condition; that we hold
    that no person who entertains sentiments either inimical or
    prejudicial to the colored people, as such, should have a
    position of trust in any institution of our Church; that we do
    unqualifiedly condemn the refusal or failure of Professor
    Caulkins to shake hands with Rev. B. H. Johnson, and deplore the
    results of what Professor Caulkins claims to have been
    carelessness on his part.’

    “‘2. That a majority of this executive committee is convinced
    that Professor Caulkins did intentionally refuse to shake hands
    with Rev. B. H. Johnson; that he does entertain sentiments that
    unfit him for a position in a school with which our Freedmen’s
    Aid Society is officially connected, and that he should be asked
    to resign at once.’

    “‘3. That inasmuch as the power to dismiss teachers from the
    Chattanooga University is vested by the charter in its board of
    trustees, we, the executive committee of the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society, refer the foregoing statements and conclusions to said
    board of trustees, and respectfully request a speedy decision in
    the matter, and that the decision be placed before the Church at
    the earliest day practicable.’”

        “‘Attest:    J. M. WALDEN, President.’

        “‘T. H. PEARNE, Secretary.’”

When the foregoing action of the board of managers was communicated to
the trustees, they refused to comply.

The following from the Western _Christian Advocate_ has the right ring:


                       PROFESSOR CAULKINS’S CASE.

    “We learn that the trustees of the Chattanooga University
    decline to comply with the request of the executive committee of
    the Freedmen’s Aid Society as to the removal of Professor
    Caulkins. We learn this with much regret, because one result
    will be a disturbance of the harmonious relations which should
    exist between the trustees and the executive committee. We do
    not see how the committee can possibly recede from its position.
    When the matter was sent back by the trustees for further
    consideration, and some new facts were submitted, it was the
    conviction of the committee that the new facts made the case
    against the professor stronger than before, and the request for
    his removal was more prompt and emphatic in the second instance
    than in the first. As we have already said, we are fully
    satisfied that Professor Caulkins means to be a gentleman; but a
    man who could, under any possible circumstances, say such things
    about the Negro as Professor Caulkins certainly has said, and
    act toward a colored minister as he did act toward Mr. Johnson,
    is not a proper person to occupy the position of teacher in a
    Freedmen’s Aid Society school, and the effort of the trustees to
    retain him can accomplish no desirable results. The professor
    ought to resign, and thus end the controversy over his case.
    That the five trustees who voted to retain him in the university
    are sincere in their motives we do not for one moment doubt, but
    they certainly do not see the case as the great mass of the
    members of the Methodist Episcopal Church see it, and their
    position is clearly untenable. Professor Caulkins should not be
    permitted to remain in that institution. If nothing else can be
    done, notice should at once be given to terminate the contract
    between the Freedmen’s Aid Society and the trustees, and at the
    earliest practicable moment a new administration should be
    inaugurated. One mission of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
    the South is to teach a better theory concerning the Negro than
    the South has heretofore held, and it is wholly incongruous for
    us to employ as teachers in the South men who hold upon this
    particular subject opinions which we are there to destroy.
    However pure the motives of the trustees may be, and we have no
    suspicion of them, their course is not wise, and if persisted in
    will lead to serious consequences. We hope they will reconsider
    their action before the evils are precipitated upon us which
    must otherwise inevitably result.


                     MIXED SCHOOLS—LET US BE WISE.

    “It will be a very disastrous state of things if, while the
    Chattanooga University is under discussion, the collections for
    the Freedmen’s Aid Society shall be postponed. The society is in
    debt now, and funds must be supplied or its work will be
    crippled, and in the not distant future will have to be
    suspended. More money should be given this year than in any
    previous year.

    “No change in the administration of the society has been
    inaugurated. The colored work and the white work are going on
    now just as they have done for years, only more successfully
    than ever before. There have never been any colored students in
    our white schools in the South, and the last General Conference
    knew this fact, and approved the administration of the
    Freedmen’s Aid Society. One of our contemporaries says that
    colored students can find a way into Grant Memorial University,
    at Athens, Tennessee; but that is certainly a mistake. We can
    not learn that one colored student has ever been in that school,
    nor do we believe that one would be admitted there. Our white
    schools in the South are for whites exclusively, and have been
    so from the beginning.

    “We do not now discuss the main question at issue, but we do say
    that, in our judgment, those in charge of the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society have been administering the trust committed to them just
    as they administered it before the last General Conference, and
    as they understood the instructions given them by that General
    Conference. The _Freedmen’s Aid Society_ has never excluded
    colored students from white schools. Certain colored persons who
    applied for admittance to Chattanooga University were refused by
    the local authorities, and only a few days ago the matter was
    referred to the officers of the Freedmen’s Aid Society, when a
    meeting of the board of managers was at once called to consider
    the question. So far as we know, this is the first action of the
    kind in the history of the society. What conclusion the board
    will reach we do not know, and do not now care to conjecture,
    although our own views upon the whole subject are entirely
    clear. We do not believe that under the action of the General
    Conference of 1884 those students can be rightfully refused
    admittance to the university, and whatever the results may be,
    the General Conference itself must bear the responsibility for
    them. We confess our profound conviction, and our painful fear,
    that if this view shall be adopted and acted upon, our entire
    educational work among the whites of the South will be
    imperiled. The prejudice against the introduction of colored
    students to our white schools in the South is more violent than
    it would be against the appointment of a colored man as pastor
    of Trinity Church, Chicago; or, if such a thing were possible,
    of Plymouth Church, Brooklyn. We do not believe that mixed
    schools in the South, generally, are yet possible, and this fact
    has influenced the action of the General Conference upon this
    whole subject. It is barely possible that if that body had fully
    appreciated the gravity of the situation, the resolution of May
    28, 1884, setting forth the policy of the Church, would not have
    been adopted. However this may be, to us the action of the
    Conference admits of but one interpretation, and when a student
    knocks at the door of any one of our schools, the opening of the
    door must not depend upon the color of the applicant. Whether
    the action of the conference be wise or unwise is a very
    different question; but this is our interpretation of what it
    did.

    “For the present, however, we are anxious that the regular
    collections for the society shall be taken, so that its growing
    and glorious work may not be crippled. If the collections cease,
    the colored work will be destroyed. Our white people in the
    South can do something on educational lines for themselves, but
    our colored people can do little, if anything; and when the
    people of the North fail to send in the money, the schools for
    the colored people must inevitably close. Let no angry criticism
    of the society result in robbery of Christ’s poor.

    “We trust the Church will see the case just as it is, and not
    rush to a conclusion which will endanger our hitherto prosperous
    work in the South. The board of managers of the society can be
    trusted to do what is right and wise. Let the collections be
    taken as usual, and send the money in promptly, and wait in
    patience for a deliverance from the board of managers. We do not
    need angry passion just now, but coolness, deliberation, wisdom,
    and the fear and love of God. Let these virtues prevail, and no
    disaster will befall us.”

The trustees of Chattanooga University having refused to ask Professor
Caulkins to resign his position in the institution, the _Western
Christian Advocate_ reported, editorially and otherwise, the following,
which we insert in full, because the editor was present during all the
deliberations of the body, and was chairman of the sub-committee which
prepared the statements and resolutions which were considered, amended,
and adopted:


    “The action of the board of managers of the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society will be found in another column, and will be read very
    widely and with much care. The editor of the _Western_ was
    present during all the deliberations of the body, and was
    chairman of the sub-committee which prepared the statements and
    resolutions which were considered, amended, and adopted. He is,
    therefore, in a position to know how the board reached its
    conclusions, and the spirit of all the discussions. The work was
    done prayerfully and carefully, and with profound appreciation
    of the principles involved and of the possible results of the
    action taken. The board understood that it was dealing, directly
    or indirectly, with the entire work of our Church in the South;
    for, as matter of fact, the fate of our Churches in that part of
    the country is more closely related to the fate of our schools
    than most persons think. It took a broad view of the whole
    subject, and after many hours of deliberation on three
    successive days, adopted the deliverance which is now laid
    before the Church. What its statements and resolutions are, the
    reader will learn by personal examination of them. They are
    easily understood. No adroit play is attempted upon the word
    ‘policy,’ nor is the resolution of May 28, 1884, treated as a
    ‘barren ideality,’ The board adopted the view of the whole
    question which was set forth editorially in these columns some
    weeks ago. That the General Conference intended to continue
    separate schools for the two races is entirely clear to us, and
    that it also intended that those schools should not be
    absolutely exclusive as to either race, is equally clear. This
    is the view taken by the board of managers, and seems to us
    wholly correct.

    “We believe it will harmonize with the thought of the Church. We
    do not believe there is a general disposition to destroy, or
    even to cripple, our work among the whites of the South; on the
    contrary, the remarkable success of that work is a cause of joy
    to the great majority of our people, and they are ready to aid
    and extend it. But there is a conviction that the last General
    Conference intended to utter a practical protest against that
    caste spirit which has so long trampled upon the Negro race; and
    there is also a conviction that the age is outgrowing that
    prejudice, and that in this advance toward ideal gospel
    fraternity the Church should lead the age. The board shared this
    conviction, and voiced its opinion in an interpretation of the
    action of the General Conference which none can misunderstand.
    What the effect will be upon our work in the South no one can
    foretell. It is possible that our schools in that section may
    all become schools of colored people; for it is just possible
    that if colored students shall be admitted to what are now
    called white schools, all the white students will be foolish
    enough to leave them. This is prophesied and desired by some who
    wish us evil, and is feared by some who wish us well, and some
    of our enemies are already standing ready to laugh at our
    confusion.

    “We hope for better things. We have no idea that large numbers
    of colored students will apply for admittance to these schools;
    for while they do not enjoy being excluded from them by law,
    they prefer the schools which are attended mostly by their own
    people, and which, as matter of fact, are among the best in the
    South. We do not believe that they will purposely embarrass the
    work among the whites by insisting upon their rights under the
    action of the General Conference as interpreted by the board of
    managers. We are free to say that we hope they will not do it.
    Whatever the result is to be, however, the General Conference
    took the action which the board has now interpreted, and which,
    in our judgment, it could not consistently interpret in any
    other way.

    “We believe the Church will approve what the board has done, not
    only by words but by increased contributions to the cause. The
    society is heavily in debt, and while it has a very large amount
    of property, and is in no sense bankrupt, it ought to have an
    annual income of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

    “The action of the board shows how unjust much of the criticism
    of the society has been. This is the first and only time in its
    history when it has been called upon to interpret General
    Conference action upon this subject, and it speaks promptly and
    clearly. We never had any doubt as to what it would say when an
    opportunity for utterance should be given, and we prophesied
    editorially what the result would be. That time has come; the
    voice of the society has been heard; and it is now in order for
    hostile critics to confess how they have wronged a society which
    ran to the help of the freedman before the roar of the battle
    which made him free had died away, and has done more since, with
    the amount of money at its command, than any other benevolent
    society in the world.

    “We trust that those who are particularly interested in our work
    among the whites of the South will not lose heart. A better day
    is dawning. It would be a poor tribute to our work during the
    last quarter of a century if the introduction of a few colored
    students into our schools for whites should break the
    institutions down. Have we really made so little progress that
    six colored students at Chattanooga would drive out two hundred
    white students? We can hardly believe it. When three chase a
    hundred, the three must be very strong or the hundred very weak.
    We believe our white work will go on, and that this action of
    the board will strengthen the society and increase its success.”


                    ACTION OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS
    OF THE FREEDMEN’S AID SOCIETY OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

    “The board of managers of the Freedmen’s Aid Society of the
    Methodist Episcopal Church, at the call of its executive
    committee, convened at its office in Cincinnati, Ohio, February
    22, 1887, the following members being present: J. M. Walden,
    Amos Shinkle, M. B. Hagans, R. S. Rust, J. C. Hartzell, T. H.
    Pearne, Earl Cranston, W. L. Hypes, D. J. Starr, H. Liebhart, W.
    F. Boyd, J. H. Bayliss, W. P. Stowe, Joseph Courtney, Isaac W.
    Joyce, Bidwell Lane, J. M. Shumpert, E. W. S. Hammond, J. W.
    Dale, J. D. Shutt, F. S. Hoyt, J. Krehbiel—two members being
    absent, namely: F. C. Holliday, through personal illness, and
    Edward Sargent, on account of affliction in his family.

    “The following was submitted for consideration:


       EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF CHATTANOOGA
                              UNIVERSITY.

