RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF SLAVERY
The Protestant churches in America approached the question of
Christianizing the negro very cautiously. There were several reasons for
this attitude.[1] It was generally believed that paganism was the basis
of slavery, that a Christian slave was a paradox, that Christianizing the
slave would destroy his humble qualities and lessen his economic value,
that it would add an element in the cost of maintaining the institution,
that an idea of equality prevailed in the slave’s attending church and
participating in communion with the master, and that this idea would
add to the difficulty of governing him. Of course, there was the social
relation that came into the problem that was very obnoxious. It was
unpleasant to commune with a freshly imported brother from Africa; even a
Stowe, or a Garrison would likely have hesitated.
The church, being a human institution, could not disregard its
environment. It worked its way out of all the complexities of the
situation, its position varying somewhat as to section and as to sect.
With the exception of the Friends, there was very little difference
in the attitude of the Protestants toward slavery, until after the
Revolution. They were, in general, anti-slavery in sentiment, were
willing to baptize slaves and receive them into the church. The Friends
in this early period were the only religious body in America that saw any
inconsistency in Christians holding slaves.[2] There were a great many
slave communicants in all the churches prior to the Revolution.[3]
The general background can be made a bit more specific for Tennessee
by particular reference to the relation of the churches to slavery in
Colonial North Carolina since this was the parent state of Tennessee.
The Lord Proprietors in the Fundamental Constitution of 1663 declared
that conversion did not free nor enfranchise the negro.[4] This provision
was kept in the new constitution of 1698.[5] It is noticeable here
that this was primarily a political question—a question of freedom and
suffrage—a question of state, not of church. The state was declaring
its right to state the effect of conversion on the slave. It is well to
note this point in the beginning, because the splits and schisms in the
various churches in the period immediately preceding the Civil War came
up over this point. James Adams, a clergyman, of the Episcopal Church
of North Carolina, declared in 1709 that the masters would “by no means
permit (their slaves) to be baptized, having a false notion that a
Christian slave is by law free.”[6]
This attitude of the slaveholders did not last long in North Carolina,
because Rev. Marsden in 1735 speaks of baptizing at Cape Fear “about
1300 men, women, and children, besides some negro slaves.”[7] In 1742 a
missionary speaks of baptizing nine negro slaves.[8] Through a series of
missionary reports, it is noticeable that, as the idea becomes fixed,
that baptism does not free the slaves nor give them the suffrage, the
number of baptized blacks increases. In 1765, a report speaks of 40
blacks that were baptized[9]; another report, 46;[10] and a third,
51.[11] In 1771 a report states that 65 were taken into the church and
in 1772 a Rev. Taylor states that in thirteen months he had baptized 174
whites and 168 blacks.
The attitude of the Protestant churches on slavery depended very largely
on the strength of their organic connection with the South. All the
churches that were strong in the South preserved a compromise policy so
long as it was possible. The Congregational and Unitarian churches, being
Northern only, could without friction readily become anti-slavery. The
Episcopal church was primarily a Southern church and was made up of the
slaveocracy of the South. It remained more indifferent toward slavery
than any of the other churches.[12] It is my purpose now to make a study
of the anti-slavery activities of these churches in Tennessee in the
order of the effectiveness of their work.
I. THE METHODISTS.
Methodism came to America in 1766.[13] There were two wings of it
from the beginning. Wesleyan Methodism in Maryland and New York was
anti-slavery, while Whitefield Methodism in Georgia was pro-slavery.[14]
Methodism spread rapidly from these centers and became national in its
organization by 1773, when the first General Conference was held at
Philadelphia.[15]
The anti-slavery history of Methodism may be divided into the following
periods: 1766-1784, a period in which there was a growth of anti-slavery
feeling in the church that reached a high water mark in 1784; from 1784
to 1816, a period of reaction, culminating in the compromise law of 1816;
from 1816 to 1836, a period of practically no change in legislation,
although the church in the North was becoming more anti-slavery in
sentiment, and in the South, more pro-slavery; from 1836 to 1844, a
period of conflict with 1840 as the date of the greatest compromise; from
1844 to 1860, the period of two branches of Methodism.
A brief characterization of these periods forms a fitting background for
the anti-slavery history of Tennessee Methodists:
A. From 1776 to 1784. This was a period of little dissension on the
slavery question.[16] It was characterized by an increasing anti-slavery
feeling, expressing itself first in 1780[17] and more effectively in
1784, when the Baltimore Conference enacted a general code of regulations
for both laymen and preachers, prohibiting “the buying or selling
the bodies and souls of men, women or children with the intention of
enslaving them,”[18] and requiring abolition of the slaves of its members
within one or two years. This was to be done, however, conformably to the
laws of the various states. This was the high water mark of anti-slavery
Methodism.
B. From 1784 to 1816. This period is marked by concession to
slaveholders, finally ending in the adoption in 1808 of the policy of
letting the annual conferences regulate slavery.[19] The church here
definitely recognized that it could not enforce requirements upon
its members in violation of the civil laws of the states. This really
amounted to a split in the church on this question, because it meant the
establishment of two policies, one conformable to the free states of the
North, and the other to the slave states of the South. This change in the
policy of the church was a victory for the slaveholders.
C. From 1816 to 1836. The conference of 1816 adopted the famous
compromise law by which slaveholders in free states could not be officers
in the church. This prohibition did not apply to the slave states.[20]
The conference of 1836 with absolutely no dissent expressed a determined
opposition to abolition.[21]
D. From 1836 to 1844. During this period the anti-slavery forces were
organizing to break the grip of the slaveocracy of the church. In 1840,
the pro-slavery forces registered their greatest victory in the history
of the struggle. The result was the secession of 1842 and the formation
of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America at Utica, New York in 1843,
with a non-slaveholding membership.[22] It was now seen that the church
could no longer pursue a compromise policy. The annual conferences
began to adopt resolutions condemning either anti-slavery fanatics or
slaveholding thieves. It was now impossible for officers of the church to
be administrators in sections of the country with which their views on
slavery did not agree.
E. From 1845 to 1860. It was early seen that the General Conference of
1844 would likely divide on the question of slavery. The contest of 1844
related to Bishop Andrews, whose wife was a slaveholder, and ended in
the passing of the Finley Resolution by the decisive vote of 110 to 68,
deposing Bishop Andrews from the Episcopacy,[23] although he had violated
no law of the church.[24] The Southern delegates attempted in vain to
have this action of the conference interpreted as merely advisory in
character.[25]
The general conference of the church finally agreed to its reorganization
under two general conferences. This plan was accepted almost unanimously,
and led to the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at
the convention of the delegates of the Southern Methodist churches in
Louisville, Kentucky, in 1845.[26]
The purpose of this brief sketch of the anti-slavery history of Methodism
in general is, first, to give a reflection of Tennessee Methodism, which,
like that in the nation generally, was divided on the slavery question;
and, secondly, to form a background for a comparative study of Tennessee
Methodists in particular.
The Methodists were among the pioneers of Tennessee, when it was
customary to attend church with the shot-pouch well filled and the rifle
in trim. Among their pioneer preachers were Jeremiah Lambert, who came
to Holston circuit in 1783, Rev. Benjamin Ogden, who in 1786 carried
Methodism to John Donelson’s settlement on the Cumberland, and Rev. John
McGee, who arrived in Tennessee in 1798.[27] The Methodists were leaders
in the famous revivals from 1800 to 1810.[28]
In 1797, one-fourth of the membership of the Methodist church was
negroes. Of the 11,280 negroes in the church in 1797, 10,824 were in
the Southern States. There were 42 slaves in the Methodist church in
Tennessee in 1797.[29]
The Tennessee Methodists were a part of the Kentucky conference until
1801, and were strongly anti-slavery, because only the mountainous
portion of these states was settled at this time. In 1801, Tennessee
became a part of the Western Conference, and remained so until 1812.
It was in the first meeting of this conference in 1808 that Tennessee
Methodists first expressed themselves on the question of slavery.[30]
It will be remembered that the General Conference of 1808 gave the annual
conference the power to legislate on the question of slavery.[31] In
accordance with this plan, the Western Conference, which met at Liberty
Hill, near Nashville, Tennessee, in 1808, took the most drastic action
against slaveholding to be found in the annals of Methodism. This
conference instructed the Quarterly Conference to summon before them
all persons speculating in slaves and expel from the church those found
guilty. It further declared that any member of the church “who should
buy or sell a slave unjustly, inhumanly, or covetously,” was subject
to excommunication.[32] This rule of the conference prevailed until
1812.[33] Some of the presiding elders and circuit riders were even more
strongly anti-slavery than was the conference. Rev. James Axley and Rev.
Enoch Moore refused to license slaveholders to preach, or even to grant
them the privilege of exhorting or leading in prayer. They denounced
slaveholders as thieves and robbers.
The Tennessee Conference, which was a division of the Western Conference,
held its first annual meeting at Fountain Head, Tennessee, in 1812.
This conference made some interesting changes in the regulations for
slaveholders that remind one of the compromise policy of the general
conferences.[34] The phrase, “unjustly, inhumanly, and covetously,” used
by the conference of 1808 with reference to the buying and selling of
slaves, was changed to “justice and mercy.” The slaves of officers of the
church were to be emancipated when practicable.[35]
An elaborate system of trial for violations was established. The
quarterly conference was made the court of first instance. If the
president of this conference differed from the majority, he could refer
the case to the annual conference, or the accused could appeal his
case to the annual conference. At this conference, a slaveholder made
application to preach, but he was not admitted to the ministry until he
had given security that he would emancipate his slaves as soon as it was
practicable.[36]
The conferences of 1813 and 1814 did not raise the question of slavery,
but in 1815, the conference held at Bethlehem Meeting House in Wilson
County, Tennessee, adopted a policy with the laws of the states. This was
simply a recognition of the fact that the church should not undertake to
control civil matters. The committee on slavery made the following report:
We most sincerely believe, and declare it as our opinion, that
slavery is a moral evil. But as the laws of our country do not
admit of emancipation without a special act of the Legislature,
in some places, nor admit of the slave so liberated to enjoy
freedom, we cannot adopt any rule by which we can compel our
members to liberate their slaves; and as the nature of cases in
buying and selling are various and complex, we do not think it
possible to devise any rule sufficiently specific to meet them.
But to go as far as we can, consistent with the laws of our
country and the nature of things, to do away with the evil, and
remove the curse from the Church of God, it is the resolution
of this conference that the following resolutions shall be
adopted:
“1. If any member of our Society shall buy or sell a slave
or slaves in order to make gain, or shall sell to any person
who buys to sell again for that purpose, such member shall be
called to an account as the Discipline directs, and expelled
from our Church; nevertheless, the above rule does not affect
any person in our Society, if he or she make it appear that
they bought or sold to keep man and wife, parents and children,
together.
“2. No person, traveling or local, shall be eligible to
the office of a deacon in our church, unless he assures us
sentimentally, in person or by letter, that he disapproves
slavery and declares his willingness and intention to execute,
whenever it is practicable, a legal emancipation of such slave
or slaves, conformably to the laws of the State in which he
lives.”[37]
This report was adopted and ordered to be copied into the Steward’s Book
of the Circuit.
