SEIZURE OF CHURCHES—CHURCHES IN KANSAS CITY AND INDEPENDENCE.
Church Property—Can the War Revive or Create Titles—Church
Property on the Border—Maysville, Kentucky—Legal Rights of
Property—Attainder—Honest Inquiry—Eighth Commandment—The Truth
of History—_Church in Kansas City_—North Methodists—Faithful
Ladies—What was Said at the Time—Some who were with us Went out
from us—Their loss our gain—_Church in Independence_—How they
Got it and Why they Kept it—The Former Pastor—Why he left—Battle
of Independence—“Black Thursday”—A Rev. James Lee—How he got
Possession of the Church—Rev. Mr. DeMott—How he got Possession
of the Parsonage—A Poor Widow Turned Out by Military
Order—Strategy—Rev. M. M. Pugh Demands the Property—Why
Refused—Recourse to the Civil Courts—Statement of the Case by
Counsel—Side Scenes—Extracts from the St. Louis _Advocate_—This
Property in the Statistics of Northern Methodism—Action of the
Missouri and Arkansas Conferences, M. E. Church, on the
Subject—Reflections.
The fact has been stated elsewhere that the division of the Methodist
Church in 1844 extinguished all right and title to the Church property
in this State that inhered in the M. E. Church, North. After the
Missouri Conference voted, in the fall of 1845, to adhere South, and by
that act became an integral part of the M. E. Church, South, according
to the “Plan of Separation,” the other wing of the Church became, in
fact and in law, dispossessed of all the Church property in the State.
By the decree of the Church and of the civil courts the right and title
of the M. E. Church, North, to all species of Church property was so
effectually extinguished that no claim was ever set up and no effort
made by that Church to gain possession of any church, parsonage, or
other property in this State, from the vote of the Missouri Conference
in 1845 to the beginning of the war in 1861. That Church accepted the
situation, acquiesced in the decision, and yielded her claims to the
decree of Missouri Methodism.
If any claim was ever set up to any species or piece of property, or any
suit in any civil court was ever instituted to gain possession of any
property during this period of seventeen years, the author is to this
day ignorant of the fact. A residence in the State of nearly twenty
years has failed to bring the fact to his knowledge. It is, therefore,
of no minor significance that these facts stand in the records of
history, and must enter largely into the consideration of subsequent
facts now to be put on record. Let them be duly considered and they will
color with deepest significance the acts and doings of that Church
during the war.
It may be that the decision of the Church in Missouri was too nearly
unanimous, and the force of public opinion was too strong in its
endorsement of the Plan of Separation and the vote of the Conference;
and, then, it may be that the few scattered preachers and members whose
sympathies were with the Church, North, were in themselves too feeble at
any given point, or had the sense of justice and right too strong at
every point, to encourage any attempt to gain possession of property
that rightfully belonged to others. If their complete acquiescence can
not be accounted for upon either of the above hypotheses, then it rests
with the fact that in other States the rights of property would be
settled by the civil courts; and in Missouri they preferred to await the
decision of courts in those States where the Northern claimants would
not be put at such great disadvantage.
While the property question was in an unsettled state several churches
along the border of Kentucky and Virginia were put through the sharpest
litigation.
Prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the
great “Church Property Case,” appeals were made to the civil courts in
several places to decide the rights of property, of which that for the
Church in Maysville, Ky., was among the earlier and most noted.
In this Church, out of a membership of two hundred and fifty-six,
ninety-seven voted to adhere North. This minority had a preacher sent to
them from Ohio and sued for possession of the Church property. The case
was carried to the State Court of Appeals, and that distinguished
jurist, Chief Justice Marshall, in decreeing that the property
rightfully belonged to the M. E. Church, South, among other things,
said:
“There are now two distinct Churches in the place of the M. E. Church of
the United States—the one the M. E. Church, North, the other the M. E.
Church, South—these two differing from the original and from each other
only in locality and extent; each possessing in its locality the entire
jurisdiction of the original Church.”