    “‘WHEREAS, At the opening of the Chattanooga University,
    September 15, 1886, certain colored persons applied to the
    faculty for admission as students in the institution; and

    “‘WHEREAS, Certain other colored persons residing in Athens,
    Tennessee, have applied for admission at the opening of the
    second term, now about to commence; and

    “‘WHEREAS, It has been again and again definitely and clearly
    stated by the proper authorities of the Church, and from the
    beginning has been well understood by all concerned, that the
    Chattanooga University was designed for the education of white
    pupils, and was not intended to be a mixed school; and

    “‘WHEREAS, It is well known that first-class institutions, well
    equipped and provided by the Church especially for the education
    of people of color, are within easy reach of all such persons
    who really desire to avail themselves of their benefits, so that
    they are in no proper sense dependent on this institution for
    education; and

    “‘WHEREAS, We are confident that, in the present state of
    society in the South, the admission of colored students to the
    Chattanooga University would, on the one hand, be fatal to the
    prosperity of the institution, and defeat the very object
    proposed by the Church in the establishment of the school; and,
    on the other hand, would not only be unproductive of good
    results to the colored students so admitted, but would excite
    prejudice and passion, alienate the races, and prove especially
    detrimental to the interests of the colored people; and

    “‘WHEREAS, This very question of mixed schools has, by the
    General Conference itself, been declared to be “one of
    expediency, which is to be left to the choice and administration
    of those on the ground and more immediately concerned;”
    therefore, be it

    “‘_Resolved_, That we deem it inexpedient to admit colored
    students to the university, and that the faculty be instructed
    to administer accordingly.

    “‘Adopted January 4, 1887.’”

    “In view of this action, and after full consideration of the
    whole subject, the board of managers adopts the following
    statements and resolutions:

    “1. The last General Conference authorized the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society to aid in the maintenance and establishment of separate
    schools among the white members of our Church in the South. It
    did this by recognizing the separate white schools then existing
    in the South as entitled to aid; by directing the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society to co-operate in maintaining and establishing such
    schools; by approving the aid this society had already extended
    to these schools; and by directing the pastors when taking
    collections for the Freedmen’s Aid Society to ‘state plainly
    that the educational work of the society is among both white and
    colored people.’ There can, therefore, be no doubt that it was
    the intention to continue separate schools in connection with
    the Freedmen’s Aid Society; yet, in the judgment of this board
    of managers, it is in harmony with the prevailing sentiment of
    the last General Conference to interpret its action as being
    designed to forbid the exclusion of any student ‘from
    instruction in any and every school under the supervision of the
    Church because of race, color, or previous condition of
    servitude;’ and we hereby declare that no pupil should be
    excluded on account of race, color, or previous condition of
    servitude, from instruction in the schools under the control of
    this Freedmen’s Aid Society or aided by its funds, under the
    authority of the last General Conference.

    “In the above interpretation of the action of the last General
    Conference touching this general principle of equality, it is
    the judgment of this board that it was not the expectation of
    the General Conference that any advantage would be taken of its
    deliverance on this subject by persons or parties interested in
    embarrassing the work of our Church, or of this society; and,
    therefore, we trust that the parties directly interested in its
    practical application will so act as to promote good-will and
    insure the usefulness of all the schools under the care of this
    society. We also call attention to, and emphasize, the following
    action of the last General Conference, viz.:

    “‘The establishment of schools for the benefit of our white
    membership in the South we believe to have been a wise and
    necessary measure. Their success has been gratifying. The
    beneficial results have not been confined to those immediately
    interested, but their liberalizing effects upon public sentiment
    have greatly redounded to the advantage of our colored people.
    We regret that for so great and important a work so little has
    been done by the Church, and we desire most emphatically to give
    expression to our conviction that the time has come when this
    portion of our educational work should be strengthened and
    placed upon a strong and permanent basis, as its importance
    certainly demands.’

    “2. WHEREAS, It appears from the above action of the Chattanooga
    University that certain students were denied admission to that
    institution for the sole reason that they were persons of
    African descent; and

    “WHEREAS, In the judgment of this board there is neither in the
    charter of the Chattanooga University, nor in the contract
    between said university and the Freedmen’s Aid Society, anything
    authorizing the exclusion of students from instruction in said
    institution on account of color or race; and as the General
    Conference, on May 28, 1884, did, as its last utterance on this
    question, declare ‘the policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church
    to be, that ... no student shall be excluded from instruction in
    any and every school under the supervision of the Church because
    of race, color, or previous condition of servitude;’ therefore,

    “_Resolved_, That we disapprove the exclusion of those students
    for the reason assigned; and hereby instruct our executive
    committee to use all proper means at its command to induce the
    trustees of the Chattanooga University to rescind the order by
    which those students were refused instruction in that
    institution.

    “3. WHEREAS, The executive committee of the Chattanooga
    University has declined to ask for the resignation of Professor
    Wilford Caulkins as a member of the faculty of that institution,
    although such action has been twice requested by the executive
    committee of this board; therefore,

    “_Resolved_, By the board of managers of the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society, that we approve the course of our executive committee
    in seeking to secure the resignation of Professor Caulkins; and,
    while carefully and respectfully considering the reasons urged
    by the executive committee of the Chattanooga University for his
    retention, it is our conviction that the best interests of the
    society and the Church demand his removal.

    “4. WHEREAS, Harmony between this board and the Chattanooga
    University is essential to the effective working of the said
    university; therefore,

    “_Resolved_, That if the Chattanooga University fail to secure
    the resignation of Professor Wilford Caulkins, to take effect at
    a date not later than the close of the present school term, and
    so to modify its action as not to exclude from instruction in
    that institution students on account of race or color; _i.e._,
    if the said university fail in either of these particulars, we
    hereby instruct our executive committee to secure by agreement,
    if possible, with the trustees of said university, the immediate
    termination of the contract between the Chattanooga University
    and the Freedmen’s Aid Society; and, in case a termination of
    said contract be not secured by mutual agreement, in either of
    the contingencies named above, to notify the trustees of the
    Chattanooga University, within sixty days from this 24th day of
    February, 1887, of the termination of the contract as provided
    in the same.

    “Done by the Board of Managers of the Freedmen’s Aid Society of
        the Methodist Episcopal Church, at its office in Cincinnati,
        Ohio, this 24th day of February, A. D. 1887.

                        “J. M. WALDEN, President.

      “Attest: T. H. PEARNE, Secretary.”


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                              CHAPTER XIII

               THEORY AND PRACTICE—A GENERAL DISCUSSION.


While the board of managers was in session, as well as before and
afterward, a general discussion, pro and con, was going on. We give but
a few of the many expressions of opinion on the subject; enough,
however, for one to form an intelligent opinion touching the real
intention of the Church. If it should appear to any one that the actions
taken by the last General Conference were ambiguous, not to say plainly
contradictory, not only with themselves but the past record of the
Church, it will occasion no surprise. The _Central Christian Advocate_,
at St. Louis, spoke editorially, March 2d, as follows:


                          THEORY AND PRACTICE.

    “The decision of those who are in charge of the new university
    at Chattanooga, erected under the direction of, and out of the
    funds collected for, the Freedmen’s Aid Society, that colored
    students shall not be admitted to its benefits, has brought the
    Methodist Episcopal Church face to face with certain questions
    which only the next General Conference can settle. But in the
    meantime it is wise to examine the questions involved from every
    point of view, and, if possible, thoroughly comprehend the
    situation; for, in matters of this kind, we are apt to form
    opinions before we have canvassed the whole field, and to make
    accusations that will not stand investigation. That there are
    differences of opinion in regard to the intention of the last
    General Conference in its legislation on the subject under
    discussion, no one can doubt. There were those in that body who
    understood that certain action in which they had a part
    established the rule that no distinctions founded on race or
    color should be made under any circumstances in any of our
    schools. But there are others who as certainly understood that
    there would probably be circumstances where the success of our
    educational work in the South would depend upon setting apart
    some of the schools there exclusively for the whites. It is not
    a difference of opinion that admits any suspicion of a lack of
    honesty or piety in either party, much less the accusation of
    trickery or intentional wrong-doing. And it will be found, we
    think, after proper consideration, that these differences may be
    easily explained; that they are simply the differences of
    opinion which always arise in the transformation and development
    of society between the party of theory and that of experience
    and practice.

    “The Methodist Episcopal Church holds to the theory that God
    ‘hath made of one blood all nations of men;’ that they were all
    involved in the fall, and all have been redeemed by Christ, and
    may become partakers of the same faith and eternal inheritance.
    We hold that the social and civil distinctions which prevail in
    society are of men, not of God. ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek,
    there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor
    female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’ It is not
    possible—so at least it appears to us—to conceive of Christ as
    recognizing these distinctions except to condemn them, and to
    show his sympathy for the oppressed or degraded party. The
    conviction and faith of the Methodist Episcopal Church is as
    strong, and her practice as nearly in accord with her faith, as
    that of any Protestant Church; but her faith and practice are
    not, and never have been, in harmony in regard to the colored
    people. The simple fact is, that wherever the colored people
    have become Methodists, and are found in any considerable
    number, they have been formed into separate societies; when a
    number of societies have been formed they have been organized
    into a separate district, and in the end into separate
    conferences. The line of procedure has been the same in the
    North, where slavery has not prevailed for generations, and the
    rights of the colored people are fully recognized, as in the
    South where the prejudice against them is the greatest. So that
    there is not to-day, so far as we know, a single colored Church,
    able to support a pastor, in charge of a white pastor. There is
    not a society of whites, in any condition of poverty or
    ignorance, served by a colored pastor. There are a few districts
    of colored societies served by white presiding elders, but not
    one white district by a colored presiding elder. And we do not
    believe there is a society of whites anywhere in the Church that
    have asked for or would receive a colored pastor, whatever might
    be his grade of talent. They would not object to hear one of
    this description preach, and they would treat him with
    consideration, but they would hardly ask him to become their
    pastor.

    “We believe this to be a fair statement of the situation. It
    does not mean that we intend to be unjust or unchristian, nor
    that we harbor secret prejudice against our colored brethren,
    but simply that the condition of things about us makes it
    impossible, as we say, to put our theory in practice. We are not
    hypocrites, nor are we consciously faint at heart in contending
    for the equal rights of all men; but we have learned that the
    leaven of Christianity has not yet leavened society. We find our
    theory and the practical reason not in accord, and we follow
    reason. For we are not propagating a theory but engaged in
    obtaining actual benefits for men. The object we have in view is
    itself a step towards the overthrow of error and sin and
    prejudice. It is not a surrender, but accepting what we can not
    at once change that we may yet reach the object in view.

    “Some one, however, may say, But what about the schools? The
    school is not a necessity in the same sense that the Church
    is; and if people prefer to remain ignorant rather than obtain
    education under certain circumstances, let them take the
    responsibility. This means, we take it, that we shall not
    undertake to do anything towards the education of the whites
    in the South. And yet it is by education alone that this
    prejudice which we are asked to combat is to be removed. Those
    in charge of the Chattanooga University have not, we think,
    taken counsel of their fears in this matter, but have an
    intelligent conviction of their duty under the circumstances.
    And yet it might have been worth the experiment to have made
    the test, and let the Church know exactly the difficulty which
    confronts a company of men who have at heart the welfare alike
    of white and colored. But right here is where the difference
    of opinion comes in—where theory and practice come in
    collision; the one party is no more willing to yield than the
    other. Whether we can maintain a condition in our Church
    schools which we have failed to maintain in the Church—where
    prejudice should have less influence than anywhere else—is, to
    say the least, problematical. And the question which will come
    before the next General Conference is: Shall we undertake to
    establish a condition of affairs in the South which we have
    utterly failed to establish in the North under more favorable
    circumstances.”

March 2d the following appeared in the _North-western Christian
Advocate_, from the pen of A. Wheeler, D.D.:

    “The refusal of the Chattanooga University to admit the colored
    students who made application for reception into its halls has
    exposed them to severe criticism, not to say malediction. A
    reconstruction of its administration is loudly called for, more
    in harmony with the policy and principles of the Church. The
    suggestion that the great wrong done should at least be divided
    with another authority seems not to have occurred to any of the
    horrified accusers living a thousand miles away from the scene
    of trouble. Is this as it ought to be? Is it justice? Is it fair
    play?

    “In this transaction two things claim attention,—the principle
    underlying it, and its application. As to the principle: The
    General Conference of 1876 indorsed the principle of separate
    conferences and societies. Is the principle of separation right
    in the house of God, and wrong in the house of learning? The
    General Conference of 1884 recognized the principle as
    appropriate also to our schools in the South. Was this done as
    an abstraction, with no expectation of a concrete application?
    If so, it ought to have been known. If the principle is wrong,
    it is but just that condemnation fall upon the General
    Conferences enacting it, and moral cowardice to visit such
    indignation on the Chattanooga agents of the Church carrying out
    a principle ordained by the highest authority of the Church—a
    principle to be carried into operation under certain
    contingencies.

    “The application of the principle is the other matter to be
    considered. Who was to apply it? Somebody in Detroit or Boston,
    or the trustees and faculties intrusted with the care of the
    institutions? To ask the question is to answer it. A mistake in
    the application of the principle in a given case might be made,
    but are those making it to be adjudged worse sinners than those
    upon whom the tower of Siloam fell therefor? If those applying a
    principle mistakenly be worthy of death, of how much sorer
    punishment shall they be thought worthy who gave them the
    principle to apply? But the General Conference of 1884 declared
    the policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church to be ... that ‘no
    student shall be excluded from instruction in any and every
    school under the supervision of the Church because of race,
    color, or previous condition of servitude.’ What of it? Had that
    deliverance the force of an enactment? Was it true to history?
    Will any claim it to be history? Who have declared it? When and
    where was the declaration made? Had such a policy been carried
    into execution? When? By whom? Had it been at Athens or Little
    Rock, the only other schools established for whites at the
    South?