The Conference of 1817 dealt very extensively with slavery.[38] It
made provision for the buying and selling of slaves. It prohibited
the selling of slaves into perpetual bondage on penalty of forfeiture
of membership in the church. The quarterly conference was given the
power to regulate the term of slavery for which a member of the church
could sell his slave. The preacher of each congregation was empowered
to appoint a committee of three to judge of the length of service
that slaves purchased by members could be required to render. All of
these requirements were conditioned on practicability, the consent of
the state, violation of justice and mercy, and assumption of financial
responsibility against charge of emancipated slaves. The conditions
of the execution of these regulations show what a travesty the whole
procedure was.
The case of Hardy M. Cryer, which came before the conference of 1817,
illustrates the difficulty that the church faced in trying to enforce
its policy. Mr. Cryer was secretary of the conference of 1817. He had
failed to emancipate his slaves according to a promise made the previous
conference. He had in the meantime bought a negro boy. He was able to
make satisfactory explanation of his conduct to the conference, and was
appointed elder. In other words, he was able to show the conference that
his conduct had been consistent with “justice and mercy” and that its
requirements as to emancipation were “impracticable.”[39]
One of the most eminent of Tennessee historians made the following
comment on the action of the church in the conference of 1817:
Such was the legislation of a body of ministers with reference
to a subject over which they had no control, provided the laws
themselves did not admit of emancipation, which they themselves
assumed to be the fact. Hence, the adoption of a proviso which
in every case, taking things as they were, either nullified the
rule or made it easy for a member or a minister to retain his
slaves; for whenever he determined to own slaves it was easy
to make it appear that it was in accordance with justice and
mercy to retain those already in possession, or that under the
law it was impracticable to set them free. Such legislation
would seem to be sufficiently absurd, but it is amazing that
an intelligent body of men should gravely attempt to compel a
preacher or member to emancipate a slave at an expiration of a
term of years after having surrendered ownership and control
of same. The only theory conceivable that can relieve the
conference of the accomplishment of a solemn mockery is the
supposition that they, having confidence in the justice of
the future, must have believed themselves to be anticipating
civil legislation—that the legal emancipation of the slave was
an event which the immediate future must produce. However,
the attitude of the conference on this subject is of great
historical value, bringing into clear relief, as it does, the
strong conviction of the Methodist body of Christians that
slavery was a great moral evil, the existence of which was
deplorable, and to be opposed by every means attached to which
there was any hope of its gradual abolishment.[40]
The conference of 1818, which met at Nashville, repealed the regulations
of the conference of 1817, and decided that the “printed rules on
slavery, in the form of discipline” was full and sufficient on that
subject.[41]
The conference of 1819 also met at Nashville and decided “that no man
who is known to hold slaves is to be admitted to the office of deacon
or elder.”[42] Peter Burum and Gilbert D. Taylor, who were recommended
for admission to the ministry, were rejected by this conference because
they were slaveholders.[43] Several applicants for deacon’s orders were
rejected for the same reason.
The conference of 1819 witnessed a determined contest between the
pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces, caused by an accusation made by
Peter Cartwright,[44] that a number of ministers in the state were
“living in constant violation of the discipline of the church.”[45] Felix
Grundy and Andrew Jackson represented the two factions. “The discussion
of the subject of slavery,” said Peter Cartwright, “worked up some bad
feeling, and as we had at this conference to elect our delegates to the
general conference which was to hold its session in Baltimore in May,
1820, these slaveholding preachers determined to form a ticket to exclude
every one of us who were for the Methodist Discipline as it was, and is
to this day. As soon as we found out their plans we formed an opposite
ticket, excluding all advocates of slavery, and we elected every man on
the ticket.”[46]
Sixteen local preachers filed the following protest against the action of
the conference in refusing to admit slaveholders to the office of deacon
or elder:
We deprecate the course taken as oppressively severe in itself
and ruinous in its consequences, and we disapprove of the
principle as contrary to and in violation of the order and
discipline of our church. We, therefore, do most solemnly, and
in the fear of God, as members of this conference, enter our
protest against the proceedings of the conference as it related
to the above-mentioned course and principle.[47]
This protest was supported by the slaveholders, and laid before the
general conference in 1820, but no definite action was ever taken on
it.[48]
The period from 1819 to 1824 was a transition period to some extent.
There was no important action by any of the conferences during this
period. Rev. John Johnson in 1820 proposed that the church recognize
slavery as a municipal institution and try to humanize it.[49] This was
the position that most of the churches had already taken on slavery. The
struggle over slavery in Missouri revealed the earnestness of the forces
on both sides. Anti-slavery leaders began to leave the state. Among the
Methodists were Wesley Harrison, an influential layman, who went to Ohio;
James Axley, a presiding elder; and Enoch Moore, a strong anti-slavery
preacher.[50] It was in this period, says McFerrin, that “the church came
to a standstill, and was in a measure paralyzed and powerless for good.
As a means of averting greater evils, and saving the church if possible,
colonization and emancipation societies were formed, and it was believed
by many that such organizations did a great deal to prevent a serious
rupture in the church till the storm passed over.”[51]
The conference of 1824, in response to a memorial on slavery presented
by the Moral and Religious Manumission Society of West Tennessee,
declared “that slavery is an evil to be deplored and that it should
be counteracted by every judicious and religious exertion.”[52] It
is noticed that while slavery was condemned as an evil, it was to be
handled “judiciously.” What did “judiciously” mean in the eyes of the
slaveholders? “This resolution,” says McFerrin, “was proposed by
two members, who themselves or their parents were slaveholders.”[53]
Evidently, this was a modified attitude of the church. “What a
misfortune,” says McFerrin, “that this sentiment had not always obtained,
treating the matter in a religious manner, and not intermeddling with it
as a civil question.”[54]
From 1824 to 1834 was a period of growth of pro-slavery sentiment in
Tennessee. Anti-slavery workers from all denominations left the state.
Manumission societies died. The colonization movement was a failure.
Abolition literature was discontinued. Exclusion policy was adopted in
1831.[55] Slaveholders began to advocate preaching to the slaves, and
made heavy contributions for this purpose. Separate negro churches were
established after the master ceased to be suspicious of the preachers,
and missions were established among the slaves at the expense of the
masters. “Owners of large plantations,” says Harrison, “coming to the
knowledge of this change in the disposition of the Methodist preachers,
and finding many of them following the example of the illustrious bishop,
then Mr. Capers, and seeing the good effects produced by the preaching
to the negroes on the plantations of their neighbors, ultimately gave
their consent to permit their slaves to hear the gospel from the lips of
capable white missionaries.”[56]
The Methodist Church had always had slave members in it. In 1791,
there were 12,844; in 1803, there were 22,453, most of whom were in
the South.[57] In 1824, there were 1749 negro members in the Methodist
church in Tennessee; in 1840, there were 8,820; and in 1846, there were
18,122.[58] Following the lead of the missionary movement to slaves begun
by Bishop Capers in 1829,[59] the Tennessee annual conference of 1832
established two missions to which were sent Thomas M. King and Gilbert
D. Taylor. By the close of 1832 these missions numbered 190 members.[60]
Missionary work among the slaves in Tennessee expanded conservatively
until 1844. By 1839, Tennessee had nine missions with 2,316 members and
ten missionaries, and was paying $2,700 to missions among the slaves.[61]
Some very strong preachers developed among the slaves. Probably the
greatest negro preacher in all Methodism, if not in all Christendom,
was Pompey. He was probably a native of Africa, and in his youth was a
slave of Rev. N. Moore, brother-in-law of Bishop McKendree. He traveled
as a servant with Rev. Moore, and at one of his revivals was converted.
He then became interested in the Gospel, and soon learned to read. He
gave close attention to his master’s sermons and sometimes suggested
improvements. “He ventured to tell his master one day,” says Rev. H.
H. Montgomery, “that he felt, or believed, he could have made a better
sermon than he did the day before. ‘Pomp, do you think you could preach?’
‘Yes, master, I have felt and thought a great deal about it.’ ‘Then,
Pompey, you shall preach tomorrow.’ He preached the next day and his
master thought so well of the sermon that he set Pompey free.”[62]
Pompey studied the Scriptures very closely, and became able to quote
freely from them. He was a very popular preacher to both whites and
blacks. He preached in both Tennessee and Mississippi. Rev. Montgomery
gives the following account of his preaching:
The first time I remember to have seen him was in the
Christmas holidays of 1832. The weather was very cold, but
the congregation was so large that old “Center” church could
not hold the people by one-half. So they adjourned to the
campground, where the vast congregation listened attentively to
an evangelical and powerful sermon for an hour from him. I was
a boy of thirteen years, but a very deep impression was made
on my mind. He related the circumstances of his awakening,
repentance, and conversion. There seemed to be scarcely one
that was not weeping. And when he described the simplicity
of that faith by which he received pardon and salvation, and
the great change of heart and feeling which he realized, and
everything was new—so new that he could hardly realize that it
was Pompey, till he looked at his hands and felt of his wool,
and found it was Pompey’s skin and Pompey’s wool, but it was
Pompey with a new heart—there was a burst of glory and praise
that went up from many of that congregation.[63]
There were, in the state, other negro preachers of unusual ability, among
them Emanuel Mark of Fayette County. He was given a pass by his master to
preach anywhere. He preached to both white and black. Silas Phillips of
La Grange, Tennessee, was another remarkable negro preacher. Simeon Hunt
was also a negro preacher of wonderful eloquence.[64]
After the defeat of the anti-slavery forces in 1834, it was recognized
that slavery was a fixed institution in society, and that it would
require violence to overthrow it. The Methodists had gradually been
reaching this conclusion. It was easy for them, therefore, to adopt a
slightly different attitude toward it. Their position was well phrased
by Dr. A. L. P. Green, who said he favored the institution, “when it
was properly controlled, and regarded it as a blessing to the slave.
He believed the negro incompetent and unfitted for self-government,
and hence a wise, good master was a necessity.”[65] The Methodists
were forced either to adopt this attitude or see the slaveholders
withdraw their slaves to churches whose attitude toward slavery was
more favorable. The missionary spirit of the church saw that the
slaves offered a great field for domestic missions, and the Christian
slaveholder came to be regarded as a blessing.[66]
The eleven delegates from the three conferences in Tennessee—Holston,
Tennessee, and Memphis—to the general conference in 1844, sharing the
above feeling, voted solidly against the Finley Resolution. These
annual conferences at their next meeting sustained the action of their
delegates. The Holston conference said, “That our delegates to the last
General convention merit the warmest expression of our thanks, for their
prudent, yet firm, course in sustaining the interests of our beloved
Methodism in the South.”[67] The Tennessee conference said, “That we do
most cordially approve the course of our delegates, in the late general
conference.”[68] The Memphis conference said, “That we do heartily
approve the entire course pursued by our delegates at the late general
conference.”[69] These resolutions also demanded that the convention at
Louisville establish a coördinate branch of Methodism under a general
conference in accordance with the plan adopted by the conference of 1844,
“and, in so doing,” they said, “we positively disavow secession, but
declare ourselves, by the act of the general conference, a coördinate
branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church.”[70]
Tennessee Methodists sent twenty-two delegates to the Louisville
convention of 1845.[71] They voted for the following resolution, which
the conference adopted without a dissenting vote, as its interpretation
of the law of the church on slavery:
That under the provisional exception of the general rule (or
law) of the church, on the subject of slavery, the simple
holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave property
in states or territories where the laws do not admit of
emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom,
constitutes no legal barrier to the election or ordination of
ministers to the various grades of office known in the ministry
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot, therefore, be
considered as operating any forfeiture of rights, in view of
such election and ordination.[72]
After the organization of the Southern branch of Methodism, strong
efforts were made along the border conferences to induce them to go
with the Northern branch. The Holston Conference, which included East
Tennessee, with only one dissenting vote, resolved to cast its lot with
the new organization. This one dissenter later joined the M. E. Church,
South.[73] There was no question of loyalty in the other conferences.
