The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

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

CHAPTER II

CHAPTER III

CHAPTER IV

CHAPTER V

CHAPTER VI

CHAPTER VII

CHAPTER VIII

CHAPTER IX

CHAPTER X

CHAPTER XI

CHAPTER XII

CHAPTER XIII

CHAPTER XIV

CHAPTER XV

ILLUSTRATIONS.

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.”

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.

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.”