Wherever the right of property was referred in any given locality to the
civil courts the decision was the same as that above, and the Northern
Methodists of Missouri acquiesced in the extinguishment of their right
to all the property formerly owned by the original Church, and its legal
confirmation to the M. E. Church, South.
Now, it may well and significantly be inquired how the civil war of 1861
could revive the title to property that had been extinguished, in fact
and in law, by the will of its legal owners in 1845? Laws may be
repealed, altered and amended, but not so as to affect the previous
rights of property. Nothing is more sacredly guarded by civil
legislation than the rights of property. Laws may change, but justice
and equity remain the same; and courts of equity not unfrequently
pronounce upon the equity of legislation in respect to the rights of
property. Hence the strongest rights are those founded both in law and
equity.
If the rights of property were revived by the civil war it must have
been done in one of two ways: either by legislation or attainder. It was
never claimed to have been revived by legislation, which, to say the
least, was a doubtful expedient, and conferred a doubtful right, if any
at all. It could not have been done by attainting the blood of the
lawful property holders, except by due process of law and for cause.
This was never even attempted.
Then we fall back upon the original inquiry, how the civil war revived
property rights that had been extinguished nearly twenty years? What
virtue in armies, in battles, in fire or blood to resuscitate
extinguished titles? What virtue in martial law, in military occupation
and orders, or in drum-head courts-martial, to set aside the legal and
moral rights of one Church and set up the legal claims of another
Church? Was it the right of might, and the might of arms? Could bullets
and bayonets set aside or substitute warranty deeds? How could the
battle of Springfield, fought August 10, 1861, affect the title of
Church property in Springfield secured by deed of conveyance, dated
October 11, 1856, to certain gentlemen as trustees of the M. E. Church,
South, to hold in trust for the uses of said Church? Or how could the
battles of Boonville or Lexington destroy the rights of property in
those cities which inhered in the members of the M. E. Church, South?
If the ministers and members of the M. E. Church sought, under cover of
military orders and with the support of bayonets, to gain possession of
the property of others, was it not _prima facie_ evidence that their
claims would not be recognized in law or equity? and was it not a
confession to the mean purpose of obtaining by force that to which they
had no shadow of right in law? If they obtained Church property by
unfair and clandestine means, under the covert sanction of the military
authorities, wherein do they differ from others who break the eighth
commandment? Can military orders suspend Divine commands and confer a
moral right to take possession and appropriate the property of others?
Let these questions, and all others of a kindred nature which the
curious casuist may be disposed to ask, be answered in the light of the
foregoing and the forthcoming facts. Put that and this, then and now,
together, and let the conscientious verdict of an enlightened public
judge between us.
The truth of history requires a record now, and a detailed statement of
historical facts, that for the sake of common honesty, the plainest
equity, the humblest scale of justice, and the lowest stages of our
common Christianity, should forever be buried with the dead past and lie
forgotten “as a dream when one awaketh.” But truth and justice demand
many things which a common charity, and even a common decency, would
consign to oblivion. A diluted charity should never make the pen
hesitate in the presence of important, though unpalatable, truths.
History must be worthy of its theme, and the pen must be equal to the
utmost demands of the history. “Naught extenuate, and naught set down in
malice.”
In 1862 and ’63 there was a movement—so general over the State that the
conviction that it was concerted and simultaneous can not be escaped—to
seize, possess and hold for their own use, by the Northern Methodists,
the churches belonging to the M. E. Church, South. Persistent efforts
for this purpose were made in almost every county in the State; and if
the whole history could be brought to light it would be seen that there
was held, at some place or places, a secret conclave of ministers in
which the purpose and the plan were agreed upon. It will not be
necessary to specify the particulars of every case of church seizure,
but the following more prominent cases will be sufficient:
CHURCH IN KANSAS CITY.