There were Methodists throughout the state who still adhered to the “Old
Church.” Even in West Tennessee, in certain counties there were strong
organizations of the “Old Church” that still persist.
The Southern Methodists increased their activities among the slaves
after 1845. The slaveholders were now assured that no insurrectionary
doctrines would be taught to their slaves. “Masters and mistresses,
even little children,” says Harrison, “helped with the work.”[74] In
1846, the Southern Methodists had 29 missions in Tennessee with 7,100
members in charge of 34 missionaries who received $7,762;[75] in 1863
there were 41 missions with 5,947 members in charge of 39 missionaries
receiving $11,748.46.[76] The difference in the attitude of the Methodist
slaveholders after the organization of the Southern church is shown by
the fact that from 1829 to 1844 Tennessee Methodist spent $23,208.01 on
slave missions, but from 1844 to 1864 they spent $213,736.62.[77] The
Southern Methodists numbered 18,122 negro members in 1846;[78] 18,045
in 1848;[79] 18,940 in 1850;[80] 18,748 in 1842; 19,239 in 1860.[81]
From 1860 to 1864 there was a gradual loss of negro membership, due, of
course, to the various influences and tendencies of the war period.[82]
Some of the conferences did not meet regularly during the war, and some
met in other states. The statistics are incomplete and inaccurate.[83]
The interpretation of the laws of the church on slavery remained
unchanged to 1858. In that year, the General Conference of the M. E.
Church, South, met in the House of Representatives at Nashville, with
151 accredited delegates. This conference declared “that slavery is not
a subject of ecclesiastical legislation. It is not the province of the
church to deal with civil institutions in her legislative capacity....
We have surrendered to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and holding
ourselves to be debtors to the wise and the unwise, the bond and the
free. We can now preach Christ alike to master and the servant, secure in
the confidence and affection of the one and the other.... The salvation
of the colored race in our midst, as far as human instrumentality can
secure it, is the primary duty of the southern church.”[84] They struck
from their Discipline at this meeting by a vote of 140 to 8 the rule
forbidding “the buying and selling of men, women, and children, with
intention to enslave them.”[85]
The social side of the relations of the two races in their religious life
is very interesting. The two races came very close together. The negroes
were called together by a horn or a bell once a day for family prayer in
which the master, mistress, and the children participated. Sometimes the
master conducted the services, and sometimes a slave would do it. Slaves
sang at these services, and frequently became so religious as to embrace
their master and mistress before the close of service. In their religious
life, slaves became little children indeed.
On Sunday as a rule, the slaves attended church with the white folks.
They either sat in the galleries or had a special portion of the church
set apart for them. They were given the communion after the white people
had been served. There was usually in the afternoon on Sunday a special
service for the slaves, conducted by the pastor of the church, and there
was generally a separate business meeting for the slaves. At these
separate services, the slaves practically had charge. Their own leaders,
exhorters, and preachers were merely directed by the white pastor. It
was in these meetings that they received their greatest training and had
their truest religious experience.[86]
Few men knew the negro so well as the Methodist preacher, or did so much
to elevate his character. He presided at their church trials, of which
one of their number was secretary. He was the general umpire to whom all
their church difficulties were referred. He baptized them, married them,
visited them in their cabins, comforted them in their distress, prayed
with them when on beds of sickness, was their counsellor, friend, and
spiritual guide, and he preached their funerals when they died.[87]
The Methodist people did more for the negro than any other denomination,
whether for abolition or for their general improvement. Peter Cartwright
once said that the Methodist Episcopal Church had “been the cause of
the emancipation of more slaves in these United States than all other
religious denominations put together.”[88] “It is a notorious fact,”
said Cartwright, “that all the preachers from the slaveholding states
denounced slavery as a moral evil; but asked of the General Conference
mercy and forbearance on account of the civil disabilities they labored
under so that we got along tolerably smooth. I do not recollect a single
Methodist preacher at that day that justified slavery.... Methodist
preachers in those days made it a matter of conscience not to hold
their fellow creatures in bondage, if it was practicable to emancipate
them, conformably to the laws of the state in which they lived.
Methodism increased and spread, and many Methodist preachers, taken from
comparative poverty, not able to own a negro, and who preached loudly
against it, improved and became popular among slaveholding families,
and became personally interested in slave property. They then began to
apologize for the evil; then to justify it, on legal principles; then on
Bible principles.”[89]
II. THE BAPTISTS.
The Baptists were among the original settlers in Tennessee. They were
strong in North Carolina by 1750,[90] and by 1780 were coming into
Tennessee from both Virginia and North Carolina in great numbers.[91]
They settled in the Holston country and on Boone’s Creek, but they
were not so numerous in these early days as the Presbyterians and
Methodists.[92] In 1784 there were 400 Baptists in Tennessee; 900 in
1792, and 11,325 in 1812.
The Baptists were anti-slavery in the early period of American history,
just as were the Methodists. 1783 the Baptists said:
It is the duty of every master of a family to give his slaves
liberty to attend the worship of God in his family, and
likewise it is his duty to convince them of their duty; and
then to leave them to their own choice.[93]
In 1789 John Leland proposed the following resolution in the Triennial
Convention, which was adopted:
Resolved, That slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights
of nature, and inconsistent with a republican government, and
therefore recommend it to our brethren, to make use of every
legal measure to extirpate this horrid evil from the land; and
pray Almighty God that our honorable legislature may have it in
their power to proclaim the great Jubilee consistent with the
principles of good policy.[94]
This protest, while very strong in its declaration, was ineffective. The
Baptists were no exception to mankind as to slaveholding. The Baptists
became slaveholders in large numbers, and adopted the policy that it was
the work of the church to mitigate slavery into a humane institution.[95]
The Baptists were more successful in adding negroes to the church than
any other denomination. There are more negroes in the Baptist church
today than in all other churches combined. One out of every five Southern
negroes is a Baptist.[96] In 1813, there were 40,000 negro Baptists,
mostly in the South, among whom were a great many negro preachers and
exhorters.[97]
Among the attractive features of the Baptist faith to the negroes were
immersion, the congregational form of government, which gave them
participation in church meetings, the liberality of the Baptists in
permitting them to preach, and the Baptist method of communion, which did
not discriminate against them.[98] These advantages of Baptism[99] caused
negroes to withdraw from other churches.[100]
The Baptists despite the advantages that a form of local church
government gave them in handling the slavery question, were not able
to prevent its frequent discussion. It was not so difficult for the
individual congregations to settle the matter by a majority vote and
select a preacher whose views agreed with the majority. But it was
inevitable that the forces that finally united the Southern Methodists
would produce the same effect upon the Southern Baptists. The Southern
Baptists were among the largest slaveholders of the South, and in due
time came to be defenders of slavery, while Northern Baptists became
increasingly anti-slavery.[101]
That separation was inevitable was evident to many of the leaders,
although both Northern and Southern Baptists tried to relegate slavery
to the background. Rev. Richard Fuller was one of the first to see this
impending division in the church, and he hastened to take steps to
prevent it. He tried to distinguish between the church as an organization
and its membership. In the Triennial Convention of 1844 he secured the
adoption of a resolution to the effect that as a church they should
disclaim all sanction of slavery or anti-slavery, either expressed or
implied, but that as individuals they should have the freedom both to
express and to promote their views on these subjects in a Christian
manner and spirit.[102]
This was apparently a happy solution of the question, a philosophical way
to handle the problem, but slavery would not down. The incident that most
of all precipitated the organization of the Southern Baptist Convention
was the attitude of the Board of Foreign Missions of the church. This
board, apparently on its own initiative, adopted in 1844 a resolution to
the effect that,
In the thirty years in which the board has existed, no
slaveholder, to our knowledge, has applied to be a missionary.
And as we send out no domestics, or servants, such an event as
a missionary taking slaves with him, were it morally right,
could not, in accordance with all our past arrangements and
present plans, possibly occur. If, however, anyone should offer
himself as a missionary, having slaves, and should insist on
retaining them as his property, we can never be a party to any
arrangements which would imply approbation of slavery.
The American Baptist Home Missionary Society in April, 1845, found itself
in the same predicament that the Foreign Missionary Society was facing.
This board said: “We declare it expedient that members shall hereafter
act in separate organizations, at the South and at the North, in
promoting the objects which were originally contemplated by the society.”
This announcement of policy was regarded by the Southern Baptists
as a violation of the rights of the convention of the church. This
policy was soon put into effect by the rejection of Rev. James E.
Reeves, a slaveholder and applicant to become a missionary.[103] This
was a challenge that was immediately accepted. The Southern Baptists
said: “This is forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles.... We will
never interfere with what is Caesar’s. We will not compromise what is
God’s.”[104]
The Southern Baptist Convention was organized at Augusta, Georgia, in
the summer of 1845. There were 377 delegates present. They said that “a
painful division has taken place in the missionary operations of the
American Baptists.... They differ in no article of the faith. They are
guided by the same principles of gospel order.”[105]
The Tennessee Baptists were, like the Baptists as a whole, divided on the
question of slavery. In general, the attitude of the National Triennial
Convention down to 1845 reflects the opinion of Tennessee Baptists. There
are no local histories nor any minutes of local bodies that give us any
insight into the particular feelings of different groups of Baptists in
Tennessee. Tennessee Baptists went with the Southern Convention in 1845,
but there were anti-slavery Baptists scattered throughout the state.
One of the most noted of the anti-slavery Baptists in Tennessee was
Professor J. M. Pendleton, of Union University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee
(now at Jackson, Tennessee). Professor Pendleton was born in Virginia in
1811. He moved to Kentucky in 1817 and to Tennessee in 1857. He was in
1858 professor of theology at Union, and joint editor with Rev. A. C.