    “The statement never ought to have been made by the committee,
    nor indorsed by the General Conference. The policy of exclusion
    had never been adopted, it is true, but the trend of the
    legislation of the Church since 1876 had been in the direction
    of separation in worship and education, under certain
    conditions. To institute such legislation, and then visit
    unsparing indignation on those whose duty it is to apply it, is
    neither just nor manly, unless the application has been made in
    a way faithless to a committed trust. I am not defending the
    principle of separation in conferences or schools. It may be
    wrong. If it is, let us say so and abandon it; but till we do
    abandon it, let us not blame those for whose benefit it was
    adopted for using it when the conditions for its use are
    present. Nor let us conclude that one of the qualifications for
    judging conditions is distance from the scene of action, and
    that competency is in proportion to remoteness. Let those of us
    who voted the principle, if it be blameworthy, bear our part of
    the blame, and not saddle it all off upon the Chattanooga
    authorities. Let us hold them responsible for a misuse of it
    only. To legislate a principle that was never to be used would
    be simply a mockery.”

March 9th the following contribution, which appeared in the columns of
the _Western Christian Advocate_, was written by A. B. Leonard, D.D.:

    “There appears to be no small amount of confusion in the minds
    of not a few, who ought to be perfectly clear, as to the action
    of the late General Conference on the question of caste in the
    Churches and schools of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The
    action of that body was of such a character as to put the whole
    question beyond the realm of doubt.

    “On May 22, 1884, Report No. 3 was presented by the chairman of
    the Freedmen’s Committee to the General Conference, and was
    adopted with but little discussion, almost without opposition.
    The third resolution of that report was as follows:

    “‘_Resolved_, That the _question of separate or mixed schools we
    consider one of expediency, which is to be left to the choice
    and administration of those on the ground and more immediately
    concerned: Provided_, there shall be no interference with the
    rights set forth in this preamble and these resolutions.’

    “In regard to mixed schools and congregations the preamble said:

    “‘To the question of mixed schools we have given our most
    serious and prayerful attention. It is a subject beset with
    peculiar difficulties. That the colored man has a just and equal
    right, not only to life and liberty, but also to the means of
    grace and facilities for education, we not only admit, but most
    positively affirm. We are in duty bound to provide for and to
    secure to every class of our membership, so far as possible, a
    fair and equal opportunity in Church and school accommodations.
    And in so far as this is done our duty is performed, and the
    equal rights justly demanded of us thus fairly and fully
    conceded. _Mixed congregations and mixed schools may, in many
    places, be most desirable and best for all concerned. In other
    cases one class or the other, or both, may prefer separate
    congregations and separate schools._ Equal rights to the best
    facilities for intellectual and spiritual culture; equal rights
    in the eligibility to every position of honor and trust, and
    equal rights in the exercise of a free and unconstrained choice
    in all social relations, is a principle at once American,
    Methodistic, and Scriptural.’

    “Upon a more thorough examination of the italicised parts of
    this report it was feared by many that it would justify
    _forcible_ separation on the color-line where ‘those on the
    ground’ saw fit to adopt that policy. In the light of recent
    events that fear was well founded. The Chattanooga University
    trustees have done just what it was feared might be done under
    the resolution and preamble above quoted. If no further action
    had been taken by the General Conference, that body would be
    compelled to bear the responsibility of the rejection of colored
    students by the Chattanooga authorities. In the absence of
    further action the trustees could say that the ‘question of
    separate or mixed schools’ is ‘one of expediency, which is to be
    left to the choice and administration of those on the ground.’
    ‘We are _on the ground_, and we hold that _expediency_ requires
    that colored students shall be excluded from our university, and
    we so decree.’

    “But there was another General Conference committee that could
    properly consider and report on the question of caste—the
    Committee on the State of the Church—which had, according to the
    statement of its chairman, Governor Pattison, made upon the
    floor of the General Conference, given special attention to this
    question, even before the report from the Freedmen’s Committee
    was adopted. The unsatisfactory nature of the report from the
    Freedmen’s Committee, already adopted, was regarded as
    sufficient reason why the report from the Committee on the State
    of the Church should be pressed upon the attention of the
    conference. That report was presented and adopted May 28th, the
    last day of the session. The report was as follows:

    “‘_Resolved_, That this General Conference declares the policy
    of the Methodist Episcopal Church to be, that no member of any
    society within the Church shall be excluded from public worship
    in any and every edifice of the denomination, and no student
    shall be excluded from instruction in any and every school under
    the supervision of the Church, because of race, color, or
    previous condition of servitude.’

    “It was well known at the time that this latest action of the
    General Conference was intended to make it impossible under any
    circumstances, forcibly or morally, to ‘exclude colored people
    from any Church or school under the control of the Methodist
    Episcopal Church.’

    “The resolution was earnestly opposed by a small minority, and
    all parliamentary tactics were employed to prevent its adoption.

    “Dr. Lanahan opposed it because the conference had already
    declared that ‘color is no bar to any right or privilege of
    office or membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church,’ and
    moved to postpone indefinitely.

    “Rev. C. J. Howes moved to substitute a minority report, as
    follows:

    “‘_Resolved_, That there is no call for any farther action upon
    the relation of the races in our Church.’

    “Brother Howes made a vigorous speech against the report and in
    favor of the substitute, at the close of which the previous
    question was ordered. Before the vote was taken, Governor
    Pattison, as chairman of the committee, made an earnest plea for
    the rejection of the substitute and the adoption of the
    resolution. The substitute was lost. A. Shinkle, a layman,
    called for a vote by orders, but the call was not sustained. The
    Rev. Dr. T. C. Carter called for a vote by orders, but the call
    was not sustained. The vote was then taken on indefinite
    postponement, and lost. A. Shinkle called for the yeas and nays,
    and the call was not sustained. The report of the committee was
    then adopted without amendment, a small minority voting against
    it.

    “The adoption of this report, as narrated above, leaves no room
    for a doubt as to the position of the General Conference on the
    question of caste. There is no conflict between the two reports.
    The report from the Freedmen’s Committee is to be interpreted in
    the light of the report from the Committee on the State of the
    Church.

    “The attempt made by certain persons to make the impression that
    the latest deliverance of the General Conference was hasty and
    not well considered, is hardly less than a perversion of the
    facts in the case. Being the latest, it is the _mature_ judgment
    of that body, and was intended to set at rest the question of
    caste.

    “It is passing strange that any attempt should be made,
    particularly by members of the late General Conference, to
    justify the course pursued by the Chattanooga trustees. They
    have simply violated both the letter and the spirit of the
    deliverance of the Church through its only legislative body.
    There was but one thing, therefore, that the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society could do without joining hands with the Chattanooga
    trustees; namely, to condemn their policy of rejecting colored
    students; and that, thank God, it has done. Let its resolution
    be engraved in letters of gold, and conspicuously displayed over
    the doors of all the schools under its care. Let it be announced
    boldly by bishops, editors, college faculties, and ministers,
    that the Methodist Episcopal Church knows no caste, either in
    its houses of worship or schools of learning.

    “Now that this vexed question is settled, so far as it is
    possible to settle it by the action of the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society, and settled in harmony with the action of the General
    Conference and the teachings of the New Testament, let the
    support of the society be more generous than ever before. There
    is no cause that is more worthy, and when its merits are fairly
    stated it can not fail to meet a generous response.”

The following appeared in the _Western Christian Advocate_ of same date,
written by Isaac Crook, D.D.:

                      “‘You can and you can’t,
                       You shall and you sha’n’t.’

    “Allow a word now from one outside of the responsibilities of
    General Conference membership in 1884, and of ambitions for
    1888, and with no votes to be defended. The action had on the
    report (No. 3) from the Freedmen’s Aid Committee seemed to
    outsiders to say, ‘That action is inspired by the prudence come
    from experience, and through those ‘on the ground.’’ It is in
    harmony with the liberty needful in all similar work North and
    South, and is sustained by the Pauline wisdom which ‘took and
    circumcised Timothy because of the Jews in those quarters.’
    Local prejudices did control the ‘policy’ of St. Paul.

    “The report of the Committee on the State of the Church (No. 4
    adopted afterward) looked like a halt, and even a retreat, under
    some alarm at what had thus been done six days before.

    “The first action said: ‘The question of separate or mixed
    schools we consider one of expediency, which is to be left to
    the choice and administration of those on the ground.’ That
    said, ‘You can.’

    “Then came, six days later, the adoption of this: ‘No student
    _shall be excluded_ in any and every school under supervision of
    the Church.’ How could it say more clearly, ‘You can’t’
    ‘exclude?’ It is not now, as it was six days ago, ‘left to the
    _choice_ of those on the ground,’ except as they choose to
    _admit_.

    “When Lorenzo Dow would answer high Calvinism, which declared
    for the freedom of the human will, but that freedom possible
    only in one direction, he flung out the rhyme heading this
    article:

                      ‘You can and you can’t,
                       You shall and you sha’n’t,
                       You will and you won’t;
                       You’ll be damned if you do,
                       And be damned if you don’t.’

    “Is not Chattanooga University caught between the two horns of a
    parallel case of decreed liberty? ‘Left to the choice and
    administration of those on the ground,’ says Freedmen’s Report,
    No. 3. Those on the ground administer for a white school under
    that General Conference ‘_can_,’ when lo! they are caught by the
    younger member of the decrees governing the case, which says
    ‘_you can’t_’.

    “There is not a school under our Church-care in all the South
    but is liable to both horns of this dilemma of double decrees.
    No school in the North is so hampered.

    “Let the next General Conference take out the Calvinism of the
    last action had, and adhere to that broad doctrine of human
    rights which allows not even the tyranny of any majority or
    minority, though it be of one headstrong person. Let us have
    freedom of election in both doctrine and polity, not to mention
    of delegates. May, the name of the beautiful month when General
    Conference meets, would make a good substitute for ‘shall’ and
    ‘sha’n’t’ in all far-reaching legislation for distant and future
    contingencies.

    “Those who show no faith in posterity, or people differently
    surrounded from themselves, provide for embarrassment and often
    for revolution. The antecedents and the present love of justice
    in the heart of Methodism may be trusted to see that every
    member of every color shall have right to the pursuit of ‘life,
    liberty, and happiness,’ with no other exclusions than a
    righteous Christian prudence may, as exceptions dictate,
    require. Even then the ‘strong should bear the infirmities of
    the weak.’”

In the same paper, March 23, 1887, the following, contributed by Gershom
Lease, appeared:

    “That there should be a difference of opinion among good men, in
    so important a matter as our work in the South, is by no means
    strange. That even a General Conference of grave divines and
    honored laymen, while navigating so dark a sea without compass
    or precedent, should occasionally run against breakers, is not
    to be wondered at. The only wonder is that, in twenty years of
    unremitting effort, the Church has not seriously embarrassed
    herself by her own action. The Church has had the wisdom and the
    grace to enter this unexplored field with her evangelizing
    agencies, and by her wisdom and success commend herself to the
    continued confidence of the people. For the first time in the
    history of this great work we are brought face to face with a
    problem, the solution of which is taxing the best thought of the
    Church, and exciting somewhat grave apprehensions in the minds
    of good men. The difficulty is in the interpretation of the
    action of the last General Conference upon our educational work
    in the South. It is not strange that there should be a
    difference of opinion; for there does really seem to be a want
    of harmony in the action of that body.

    “On the nineteenth day of the session of the conference it
    adopted a carefully prepared report, presented by the Committee
    on Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the Church on our educational work
    in the South. The third resolution of this report (No. 3) says
    that ‘the question of separate or mixed schools we consider one
    of expediency, which is to be left to the choice and
    administration of those on the ground and more immediately
    concerned.’ On the twenty-fourth day of the session the
    conference adopted a report presented by the Committee on the
    State of the Church, which declares the policy of the Church to
    be, that ‘no student shall be excluded from instruction in any
    and every school under the supervision of the Church, because of
    race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’ These two
    resolutions do not seem to be in harmony; each declares a
    distinct and different policy. The one declares the policy of
    the Church to be, that ‘no student shall be excluded from
    instruction in any of our institutions of learning,’ while the
    other just as distinctly declares that the ‘question of mixed
    schools is one of expediency, to be determined by those on the
    ground.’ How it is possible to harmonize these two resolutions
    it is certainly difficult to see. The theory that the one
    provides for the admission of a sprinkling of colored students
    into a white school is not satisfactory. This interpretation
    still leaves the question open, what per cent of sprinkling can
    be accommodated; which, in effect, breaks down the theory.
    Neither is it satisfactory to say that mixed schools is the
    policy of the Church, and separate schools the exception. Though
    this exposition might be preferable to the former, still it does
    not materially affect the situation; for the exception is left
    to the judgment of the parties ‘on the ground and more
    immediately interested,’ which is equivalent to saying that any
    of our schools may be exclusive, which is just what Report No. 3
    declares.