In the fall of 1862 Rev. M. M. Pugh, then stationed at Kansas City, was
forced by persecution to abandon his church and charge and flee for
protection to a neighboring military post. Mr. Pugh was watched by
enemies and warned by friends. The threat, oft repeated, of arrest and
imprisonment did not deter him. But to know that his steps were dogged,
that detectives were on his track, that his life was threatened, and to
be told by military officers that they could not be responsible for his
life any night, and to be advised that there were lyers-in-wait to
assassinate him, put his life in too great peril to remain with his
people. He fled.
As soon as his absence was known the Northern Methodists took possession
of the church and held it under military protection. They organized a
society composed of a few Northern fanatics and a few renegade and
weak-kneed Southern Methodists. They pronounced the M. E. Church, South,
dead and beyond the hope of resurrection, tried to get possession of the
church records and declare all the former society of Southern Methodists
members, _nolens volens_. When they found that but few would accept the
transfer, they pronounced the rest disloyal, and threatened them with
confiscation. “But none of these things moved them,” and they maintained
their fidelity to the Church of their choice notwithstanding all the
abuse, and slander, and threatenings, and slaughter, that these
religious loyalists could bring to bear upon them.
After the occupancy of the church for some months they became conscious
of wrong-doing and of guilt, and in shame and humiliation turned the
property over to the rightful owners. They found that military orders
did not confer letters of administration. If the Church, South, was dead
and buried, what right had they more than others to administer on the
estate?
In the _St. Louis Christian Advocate_, of May 31, 1866, a correspondent
from Kansas City makes the following statement:
“But the Church. During the war our Church passed through sore
trials—had ‘fightings without and fears within.’ She was ‘persecuted,
but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed.’ Rev. M. M. Pugh
remained with the Church in Kansas City until the latter part of 1862,
attending to his legitimate business in his own quiet way—preaching
Christ and his cross to perishing sinners—when the presence of
blood-thirsty Northern Methodist preachers and their willing tools,
threatening his life on the streets and dogging his steps, hounded him
off to safer quarters where he could rely upon the protection of
military power. The Northern Methodists then took possession of the
church, organized a society, composed in part of a few blinded fanatics
and weak-kneed renegades from the M. E. Church, South, who at once
imagined themselves possessed of other people’s property, began to abuse
and traduce Southern Methodists, pronounced the Church dead, and
proceeded to administer on the estate.
“But ‘military necessity’ did not confer upon them letters of
administration, and they reckoned without their host. It is true, the
General Conference of the M. E. Church, North, enacted a political test
of membership for all persons everywhere who seek admission to her
pales; and I submit whether or not they make the repeal of the eighth
commandment, also, a test of membership for the province of Missouri.
For it seems that no sooner do people get into that Church than they
proceed to take and to hold, to possess and to use, property for which
others have paid, and houses which others have built, supposing that
membership in that Church invests them, under the operation of a ‘higher
law,’ with rights and titles above warranty deeds and Supreme Court
decisions.”
In the same paper, of June 13, 1866, the following statement appears
upon the same subject:
“After Brother Pugh was run off the Church was occupied for some time by
the Northern Methodists, who assumed that the Church property was
theirs, to have and to hold, with all the appurtenances thereto
belonging, to them and to their successors forever. They abused Southern
Methodists roundly, threatened them much, and with all the prestige of
power assaulted the gates of our Zion until they became so offensive
that all _true_ friends of our Church and of the Government gave them a
wide berth and left them alone in their shame.
“Some who in name had been with us, but were not in heart of us, went
out from us to take shelter under their political banner, prove their
loyalty to the Government, and—as they were told—save their property and
their lives, and be fitted, as it proved, to enjoy the product of
others’ labor and the spoils of pious conquest.