Dayton of the Tennessee Baptist, published at Nashville, and was one of
the editors of the Southern Baptist Review.[106]
In 1858, Dr. Dawson, editor of the Alabama Baptist, accused him of
being an abolitionist. He was brought before the board of trustees of
Union. Professor Pendleton explained the charge in the following way: “I
suppose he (Dawson) made no distinction between an ‘Abolitionist’ and
‘Emancipationist.’ The latter was in favor of doing away with slavery
gradually, according to state constitution and law; the former believed
slavery to be a sin in itself, calling for immediate abolition without
regard to consequences. I was an Emancipationist ... but I was never for
a moment an Abolitionist.”[107] He frankly stated his views before the
board, and was acquitted.[108]
The Southern Baptists made special effort to evangelize the slaves after
their separate organization was accomplished. “This department of our
labor,” says the report of 1845, “is increasing in interest every year.
Whenever it is practicable, the missionaries of the board hold separate
services for the special benefit of the slaves. And all bear favorable
testimony to the happy influence of the Gospel upon the hearts and lives
of that people. Their owners are becoming more and more awake to their
special wants. Some are erecting houses of worship on their plantations,
others are making liberal donations to sustain the ministry among
them.”[109] The general proposition of the convention to any local church
was that it would pay half the expense of a mission among the negroes if
the church would pay the other half. In 1855, the Baptists had missions
at Rogersville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Cumberland Mountains, Huntingdon,
and Memphis.[110]
The convention of 1859 said:
Our slaves, too, demand our attention. They form part of our
families, speak our language, are easy of access, and are
impressible beyond any other people. They number more than
three and a half million, and out of this multitude scarcely
more than three or four hundred thousand are professed
Christians.[111]
The character of the slave converts as given by Rev. Pendleton, seemed
to justify the efforts of the church. He said, “I saw among them in the
days of slavery as pious Christians as I ever saw anywhere. They attended
church, occupied the place assigned them in the meeting-house, and
partook of the Lord’s Supper with their white brethren.”[112]
The special training that the negroes received in the Baptist church
largely prepared them to establish and manage their own churches. “The
first negro Baptist church in Tennessee,” says Pius, “was the Mt.
Lebanon Baptist Church, organized at Columbia, October 20, 1843.”[113]
This church now has a membership of 200 and property worth $15,000. In
1853, Spruce Street Baptist Church was built at Nashville. Beal Street
Church at Memphis was also one of the early negro churches.
III. CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIANS.
The Cumberland Presbyterians present the interesting situation of
a church originating in a slave state after slavery was rather
substantially established. This church was organized in Tennessee in
1810 in the log cabin of Samuel McAdoo. Samuel McAdoo, Finis Ewing,
and Samuel King, all ordained ministers of the Presbyterian church,
were the constituent founders of the first Presbytery.[114] Of these
three cofounders, Ewing was a slaveholder, but he soon emancipated his
slaves.[115]
One would expect this church, born of the environment of slavery, to be
rather mild in its opposition to slavery, if, indeed, not pro-slavery,
but, as a matter of fact, it was strongly anti-slavery. Ewing, after
freeing his slaves, boldly preached against “the traffic in human flesh.”
He said:
But where shall we begin? Oh! is it indeed true that in this
enlightened age, there are so many palpable evils in the church
that it is difficult to know where to commence enumerating
them? The first evil which I shall mention is a traffic in
human flesh and human souls. It is true that many professors
of religion, and, I fear, some of my Cumberland brethren, do
not scruple to sell for life their fellow-beings, some of whom
are brethren in the Lord. And what is worse, they are not
scrupulous to whom they sell, provided they can obtain a better
price. Sometimes husbands and wives, parents and children,
are thus separated, and I doubt not their cries reach the
ears of the Lord of Sabbath.... Others who constitute a part
of the visible Church half feed, half clothe, and oppress the
servants. Indeed, they seem by their conduct toward them, not
to consider them fellow-beings. And it is to be feared that
many of them are taking no pains at all to give their servants
religious instruction of any kind, and especially are they
making no efforts to teach them or cause them to be taught to
read that Book which testifies of Jesus, whilst others permit,
perhaps require, their servants to work, cook, etc., while the
white people are praying around the family altar.[116]
He says again, “I have determined not to hold, nor to give, nor to sell,
nor to buy any slave for life. Mainly from the influence of that passage
of God’s word which says, ‘Masters, give unto your servants that which is
just and equal.’”
Samuel McAdoo, one of the three founders of the church, and a Cumberland
preacher, was a most outspoken opponent of slavery. He did not want
his family through marriage or inheritance or otherwise to become
connected with it. To accomplish this he joined the contingent of
anti-slavery leaders that Tennessee contributed to the Northwest. He
moved to Illinois, where he could preach his convictions without fear and
trembling.[117]
Some of the early Cumberland preachers, who were very conscientious on
the subject of slavery, wanted to free their slaves, but they did not
believe they could be self-sustaining and independent members of society.
Rev. Ephriam McLean was one of these who decided that he would perform
the experiment of giving his slaves a chance to demonstrate that they
could be self-supporting. He gave his slaves the use of a farm, farming
implements, and live stock adequate for their purposes, and set them free
to work for themselves. In a few years idleness and drunkenness brought
them to suffering, and they begged him to take them back. He did so.[118]
Rev. Robert Donnel, a Cumberland minister, inherited slaves. He taught
his slaves the Scriptures and called them to family prayer daily. He
wanted to free his slaves, but they did not wish freedom, because they
did not want to go to Liberia. The free states at the North did not want
them. He could not drive them to Africa. The state would not let him free
them unless he sent them outside of it, so he did not know how to dispose
of them.[119]
Southern anti-slavery men would buy the slaves of their own brothers to
keep them from being sold separately to pay their debts. Such men would
intend to emancipate these slaves, but they would soon discover that the
slaves had rather die than be sent to Canada or Africa. They remained
slaveholders because they had a real interest in negroes. In 1855, Dr.
Beard, a leading Cumberland Presbyterian minister, said, “the longer I
live the more deeply I regret that I ever became involved in it. My heart
always hated it, and now loathes it more and more every day.”[120]
Not only were the leading ministers in the Church anti-slavery, but
the literature of the Church denounced slavery, and the legislation of
the Southern States. The Revivalist, a Cumberland paper published at
Nashville from 1830 to 1836, speaking of legislation of South Carolina
upon slavery, said: “Such acts are foul blots upon the records of a free
people, which our posterity will blush to behold. They are not only
unjust and cruel but actually impolitic.”
“The extensive slaveholder,” said the Revivalist, “is at too great
a remove from the slave to learn the workings of his mind and the
feelings of his heart. There is no contact of feeling, no interchange
of sympathies between most Southern planters and their servants. They
govern, control, and direct their slaves by proxy; and too many masters
are dependent upon their representatives of heartless overseers for a
knowledge of the character and disposition of their own slaves. Southern
planters, who govern by proxy, are, therefore, unprepared to do justice
to the African character.”[121]
The Revivalist exhorted slaveholders to teach their slaves to read and to
give them moral and religious instruction. This, it said, “will not only
make better men of them but better servants.”[122]
The Cumberland Presbyterian, of Nashville, mother organ of the Church,
said in 1835: “We proclaim it abroad we do not own slaves. We never
shall. We long to see the black man free and happy, and thousands
of Christians who now hold them in bondage entertain the same
sentiments.”[123]
It will be shown in the chapter on abolition that a change of attitude
toward slavery followed the action of the Convention of 1834. The
Cumberland Presbyterian Church was no exception to this rule. The action
of a Pennsylvania Synod in 1847 precipitated the issue. This Synod
met and rescinded its action at a previous session declaring that the
relation between it and American slavery to be such as to require “no
action thereon,” and adopted the resolution, “That the system of slavery
in the United States is contrary to the principles of the Gospel, hinders
the progress thereof, and ought to be abolished.”[124]
The General Assembly of the Church of 1848, which met at Memphis,
appointed a committee to review the action of the Pennsylvania Synod.
This committee in its report regretted the action of the Synod and
disapproved “any attempt by jurisdiction of the church to agitate the
exciting subject of slavery,” closing with the observation that “the
tendency of such resolutions, if persisted in, we believe is to gender
strife, produce distraction in the church, and thereby hinder the
progress of the Gospel.”[125]
The General Assembly of 1851, which met at Pittsburg, received six
memorials on slavery from Ohio and Pennsylvania with about one hundred
and fifty signatures.[126] The committee to whom these memorials were
referred made the following report, which was adopted:
The Church of God is a spiritual body, whose jurisdiction
extends only to matters of faith and morals. She has no power
to legislate upon subjects on which Christ and his apostles did
not legislate, nor to establish terms of union, where they have
given no express warrant. Your committee, therefore, believe
that this question on which you are asked by the memorialists
to take action, is one which belongs rather to civil than
ecclesiastical legislation; and we are all fully persuaded that
legislation on that subject in any of the judicatories of the
church, instead of mitigating the evils connected with slavery,
will only have a tendency to alienate feeling between brethren;
to engender strife and animosities in your church; and tend,
ultimately to a separation between brethren who hold a common
faith, an event leading to the most disastrous results, and one
which we believe ought to be deprecated by every true patriot
and Christian.
But your committee believe that members of the church holding
slaves should regard them as rational and accountable beings,
and treat them as such, affording them as far as possible the
means of grace.
Finally, your committee would recommend the adoption of the
following resolutions:
1. That inasmuch as the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was
originally organized and has since existed and prospered under
the conceded principle that slavery was not and should not be
regarded as a bar to communion; we, therefore, believe that it
should not now be so regarded.
2. That, having entire confidence in the honesty and sincerity
of the memorialists and cherishing the tenderest regard for
their feelings and opinions, it is the conviction of this
General Assembly that the agitation of this question which
has already torn asunder other branches of the church, can be
productive of no real benefit to master or slave. We would,
therefore, in the fear of God, and with the utmost solicitude
for the peace and welfare of the churches under our care,
advise a spirit of mutual forbearance and brotherly love;
and, instead of censure and proscription, that we endeavor to
cultivate a fraternal feeling one toward another.[127]
This platform remained the orthodox position of the Church to the
abolition of slavery. The Cumberland Church was primarily a Southern
church, and, therefore, never divided on the question. It would have
suffered very little loss of either membership or property by a division.
The Cumberland Church, it appears, took the most sensible position on the
slavery question of any of the churches in Tennessee. It always preached
abolition and ultimate freedom as the final solution of the problem,
but, at no time did it overlook the entire set of facts connected with
the institution. It recognized that slavery had been forced on the
forefathers, that it had become the central institution of Southern
society, that, therefore, it would be violent revolution to abolish
the institution at one stroke of the pen. It appreciated the fact that
only a small part of the slave population was ready for freedom and a
responsible place in the body politic. The Cumberland Presbyterians
believed that slavery was an evil, but denied responsibility for it. They
thought that slavery was an educating institution, that the rights of the
slave should be restored to him as fast as his evolution would permit,
but that in this process the welfare of society as a whole was the major
consideration.