    “The two resolutions, then, declaring a separate and distinct
    policy, it becomes a simple question of _weight_ between them.
    It can not be fairly said that the practical policy of the
    Church has been mixed schools or Churches; so that the
    resolution of the Committee on the State of the Church embodies
    a principle that has only had a shadow of application in the
    practical work of the Church; and the reason for it is founded
    in the fact that, after a fair trial, mixed schools and Churches
    have been found inexpedient. The preamble of Report No. 3 of the
    Committee on Freedmen’s Aid declares that the ‘establishment of
    schools for our white membership’ ‘has greatly redounded to the
    benefit of our colored people.’ The resolution, then, so far as
    it declares for a uniform policy is not in harmony with that
    principle of practical expediency that we have found necessary
    in our work in the South.

    “Again, the report of the Committee on the State of the Church
    seems to have been volunteered. It was not necessarily binding
    on that committee to prepare and present a report on that
    subject.

    “And, further, the necessity for such a report seems to have
    been questionable. The position and policy of the Church, as to
    the equal rights of the colored man, had been sufficiently
    declared by the general policy and administration of the Church
    for the last twenty years. The policy of the Church in its
    Discipline and administration has been, and still is, to grant
    to the colored man all the rights, privileges, honors, and
    immunities of the white man. On the question of personal rights
    the Church knows no difference. He is the peer in Methodism of
    the white man in Church membership, in all the councils of the
    Church, and as eligible to any position of honor or trust in the
    gift of the Church as the white man. No resolution of the
    General Conference of 1884 could in any way dignify either the
    man or his equality of rights in the Church above that which he
    already enjoyed in the fundamental organism of the Church. There
    seems to have been no necessity for this action. It can be of no
    practical utility to the colored man.

    “After the passage of Report No. 3 of the Committee on
    Freedmen’s Aid, it could do nothing but invite conflict and
    embarrass the Church in its work. With all due respect to any
    action of the General Conference, the report of the Committee
    on Freedmen’s Aid seems to carry with it a greater weight of
    obligation than the other. This committee was specially
    charged by the General Conference with the investigation of
    this subject. In fact, this was the object of the committee.
    The report itself shows that the committee appreciated the
    gravity of the situation, and thoroughly considered the extent
    and magnitude of the work, as well as the embarrassments
    because of race and color that have met the Church in the
    past. It embodies the godly judgment of the most thorough and
    painstaking investigation of any body of men authorized to
    speak upon that subject. This report is the deliberate and
    specially-provided-for judgment of the Methodist Episcopal
    Church upon this subject, and consequently carries with it all
    the weight that the deliberate action of the highest council
    of the Church can give it. Add to this the fact that it is in
    harmony with the practical policy of the Church founded in
    experience, and it seems to carry a weight with it, a force of
    authority, that would at least relieve a faculty and board of
    trustees that acted under it, of that severe censure that the
    authorities at Chattanooga have been subjected to. This would
    seem to be specially the case where an institution had been
    erected with the distinct understanding that it was for a
    particular race. We can but regard the action at Chattanooga
    as within the provision of authority. To waive all question of
    superiority, the action of the General Conference under which
    they acted is of equal authority with the other. The other
    view of the case practically annuls Report No. 3, and leaves
    it a dead letter.

    “While we would certainly entertain all due respect for the
    deliberate judgment of the ‘board of managers of the Freedmen’s
    Aid Society,’ as set forth in their late action, yet we would
    respectfully submit that the _intentions_ of the board as
    therein set forth, to dissolve its connection with the
    university, provided the local authorities do not rescind their
    action, may be hasty and unwarranted. The action proposed is one
    of serious import, which, if carried into effect, ought to have
    a clear and unchallenged justification.”

The _Central Christian Advocate_ of March 9, 1887, said:

    “A few weeks ago we expressed the opinion that the Chattanooga
    University case would not be settled until the next General
    Conference. We thought there was ground, untenable indeed, for
    the position of the trustees, and that they would have a hearing
    before that body, and then the question of ‘separate’ schools
    would be discussed on its merits, and the Southern side would
    have the opportunity of presenting its views. But the action of
    the trustees and faculty in regard to Professor Caulkins
    revealed a state of affairs that no one suspected, and for which
    there was no defense from any point of view whatever. So great a
    misapprehension of the feeling and conviction of the Church in
    regard to her colored members had never occurred before. The
    path of duty was so plain that no one should have had a moment’s
    doubt about it, nor should the university for one moment have
    hesitated to follow the suggestion of the authorities of the
    Freedmen’s Aid Society. But the university party could not so
    see it, and declined to dismiss the offensive professor. This
    placed the whole affair in a new light, and the board of
    managers of the society were literally compelled to take the
    action set forth in their report which we printed last week.

    “That they will have the support of the Church there can be no
    doubt. For while the Church may be willing to yield something to
    prejudice and custom, and agree that some of its schools may be
    properly classified as white, and others as colored, it will not
    sacrifice the principle of equality of rights among its members.
    No General Conference could be convened that would rescind the
    action of the last General Conference, when it declared that no
    student shall be excluded from ‘instruction in any and every
    school under the supervision of the Church because of race,
    color, or previous condition of servitude.’ We do not call in
    question the desire of the authorities of the Chattanooga
    University to secure the highest interest of the Church and of
    the two races. They do not design to perpetuate caste, but to
    bridge over the present till a better condition shall be
    established; and the Church intended to assist them in so worthy
    a work. But they did not take into account, as they should have
    done, the feeling of the Church. They misinterpreted the phrase
    ‘expediency,’ when they attempted to establish a rule which
    excluded all colored persons from the university.

    “We regret that they did not put to the actual test their
    conviction, that the admission of colored students of the class
    that could claim entrance to a school of its grade ‘would be
    fatal to the prosperity of the institution.’ There are many
    persons who do not believe this. They do not doubt the honesty
    of the university authorities, but believe that they have taken
    counsel of their fears. They believe it possible to maintain a
    university in the South under the same conditions as in the
    North. This would have gone far towards settling the question,
    for some years at least. As it is, the question has to be taken
    up again under less favorable conditions for its determination.
    But we shall not fail in the end. So long as our hearts are
    right, blunder as we may, we will make certain progress in the
    right direction; for this question of justice and equal rights
    to the colored race has been thrust upon us by God himself, and
    he will lead us on, if we will suffer ourselves to be led, to a
    decision that will be approved in heaven.”

The _Northwestern Advocate_ of March 2, 1887, contained the following by
J. B. Stair:

    “Dr. Smart, in a short article on the caste question, asks some
    very pertinent questions concerning our Church in the South, but
    does not answer them so satisfactorily. The implication,
    however, is that we are there because the Methodist Church
    already there is so permeated by that ‘devilish’ and
    ‘unfraternal spirit’ [of caste] ‘worthy to be accursed of God
    and good men,’ that she can no longer do efficient evangelistic
    work. It would seem that a Church so afflicted would not only be
    incapacitated for any good, but would necessarily be without the
    pale of fellowship with any other Christian body; and yet
    somehow we continue to recognize our Southern sister as one of
    us, send to and receive from her Christian and fraternal
    greetings on every proper occasion, receive her pastors into our
    pulpits, hang by the thousands upon their words, profit
    numerically and spiritually by their labors, and devote half
    pages of our great Church weeklies to an advertisement of their
    sermons. Are we justified in thus figuratively taking to our
    arms a Church possessed of a spirit ‘worthy to be accursed of
    God’—a Church whose course is so radically incompetent and wrong
    that able missions from our own Church are demanded to
    counteract it? If somebody can, will he please point out the
    consistency in all this? If we are in the South to convert
    people to our view of the caste question, we are there for a
    laudable purpose perhaps, but one doomed to failure. That
    question was not involved in Adam’s fall, nor is our view of it
    necessary to salvation. If the politicians among us would stop a
    moment and consider the fact that caste exists elsewhere than in
    the South, and with reference to the colored race, it might at
    least furnish us with the occasion to divide our missionary
    forces with a view to a better distribution. Perhaps no country
    under Christian influence is more painfully afflicted with this
    ‘curse’ than England is, and yet Dr. Smart evidently fails to
    find a reason for sending missionaries there. True, the Negro is
    not there involved, nor are ante and post bellum rivalries; but
    that ought not to be an essential circumstance. The fact seems
    to be that caste exists about everywhere, even in our own dear
    Church. We have, and might again see, a form of it manifested,
    should the powers that be so far forget themselves as to send a
    doctor of divinity to a three hundred-dollar appointment in the
    backwoods; and instances are not beyond our own ken in which
    good Methodist families persistently forget to ask the servants
    to eat with them in the dining-room, even when the table is not
    crowded. It is remarkable how much color and climate have to do
    with the question of caste. Social relations, morally clean, are
    not a fit subject for the missionary works of a great Church.
    The legitimacy of our errand in the South will depend much upon
    the question whether we find there territory unoccupied, or
    whether we are there as rivals merely, of a Church with whom we
    have long been at political swords’ points. Politicians, Church
    or other, should not be allowed to decide. If we are in the
    South, as are other evangelical Churches, for the purpose of
    saving the souls of men, we deserve Godspeed. But if the only
    reason we can give for being there is to eradicate caste, social
    prejudice between races, the foundation for our errand will
    deservedly be alike unsubstantial with its completed results.”

The intention in thus presenting the Chattanooga affair, like that of
the rest of this work, has been to sustain the facts: (1) There has
never been a disposition on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church
to ignore its obligations to the colored man, but it has, in every
conceivable way, aided him intellectually, financially, and spiritually.
(2) That the Church, as such, has always not only respected his manhood,
but encouraged him, where circumstances or previous condition persuaded
him to believe he possessed none, to respect his manhood and feel
himself somebody. (3) That the Methodist Episcopal Church, as such, has
done this to a greater degree, and with as much, if not more,
consistency than _any other Church in this country, and at greater
cost_. It is quite a different thing to say that she has always declared
that _none but mixed schools_ should be supported by the Freedmen’s Aid
Society. The simple and unambiguous statement, “the question of separate
or mixed schools is one of expediency, which is to be left to those on
the ground and more immediately concerned,” forever excludes any such
idea. If the mind of the Church can be known at all, it certainly is
best known by the enactments of the several General Conferences on this
question. From these we conclude that it is not the policy of the Church
to truckle to caste prejudice in any form anywhere. It has declared that
as a Church it favors “equal rights to the best facilities for
intellectual and spiritual culture, equal rights in the eligibility to
every position of honor and trust, and equal rights in the exercise of a
free and unconstrained choice in all social relations.” But the whole is
greater than any part; therefore there is not, nor can there be, any
Church or school conducted under the auspices of the Methodist Episcopal
Church into which _any member or pupil_ may not enter, or from which any
proper person can be excluded “on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude.” This is the declared policy of the Church;
also, the letter of the law on this question. The apostle Paul, a man of
profound learning and great piety, as well as keen foresight—a man that
so spurned caste prejudice as to withstand his brother Peter to his face
concerning caste—says: “All things are lawful unto me, but all things
are not expedient. The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.” It is
true of the colored man in the Methodist Episcopal Church that “_all
things are lawful_” unto him that are lawful unto any other man within
the Church. It is equally true for the colored man that “all things are
not expedient” for him any more than they are for white men within the
Church.

We do not believe, nor do we wish to believe, that our Church intended,
by anything done in the General Conference of 1884, or desired at that
time to annul any of its hitherto impartial acts; to give any particular
class of its members any indulgence in wrong-doing; to yield to any kind
of race or class prejudice; that it attempted or desired to elevate any
class of its members above another; or, on the other hand, that, while
it slept, an enemy sowed “tares” in the field. We think no one believes
that it was the intention of the Church to dishearten or disband or
leave to themselves the schools among our white membership in the South,
organized and conducted, as well as supported in part, by conferences of
our Church, in the which _there are no colored members_. The Church must
have seen and felt that _it is an utter impossibility_ for any Church,
indeed for the United States government, to mix promiscuously, perforce,
the schools in the South; that if the two races there are to be educated
by our Church, in some sort they must be allowed a “free and
unconstrained choice in all social matters.” Rome was not built in a
day. Diseases that have become chronic, and remain within a system for
two hundred and fifty-eight years, can not be eradicated in a month,
even though an entire college of physicians attempt it. When the Church
requested the Freedmen’s Aid Society “to give such aid to the
above-named schools during the next quadrennium as can be done without
embarrassment to the schools among the freedmen,” it recognized not only
the _existence_ of exclusively white schools, but provided _for their
perpetuation_. The situation of affairs is peculiar indeed. The above
action was not intended (though we candidly believe that those who
claimed the opposite had a right to, and did think so) to recognize the
right to exclude _any pupil_ on account of race, color, or previous
condition, on the plea of exercising their “free and unconstrained
choice.” That General Conference, however, _did intend to allow the two
races in the South to have the privilege of separate schools_, if they
desired them, as it had not interposed objection to separate annual
conferences. As proof of this, the General Conference put the entire
educational work of the Church in the South under the direct management
of the Freedmen’s Aid Society.