“The faithful of our Church pursued the even tenor of their way, and
when refused their own house of worship met in private houses for
worship, and when denied this means of grace they kept up the sewing
circle and mite society, and in this way the ‘faithful women not a few’
preserved an organization, a name and a life. While their harps were
upon the willows they often sat down together and wept when they
remembered their Zion, once so beautiful for situation—the joy of all
hearts. They suffered all that the betrayal of Judas and the denial of
Peter could inflict upon them. Yet, believing truth and right, though
nailed to the cross and buried in the tomb, would, like the divine
Redeemer, rise again leading captivity captive and conferring gifts upon
men, they waited patiently and hopefully till their change should come.
And it did come, and that by a way they knew not. They were, like their
Lord, ‘despised and rejected of men,’ yet their faith failed not. They
had confidence in the Church and the pledges of her risen Head. Their
faith grew sublime as the darkness increased and the troubles multiplied
about them. ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ they heard
in the thick darkness, and bowing to the storm they sheltered themselves
within the clefts of the everlasting Rock ‘until these calamities be
overpast.’
“There were some men in authority who loved the right and hated the
wrong. There were, also, ‘good men and true’ in the Church, whose
loyalty to the Government was only equaled by their fidelity to the
Church, and neither could be shaken by all the libels and slanders of
ecclesiastical hirelings. When such men have the adjustment of the
rights of property, truth and righteousness will at last prevail, and
justice will be reached in the end. To such are we indebted for our
Church property in Kansas City.”
These extracts show the purpose and the plan of these ministers and
members of the M. E. Church. The virtues of super-loyalty claimed for
themselves, and the cry of disloyalty and treason against Southern
Methodists, were not to go unrewarded. It may be uncharitable to suspect
the motives of others, but it is not uncharitable to record their acts
and doings when the cause of truth and righteousness will be served and
the truth of history vindicated thereby.
CHURCH AT INDEPENDENCE.
In 1857 the members and friends of the M. E. Church, South, erected,
finished, furnished, dedicated and paid for a beautiful Church in the
city of Independence. The architecture was half Gothic, and most elegant
in its proportions and finish, two stories, with Sunday school, lecture
room, pastor’s study, class rooms, closets, library and furnace rooms
below, and above one of the handsomest audience rooms in the State. The
whole cost was over $15,000. A convenient and commodious parsonage in
the rear, on the same lot, with ample and tastefully ornamented grounds
for both Church and parsonage.
This property was built and paid for by Southern Methodists, and used
and occupied by them without molestation till the fall of 1862, when it
was left temporarily without a pastor. A covetous eye had been on it,
and the pastor for 1861 and ’62 had often been warned of personal danger
and advised to seek some place of safety. He was several times put under
military arrest, and several times informed of plots and purposes to
shoot or hang him. The leaders of marauding bands of Kansas “Redlegs” or
“Jayhawkers” had often sworn vengeance against him because he was a
Southern Methodist preacher. They had hunted diligently for some
accusation against him, or some pretext for taking his life, but he had
been too prudent and cautious for their purpose; had pursued with
singular fidelity his own calling, nor turned to the right or left for
any purpose or party; had made many warm friends amongst the best Union
men, who demanded that he should be let alone in his work and not
molested any way by the authorities. They pronounced him loyal to his
Master, his Church, his country, “and to have nothing laid to his charge
worthy of death or of bonds.” He felt safe in the hands and under the
protection of the regular military authorities, even such desperate
characters as Lane, Jennison, Anthony, Montgomery, Nugent, etc., within
whose military lines he had lived, and preached, and labored without any
great annoyance or molestation. But the bands of lawless desperadoes and
plunderers who could be used by designing men for any purpose whatever,
such as Cleveland and others, from Kansas, were too irresponsible and
reckless to trust. Friends had traveled in the night from Kansas City to
Independence, a distance of twelve miles, to warn him of threats to hang
him made by Cleveland and other outlaws, and through many other sources
he was impressed with the fact that to remain would be to sacrifice his
life causelessly. His friends advised him to seek safety in flight, even
the Union military officers of the post counseled this course and
provided the necessary facilities.