IV. THE FRIENDS.
The Quakers led decidedly in the movement of abolition. As early as 1770
in their annual meeting attention was called to the treatment of the
slave and to “the iniquitous practice of importing negroes.”[128] In 1772
it was decided in their annual meeting that no Friend should buy a slave
of any other person than a Friend in unity. This regulation might be
violated if it was to unite husband and wife or mother and children, or
for other reasons if approved by monthly meeting.[129] Advance was made
again in 1774 and in 1775 when the yearly meeting decided “That Friends
in unity shall neither buy nor sell a negro without the consent of the
monthly meeting to which they belong.”[130] In 1776 the Friends reached
complete abolition.[131] The yearly meeting advised with unanimity that
the members of the Friends’ Society “clear their hands” of the slaves
as rapidly as possible. By the close of the Revolution the Friends were
practically rid of slaves. In the year 1787 there was not a slave in the
possession of an acknowledged Quaker.[132] They never recanted on this
proposition.
The attitude of the Southern Quakers was at first amelioration of the
condition of the slave. They were interested in the physical condition
of the negro, possibly as much for economic reasons as for altruistic
motives.[133] In North Carolina, where the immediate background of
Tennessee Quakerism is found, the question of slavery was slow in rising,
but soon thereafter became a very stubborn question.[134] The yearly
meetings of 1758 and 1770 took decidedly hostile attitude toward the
buying and selling of slaves, and demanded that those that were inherited
be treated well.[135]
The Quakers in North Carolina worked personally among the Friends for
abolition and as an organization they petitioned the Legislature of the
State to modify its laws in the direction of justice and mercy. They
protested bitterly against free negroes, who had been given their freedom
by conscientious masters, being taken to other states and sold into
slavery.[136]
The harshness of North Carolina law created a modified Quakerism not to
be found elsewhere. The yearly meeting created agents to take charge
of slaves that masters wanted to manumit, and look after them. By this
method they proposed to give virtual freedom to the slaves when legal
freedom was not recognized by the state.[137] This practice continued to
the Civil War.
The Friends in Tennessee not only refrained from owning slaves
themselves, but by manumission societies, by petitions to legislatures,
and by abolition literature, sought to abolish slavery. Reference is
made in a previous chapter to the work of such men as Embree, Osborn,
and Lundy, who, if they had remained in Tennessee with all the Friends,
instead of going to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, might have helped to
bring about a different result. Charles Osborn, who was the leader in
organizing the Tennessee Manumission Society, and who moved to Ohio and
began publishing the Philanthropist, an anti-slavery paper, later moved
to Indiana, whither he was followed by Jesse Wills and John Underhill,
Friends who had helped to organize manumission societies in Tennessee.
The Emancipator, Embree’s publication, referring to these emigrations to
the North, said:
Thousands of first-rate citizens, men remarkable for their
piety and virtue, have within twenty years past removed from
this and other slave states, to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois,
that their eyes may be hid from seeing the cruel oppressor
lacerate the back of his slaves, and that their ears may not
hear the bitter cries of the oppressed. I have often regretted
the loss of so much virtue from these slave states, which held
too little before. Could all those who have removed from slave
states on that account, to even the single state of Ohio, have
been induced to remove to, and settle in Tennessee with their
high toned love for universal liberty and aversion to slavery,
I think that Tennessee would ere this have begun to sparkle
among the true stars of liberty.[138]
From about 1809 to 1834, the Friends in Tennessee were regularly
petitioning the Legislature of the State. Their petitions usually asked
for the abolition of slavery, if possible; if not, to mitigate the evil
“of separating husbands, wives, and children.”[139] They believed that
the elimination of this practice would make the slaves more virtuous and
increase their respect for the marriage relation. They petitioned against
the domestic slave trade as they saw this was increasing the grip of
slavery on the state.
The Friends were the most vigilant anti-slavery workers in the State. If
all the Protestant churches had been as devoted to the cause of freedom
in the early days of the State before there were many slaves in the state
and before West Tennessee was settled, the story of the Convention of
1834 would likely be different. The Friends like the other religionists
had to succumb to the superior pro-slavery forces that always controlled
the state government.
V. THE PRESBYTERIANS.
The Presbyterians were the first denomination to cross the frontier line
into Tennessee. Rev. Charles Cummings and Rev. John Rhea, both of this
church, were the first preachers in Tennessee.[140] “It was the custom
of Mr. Cummings on Sunday morning,” says Goodspeed, “to dress himself
neatly, put on his shot pouch, shoulder his rifle, mount his horse, and
ride to church, where he would meet his congregation, each man with his
rifle in his hand.” In 1778 Samuel Doak was called to the congregations,
Concord and Hopewell, in what is now Sullivan County. Rev. Doak in 1785
chartered Martin Academy, first educational institution west of the
Alleghanies. In 1775 Abingdon Presbytery was founded, and it became the
gateway of Presbyterianism to the other portions of the State. Thos. B.
Craighead and Rev. William McGee, brother of the Methodist John McGee,
were also among the early ministers of this denomination.[141]
The Presbyterians, like all the denominations that were national, could
not in the very nature of things remain a unit on the slavery question.
The question came up in various synods in 1774, 1780, and 1787, when the
synods of New York and Philadelphia declared in favor of training the
slaves for freedom.[142]
The question reached the General Assembly in 1793 and 1795, when it was
decided that as there were differences of opinion relative to slavery
among the members of the church, “notwithstanding which they live in
charity and peace according to the doctrine and practice of the apostles,
it is hereby recommended to all conscientious persons, and especially to
those whom it immediately respects, to do the same.”[143]
At this same assembly, a committee made a strong recommendation, urging
religious education of the slave. The assembly rejected the report of the
committee, and said they “have taken every step which they deem expedient
or wise to encourage emancipation, and to render the state of those who
are in slavery as mild and tolerable as possible.”[144] The assembly
referred the members of the church to its action of 1787 and 1793 for its
position on slavery.
This action settled the question for 20 years. It came before the
assembly again in 1815, due to the action of the Synod of Ohio. This
assembly urged religious education and the use of prudent measures to
prevent the slave traffic.[145] The assembly of 1816 asked that masters
who were members of the church present the children of parents in
servitude for baptism.[146]
The sale of a slave member of the church provoked rather drastic action
by the Assembly of 1818,[147] but in the same proceedings it expressed
its sympathy for those upon whom slavery had been entailed as “a great
and most virtuous part of the community abhor slavery, and wish its
extermination as sincerely as any others.”
The Assembly of 1825 said:
We notice with pleasure the enlightened attention which has
been paid to the religious instruction and evangelization of
the unhappy slaves and free people of color of our country in
some regions of our church.... No more honored name can be
conferred on a minister of Jesus Christ than that of Apostle to
the American Slaves; and no service can be more pleasing to the
God of Heaven or more useful to our beloved country than that
which this title designates.
The slavery question came up again in 1836 when the church was pretty
well divided. There was a majority report which recommended taking
no action, and a minority report which strongly opposed slavery.
The majority report was accepted by the assembly.[148] Twenty-eight
members protested this action of the assembly. The Presbyterians had an
anti-slavery element all along that they could not control. This element
separated from the church in 1821 and called itself the Associated
Reformed Presbyterian Church.[149] There was a second element, calling
itself the New School, that based its action very largely on slavery.
This element kept up an anti-slavery propaganda, repeating in 1846 and in
1849, the slavery declaration of 1818. The southern and more conservative
element was able to control the assembly, and in 1853 the New School
element withdrew from the church.[150] This was the last division in the
church until the guns fired on Fort Sumter.
The attitude of the Tennessee Presbyterians on slavery was well expressed
by the Synod of Tennessee in 1817, in an address to the American
Colonization Society. This memorial, after congratulating the society
upon its purpose, said:
We wish you, therefore, to know, that within our bounds
the public sentiment appears clearly and decidedly in your
favor.... We ardently wish that your exertions and the best
influence of all philanthropists may be united, to meliorate
the condition of human society, and especially of its most
degraded classes, till liberty, religion, and happiness shall
be the enjoyment of the whole family of man.[151]
There were several very prominent anti-slavery Presbyterian leaders
in Tennessee, among both the laymen and the clergymen. Judge S. J. W.
Lucky was a prominent example of a layman who was an active anti-slavery
worker. Hon. John Blair, who was a ruling elder and representative of
his district in Congress for twelve years, became convinced that slavery
was wrong, and offered to give a bill of sale of his slaves to Dr. David
Nelson. He was unable to see any practical way out of slavery.[152]
Among the ministers were three who did valuable service in the cause
of freedom. Rev. John Rankin’s work as an anti-slavery leader has been
noticed in another connection. He was one of the pioneers in the cause.
Rev. Dr. David Nelson, a native of Washington County, and brother-in-law
of Chief Justice James W. Frederick, was one of the most determined
anti-slavery men in the country.[153] He had to be saved from a mob for
proposing to his congregation to take a subscription with which to buy
and colonize slaves. He was eloquent in promoting colonization.[154] Rev.
E. T. Brantley, a West Tennessee Presbyterian minister, said of him:
“He cordially disapproved of slavery. He found no justification of it
anywhere. All look forward to the extinction of slavery.... If the North
could be aware of the progress of anti-slavery sentiment at the South,
particularly among Christians, they would think the day of emancipation
had already dawned.”[155] Rev. Dr. Ross, of Tennessee, was one of the
most able leaders in Presbyterianism in the South. He was the spokesman
of Southern Presbyterianism in the general assembly, which met at Buffalo
in May, 1853. It was in this assembly that the committee on slavery
recommended that a committee consisting of one member from each of the
synods of Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and Virginia, be appointed to
investigate the slaveholding members of the church on the following
points, and report to the next general assembly:
1. The number of slaveholders in connection with the churches,
and the number of slaves held by them.
2. The extent to which slaves are held, from an unavoidable
necessity imposed by the laws of the States, the obligation of
guardianship, and the demands of humanity.
3. Whether the Southern churches regard the sacredness of
the marriage relation as it exists among the slaves; whether
baptism is duly administered to the children of the slaves
professing Christianity; and, in general, to what extent, and
in what manner, provision is made for the religious well-being
of the enslaved.[156]
Dr. Ross warmly opposed this action, asserting emphatically that the
South never submitted to a scrutiny. He proposed a substitute motion
to the effect that “a committee from each of the Northern synods ... be
appointed to report to the next general assembly on the following points:
1. The number of Northern church members who traffic with
slaveholders, and are seeking to make money by selling them
negro clothing, handcuffs, and cowhides.
2. How many Northern church members are concerned, directly or
indirectly, in building and fitting out ships for the African
slave trade, and the slave-trade between the States?
3. How many Northern church members have sent orders to New
Orleans and other Southern cities, to have slaves sold, to pay
debts coming to them from the South? (See Uncle Tom’s Cabin.)
4. How many Northern church members buy the cotton, sugar,
rice, tobacco, oranges, pineapple, figs, ginger, cocoa, melons,
and a thousand other things, raised by slave labor?
5. How many Northern church members have intermarried with
slaveholders, and have become slaveholders themselves, or enjoy
the wealth made by the blood of the slaves, especially if there
be any Northern ministers of the Gospel in such a predicament?
6. How many Northern church members are descendants of the men
who kidnapped negroes in Africa, and brought them to Virginia
and New England, in former years?
7. What is the aggregate and individual wealth of church
members thus descended, and what action is best to compel
them to disgorge this blood-stained wealth, or to make them
give dollar for dollar in equalizing the loss of the South by
emancipation?