The wisdom of this, to our mind, does not appear on the surface; for, if
the Church should at any time in the future call a colored man to the
office of corresponding or assistant corresponding secretary in that
society, Banquo’s ghost will rise again. Again, it was made, and is now,
the duty of each pastor, when asking for collections or presenting the
claims of the society, to state plainly that “the funds collected are to
be used for both races, and where contributors express the desire, they
shall be allowed to say where their funds shall go.” Here, again, we
come face to face with a knotty problem as to the wisest method evenly
to balance those funds. It is natural to suppose that _the prejudiced
class_ in each race will turn all funds into the channel into which his
prejudices run. Now, to keep even financially, the two races within the
Church in the South must do one of two things, viz.: Either drop the
question of races, and let the funds collected be proportionately
appropriated, or keep up the race question, and thus keep their funds
separate. Which will be done? Does it require the wisdom of a
philosopher to guess? Neither can, under the present _régime_, without
financial loss, afford to be _less prejudiced_ than the other; for the
reason that the funds raised by the unprejudiced class will be equally
divided, and it will get only its part of _its collection_, while the
prejudiced class will not only receive its _own collections_ but an
_equal proportion of the unprejudiced class’s funds_. These
complications are but the legitimate outgrowth of the animated
discussions in the General Conference of 1884 touching the race
question. We do not believe the Church intends to lessen its interest,
lag in its zeal, or retard the progress and prosperity, or circumscribe
the usefulness of our schools where only colored pupils have chosen to
matriculate, or to allow the children of our white membership in the
South to grow up in ignorance and superstition while it is able
materially to succor both at the same time and in the same way. Is this
view not reasonable, equitable, and best? Is it not a reflection upon
Methodism to view it otherwise, in the light of the past history of the
Church on the race question? While we say “in the same way,” we do not
intend to say in the same school-building or recitation-room. To-day it
certainly appears utterly impossible to mix promiscuously our Church
schools in the South after having founded one class of them upon _an
entirely different basis_. It might be done in the North. Might it not?
We can not, however, argue along the same lines for Church schools of
any denomination for any particular class of students in the South that
we can for those in the North. The two cases are as dissimilar
ecclesiastically as the two sections of country are politically.

The training has been different. In the first place, the relations of
the two races in the two sections have always been, and are to-day,
different; the training of the whites in both these sections has been
different—a different class of text-books, as well as a different class
of teachers, who were educated differently; the changed relations of the
two races in late years from master and servant to citizen and freeman,
and the _modus operandi_ of the other Churches which are engaged in the
same work in the South. What Church, engaged in the education of the
colored man in the South, does not maintain separate schools for the
colored and white? Not because they favor caste, nor because they think
it would not be better, if possible, to educate them together, but they
are doing the best they can under the circumstances. There may be
beautiful exceptions, but they are exceptions few and far between. I am
sorry it is true; but _’tis true_. The promiscuous mixing of our Church
schools in the South, if practicable, would now be inconsistent in the
face of our separate conferences. There are two influences in the South
to-day that are coeval with it—and we came near saying co-eternal—that
are as despicable as invincible; the one is the miasma of the swamps,
and the other is caste prejudice. Neither the wisdom nor skill of
physicians has been able to overcome the one, nor the armies of Cæsar
nor of Christ have been able to eradicate the other. Death—the common
leveler—has thus far been the only _sure_ remedy. But why frown at this
when you remember that the latter of these evils finds congenial soil,
if not some cultivation, in some Northern latitudes? If up North it is
“the arrow that flieth by night,” we should not be surprised to find it
“the pestilence that walketh at noonday” in the South. While all this,
and more, is true concerning caste, it does not, for a moment, lessen
the crime in the South because it crops out now and then in the North.

[Illustration:

  ART DEPARTMENT OF CLAFLIN UNIVERSITY.
]

When we contemplate caste in all its blackest and most disgusting
phases, we grow sick at heart, and feel as if we would like to snatch it
out, top, root, and all; but then we remember it may be that in doing so
we might draw up a beard of wheat. We believe, however, that as our
membership in the South, of both races, get more and more under the
light of the cross, and farther away from “slavery days,” they come
nearer together; the more harmony that exists between the two in their
efforts to educate themselves and elevate those about them, and with
whom they have influence, the more potent factors in the evangelization
of the world they become. No sane colored man within the Methodist
Episcopal Church believes that it would benefit his race if the Church
were to give up all its work in the South among the whites. Nor is it
just fair to believe that the colored man is in and remains with the
Methodist Episcopal Church for her “loaves and fishes.” It also appears
that we as colored men in the Church must be on the alert lest we be
pushed up to the point of antagonizing all our Church work in the South,
save that among and for ourselves. Following the action of the board of
managers of the Freedmen’s Aid Society the Lexington Annual Conference
unanimously indorsed the following action, and requested its publication
in the Church papers, showing one phase of this question, viz.:

    “The results attained by the Freedmen’s Aid Society since its
    organization are marvelous, viewed from every point. The work of
    this society in the country, Christianizing, elevating, and
    educating the people, can not be expressed in figures or told in
    words. Wherever its schools have been established the condition
    of the people has been bettered and public sentiment
    liberalized. Too much in the way of praise and thankfulness can
    not be said of this benevolent organization of our Church and
    its officers, and we earnestly commend its objects and work to
    the thoughtful consideration of our ministers and people,
    satisfied that the more thoroughly the operations of the society
    are understood, the more hearty the support it will receive.

    “As to the Chattanooga troubles, and other matters of the same
    nature, we beg to say:

    “We do not believe it is right to yield the time-honored
    opinions and views of the Church as to the equality,
    brotherhood, and perfect freedom of man, nor that a line of
    action should be pursued by the society or Church to secure the
    favor or countenance of those whose life-teachings are inimical
    to the position of our Church, and who really have no objection
    whatever to the Negro, so that his relation to them is a servile
    one.

    “We desire and pray for the success of all our schools in the
    South that are under the fostering care of the Freedmen’s Aid
    Society, but not at the loss of the manhood and self-respect of
    our race. Having been long satisfied that this question would
    come up for solution and settlement, and now that it is before
    the Church, we are heartily in favor of the Church going
    steadily and faithfully forward in the path pointed out for it
    by the Master, regardless of prejudice, local or otherwise.
    Compromise will only delay the day of settlement, and gain not a
    single point for God or humanity.

    “Objections are made to the mixing of white and Negro pupils in
    the same Church schools, and it is said that there are as good
    schools for Negroes as the society provides for whites. Various
    other reasons are given favoring this view of the question. For
    us to admit that these objections to the children of Negroes
    attending the Church schools with whites are of sufficient force
    to lead us to be governed by them, is to admit our own
    inferiority, and the necessity of such a separation from our
    white brethren as to end in the putting out of the Church of
    every Negro member in it. If we admit discrimination as being
    proper here, we ask, where will it end? Whatever may be the
    opinion of others upon the subject, as to its expediency, etc.,
    we can have but one opinion, and that is, that we are members of
    the Methodist Episcopal Church, yield to none in devotion and
    loyalty to that Church, and can not admit that it is injudicious
    or impolitic to send our sons and daughters to any of the
    schools of the Church.

    “Christianity is colorless, and Christianity demands of the
    Church that it shall not recognize the exclusion of any of its
    members from any of its communities or schools by reason of rank
    in society or of race characteristics, especially when this
    exclusion carries with it a mark of degradation. The General
    Conference has given this principle expression.

    “We do not believe it well for this conference to remain silent
    upon this subject, when its silence may be construed into an
    indorsement of the unholy sentiment that it is proper to bow
    before this baseless prejudice, which is a relic of slavery. We
    believe this question will be settled, as all other questions
    have been settled which tended to elevate the Negro, and we
    believe the Church will firmly adhere to Christian principles,
    and lay aside everything that has the appearance of mere
    policy.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                              CHAPTER XIV

                       WHAT WILL THE HARVEST BE?


After the examination we have made, and trying to scan the future, we
see what has been gained by the colored members who remained in the
Methodist Episcopal Church. They have been admitted to full membership,
to communion at her altars, official relation as laymen, given work in
the pastorate, presiding elderate, and given to understand that “color
is no bar to an election to the episcopacy.”

           “But these attained, we tremble to survey
            The growing labors of the lengthened way;
            The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes;
            Hills peep o’er hills, and Alps on Alps arise.”

Will a time ever come in the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church
when she will tire of the race question, and abandon forever her work
among and for the colored man? It is hardly conceivable that this will
ever occur. The discussion of the race question becomes beautifully less
at each General Conference. It is true that new phases develop now and
then, and there follows a clash at arms; but it never, nowadays, amounts
to more than a passage at arms, for the reason that the average agitator
receives but comparatively little encouragement from those Churches in
this country which have turned their backs upon the colored man. They
tremblingly hope the Methodist Episcopal Church _will_ make some awkward
step that will eventually drive the colored man out; but they have seen
her stand by him in the hottest contests unflinchingly, and in the face
of a gainsaying prejudice that is as old as the venerated Constitution
and as deep rooted as sin, and they fear to say yea or nay touching what
it will or will not do. The Methodist Episcopal Church can never forsake
the colored man, and be consistent. It declared in 1816, 1844, 1861, and
1872, by its actions, that the duty of the Christian Church was to stand
by the colored man, by making him feel at home within it as much as
possible. Now to go back, would be to say that the Church South in 1844
was right in defending slavery, and right in ridding itself of the
colored man in 1870, and that that which the Methodist Episcopal Church
did at those periods was wrong. This it can never do, and be consistent.

One other question at this juncture arises. It is one fraught with much
interest, as it is one that would involve the entire eight millions of
colored people in this country, that would naturally widen the chasm
between the white and colored races in this country, and would sustain
the same relation to a war of races in this country that the separation
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, sustained in 1844 to the war
of the Rebellion. It is, Will the colored members within the Methodist
Episcopal Church eventually be separated from it? If the existing
relations between the Church and her colored members remain as they are
now, No. There could be no reason for a separation, since “there is no
word white” known within the letter of the law of the Church to indorse
invidious distinctions “on account of race, color, or previous condition
of servitude;” there are no privileges accorded to any man of one race
in the Church, that another of any other race within the Church is not
entitled to _by law_. There is no church-building with the name of the
Methodist Episcopal Church inscribed upon it, into which any person
“having a desire to flee the wrath to come” may not go as a worshiper,
or become a member. This is also true of any university, college, or
school under the auspices of the Church. There is no annual conference
of the Church to which the colored man has not a perfect right to
belong; no position within the gift of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
from janitor to bishop, to which any member, white or colored, may not
aspire, be elected or appointed to, and discharge the functions
pertaining thereto, without hindrance. In a word, the white and colored
membership within the Church is, according to the enactments of the
General Conference, equal in all that pertains to Church membership and
privileges. Hence there is now no cause for the colored membership
seeking separation from the Church. “We know not what a day may bring
forth;” but, judging the future by the past, there will never come a
time when it will be _absolutely necessary_ for the Church to put away
its colored membership, nor _an absolute necessity_ for the colored
membership to withdraw from the Church. The question of the inferiority
of the colored man within the Church to the average white member within
the Church, is fast disappearing, whether we speak of this in reference
to General or annual conferences. The Methodist Episcopal Church is
turning out enough young colored men from her universities, colleges,
and schools, from Boston to Austin, Texas, each year, _to form an annual
conference_. The graduates from her schools are everywhere joining the
Church and conferences, and, to a certain extent, coping with those
whose chances have been more favorable. No absolute necessity for
separation exists, and, for that matter, may never exist. May it not be
found more profitable, after a short time, for all the colored
Methodists in this country to unite and form _one grand united body of
colored Methodists_? This question has been urged by many different
parties, with as many different motives at the bottom. Let us notice a
few. In “Our Brother in Black” (by Dr. A. G. Haygood, of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South,) at page 226, we find the following touching
the point at issue:

    “The most remarkable tendency that has so far shown itself in
    the development of their ecclesiastical life is the strong and,
    as I think, resistless disposition in those of like faith to
    come together in their religious organizations. The centripetal
    is stronger than the centrifugal force. We have already a number
    of African Churches. Indeed, the great majority of them belong
    to Churches not only of their own ‘faith and order,’ but of
    their own ‘race and color.’... This disposition has become very
    pronounced, and has expressed itself on a very large scale since
    they were set free.”