While his preparations to leave were being made the battle of
Independence was fought, in which the Confederates, under Colonels
Hughes, Thompson, Boyd and others, succeeded in taking the city, with
its garrison, after a contest of four hours. This occurred on the
morning of August 13, 1862, and precipitated the flight of the pastor.
After the surrender he spent the day in caring for the wounded and
dying, the night in packing up and storing his effects, and the next day
at 2 P. M., with his family, his trunks and some few movable effects, in
a coverless two-horse wagon, he started for Lexington and St. Louis.
He had not been gone two hours when the city, was re-entered by the
Federal forces—a much enraged Kansas regiment—and for some cause yet
unknown his house and church were searched, and every place of possible
concealment in the whole vicinity visited with unsparing vigilance to
find him. Enraged soldiers stamped the pavement in bitter
disappointment, and swore loudly that if he could be found the first
limb would be too good to swing his lifeless carcass for the fowls of
the air.
Many a dark day had he shared with his flock, and they rejoiced now in
his safety. He will never forget the “Black Thursday,” as it was called
by sad distinction, when all the men of the city were arrested by Col.
Jennison, penned up in the Court House yard, and guarded by a double
line of soldiers all around the public square, while the drunken negroes
of his command were turned loose upon the city to free the slaves and
pillage and plunder the homes of the people to their hearts’ content.
The insults offered the ladies by those beastly semi-savages, infuriated
by bad whisky, and the deeds of horror committed by them, will
sufficiently characterize the day as the “Black Thursday,” and
distinguish the annals of crime without any detailed record here. None
can forget the pillage and burning of Porter’s elegant residence and the
very narrow escape of his sick daughter, who was rescued from the second
story only by the efforts of the ladies, in defiance of the threats of
the brutal soldiery; nor will that line of burning buildings, the light
of which fell on their retreating path all the way back to Kansas City,
and made lurid and fervid the evening sky, ever pass from the mind. Many
other scenes of similar character had made life and property insecure;
and Southern Methodist ministers were the objects of particular
displeasure.
During that fall, and before the church had been supplied with another
pastor, a Rev. James Lee, of the M. E. Church, North, made his
appearance in Independence and demanded possession of the church. He
first demanded the key, which the rightful owners refused to give up. He
then appealed to the military commander of the post. This officer
ordered the trustees of the M. E. Church, South, to report the key to
his headquarters under pain of confiscation and banishment. The key was
surrendered to him, and he gave it to Mr. Lee with his authority to hold
and use the Church. After Mr. Lee got possession of the house of worship
he, as if to “add insult to injury,” went through with a formal
dedication service, setting the house apart to the worship of God as
though it had been a pagan temple; after which it was used by the
Northern Methodists as though it belonged of right to them, and without
any seeming compunctions of conscience. The Church, South, had no place
of worship, and in some respects the ladies of Independence duplicated
the work and re-enacted the scenes of Kansas City.
In 1864 Rev. Mr. DeMott was sent by his Church to hold possession of and
use the property. Not content with the church, he demanded the
parsonage. He already had the coat and he wanted the cloak also. But the
trustees of the M. E. Church, South, had rented the parsonage to a poor
widow, Mrs. Brazil by name. Mr. DeMott asked her to vacate the house,
this she declined to do; he demanded the key, she refused to give it up.
He then appealed to the Commander of the Post, and returned with the
result of this appeal in the form of the following military order:
“HEADQUARTERS 43d INF. MO. VOLUNTEERS. }
INDEPENDENCE, MO., March 31, 1865. }
“_To Mrs. Brazil, living in Methodist Parsonage, Independence, Mo._:
“It having been represented to the commanding officer that you occupy
the parsonage belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, and persist
in retaining the possession of the same to the exclusion of the
minister of said Church, using in connection with such refusal
language defiant of the Federal authorities and treasonable to the
United States Government, you are therefore required to move your
household goods out of and evacuate said parsonage by the morning of
the third of April proximo; at which time, on failure on your part to
comply with this order, your goods will be removed by the commander of
this station.