8. How many Northern church members, ministers especially, have
advocated murder in resistance to the laws of the land.
9. How many Northern church members own stock in underground
railroads, running off fugitive slaves, and Sabbath-breaking
railroads and canals?
10. That a special committee be sent up Red River, to ascertain
whether Legree, who whipped Uncle Tom to death (and a Northern
gentleman), be not still in connection with some Northern
church, in good and regular standing.
11. How many Northern church members attend meetings
of Spiritual Roppers, are Bloomers, or Woman’s Rights
Conventionalists?
12. How many are cruel husbands?
13. How many are henpecked husbands?”[157]
Dr. Ross said: “He did not desire discussion on this subject, but still
he had no opposition to make if others wished to discuss it. As a
citizen of the state of Tennessee, a state which partakes of the fire of
the South and the prudence of the North, he was perfectly calm on the
subject.[158] He said again, “If anyone would present him with a handsome
copy of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, he would keep it on his center-table, and show
it to all his visitors.”[159]
The Presbyterians had a large number of slaves as members, but in their
reports there is no distinction made between whites and blacks. “In
many places,” says Rev. James H. McNeilly, “separate houses of worship
were provided for them, and in a great many churches large galleries
with comfortable seats were assigned to them. Often the planters on
large plantations built neat and commodious chapels for them, and in
these chapels the planter and his family frequently worshipped with
their servants. In the cities and towns the white people gave up their
churches to the negroes for afternoon service.” Dr. McNeilly says: “I
remember that in 1855 the Presbyterian General Assembly met in the First
Presbyterian Church at Nashville, Tenn. Dr. Edgar, the pastor, gave some
of the Northern commissioners opportunity to see and preach to some of
the negro congregations. These ministers were surprised to see the fine
dressing, the happy faces, the apparent devotion of the people, and were
much gratified to find the evidence of the interest of the churches in
the spiritual welfare of the slaves.”
“In the spring of 1860,” says Dr. McNeilly, “I was licensed to preach by
the Presbytery of Nashville and spent nearly six months in preaching in
two counties of Middle Tennessee. The members of my congregation owned a
considerable number of slaves, to whom I preached regularly every Sabbath
afternoon, although most of them were members of Methodist and Baptist
churches.”[160]
The Presbyterians were profoundly interested in the welfare of the
slaves. In the Synods of Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and West Tennessee, “it is,” says Harrison, “the practice of a number
of ministers to preach to the negroes separately once on the Sabbath
or during the week.”[161] There were Sabbath Schools also, and, with
few exceptions, a number of negroes formed a portion of every Sabbath
congregation.
The Presbyterians did not let the negroes preach as much as the Baptists
and Methodists did. These denominations had real preachers with their
congregations, but the Presbyterian conception of the character of
a preacher practically excluded the negro. They had, however, negro
exhorters. In fact, the negroes did not want a preacher they could
understand. Even a white preacher, if he tried to simplify his language
to suit them, would become unpopular with them. They liked big words, and
would always praise the Lord when a high-sounding word was used. Rev.
McNeilly tells of a young theologian who began his sermon to the negroes
thus, “Primarily we must postulate the existence of a duty.” After a
short pause, some old colored patriarch fervently responded, “Yaas, Lord,
dat’s so. Bless de Lord.”[162]
The Tennessee Presbyterians voted against the Spring Resolutions in the
general assembly at Philadelphia, and participated in the convention
at Atlanta in August, 1861, which adopted among other resolutions, the
following: “Our connection with the non-slaveholding states, it cannot be
denied, was a great hindrance to the systematic performance of the work
of evangelization of the slave population. It is true that the northern
portion of the Presbyterian Church professed to be conservative, but
their opposition to our social economy was constantly increasing.”[163]
The synods of Memphis and Nashville, together with various Presbyteries,
participated in the convention at Augusta, Georgia, in December, 1861,
which organized the Southern Presbyterian Church. Tennessee has remained
a strong center of Southern Presbyterianism to the present.
VI. THE EPISCOPALIANS.
The Episcopal Church from the beginning of its work in America stressed
the improvement of the condition of the slaves. The Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was incorporated under William
III, in 1701, and on investigation it was decided that the work in
America “consisted of three great homilies: the care and instruction of
our people settled in the colonies, the conversion of the Indian savages,
and the conversion of the negroes.” Rev. Samuel Thomas, the first
missionary, who was sent to North Carolina in 1702, reported that “he had
taken much pains also in instructing the negroes and learned twenty of
them to read.”[164] The Episcopal Church, like the Presbyterian, did not
report as a rule separate statistics for colored members of the church.
In 1817 there were 828 colored members in the Episcopal churches at
Charleston.[165] In 1822 there were 200 colored children in their Sunday
Schools.[166]
The Episcopal Church had a sort of philosophical attitude toward the
negroes. It was never the church of feeling, like the Methodists and
Baptists. In 1823 Rev. Dr. Dalcho of the Episcopal Church at Charleston
issued a pamphlet entitled, “Practical Considerations, Founded on the
Scriptures, Relative to the Slave Population of South Carolina.” The
church was vitally interested in the welfare of the slave throughout the
South.
The Episcopal Church did not establish itself in Tennessee until
anti-slavery feeling was on the wane. The first Episcopal Church in
Tennessee was established at Franklin, Williamson County, August 25,
1827, by Rev. James H. Otey.[167] He began to preach occasionally at
Columbia and Nashville, and by 1830 there were two additional clergy. In
this same year, on July 1, the first convention of the church was held at
Nashville, and in this year the Diocese of Tennessee was formed. There
were about fifty communicants at this time in Tennessee.[168]
The church grew very slowly. The state was still in a frontier condition.
The inhabitants were democratic, and were already members for the most
part of the Methodist and Baptist churches. What aristocracy there was
belonged to the Presbyterian Church. There was no American bishop in the
Episcopal Church to consecrate candidates for the ministry. They were
forced to go to England for the laying-on of hands. Again, the War of
1812 had further intensified the prejudice against the English church.
Rev. Otey was a persistent worker, and after his consecration in 1834
he began to lay the foundation for educational and religious expansion
of this church. Mercer Hall, a school for boys, was opened in his home
in 1836. Columbia Female Institute was founded in the same year, and
preparations were begun to found a university the same year, but were not
successful until 1857, when the University of the South was established
in the Cumberland Mountains about ten miles from Winchester at Sewanee,
Tenn. Bishop Otey became its first president.
By 1844 there were thirteen resident clergymen in the state besides Rev.
Otey. The number of communicants had grown from 117 in 1834 to 400.[169]
In 1860, the last year of the Journal of the Convention for the South
until after the war, there were 27 members of the clergy, 26 parishes,
and 1500 communicants.
The Episcopal Church in Tennessee was practically synonymous with Bishop
Otey, who directed and controlled its policy. He owned a plantation out
from Memphis and a number of slaves. He was a typical Southern, Christian
slaveholder. He believed that patriarchal slavery was a great institution
for the negro. He felt that the North misunderstood the institution,
and was in its agitation doing irreparable damage to the nation and the
South. Writing to the Northern clergymen, May 17, 1861, he said:
As to your coming South, let me just here state, for all, that
you wholly misapprehend the spirit of our people. We ask not
one thing of the North which has not been secured to us by the
Constitution and laws since they were established and enacted,
and which has been granted to us until within a few years past.
We demand no sacrifice nor the surrender of Northern rights
and privileges. The party that elected Mr. Lincoln proclaimed
uncompromising hostility to the institution of slavery—an
institution which existed here, and has done so from its
beginning, in its patriarchal character. We feel ourselves
under the most solemn obligations to take care of, and to
provide for, these people who cannot provide for themselves.
Nearly every free-soil state has prohibited them from settling
in their territory. Where are they to go?
Here the bishop is seen as a defender of Southern institutions and
ideals, yet he was loyal to the Union as an old Whig just as long as he
could be. He wrote letters to members of the cabinet, begging caution and
consideration. But when he felt that the South had been unnecessarily
attacked, he fully identified himself and the Tennessee Episcopalians
with the cause of the South. Writing to his daughter, May 24, 1861, he
said, “And now, my dear child, you ask me if I think the cause of the
South just, and that God will favor us and defends us. I answer, in very
deed, I do.”[170]
When his slaves were set free in 1862, he called them into his parlor and
gave them a father’s advice. He said: “I do not regret the departure of
my servants, except Lavinia and Nora (children of eight and seven years
of age); I pity them—I have endeavored to treat them always humanely.
They had as comfortable rooms, and as many necessary comforts as myself.
If they can do better by leaving me, they are free to do so.”[171]
It is undoubtedly true that the general spirit of frontier life was
against slavery. It was always opposed to convention and privilege. In
the early period of Tennessee politics when the anti-slavery feeling was
strongest, frontier conditions prevailed. These pioneers, in the period
from 1790 to 1834, were fighting for the suffrage, representation, and
the right to hold office. These privileges were enjoyed only by property
holders. Under such conditions, opposition to slaveholders, who primarily
stood for privilege, was inevitable. The anti-slavery attitude of the
churches was partly a result of these conditions as well as of religious
sentiment. These people could express themselves through churches and
independent societies more freely than through politics, which was
generally dominated by slaveholders.
In estimating the work of the churches as a whole, one is compelled to
acknowledge the value of their services to the negro. Practically all
of the outstanding anti-slavery leaders were prominent churchmen. The
anti-slavery literature of the early period was published under the
inspiration of the church. The churches constantly advocated manumission
to the masters, and sought easier terms from the legislature for
emancipation. They preached against the slave traffic and the inhuman
practice of separating families. Their influence also softened the
character of the slave code in both its make-up and administration. In
the later forties and fifties when the negroes came into the churches in
increased numbers, their field of service was increased. There was almost
as large a percentage of slaves belonging to the churches in 1860 as
there is of negroes in the church today.[172]
The church was given a freer hand with the slaves, missions were
established, church houses were built, and many of the slaves learned to
read under the guidance of the church. Their characters were improved.
The influence of the churches was always directed toward better living
conditions, better food and clothing, and better treatment generally.
Their influences were felt directly by the negroes as well as indirectly
through Christian masters.
The individual churches in Tennessee differed considerably in their
attitude toward slavery in the early period. In the order of their
degree of hostility to slavery, the Friends should have first place,
the Methodists second, Cumberland Presbyterians third, Baptists fourth,
Presbyterians fifth, and Episcopalians sixth. From point of service,
the Methodists should rank first, and the Baptists second. These two
churches represented the masses of the slaveholders and contained the
majority of the slaves that belonged to the church. It is difficult to
estimate the work of the Baptists because there are no records of their
local associations or their individual congregations. Through biographies
and actions of Tennessee delegations to the Southern Convention after
1845, one can find convincing evidence that Tennessee Baptists did a
valuable work for the negro. The sources for the study of the Methodists
are much more abundant. It appears, therefore, that their work assumed
larger proportions than that of any other denomination. “High and low
alike,” says Harrison, “entered into this noble work. There was no phase
of it too humble, no duty connected with it too unpleasant to deter the
most earnest and painstaking effort. Bishop McTyeire, of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, declared that during a long ministerial life
there was nothing connected with it in which he took more pride and
satisfaction than the remembrance of the more than three hundred services
he had preached to negro congregations.”[173]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Jernegan, M. W., Slavery and Conversion in the Colonies, pp. 516-7.