At page 236 the good Doctor reaches his point when he says:

    “If every colored Methodist in the United States were to-day in
    one organization, this would not change the grounds or nature of
    our obligations to them in any respect, so far as fraternal
    love, fraternal aid, and co-operation are concerned. It would
    then, as now, be our duty to help them in all possible ways; and
    considering their history in this country, and the providential
    indications of their relation to the salvation of Africa, just
    as much our duty then as now. If there were not one Negro in the
    Methodist Episcopal Church the Freedmen’s Aid Society would be
    as much needed as it is now. ‘The colored Methodist Episcopal
    Church of America’ that was ‘set up’—I hope not ‘set off’—needs
    the help of its mother, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
    every whit as much as if they were still with us. Nay, all the
    more, because they are not with us. And we ought, before God, to
    help them.” We simply add, _it is about time_.

 In a book written by a layman of our Church, John A. Wright, of
Philadelphia, with the title, “People and Preachers in the Methodist
Episcopal Church,” at pages 262–6, touching the question of separation,
he says:

    “A conclusive argument in favor of separation would be made if
    it could be satisfactorily proven that the connection as it now
    exists is injurious and demoralizing to both parties; if it
    could be shown that their presence is a danger, and has a
    corrupting influence on the main body of the Church; and that
    such separation could be made without injury to the colored man.
    There has been an unwillingness, a hesitation on the part of the
    Church to discuss this question, but the undoubted use that was
    made of the colored votes in the last General Conference (1884)
    to secure places was so patent to every careful observer that it
    can not be kept down. The ease with which the influence and
    votes of these innocent and generally very ignorant
    representatives were secured by those nearest to them, shows how
    great a danger there would be in the abuse of the confidence
    placed by them in their avowed friends.

    “There are important movements among the colored people that
    should be noted. All will remember the enthusiastic patriotism,
    civil and religious, which was to abolish all color-lines and
    all laws that recognized black and white, or their intermediate
    shades. Yet a law of nature, of race, and of common sense is
    asserting itself among the colored people, in that they want to
    be separated from such close connection with the white man. They
    feel that there is an incongruity, an unfitness, a something
    that causes them to desire to be free from his presence and
    government. They have but little respect for the whites who
    remain among them. It is a growing belief among the more
    intelligent colored people that their religious growth would be
    increased by their independence of the white Church. So strong
    is this feeling in certain places, that a secession from the
    Methodist Episcopal Church, and the formation of independent
    Methodist Churches, is seriously discussed. In obedience to this
    growing sentiment, the General Conference, in 1884, recognized
    the policy of basing membership of annual conferences on a
    color-line. An argument in favor of caution in treating this
    question may be drawn from the relation of the colored people to
    the interests of the country. The colored vote in the United
    States is accepted as a source of danger in the future to this
    country. The present colored vote, as it has or has not had the
    privilege of free expression, has determined who should be
    President of the United States.... It may or may not be an idle
    fear, but wise men are looking at the question in sober
    earnestness.... The Church, then, should be carefully guarded
    against danger arising from the presence of so large a colored
    membership through the use of its power in the General
    Conference. The idea of separation for better work is not new
    among us. We have the German and colored conferences, and would
    have Scandinavian if there were enough Scandinavians. There is a
    law of association that is the best regulator of such questions.
    That a separation into conferences on the color-line will become
    general is inevitable. The questions will come up before the
    General Conference to decide, whether the colored ministers can
    be so educated as to continue in the Methodist Episcopal Church
    without any serious danger to its interests; if not, the lesser
    must suffer, if suffering it would be, for the sake of the
    greater; or whether, when they are prepared, they will not do
    more good by being transferred to some branch of the African
    Methodist Episcopal Church.

    “There are the African, the Zion, and the Colored Methodist
    Episcopal Churches, which last was wisely set apart by the
    Southern Methodist Episcopal Church at the end of the war. They
    are all strong, aggressive, and independent Churches. If the
    members of these Churches could be united with the colored
    members of the Methodist Episcopal Church they would make a
    membership of nearly one million of people. What an opportunity
    for usefulness to their race would be thus placed before them!
    It must be admitted that their continued connection with the
    Methodist Episcopal Church does not tend to promote their
    dependence upon themselves. Government aid makes a restless
    pauper class; Church support has the same tendency. That the two
    races do not work well together, or rather that the colored
    Churches do not prosper when intimately connected with white
    Churches, is pretty well exemplified in the city of
    Philadelphia, where the only two colored Churches, living side
    by side with the large white Church membership of that city, had
    so dwindled in numbers and financial ability in 1884 that the
    Church Extension Society had, practically, to purchase two
    churches for their use, so that the colored brethren from the
    South might have a Church home when they came to the General
    Conference. During the same time the African and the Zion
    Methodist Episcopal Churches have been very successful in that
    city, have done much good, have able bishops, leaders, and a
    respectable membership. On the one side there was dependency,
    and on the other independency. It is risking but little to
    assert that the number, character, and self reliance of the
    members of the colored Methodist Episcopal Church, South, are
    far greater and better than they would have been if their
    connection had continued with the old Church.

    “A further thought deserves consideration at this point. If the
    colored members are to be continued in the Church, or as long as
    such connection may last, would it not be to the interests of
    all parties to dissolve the annual conferences in which they are
    in a large majority, and form them into mission conferences, as
    they were prior to the General Conference of 1868, without a
    voting representation in the General Conference? By doing this
    the Church would be saved from the low average grade of
    intelligence of the General Conference of 1884, caused by the
    presence of nearly forty of such representatives, and from the
    corrupting influences that were so palpable. The colored people
    would then understand that their connection was not permanent,
    but was in the line of educating them to take care of
    themselves. In the meantime the Church could continue its good
    work in giving them the advantages of education, training in
    trades, and to the most promising a fitting education for the
    ministry and learned professions. The suggestions made
    hereinbefore as to the proper basis of representation in the
    General Conference, connected with that of the last paragraph,
    would reduce the number of delegates to the General Conference
    from the colored conferences, and thereby lessen the danger. It
    is important that this or some other protective plan should be
    adopted before the separation that is inevitable between the
    white and colored work takes place. No mere pride of numbers or
    prestige should have any influence to prevent the Church from
    saying to the colored brethren, ‘Go in peace, and may the God of
    heaven protect and guide you;’ and with this benediction handing
    over to them all the churches, colleges, and property that have
    been accumulated for their use.”

The sequel will show that the writer of that book knows but little
concerning the colored people. Let us for a moment stop and look more
closely at the above chapter from Brother Wright’s facile pen. There is
no mistake, Brother Wright has in some way had his plans _upset_. That
he intended to “get even” with some one is also apparent. This general
attacks first one and then the other division of the grand army of
Methodism. First he attacks the army at large for neglecting to bring
more laymen to the van. He then charges upon the clerical regiment,
declaring it is in the way of his “consummation devoutly to be wished.”
Being somewhat repulsed, he falls back in disorder, only to find the
colored regiment supporting, in some sort, the former. At once his guns
are leveled, and he makes a Fort Pillow charge upon “the black brigade.”
Of this brigade, within the Methodist army, he declares: “A conclusive
argument for separation would be made if it were proven that the
connection existing [between the white and colored people] within the
Church is injurious to both classes.” He attempts to prove the
proposition, by declaring that, by the presence of colored
representatives from Southern and mixed conferences, “but few are fitted
for their places and are still grossly immoral,” in the General
Conference “grades down the intelligence and wisdom of the whole body,
to a level too low for safety; that the ease with which the influence
and votes of these innocent, and generally very ignorant,
representatives were secured by those nearest to them, shows how great a
danger there would be in the abuse of the confidence placed by them in
their avowed friends.” The gentleman should not have stayed so far away
from those “innocent and generally very ignorant representatives.”
Knowing, as he must, that the man whose intelligence gives him
advantage, even in a Methodist General Conference, over “the innocent
and generally very ignorant” is the greater sinner, he strikes at “the
avowed friends” of the colored man. But in a great many instances some
of the “avowed friends” of the colored man in the General Conference of
1884 were those whom Methodism, within and without this country,
“_delights_ to honor.” But aside from this, it were well for the good
brother had the revisers of the Old Testament elided the “thou shalt not
bear false witness.”

We question very much whether a single _proper_ delegate to that General
Conference was “innocent and generally very ignorant” enough to miss the
truth as far as he seems to have missed it, and for the same purpose. He
also says: “The colored men feel that there is an incongruity, an
unfitness, a something that causes them to desire to be freed from his
presence and government. They have but little respect for the whites who
remain among them.” If that is so, it is _too bad_. If it is not so,
then—? When a witness testifies to one thing, and then contradicts
himself, if he is adjudged sane, the court will throw out his testimony,
declaring him either ignorant of the truth of the facts he would relate,
or else a perjurer. If the former, he should be reprimanded for meddling
with matters he knew nothing about; if the latter, the law would punish
him. If the colored men within the Methodist Episcopal Church feel “that
there is an incongruity, a something that causes them to desire to be
freed from his presence [the white man] and government,” it could arise
from no better source than that such men persist in remaining within the
Church who abuse them.

“They have but little respect for the whites that remain among them.” We
think no man who understands our work in the South will deny that Drs.
J. C. Hartzell, J. Braden, and A. Webster, “remain among them.” But Dr.
Hartzell was for five years or more the secretary of the Louisiana
Conference, where the colored men are in the majority. He has repeatedly
been elected to the General Conference by his brethren, and usually on
the _first ballot_. Rev. John Braden, D.D., president of the Central
Tennessee College, at Nashville, Tennessee, has been there for nearly
twenty years, and as a member of the Tennessee Conference has been
treated by his conference brethren like Dr. Hartzell, of Louisiana
Conference. Dr. Alonzo Webster, of the South Carolina Conference, being,
we believe, _the only white man_ in it, has been treated by his
conference brethren just as the brethren of the Tennessee Conference
treated Dr. Braden. Without multiplying illustrations, we ask, what
becomes of Brother Wright’s argument? It follows, that his darts fall
futile at the door of a Church that by law knows “no word white.”

Again: “The General Conference must yet decide whether colored ministers
can be educated so as to continue in the Church. If not, the lesser [the
colored man, of course] must suffer; or whether, when they are prepared,
they will not do more good by being transferred to some branch of the
African Church.” When did our bishops receive authority to “transfer”
ministers into another Church? When the time for that transferring
comes, would not the members of the General and annual conferences be
privileged to vote upon it?

In speaking of the three colored organizations, the African, African
Zion, and Colored Methodist Episcopal Churches, he says: “They are all
strong, aggressive, and independent. The last was wisely set apart by
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at the end of the war.” The
_African Methodist Recorder_, of July, 1887, contained an article signed
by Rev. J. H. Welch, of that Church on “Union of Colored Methodists in
this Country.” The facts there stated have not been called into
question, not even by the editor. So that the facts stated stand
unquestioned. In speaking of the African Methodist Episcopal, the
African Zion Methodist Episcopal, and the Colored Methodist Episcopal
Churches of America, the very ones spoken of by Brother Wright, he says:

    “But as we stand to-day separated, all of us are weak and
    inefficient. In almost every city, town, and village, each
    branch of the Methodist family has planted a Church, and in many
    places neither of the Churches can give the pastor a comfortable
    support. Neither of the branches above referred to has a
    first-class institution of learning nor an efficient corps of
    professors and teachers; and those we have are just existing,
    and that is all. Neither of these organizations has a missionary
    system operating as it should. Neither branch of these Methodist
    bodies has a first-class book concern.”

Now, the above comes from an African Methodist of the African
Methodists—a man conversant with the inner and outer workings of the
machinery of the three “strong, progressive, and independent” colored
Churches. Who is right, Brother Wright? As to the wisdom displayed by
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in setting apart its colored
daughter, we leave Dr. A. G. Haygood to say, as he has at page 236 in
“Our Brother in Black.” However, the aforesaid brother missed it a few
years, when he says “set apart at the end of the war,” for it was not
“set apart” until 1870. But then, you know, a few years—say seven—don’t
amount to much when we have an object in view. At last he feels as if a
solution of his troublesome problem has been reached. When speaking
further of the three “strong, aggressive, and independent Churches,” he
says: “If the members of these Churches could be united with the colored
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they would make a million of
people. What an opportunity for usefulness to their race would be thus
placed before them!” It’s wonderful, is it not? At this point the good
brother reaches his _climax_. By all means, let it be done! Let us begin
now! Come, let us go up to the next General Conference of our Church,
and pass a law that all the colored Methodists in America and Canada
_must come into our Church_—bishops, elders, exhorters, and laymen—and
thus accept the magnanimous “opportunity for usefulness to our race.”
What would the good brother _then_ think of General Conference
representation? Would he have it reduced? But fearing that some others
may not see the plan as he sees it, he says: “If they [the colored
members] are to remain in the Church, would it not be to the interest of
all parties to dissolve the annual conferences in which colored members
are in the majority, into mission conferences? If not, then reduce the
number of colored delegates.” Now, any one can judge from what we have
cited from the book, just about how much credence should be had _in
anything_ the book, “Preachers and People in the Methodist Episcopal
Church,” has presented. And yet it does show that the question of a
separation from the Methodist Episcopal Church is being discussed; for
even the author of that book has a backing within and without the
Methodist Episcopal Church, for he is one of the leading officials in
the Arch Street Methodist Episcopal Church, Philadelphia.