“Very respectfully,
“B. R. DAVIS,
“Major 43d Mo. Vols., commanding station.”
Now, let it be understood that this property, as well as the church, had
been built and paid for by the Southern Methodists, and of the three
hundred members of that Church then in Independence, not more than eight
or ten united with the M. E. Church, North.
The language of the above order sufficiently indicates the
representations made by Mr. DeMott to the military authorities to
influence them to move in that direction in their work of saving the
Union.
To turn a defenseless and helpless widow with her children and household
effects into the streets to make room for a Northern Methodist minister
to occupy and hold property that belonged to others was, perhaps, a
military movement of great strategic importance to the cause of the
Union and the restoration of the Government; but in the light of moral
honesty and Christian decency the military manœuvre becomes a pious
fraud, which the perpetrators were forced, after using its opportunities
for several years, to confess before men.
The church and parsonage were occupied and used by Mr. DeMott, when in
the fall of 1865 Rev. M. M. Pugh was appointed by the St. Louis Annual
Conference, M. E. Church, South, to the Independence station. On his
arrival he made a formal demand of Mr. DeMott for the property. This was
just as formally refused; the occupant declaring at the same time that
he “had been sent there by his Church to hold that property for the use
and benefit of the M. E. Church, and he intended to do it.” Recourse was
had to the law, and suit for possession was instituted.
This suit was called in the Circuit Court for the spring of 1866, when
Mr. DeMott made affidavit that important witnesses were absent and he
was not ready for trial—the case was continued. The following fall term
of the Court was held, and the defendants again swore that they were not
ready for trial. Again the case was continued, but it was apparent that
the motive for continuing the case so often was the farther use of the
property, of which they knew the law would deprive them. They were never
ready for trial, but began to feel the force of public sentiment and the
shame of fraudulent dealing, if the sense of shame still remained; and
the wiser and abler of them began to fear the penalty, not only of
fraud, but of rents and damages, and advised a compromise. In February,
1867, they proposed, through their counsel, one Col. Hines, to surrender
the property and pay all costs if the M. E. Church, South, would
withdraw the suit. To this Messrs. Sawyer, Chrisman and Hovey, counsel
for plaintiffs, agreed. The suit was accordingly withdrawn, the property
vacated, and the rightful owners took possession.
The property was much damaged, and involved heavy expense in the
necessary repairs. Those who occupied it evidently felt that it did not
belong to them, and abused it accordingly.
To show more fully the grounds of the suit and the defense set up by
defendants it may not be out of place, as an important part of the
history of this affair, to introduce here a statement of the case
furnished by Sam’l Sawyer, Esq., of Independence, one of the counsel for
plaintiffs. It is as follows:
“The Church property at this place (Independence), as you are aware, was
taken possession of by the M. E. Church, North, during the war, and the
trustees of the Church, South, were compelled to assume the offensive.
At first a suit by forcible entry was instituted before a Justice of the
Peace, which was moved to the Circuit Court by _certiorari_; but as the
suit, however determined, would not settle the title to the property, it
was thought advisable to institute a suit, not only for possession, but
also to quiet the title. In this last suit a full history of the church
at Independence, as well as of the action of the General Conference in
New York in 1844, and the Louisville Convention in 1845, was set up. In
the answer filed by defendants they admitted the action of the General
Conference of 1844, and the Convention at Louisville, Ky., the following
year; also, the action of the Missouri Annual Conference of 1845, but
deny their authority to act in the premises, and assert that the
property was conveyed for the use of the M. E. Church at Independence
Station, that they are the successors of the original trustees named in
the deed of conveyance, and as such they assert their title to the
property. Within the past few months several passes have been made for a
compromise, but nothing definite was proposed until last Saturday, when
I received a proposition from the attorney for defendants to surrender
the whole property and pay all the costs. This proposition, although not
what it should have been, yet, under the circumstances, and in view of
the uncertainty hanging on the future, it was deemed best to accept; and
on last Monday morning I received the keys, and possession was at once
given to the trustees of the M. E. Church, South. This I hope ends the
controversy.