[2] Ibid., p. 576.
[3] Ibid., p. 514.
[4] Col. Recs., I, 204.
[5] Ibid., 857.
[6] Ibid., 720.
[7] Ibid., IV, 13.
[8] Ibid., 794.
[9] Ibid., VII, 126.
[10] Ibid., 424.
[11] Ibid., 705.
[12] Matlock, L. C., The Anti-slavery Struggle and Triumph in the
Methodist Episcopal Church, 17.
[13] American Church History, XI, 1.
[14] Tyerman, L., Life of Whitefield, II, 272. Whitefield is reported as
having said: “I should think myself highly favored if I could purchase
a good number of slaves in order to make their lives more comfortable
and lay a foundation for bringing up their posterity in the nature and
admonition of the Lord.” He died owning 75 slaves. American Church
History, XI, 5.
[15] Jernegan, op. cit., 515.
[16] Matlock, op. cit., 17.
[17] Minutes of the Methodist Episcopal Conferences, 1773-1813, I, 5-6.
[18] The first paragraph of this law shows the general tenor of these
regulations:
1. Every member of our society who has slaves in his possession shall,
within twelve months after notice given to him by the Assistant (which
the assistants are required immediately, and without any delay, to give
to their respective circuits), legally execute and record an instrument
whereby he emancipates and sets free every slave in his possession who
is between the ages of forty and forty-five immediately, or at farthest
when they arrive at the age of forty-five; and every slave who is between
the ages of twenty-five and forty immediately, or at farthest at the
explication of five years from the date of said instrument; every slave
who is between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five immediately or at
farthest when they arrive at the age of thirty; and every slave under
the age of twenty as soon as they arrive at the age of twenty-five at
farthest; and every infant born in slavery after the above-mentioned
rules are complied with immediately on its birth. McTyeire, Holland M.,
History of Methodism, II, pp. 375-378.
[19] Minutes of the General Conferences, 1796-1844, pp. 40-1; Journal of
the General Conference of 1800, pp. 37-44; American Church History, XI, 7.
[20] Journal of the General Conference of 1816, p. 170.
[21] “Resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Conferences in General
Conference assembled, That they are decidedly opposed to modern
abolition, 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.” Journal of the
General Conference of 1836, pp. 446-7.
[22] Journal of the General Conference of 1840, p. 136.
[23] The Finley Resolution was: “Whereas, the discipline of one church
forbids the doing anything calculated to destroy an itinerant general
superintendency; and, whereas, Bishop Andrew has become connected with
slavery by marriage and otherwise, and this having drawn after it
circumstances which, in the estimation of the General Conference, will
greatly embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant general
superintendent, if not in some places entirely prevent it; therefore,
Resolved that it is the sense of this General Conference that he desist
from the exercise of this office so long as this impediment exists.”
Journal of General Conference of 1844, p. 85.
[24] Bedford, A. H., History of the Organization of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, p. 207.
[25] Journal of the General Conference of 1844, p. 85.
[26] Bedford, pp. 418-503; see also Wightman, W. M., Life of William
Capers, pp. 398-425; Smith, G. G., Life and Letters of James Osgood
Andrew, pp. 336-385.
[27] Garrett and Goodpasture, p. 156; Goodspeed, p. 647.
[28] Ibid., p. 157.
[29] Harrison, W. P., The Gospel Among the Slaves, p. 61.
[30] McFerrin, J. B., History of Methodism in Tennessee, I, pp. 26,
470, 523; Vol. II, pp. 132, 159, 262; see also McTyeire, p. 462; and
Goodspeed, pp. 664, 667.
Note: The minutes of the Annual Conference of the Methodists in Tennessee
were burned with the Methodist Publishing House in Nashville, February,
1872. The publishing house has never been able to find another copy.
McFerrin’s History of Methodism in Tennessee, which contains copious
quotations from these minutes, is the only available source.
[31] Supra, p. 105.
[32] Asbury, Thomas, Journal of Rev. Francis Asbury, Vol. 3, p. 290;
Cartwright, Peter, Fifty Years as a Presiding Elder, pp. 53ff.;
Goodspeed, pp. 663-667; Temple, O. P., East Tennessee and Civil War, pp.
97ff.
[33] Goodspeed, p. 667.
[34] Supra, p. 106.
[35] McFerrin, II, 261, 283; Goodspeed, pp. 667, 668.
[36] McFerrin, II, 261.
[37] McFerrin, II, 401.
[38] The Code of 1817 is as follows:
“If a local elder, deacon, or preacher, in our Church, shall
purchase a slave or slaves, he shall lay his case before the
Quarterly-Meeting Conference of his circuit as soon as practicable,
which Quarterly-Meeting Conference shall say how long such slave or
slaves serve as a remuneration to the purchaser; and on the decision of
the Quarterly-Meeting Conference, touching the time the slave or slaves
shall serve, the purchaser shall, without delay, enter into a written
obligation to the Quarterly-Meeting Conference to emancipate such slave
or slaves at the expiration of the term of servitude, _if the law of the
State_ will admit; and such obligation shall be entered on the Journals
of the Quarterly-Meeting Conference. But should the laws of the State
continue rigidly to oppose the emancipation of slaves, so that their
freedom, as above contemplated, should prove impracticable, during the
term and at the end of the slave’s or slaves’ servitude, as determined
by the Quarterly-Meeting Conference, he, the said elder, deacon, or
preacher, shall, at the end of the time of servitude, again lay his
case before the Quarterly-Meeting Conference, which Quarterly-Meeting
Conference shall determine it according to the then existing slave
rule of the Annual Conference to which he belongs; and should the said
elder, deacon, or preacher, be dissatisfied with the decision of the
Quarterly-Meeting Conference, he shall be allowed an appeal to the
ensuing Annual Conference, provided he then signifies his intention of so
appealing.
“2. If a private member in our society buy a slave or slaves, the
preacher who has charge of the circuit shall summon a committee, of which
he shall be president, or at least three disinterested male members from
the class of which he or she is a member; and if a committee cannot be
elected from the class to which the slave purchaser belongs, in such
case the preacher may make up the committee from a neighboring class or
classes, which committee shall determine the length of time such slave or
slaves shall serve as a compensation to the purchaser, and immediately
on the determination of the committee, touching the slave’s or slaves’
time of servitude, he or she, the purchaser, shall bind himself or
herself in a written obligation to the church to have the emancipation
of such slave or slaves, at the expiration of the given time, recorded
as soon as practicable, _if the laws of the States in which he or she
live will admit of emancipation_; and such obligation shall be filed
among the papers of the Quarterly-Meeting Conference of the circuit in
which he or she lives. _But should the laws of the State in which the
purchaser lives render it impracticable to emancipate said slave or
slaves_, during the time of servitude fixed by the committee for said
slave or slaves, the preacher having charge of the circuit or station
shall call a second committee at the end of the time of servitude who
shall determine the case according to the then existing slave rule of
the Annual Conference to which he or she belongs; and if he or she
feel him or herself aggrieved, he or she shall be allowed an appeal to
the ensuing Quarterly-Meeting Conference of his or her circuit. In all
cases relative either to preachers or private members, the colored or
bond-children born of slaves purchased, after their purchase and during
the time of their bondage, male and female, shall be free at the age of
twenty-five, _if the law admit of emancipation_; _and if not, the case
of those born of purchased slaves in bondage to said elder, deacon, or
preacher_, shall be _cognizable_ by the Quarterly-Meeting Conference,
and in the case of those born of purchased slaves in bondage to private
members, shall be cognizable by a committee of the above-mentioned kind,
which Quarterly-Meeting Conference and committee shall decide in such
case as the then existing slave rule shall or may direct; _provided_,
nevertheless, the above rules be not so construed as to oblige an elder,
deacon, preacher, or private member, to give security for the good
behaviour and maintenance of the slave or slaves emancipated, should the
court require it. If an elder, deacon, preacher, or private member, among
us, shall sell a slave or slaves _into perpetual bondage, they shall
thereby forfeit their membership_ in our church. Therefore, in case an
elder, deacon, or preacher sell a slave or slaves, _he shall first submit
the case to the Quarterly-Meeting Conference_ of which he is a member,
and said Quarterly-Meeting Conference shall say for what term of years he
shall sell his slave, or slaves, which term being fixed, the seller shall
immediately record his, her, or their emancipation in the county court;
and a private member selling a slave or slaves shall first acquaint the
preacher having the charge of the circuit with his design, who shall
summon a committee of the above-mentioned kind, of which he, the said
preacher, shall be President. Said Committee shall say, for what term of
years, he, she, or they shall sell his, her or their slave or slaves, and
the seller shall be required immediately to record the emancipation of
such slave or slaves in the county court. An elder, deacon, preacher, or
private member among us, refusing to comply with the above rules, shall
be dealt with as in other cases of immorality, and expelled.” McFerrin,
II, 462-466.
[39] McFerrin, II, p. 467.
[40] Goodspeed, p. 669.
[41] McFerrin, III, 19-20.
[42] Ibid., p. 161.
[43] Goodspeed, p. 670.
[44] Ibid., p. 669; Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, the Backwoods
Preacher, p. 195.
[45] Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, p. 195.
[46] Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, p. 196.
[47] Goodspeed, pp. 669-670.
[48] McFerrin, II, 195.
[49] He proposed the following program for the church on slavery:
1. That every householder in our church shall provide a comfortable
house, with sufficient bed and bedding, for every slave in his possession.
2. That each slave shall be clothed in decent apparel in summer and warm
clothing in winter, and shall have plenty of good and wholesome food, and
time to eat it.
3. That every slave over ... years of age shall be taught to read the
Holy Scriptures.
4. That every slave over ... years of age shall be permitted to attend
the worship of God ... times in every ...
5. That every slave shall attend family worship twice a day.
6. That every slave shall be allowed one hour for reading in every ...
7. That no master shall inflict more than ... stripes for any one
offense, nor any stripes on any one who is over ... years of age.
8. That no slave shall be compelled to marry against his will.
9. No master shall suffer man and wife, parent and child, to be parted
without their consent when it is in his power—he being the owner of
one—to prevent it by buying or selling at a fair price.
10. On any complaint being made against a member for violation of these
rules let the preacher appoint a committee of ... to investigate the
facts and report to the society.
11. Any member violating or refusing to comply with the above rules shall
be dealt with as in other cases of immorality.—Recollections of Rev. John
Johnson and His House, An Autobiography, 305-6.
[50] McFerrin, II, 95.
[51] Ibid., 494.
[52] Ibid., 261; Goodspeed, 668.
[53] McFerrin, III, 271.
[54] Infra, pp. 153-5.
[55] Harrison, p. 151.
[56] Ibid., pp. 61-2; Wightman, pp. 288-302.
[57] Goodspeed, p. 676.
[58] Harrison, p. 155.