Caste prejudice has not been, but will yet be, driven to the owls and
bats, before the onrolling tidal wave of intelligence and sober common
sense that is even now breaking upon the shores of this country. And yet
it does seem as if there is but one of two ways in which it can be done,
or by a combination (suiting the case) of the two,—the hump of caste
prejudice now resting so adroitly upon the back of our American
Protestant ecclesiasticism must be amputated by the impartial but keen
blade of the great Physician; or Protestantism must bow so low in the
dust and ashes of humiliation, that this unsightly protuberance shall be
visible no more forever. Then, and not till then, can we hope to see
this camel go unscathed through the eye of the gospel needle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER XV

                      UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS.


What would be the result of such a union? If an organic union of all the
colored Methodists in America could be effected, it would make no mean
Church. Just think of the African Methodist Episcopal, the African
Methodist Episcopal Zion, the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church in
America, and the colored members now within the Methodist Episcopal
Church, say to the number of three hundred thousand, uniting and forming
one Church, composed of 22,076 ministers and a membership of 1,012,300,
bringing with them an army of Sunday-school children not far from
1,500,000! If the divine promise were fulfilled in each of these, that
“one shall chase a thousand and two shall put ten thousand to flight,”
why, such an army of true believers could, as the quaint preacher said,
“shake hell to its center” while moving the world toward the cross of
Christ!

It was in 1883 when Dr. Tanner, through the columns of the paper he was
then editing, the _Christian Recorder_, of the African Methodist
Episcopal Church, suggested the idea of an organic union of all the
exclusively colored organizations. A year or so ago the colored
Methodists of Canada, under Bishop Nazery, united with the African
Methodist Episcopal Church. It did not amount to much then nor since.
Several times overtures have been made to the two other colored Churches
by the African Methodist Episcopal Church, but it has usually ended in
talk. The fact may as well be stated first as last, that a time will
never come in the history of this country when all the colored
Methodists will belong to _one great Negro Church_. In the first place,
the African Methodist Episcopal, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion,
the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church of America, and the colored
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, each and every one of these
is looking forward to, and praying for, a time when _all_ the others
will come back to mother or come over and live with sister. Again,
because the separate and distinct colored Church organizations have been
warring with each other from the beginning of their organization, and
these old feuds and petty jealousies keep coming up every time organic
union is mentioned. It can not occur, because the African Methodist
Episcopal and African Methodist Episcopal Zion Churches continued
separate before the war, and when it ended expected to, and did, receive
a wonderful influx from the Methodist Episcopal and Methodist Episcopal
Church, South. Those two organizations saw a few apples still clinging
to the parent tree in the South. They began throwing sticks and mud,
then they tried “taffy,” and then stones. In 1869 each of the
above-named two Churches began to get ready for the reception of the one
hundred thousand members then in the Church South. As the General
Conference of the Church South in 1870 met, each of those denominations,
basing its faith on the repeated promises of many of the prominent
preachers of the Church South, began to prepare to receive them. They
were chagrined, however, when, instead of “coming over,” they marched
out into the broad field of independency, and set up shop for themselves
by the assistance of the Church South. The two older Churches then began
to bushwhack all they possibly could, seizing “every straggling soul as
their own _lawful_ prey.” The two larger colored organizations will not
unite, because each is still waiting and expecting her younger sister to
visit and remain with her. The three will not unite, because each is
expecting a time to come when the three hundred thousand colored members
of the Methodist Episcopal Church will leave in a body and join it.

Of course, the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church are
praised, abused, loved, laughed at, or coquetted, as the case seems to
require at the time. It is really amusing at times to hear the stories
told—good, bad, and indifferent—by these three organizations, to induce
our members to come. And yet, somehow or other, the one does not seem to
know why the other should anticipate our coming. We can not see it.
Before we had separate conferences it did look as if all our members
would be stolen from us. But every day now the colored members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church pitch their tent a day’s march farther from
any kind of African Methodism, on the one hand, and from having the
oceans circumscribe them by joining “The Colored Methodist Episcopal
Church of, or in, America.” If there ever comes a time in the history of
the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church when it will be no
longer useful, pleasant, or wise to remain, they will undoubtedly _form
another colored organization, and man it themselves_. They have the
material. There is no colored Church in this country that is educating
so many young people a year as the Methodist Episcopal Church. Our
brethren of the three colored organizations in this country will tell
you that the time has now passed when their bishops, General Conference
officers, etc., can visit the Commencement exercises of our schools and
colleges, and take away in their pockets, by flattery or promises, our
young people as they were wont to do. This is the explanation of the
mushroom “universities and colleges” under the auspices of certain
“powers” in this country. Our young men and women begin now to see, as
do many others, that a time not far distant _must come_ when the best
outlook for cultured colored men and women will not be, as some would
have us believe, in Africa, nor among the Africans. Why should it not be
a separate organization of our own, if any change _must_ come? Indeed,
the thought presents _the most flattering prospect_,—the twenty or
thirty universities, colleges, normal schools, and academies given into
the hands of our own competent presidents, professors, and teachers; the
real estate, consisting of college buildings, churches, and parsonages,
with mortgage on only about twenty-five cents on the dollar; five
hundred thousand children in our schools, and over three hundred
thousand members, with the great Methodist Episcopal Church behind them!
Now and then some good brother, like the author of “Preachers and People
in the Methodist Episcopal Church,” advances the utopian idea of handing
us over to some one of the existing colored organizations, but the good
men and women in the Methodist Episcopal Church are hoping for no such
thing. We believe the good men and women predominate.

[Illustration:

  GAMMON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ATLANTA, GA.
  (LIBRARY BUILDING.)
]

In the above-referred-to book the statement is made that “the more
intelligent colored people in the Methodist Episcopal Church are
seriously thinking of separating from the Methodist Episcopal Church.”
If the poll were taken of every intelligent colored man within the
Church, such an idea would be laughed at, for no such feeling prevails.
There is no such spirit abroad within the Church on the part of _the
colored members_. If it exists at all, _it must be sought elsewhere_.
There is no occasion for it; and though it may be that now and then some
word is let fall by some braggadocio, that if so and so is not done,
thus and so will happen, yet no such stuff has ever fallen from the lips
of the leaders of our colored membership, properly so called. Should
anything of the kind ever be broached, there would be no occasion for
secrecy, and less for braggadocio; no absolute necessity for rejoicing
on the part of _any_ colored organizations, if there might follow
overtures to the Methodist Episcopal Church for organic union that are
not now made. The thought naturally uppermost at this juncture in the
minds of some may be, Would it not be Christian-like and brotherly for
the colored members to separate, so that organic union may take place
between the “two great branches of Methodism in this country?” _Is that
what keeps them apart?_ We would, to the question as to separation,
answer, No. If we understand the heart of the Church—and we think we do,
having been born naturally and supernaturally in her lap—she does not
ask as much. In 1844 the Church, by dropping her interests in and work
for the colored man, could very easily and knowingly have preserved her
union, power, and influence, kept back the rebellion for a time,
received the encomiums instead of the vituperation and obloquy of every
slaveholding nation in the world, and brought to her support the strong
slave oligarchy of the South. She did not do it. She will never
compromise with sin enough to accept even an organic union conceived in
caste and born of a hate that excludes _one_ the Lord said should be
loved as herself. We believe, laying aside all personal predilections,
prejudice, and aspirations that, so far as the Church is concerned, the
colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church will remain therein
until they are pleased to go out, if that is until the sound of the
first trumpet.

_Would there be anything gained by a separation?_ To our mind there is
nothing to gain, and much to lose, by the colored members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church separating from it. In the first place, it
would have the same tendency that the now existing colored organizations
have, casting reflections upon the wisdom of those good men and women
who all along have contended for general equality; it would weaken the
race politically and socially; widen, instead of narrowing, the chasm
between the white and colored clergy in this country. “Like priests,
like people,” would naturally widen the breach between the laity. This
would naturally cause variance between neighbors because of color. This
would naturally lead to separate schools where they are now mixed, and
keep forever separate those that are now separate. In a word, it would
magnify caste, race prejudice, and eventually lead to a war of races.
The segregation of one million or more colored men in this country into
_one single organization_ would endanger the safety of our Republic in
more ways than one. In the second place, a separation now from the
Methodist Episcopal Church for _anything less than a crime against the
race_ would not only be suicidal, but foolhardy, paying kindness with
contumely, and subjecting not only the members concerned, but the race
to the scorn and laughter of the world. We do not expect to have
everything go our way, to count for more than we number, nor to see
every law we propose adopted, nor to be fondly dandled in the lap of an
affectionate and opulent mother. We expect only what we have always
received from the Church—the privilege of _full membership therein_.

The work which the Church has done in the South, may be seen from the
following tables:


               BOARD OF EDUCATION UP TO JANUARY 1, 1887.

      ═══════════════════╤══════╤════════════╤════════════════════
             NAME.       │Pupils│  AMOUNT.   │     LOCATION.
                         │aided.│            │
      ───────────────────┼──────┼────────────┼────────────────────
      Centenary Bib’l    │    46│   $1,850 00│Baltimore, Md.
        Institute        │      │            │
      Central Tenn.      │    67│    2,446 00│Nashville, Tenn.
        College          │      │            │
      Claflin University │    45│    2,015 00│Orangeburg, S.C.
      Clark University   │    12│      732 00│Atlanta, Ga.
      Cookman Institute  │     4│      158 00│Jacksonville, Fla.
      Bennett Seminary   │     6│      200 00│Greensboro, N.C.
      Gammon Theol.      │    29│    1,663 00│Atlanta, Ga.
        School           │      │            │
      Haven Normal       │     3│       75 00│Waynesboro, Ga.
        Institute        │      │            │
      Morristown Seminary│    22│      755 00│Morristown, Tenn.
      New Orleans        │    44│    2,327 00│New Orleans, La.
        University       │      │            │
      Philander Smith    │     5│      228 00│Little Rock, Ark.
        College          │      │            │
      Rust University    │    11│      400 00│Holly Spr’gs, Miss.
      Rust Normal        │     2│       75 00│Huntsville, Ala.
        Institute        │      │            │
      Wiley University   │    18│      855 00│Marshall, Texas.
      West Texas Conf.   │     5│      140 00│Houston, Texas.
        Sem.             │      │            │
      ───────────────────┼──────┼────────────┼────────────────────
      Total              │   319│  $13,919 00│
      In Northern        │     6│    2,000 00│
        Colleges         │      │            │
      ───────────────────┼──────┼────────────┼────────────────────
      Grand Total        │   325│  $15,919 00│
      ───────────────────┴──────┴────────────┴────────────────────


                   WORK OF CHURCH EXTENSION SOCIETY.

         Expended to colored membership by         $237,000 00
           donation

         Expended to colored membership by loan     150,000 00

         ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
         Total given by Church                     $387,000 00
         Total given by colored members by           35,000 00
           collection
         ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
         Amount received by colored members more   $352,000 00
            than they raised
         Churches this saved, built, or helped to        2,000
           build for them,


             WORK OF THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY SINCE THE WAR.

                      Conference.            Amount.

                   Central Alabama        $16,600 00

                   Delaware                23,438 89

                   Florida                 20,228 65

                   Georgia                 38,571 58

                   Lexington               27,053 50

                   Louisiana              126,201 50

                   Mississippi            155,943 63

                   Missouri                42,486 06

                   North Carolina          25,622 45

                   St. Louis               41,279 00

                   Savannah                20,250 00

                   South Carolina          49,217 25

                   Tennessee               34,236 78

                   Texas                   32,103 09

                   Washington              55,833 68

                   Little Rock             12,700 00

                   Colored work in          7,500 00
                     Kansas

                   ─────────────────────────────────
                   Total                 $729,266 06


In the above figures the West Texas Conference is included in Texas
Conference, East Tennessee in the Tennessee Conference, etc. While no
claim is set up that the above figures are exactly true, they are at
least an approximation. Where the conference was mixed, one-eighth of
the missionary appropriation only has been credited to the colored work,
though it is easy to see how mistakes could creep in an account of this.
But the work that has been done, and the interest which the Church has
had in it are apparent. So long as souls are to be saved, the Church can
not relax its efforts toward these people, whether white or colored.


                  THE WORK OF THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL UNION.