“I would be glad to believe that the motive claimed, viz., a disposition
to do right, was the governing motive in giving up the property; but my
own opinion is, they saw that whenever trial could be had they had no
case, and hence concluded to get out of a bad scrape with as much credit
as possible. There was a difference of opinion among their members.
Those, as usual, who had no pecuniary interests, and no property to
answer for the costs and damages that might be recovered, were for fight
to the last, while the more moderate and the men of means were
determined to yield the possession, and their better counsels
prevailed.”
Thus ended the case as it exists plainly in the facts of history, but
there are some side lights and side scenes in the details without which
the affair will not be complete. A few circumstantial details, which are
contained in a communication found in the _St. Louis Christian
Advocate_, of June 20, 1866, will serve to sample the whole. Take the
following extracts:
“And there, too, stands that elegant church, with its stained windows
and tall, graceful spire, at once the pride and ornament of the city;
but its aisles are trod by other feet, and its cushioned pews are filled
or reserved for other worshipers than those who built, or bought, or
owned the property. The pulpit and altar, so tastefully fitted and
furnished by the young men in 1857, are now served by other hands and
other tongues, and I had almost said by another gospel, than those for
whom or that for which they were prepared.
“The parsonage, which has housed so many good men of our church and
their families, for whom it was built, is now occupied by another; and
the spacious yard, once so tastefully ornamented with shade and fruit
trees, flowers and evergreens, is laid waste and almost bare—now the
common resort of horses, cows, hogs, dogs and dirty children from the
streets.
“Sadly I turned away from a scene of wrong and desecration to pity the
moral condition of the hearts that could meditate and the hands that
could perpetrate such sacrilegious injustice. What right have the
Northern Methodists to this property? Did they build it? buy it? pay for
it? or even give one dollar toward paying for it? What claim do they set
up? What show of right? If there be a higher law than civil law—if there
be another standard of moral justice and right than the inspired gospel
which they pretend to preach and practice—then they may have some show
of claim; not without.
“For nearly twenty years that property has been held by trustees,
regularly appointed, for the use and benefit of the M. E. Church, South,
and no one questioned their legal right or sought to disturb their
peaceable possession.
“But during the reign of terror, in 1862, ’63 and ’64, under which so
many people in Jackson county lost their lives, and so many more their
property, and under the oft-reiterated threats of Northern Methodists
and their hirelings, with no inconsiderable military pressure, this
property passed out of our hands without the formalities and fogyism of
bargain and sale, or legal transfer of title.
“* * * When the war closed, and President Johnson had ordered the return
of the property taken from us in the South under the notorious
Stanton-Ames order, the trustees of our church made a civil demand for
the restoration of this property also, which was refused by these loyal
(?) property-lovers.
“The ladies, believing that they had the first and best right to the
property, and chagrined at this refusal, entered the church one day with
their knitting and sewing, to the number of thirty, and disposed of
themselves in a peaceable, quiet, orderly way, to spend the day in the
house of worship built and paid for by their husbands, fathers and
brothers. The Northern Methodist preacher, soon apprised of the fact,
hastened to a civil magistrate and made affidavit that these ladies were
‘disturbing the peace,’ procured a peace warrant and a constable and
proceeded to the church, where he found these orderly ladies ‘assembled,
neither with multitude or tumult,’ and had them arrested and dragged
before the civil officer for trial. With all of their ‘false witnesses’
nothing was found in them ‘worthy of prison or of death,’ and after
binding them over to keep the peace they were released.
“* * * President Johnson was applied to personally for the restoration
of this property to its rightful owners, as it had been taken under
military authority and order. He referred the matter to General Pope,
commanding the Department. Gen. Pope put the case, with instructions, in
the hands of a subordinate officer, and he buried it so deep in his
pocket that it never came to light afterward.”