[59] Ibid., p. 161.
[60] Harrison, p. 194.
[61] Ibid., p. 195.
[62] McFerrin, III, 387.
[63] McFerrin, III, 389-90.
[64] Harrison, 338-343.
[65] Green, Wm. M., Life of A. L. P. Green, 167.
[66] Bedford, pp. 214-5; 301.
[67] Bedford, p. 601.
[68] Ibid., p. 603.
[69] Ibid., p. 605.
[70] Ibid., p. 600.
[71] Bedford, p. 423.
[72] Ibid., p. 449.
[73] These resolutions show the frame of mind of these people:
“Whereas, the long-continued agitation on the subject of slavery
and abolition in the Methodist Episcopal Church did, at the General
Conference of said church, held in the city of New York, in May, 1844,
result in the adoption of certain measures by that body which seriously
threatened a disruption of the Church; and to avert this calamity, said
General Conference did devise and adopt a plan contemplating the peaceful
separation of the South and the North; and constituting the conferences
in the slaveholding States, the sole judges of the necessity for such
separation; and, whereas, the conferences in the slaveholding States, in
the exercise of the right accorded to them by the General Conference,
did, by their representatives in convention at Louisville, Ky., in May
last, decide that separation was necessary, and proceeded to organize
themselves into a separate and distinct ecclesiastical connection, under
the style and title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, basing
their claim to a legitimate relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church
in the United States upon their unwavering adherence to the Plan of
Separation adopted by the General Conference of said church in 1844, and
their devotion to the doctrines, discipline, and usages of the church as
they received them from their fathers.
And as the Plan of Separation provides that the conferences bordering on
the geographical lines of separation shall decide their relation by the
votes of the majority ... and also that ministers of every grade shall
make their election North or South without censure—therefore,
1. Resolved, That we now proceed to determine the question of our
ecclesiastical relation by the vote of the conference.
2. That we, the members of the Holston Annual Conference, claiming
all the rights, powers, and privileges of an Annual Conference of the
Methodist Church in the United States, do hereby make an election with,
and adhere to, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
3. That while we thus declare our adherence to the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, we repudiate the idea of secession in any schismatic
or offensive sense of the phrase, as we neither give up nor surrender
anything which we have received as constituting any part of Methodism,
and adhere to the Southern ecclesiastical organization. Plan of
Separation, adopted by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church at its session in New York in May, 1844.
4. That we are satisfied with our Book of Discipline as it is on the
subject of slavery, as recorded in that book; and that we will not
tolerate any change whatever, except such verbal and unimportant
alterations as may, in the judgment of the General Conference, facilitate
the work in which we are engaged, and promote uniformity and harmony in
our administration.
5. That the journals of our present session, as well as all our
official business, be henceforth conformed in style and title to our
ecclesiastical relation.
6. That it is our desire to cultivate and maintain fraternal relations
with our brethren of the North. And we do most sincerely deprecate the
continuance of paper warfare either by editors or correspondents, in our
official church papers, and devoutly pray for the speedy return of peace
and harmony in the Church, both North and South.
7. That the Holston Annual Conference most heartily commend the course
of our beloved Bishops, Saule and Andrew, during the recent agitations
which have resulted in the territorial and jurisdictional separation of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, and that we tender them our thanks for
their steady adherence to principle and the best interests of the slave
population.”—Bedford, pp. 500-503.
[74] Harrison, 302.
[75] Ibid., 318.
[76] Harrison, 324.
[77] Ibid., 326.
[78] Minutes of the Annual Conferences of M. E. Church, South, I,
1845-1859, 16-25.
[79] Ibid., 167, 172, 181.
[80] Ibid., 273, 290, 295.
[81] Ibid., 385, 392, 403.
[82] Ibid., II, 214, 218, 223.
[83] Minutes of the Annual Conference of M. E. Church, South, II,
1845-1859, 214, 218, 203.
[84] American Church History, XI, pp. 66-7.
[85] 26th Annual Report of American Anti-slavery Society, 1859, 115.
[86] McTyeire, III, 536.
[87] Milburn, W. H., Ten Years of a Preacher’s Life, 337.
[88] Cartwright, Fifty Years a Presiding Elder, p. 24.
[89] Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 157.
[90] Col. Recs., III, p. 48.
[91] Garrett and Goodpasture, p. 156.
[92] Newman, A. H., History of Baptist Churches in United States, p. 338.
[93] Briggs, Charles A., American Presbyterianism, pp. 59-60.
[94] Newman, p. 305.
[95] Ibid., p. 338.
[96] Pius, N. H., An Outline of Baptist History, p. 131.
[97] Harrison, pp. 65, 91.
[98] Col. Recs. VIII, 164.
[99] Buckley, James M., History of Methodism, I, 373, 375.
[100] Harrison, 58.
[101] Riley, B. F., History of the Baptists in Southern States East of
the Mississippi, p. 199.
[102] Ibid., p. 201.
[103] Riley, p. 205.
[104] Proceedings of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1845, pp. 18, 19.
[105] Riley, p. 211.
[106] Pendleton, J. M., Reminiscences of a Long Life, p. 112.
[107] Ibid., 113.
[108] Professor Pendleton remained at Union University during the war and
was a loyal unionist. He preached on Sunday and worked on the farm during
the week. He constantly expected to be taken from his home and hanged. He
always prepared at night a method of escape, yet he, despite proposals
by the citizens of the community to hang him, never had to execute
his plans. He lived in constant fear until the Army of the Cumberland
occupied Murfreesboro in 1863.—Pendleton, op. cit., 127.
[109] Proceedings of Southern Baptist Convention, 1845, p. 35.
[110] Ibid., p. 28.
[111] Proceedings of Southern Baptist Convention, 1859-60, p. 89.
[112] Pendleton, p. 127.
[113] Pius, p. 61.
[114] Garrett and Goodpasture, 160.
[115] McDonald, B. W., History of Cumberland Presbyterian Church, p. 411.
[116] Cossitt, Franceway Ranna, The Life of Rev. Finis Ewing, p. 273.
[117] McDonald, p. 411.
[118] Letters furnished by Hon. F. E. McLean (Quoted by McDonald, 412).
[119] McDonald, p. 412.
[120] Diary of Beard, A. J., July 11, 1855.
[121] McDonald, p. 414.
[122] Ibid., 415.
[123] The Cumberland Presbyterian, August 19, 1835.
[124] McDonald, p. 417.
[125] Minutes of the Assembly of 1848, pp. 12, 13.
[126] Minutes of the Assembly of 1851, p. 16.
[127] Minutes of the Assembly of 1851, pp. 56, 57. This committee
consisted of LeRoy Woods, Ind., A. J. Beard, Ky., J. J. Meek, Miss., N.
P. Modrall, Tenn., J. H. Coulter, Ohio, S. E. Hudson, Penn., and J. C.
Henson, Ind.
[128] Weeks, S. B., Southern Quakers and Slavery, p. 199 (Baltimore,
1896).
[129] Ibid., p. 207.
[130] Ibid., 207-8.
[131] Ibid., 208.
[132] American Church History, XII, 245.
[133] Weeks, 201.
[134] Ibid., 206.
[135] Ibid., 207.
[136] Weeks, 221.
[137] Ibid., 225.
[138] Hoss, E. E., Elihu Embree, Abolitionist, p. 11.
[139] Petition of Society of Friends, 1817 (Archives of State). This
petition was signed by Elihu Embree and nine other Friends.
[140] Goodspeed, p. 645.
[141] Goodspeed, p. 646.
[142] Gillet, E. H., History of Presbyterian Church in United States of
America, I, 201. These synods said:
“We do highly approve of the general principles in favor of universal
liberty that prevail in America, and of the interest which many of the
states have taken in promoting the abolition of slavery. Yet, inasmuch
as men, introduced from a servile state to a participation of all the
privileges of civil society, without a proper education, and without
previous habits of industry, may be, in some respects, dangerous to the
community; therefore, they earnestly recommend it to all the members
belonging to their communion to give those persons, who are at present
held in servitude, such good education as may prepare them for the
better enjoyment of freedom. And they moreover recommend that masters,
whenever they find servants disposed to make a proper improvement of that
privilege, would give them some share of property to begin with, or grant
them sufficient time and sufficient means of procuring, by industry,
their own liberty; and at a moderate rate, that they may thereby be
brought into society with those habits of industry that may render them
useful citizens; and, finally, they recommend it to all the people under
their care, to use the most prudent measures consistent with the interest
and the state of civil society in the parts where they live, to procure
eventually the final abolition of slavery in America.”
[143] Minutes of the Assembly of 1795, Quoted by Gillet, I, 284.
[144] Ibid., p. 285. The committee reported that “a neglect of this
(religious education) is inconsistent with the character of a Christian
master, but the observance might prevent, in great part, what is really
the moral evil attending slavery—namely, allowing precious souls under
the charge of masters to perish for lack of knowledge.”
[145] Gillet, I, 453. The assembly urged religious education on the
slaves “that they may be prepared for the exercise and enjoyment
of liberty when God in his providence may open a door for their
emancipation.” As to buying and selling of slaves, it recommended
“Presbyteries and Sessions under their care to make use of all prudent
measures to prevent such shameful and unrighteous conduct.”
[146] Ibid., II, pp. 239-41. The assembly said: “We consider the
voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by another, as a gross
violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature, as
utterly inconsistent with the laws of God, which requires us to love our
neighbors as ourselves, and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit
and principles of the gospel of Christ, which enjoins that all things
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
[147] Gillet, II, 241.
[148] Ibid., 242. See also Fourth Annual Report of American Anti-slavery
Society, 1837, p. 62; and Patton, Jacob Harris, Popular History of the
Presbyterian Church, p. 444.
[149] Thompson, R. E., History of Presbyterian Churches in the United
States, p. 123.
[150] Thirteenth Annual Report of American and Foreign Anti-slavery
Society, 1827, pp. 67-8.
[151] Tenth Annual Report of American Colonization Society, 1827, pp.
67-8.
[152] Quarterly Review of the M. E. Church, South, April, 1892, 119-120.
[153] Methodist Quarterly Review, lxiii, 132.
[154] Quarterly Review of the M. E. Church, South, April, 1892, 120.
[155] Thirteenth Annual Report of the American and Foreign Anti-slavery
Society, 1853, p. 80.
[156] Ibid., p. 71.
[157] Thirteenth Annual Report of American and Foreign Anti-slavery
Society, 1853, pp. 73-4.
[158] Ibid., pp. 67-8.
[159] Ibid., p. 82.
[160] McNeilly, James H., Religion and Slavery, p. 42.
[161] Harrison, p. 91.
[162] Ibid., p. 92.
[163] Goodspeed, p. 683.
[164] Harrison, p. 40.
[165] Ibid., 67.
[166] Ibid., 73.
[167] Goodspeed, p. 694.
[168] Ibid., p. 697.
[169] Ibid., p. 698.
[170] Memoirs of Rt. James H. Otey, p. 94.
[171] _Memoirs of Rt. James H. Otey_, p. 93.
[172] Harrison, 304.
[173] Harrison, 304.