The great work done by this benevolent society of the Church among the
colored people of the South deserves emphatic mention in connection with
these tables of results which we have been giving. It will be impossible
to tabulate perfectly statistical results among the colored people, as
the work done has been for the populations of the South, regardless of
color, and has so interpenetrated that it would be impossible to say
that this was done for one race, and this for another. We may mention,
however, the publication of the _Good Tidings_ and its gratuitous
distribution among the Sunday-schools of the colored people in the
South. During the year 1888 the Sunday-school Union, in connection with
the Tract Society, sent the _Good Tidings_ to 2,536 Sunday-schools in
807 different charges in the Southern States. The weekly average of
_Good Tidings_ distributed was 37,134; total number of copies
distributed during the year, 1,994,000; total number of pages,
7,976,000. No one can possibly estimate the great good which has been
accomplished by the circulation of this excellent publication. Besides
this, the Union has sent grants of Sunday-school libraries, music-books,
catechisms, and Sunday-school periodicals of every possible description
to all parts of the South, calling into existence new schools, and
inspiring discouraged schools with new life. Possibly the most helpful
work accomplished by this society has been its personal visitation in
the person of its efficient agents in all parts of the South. Almost
every section of the country has been touched. Extensive campaigns of
work have been conducted. Weary and disheartened pastors have been
encouraged; new schools have been organized, which have already grown
into commanding churches; new and better methods of work have been
taught a people who knew so little how to work; and because of this
“hand-to-hand” effort immense good has been accomplished, and the
Sunday-school Union stands well to the front among the benevolent
societies of the Church, contributing to the growth of the Methodist
Episcopal Church among the colored people of the South.

In addition to this official work for the Sunday-schools of the South,
there were in several places organized efforts to collect and distribute
second-hand books in needy localities. From Cincinnati many boxes of
these were forwarded, that useful reading matter and school-books might
be supplied by the proper agents to those who had not the means to
purchase for themselves. These went largely into the cabins and cottages
of the freedmen; and the first lessons in reading were learned by many
who had no other teachers than those in the Sunday-schools. A single
book served ofttimes for an entire family. Father, mother, and children
were alike ignorant, and alike needed instruction.


           THE FREEDMEN’S AID AND SOUTHERN EDUCATION SOCIETY.

                   INSTITUTIONS AMONG COLORED PEOPLE.

                   1. Collegiate.                  Teachers  Students
  Centenary Biblical Institute, Baltimore, Md.        12        223
  Central Tennessee College, Nashville, Tenn.         22        545
  Claflin University, Orangeburg, S.C.                23        946
  Clark University, Atlanta, Ga.                      23        340
  New Orleans University, New Orleans, La.            15        266
  Philander Smith College, Little Rock, Ark.          12        185
  Rust University, Holly Springs, Miss.               10        355
  Wiley University, Marshall, Texas                   17        230


                  2. Theological.
  Gammon Theological Seminary, Atlanta, Ga.            4        71


              3. Biblical Departments.
  Baker Institute, Claflin University                  6        10
  Centenary Biblical Institute (correspondence 6)      3        31
  Central Tennessee College (correspondence 62)        2        102
  Gilbert Haven School of Theology, New Orleans        3        15


               4. Medical and Dental.

  Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn.           11        55

  Medical Department New Orleans University  (just     5
    organized)

  Meharry Dental College, Nashville, Tenn.             8        11


                     5. Legal.
  School, Central Tennessee College                    6         6


                   6. Industrial.

  Claflin College of Agriculture and Mechanics        20        507
    Inst., Orangeburg, S.C.

  John F. Slater Schools of Industry, Nashville,       8        194
     Tenn.

  Schools of Industry, New Orleans University          2        120

  Schools of Industry, Rust University, Holly          4        35
    Springs, Miss.

  Schools of Industry, Centenary Biblical              4        53
    Institute,    Baltimore, Md.

  Manual Training-school, Philander Smith              4        92
    College, Little Rock, Ark.

  Industrial School, Bennett Seminary                  3        11

  Schools of Industry, Wiley University, Marshall,     4        116
       Texas

  Schools of Industry, in Cookman Institute,           2        18
    Jacksonville, Fla.

  Schools of Industry, Gilbert Seminary, Baldwin,      7        75
      La.

  Classes in Huntsville Normal Institute,              2        27
    Huntsville,    Ala.

  Schools in Clark University, Atlanta, Ga.           10        204


                              7. Academic.
  Bennett Seminary, Greensboro, N.C.                   6        125

  Baltimore City Academy, Baltimore, Md.[1]

  Central Alabama Academy, Huntsville,  Ala.           4        140

  Cookman Institute, Jacksonville, Fla.                6        321

  Delaware Conference Academy, Princess Anne,
    Md.[1]

  Gilbert Seminary, Winsted, La.                      17        299

  Haven Normal School, Waynesboro, Ga.                 3        153

  LaGrange Seminary, LaGrange, Ga.                     3        209

  Meridian Academy, Meridian, Miss.                    3        154

  Morristown Seminary, Morristown, Tenn.               9        260

  Samuel Houston College, Austin, Texas (not
    opened last year)

  West Tennessee Seminary, Mason, Tenn.                2        149

Footnote 1:

  Teachers and Students counted in Centenary Biblical Institute.


                    INSTITUTIONS AMONG WHITE PEOPLE.

                   1. Collegiate.
  Chattanooga University, Chattanooga, Tenn.           9        161
  Grant Memorial University, Athens, Tenn.            18        291
  Little Rock University, Little Rock, Ark.           14        266
  Texas Wesleyan College                              10        240


                  2. Theological.
  School, Chattanooga University                       2        13
  School, Grant Memorial University                    3        27


                     3. Legal.
  Class, Grant Memorial University                     1        41
  Class, Little Rock University                        6        20


                    4. Academic.

  Baldwin Seminary, Baldwin, La.                       2        56

  Bloomington College, Bloomington, Tenn.              4        138

  Ellijay Seminary, Ellijay, Ga.                       3        151

  Graham Academy, Smyrna, N.C.                         3        86

  Holston Academy, New Market, Tenn.                   2        90

  Kingsley Seminary, Bloomingdale, Tenn.               4        131

  Leicester Seminary, Leicester, N.C.                  4        136

  Mallalieu Academy, Kinsey, Ala.                      2        65

  McLemoresville Institute, McLemoresville, Tenn.      7        114

  Mt. Zion Seminary, Mt. Zion, Ga.                     4        140

  Powell’s Valley, Well Spring, Tenn.                  4        175

  Parrottsville Academy, Parrottsville, Tenn.          3        125

  Roanoke Academy, Roanoke, Va. (not opened
    past year)

  Trapp Hill Academy, Trapp Hill, N.C.                 2        125

  Warren College, Chucky City, Tenn.                   4        155

  Woodland Academy, Cumberland, Miss.                  2        72



                            RECAPITULATION.


          ═════════════════════════╤══════════════════════════
                                   │  Among Colored  People.
          GRADE OF SCHOOLS.        │  Number│Teachers│Students
          ─────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
          Collegiate               │       8│     134│   3,090
          Theological Seminary     │       1│       4│      71
          Biblical Departments     │       4│      14│     158
          Medical Departments      │       2│      11│      55
          Dental Department        │       1│       8│      11
          Legal Department         │       1│       6│       6
          Industrial Departments   │      12│      70│   1,455
          Academies                │      12│      60│   1,810
          ─────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
          Totals.[2]               │      21│     223│   4,971
          ─────────────────────────┴────────┴────────┴────────



          ═════════════════════════╤══════════════════════════
                                   │    Among White People
            GRADE OF SCHOOLS.      │  Number│Teachers│Students
          ─────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
          Collegiate               │       4│      51│     958
          Theological Seminary     │        │        │
          Biblical Departments     │       2│       5│      40
          Medical Departments      │        │        │
          Dental Department        │        │        │
          Legal Department         │       2│       7│      61
          Industrial Departments   │        │        │
          Academies                │      16│      54│   1,759
          ─────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
          Totals.[2]               │      20│     105│   2,717
          ─────────────────────────┴────────┴────────┴────────



          ═════════════════════════╤══════════════════════════
                                   │          Total.
             GRADE OF SCHOOLS.     │  Number│Teachers│Students
          ─────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
          Collegiate               │      12│     146│   4,048
          Theological Seminary     │       1│       4│      71
          Biblical Departments     │       6│      19│     198
          Medical Departments      │       2│      11│      55
          Dental Department        │       1│       8│      11
          Legal Department         │       3│      13│      67
          Industrial Departments   │      12│      70│   1,455
          Academies                │      28│     114│   3,569
          ─────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
          Totals.[2]               │      41│     328│   7,688
          ─────────────────────────┴────────┴────────┴────────


Footnote 2:

  In these totals students and teachers are counted but once; and
  departments are _not_ counted as separate institutions.

In twenty-two years the Freedmen’s Aid and Southern Education Society
has expended in the work of Christian education in the South about
$2,500,000.

The present value of the property owned by the Society in the South is
over $1,500,000. This includes lands—some of which have increased in
value—school buildings, furniture, and libraries. More than one hundred
thousand colored students have been in the various schools, and a
reasonable estimate is, that the preachers and teachers in public and
private schools, from among this multitude, have had under their
influence fully one million of the youth and adults of the South. No
words can adequately express the far-reaching and glorious results
already achieved, and yet to flow, from this ever-widening current of
intellectual and moral power.


                         THE DUTY OF THE HOUR.

With the understanding that we are not cumbersome to the Church, what is
the duty of the colored members therein? It is our indispensable duty to
remain loyal, wise, and prudent. By saying that the colored members of
the Methodist Episcopal Church ought to remain loyal, does not
necessarily carry with it a thought that there is a spirit of disloyalty
brewing. What is intended is simply that each and every member thereof
should know his and her obligations to the Church, her rules and
regulations, and sacredly keep them, “not for wrath, but for conscience’
sake.” If the entire membership would be loyal and stay loyal, as well
as appear loyal in the eyes of the world and of the Church, it must see
to it that there is no just ground for such complaints against the race
as have herein before been mentioned as found in Mr. Wright’s book. The
charges he brought forward were, that the colored delegates to the
General Conference of 1884 were “generally very ignorant
representatives.” He said also: “It is said, by those who know and judge
impartially, that to-day there are but few men in any of the Southern
colored and mixed conferences who are fitted for their places, and that
the colored members are still grossly immoral.” These are _awfully_
serious charges, whether true or not. A great many people in these
United States will probably form (or may have already) an opinion from
that book of not only the race with which they anon come in contact in
the busy scenes of every-day life, but of the colored membership of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, members of the same Christian family, who
are privileged to eat at the same Lord’s table. We know there are
thousands of chances for _even us_ to say, “It is not all on this side
of the house;” but it makes but little, if anything, in our favor if
others are no better than we. That the good brother overleaped the
bounds of reason, not to say common sense, in his desperation to make
out a case, is a foregone conclusion. What he says is, that “those who
know and judge impartially,” say “that the colored members are still
grossly immoral.” What a fearful charge is this against the bishops of
our Church, that they have brought into the Church, directly or
indirectly, under their very noses, _three hundred thousand_ “grossly
immoral” members! Thousands of these have received authority to preach
the gospel and administer the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; none of
whom have been less than two years under the almost personal training of
the General Conference. Isn’t it horrible? Who believes it? But no one
need be surprised at this tirade against the poor “black man,” for in
his next paragraph above, at page 265, brother Wright, in speaking of
the white ministers and agents sent South to teach the colored people,
says: “The general impudence and lack of knowledge of the agents and
ministers sent to the South have blocked up the way of the Church. The
_immoral character_ and the dishonest practices of some inflicted
disgrace on the Church and cast a doubt on all.” All the white delegates
were not as “learned” as the author of “Preachers and People in the
Methodist Episcopal Church,” who were elected to attend the General
Conference in 1884. It was not to have been expected that _all_ the
colored delegates would measure up to him. However far he may have
missed the truth in this case, intentionally or otherwise, one of the
best ways for the colored members in the Church to show that they are
loyal and worthy is to elect _no one_ as a delegate to the General
Conference who is not qualified. By qualified we mean possessing natural
and acquired ability, and the grace of God richly shed abroad in the
heart. With the former he will be qualified to discharge the functions
of his office with credit to himself, his race, and the Church. By the
latter he will be “an epistle known and read of all men,” who will by it
perceive that he is “neither common nor unclean,” but “a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed.” As presiding elders, pastors, officers, and
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, let us let our light shine by
raising our standard higher. Let no one be recommended for license to
preach by us in any quarterly-meeting, however far back in the woods it
may be, who has not “gifts and grace.” As to our mode of worship, let it
be after the manner of our excellent Discipline, and not after the style
of Revolutionary days. Let our Sabbath-schools be brought up to a higher
plane. Let the songs of thanksgiving and praise, accompanied by the Word
of God and prayer, be of daily occurrence where it has been periodical.
Let us see to it that, as a Church, the rules and regulations thereof
are kept to the very letter. Let us, as a race, continue to improve
morally, financially, intellectually, and spiritually, “having an eye
single to the glory of God.” “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the
Lord and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that
ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. Stand therefore,
having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate
of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel
of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be
able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of
salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God;
praying always, with all prayers and supplications in the Spirit, and
watching thereunto with all perseverance,” until the great and notable
day of the Lord, when you shall appear before the great white throne,
and hear the Captain of your salvation, to the question, “Who are
these?” answer, “These are they which came up out of great tribulation,
and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the
Lamb.”


------------------------------------------------------------------------




 ● Transcriber’s Notes:
    ○ The Recapitulation table beginning on page 322 was broken into
      three tables to fit within the page boundaries.
    ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
    ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
    ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
      when a predominant form was found in this book.
    ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).