These are only some of the circumstances that seem necessary to develop
the whole transaction, but they must suffice. The case is on record,
with many others of like character, to go down to posterity as a part of
the history made during those dark days. The Northern Methodist papers
have repeatedly denied that their Church ever seized, held or
appropriated the property of the M. E. Church, South. One more fact will
be a positive confirmation of their appropriation of this property. It
is this:
In the official statistics of the “Missouri and Arkansas Annual
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church for 1865” this church and
parsonage are reported and valued, the church at $17,000 and the
parsonage at $3,000. The same property is again reported in the
statistics for 1866; and then, without any note of explanation,
disappears from the annual statistical report of Church property in
Missouri.
To show that this action, with all similar efforts to gain possession of
the property of others, was encouraged and sanctioned by the Church in
Missouri, and was only a part of their programme of Church extension, in
the minutes of the “Missouri and Arkansas Annual Conference” for 1865
the following record is made:
“The following resolution was read and referred to the Committee on the
State of the Church:
“_Resolved_, That the preachers of the Conference be, and they are
hereby, requested to take all necessary steps in order to repossess the
Church property belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church in
Missouri.”
That the above committee did most fully meet the intent of that
resolution the report which was unanimously adopted will show. It is as
follows:
“Your committee beg to record our devout gratitude to the great Head of
the Church for the rich and glorious manifestations of his power in the
extension of his kingdom within the bounds of the Conference. At such a
time and in such an age as this every friend of the truth and every
lover of extension should be vigilant and hopeful, and more especially
as the ministers and members of the ever loyal Methodist Episcopal
Church of the United States, to whom are constantly presenting new and
extensive fields of extension, labors and usefulness. Advantages of no
ordinary character are presented at this time. The action of the
Missouri State Convention, by bill of rights, secures to any loyal
trustee or trustees the right to control any church or educational
property by application to the Circuit Court for the appointment of such
other trustees of recognized and established loyalty; and we deem it
proper to direct the attention of the ministers of the Conference to the
fact that much of such property now held in this State is under the
control of the disloyal and treasonable, property which was originally
deeded to the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States, and we
advise our ministers that, whenever practicable, immediate steps be
taken to possess and retain the same according to the forms of law
secured by Bill of Rights. It further appears to your committee as of
great importance, in the present state of the Church, that all persons
of undoubted and established loyalty and holding the Methodist doctrine
should, as far as possible, be in communion with us, that we may strive
together for the advancement of our common cause in the earth. In view
of these facts it is hereby
“_Resolved_, 1. That a committee of five be appointed whose duty it
shall be to draw up a brief address to the ministers and members of the
M. E. Church, South, inviting to unite with our Church all who are truly
loyal to the Government of the United States, as a common government
over all the United States, as recognized in its constitution and laws,
and assuring them of an affectionate and hearty welcome to this fold.
“_Resolved_ 2, That the ministers of this Conference are hereby
requested to take all necessary steps in order to re-obtain possession
of the Church property belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church in
Missouri, agreeable to the provisions of the Bill of Rights enacted by
the Missouri State Convention.”
Let it be observed that the same State Convention that adopted the New
Constitution with its notorious “Test Oath” ordained also the “Bill of
Rights,” over which the Conference indulged such extravagant
gratulations.
How many Northern Methodist ministers and members were in that State
Convention, and how far that Church influenced the action of the
Convention, and how far the said action was _intended_ by its authors to
restrict the liberty and expose to persecution the persons of Southern
Methodist ministers and affect the property of the M. E. Church, South,
in this State, others may determine from the facts upon record.
Many things are yet to be revealed upon the subject, and the fact can
not be escaped that the plan of persecution was well settled, thoroughly
digested, well understood and embraced this church-appropriating or
church-stealing business, under military orders and State Convention
ordinances.