CHURCH SEIZURES CONTINUED AND MADE GENERAL.
War Claims of Northern Methodists Settled by Ecclesiastical
Black-Mail—Military Mitres and Episcopal Shoulder-Straps—The
Difference—The “Stanton-Ames Order”—“The Great Episcopal
Raid”—“Special Order, No. 15,” from Major-General Banks—Official
Board of Carondelet Street Church, New Orleans, and Bishop
Ames—Episcopal Power then and Ecclesiastical Criticism now—Popular
Verdict—Abandoned (?) and Embarrassed Churches and Ecclesiastical
“Bummers”—Church Extension in the South—Letters and Extracts—Bishop
Clark and “Church Extension Meetings”—Does the End Justify the
Means, or Success Satisfy the Demands of Modern Ethics?—Property
Acquired by the M. E. Church in the South in a few Years—Four
Hundred and Eight Churches, Eighteen Parsonages and Eight Literary
Institutions in two Years, worth $446,659.00, all in Five
Conferences—Opinions of their Leading Men and Journals—Hon. John
Hogan, of St. Louis, Scuttles the Episcopal Ram—Order from the War
Department, with President Lincoln’s Endorsement—Possible
Deception—Rev. Dr. Keener, of New Orleans, Sues for the Churches of
Louisiana four Months—McKendree Church, Nashville, Vacated, “by
Order from Bishop Simpson”—Memorial of the Holston Conference M. E.
Church, South, to the Chicago General Conference, and How it was
Treated—Action of Chicago General Conference—“Stanton-Ames Order”
Duplicated for the Baptists—Conclusion—Sensible Warning from the St.
Louis _Anzeiger_.
Both the purpose and plan for the seizure and appropriation of the
property of the M. E. Church, South, contemplated a much wider range of
territory than the State of Missouri. The M. E. Church, North, had done
too much to put down rebellion; had entered too heartily into the
struggle, sent too many men to the front, put too many orators on the
stump, offered too many prayers from her pulpits and altars for the
success of the Union armies and the destruction of all rebels, and had
supplied too liberally the moral and material sinews of war, to lose a
golden opportunity. The M. E. Church, South, had many fine churches,
with costly furniture and garniture, in the chief cities of the South;
and were they not rebels—all rebels? What rights have rebels that loyal
men are bound to respect? Were not Southern Methodists traitors above
all others? The Federal Government, as represented in Generals Grant,
Sherman, Butler and Banks, could confiscate, seize and appropriate the
property of chief rebels in the South, and especially that which had
been, or could be, used in the interest of treason or rebellion; and why
could not the Federal Government, as represented in Bishops Simpson,
Ames, Clark, Kingsley and the great body of the M. E. Church,
confiscate, seize and appropriate the church property that had been, or
could be, used in the interest of treason and rebellion? Rebel chaplains
might preach in them, rebel soldiers might be quartered in them, rebel
hospitals might be made of them, and in them the great rebellion might
receive moral support. What reward for loyalty had been specially set
apart for the M. E. Church? What the price of her prayers, her sermons,
her money, her men? Another, and that the smallest Protestant Church in
the land, had the best army and navy chaplains—had the lion’s share of
appointments. Did not the M. E. Church, South, inaugurate rebellion in
1844? And when the force of the Southern Church is broken by the
military arm—when her great centres are broken up and her property
confiscated or destroyed, and loyal men preach a loyal gospel from her
pulpits, and teach loyalty in her halls and institutions of learning,
then may it be hoped that the moral and political heresy will be
exterminated with the heretics. Make the M. E. Church a part of the
military arm of the Government; invest the Bishops with
ecclesiastico-military authority; supply them with transportation,
supplies and military escorts; make Department Commanders subject unto
them, and if the great rebellion is not put down, the great national
Church will be put up, and the property of traitors will be converted to
loyal uses. The centres of population and power in the South will be put
under loyal training and discipline, and a moral result will be reached
which “military necessity” demands. All moral questions down in the
presence of a war measure so manifestly right and proper. Military
necessity has no conscience in the presence of a gigantic rebellion.
What religious difference between a military and an ecclesiastical raid
upon the property of rebels? Will the Government and the Church ever
quarrel over the spoils of conquest, whether gained by an Episcopal
General or a Military Bishop? Episcopal shoulder-straps and military
mitres may well lose their distinction in a common cause against a
common enemy.
The appropriateness and force of these reflections will appear in the
following well authenticated facts.
What has been called, by way of distinction, the “Great Episcopal Raid,”
had its announcement and authority in the following order, issued from
the War Department of the Federal Government, and known as the
“STANTON-AMES ORDER.”
“WAR DEPARTMENT, }
WASHINGTON, D. C., Nov. 30, 1863. }
“_To the Generals Commanding the Military Departments of Mississippi,
the Gulf, the South, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, etc.,
etc._:
“You are hereby directed to place at the disposal of Rev. Bishop Ames
all houses of worship belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, in which a loyal minister who has been appointed by a loyal
Bishop of said Church does not officiate. It is a matter of great
importance to the Government, in its efforts to restore tranquillity to
the community and peace to the nation, that Christian ministers should,
by precept and example, support and foster the loyal sentiments of the
people.”
“(Signed) E. M. STANTON, _Sec’y of War_.
Thus armed, Bishop Ames started on his Episcopal raid upon the Southern
Methodist Churches, taking with him and picking up along the route down
the Mississippi a goodly number of “loyal ministers.” The details of his
exploits in the South, seizing and appropriating to the uses of a “loyal
religion” the churches of others would not be appropriate to this work,
but will be left to the history of these strange times in their
appropriate localities.
In Memphis, Tenn., Vicksburg and Jackson, Miss., Baton Rouge and New
Orleans, La., the Episcopal General found and possessed himself of fine
and costly churches. In the latter city he called the Official Board of
Carondelet street Church together—the largest, finest and wealthiest
Southern Methodist church in the city—and formally demanded the
surrender of that and the other Southern Methodist churches in the city
to him.
They objected, and in their objection set forth that “Bishop Ames, as an
officer of another Church, had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over
them.” He replied that he “claimed no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over
them any more than over the Catholic or Episcopal Churches, but that he
came with an order from the United States Secretary of War, and an order
from General Banks, Department Commander at New Orleans, and by that
authority he demanded the surrender of the churches.”
They replied that, as they “held the property in trust for the use and
benefit of the M. E. Church, South, they could not voluntarily give up
that trust. If they did so it must be under the stress of a compulsion
they had no power, civil or military, to resist—the Bishop would have to
compel them.”
Whereupon the Bishop obtained a military force, and the churches were
taken, just as Memphis, Vicksburg, New Orleans and Richmond were taken.
An extract from the Special Order of Major-General Banks, then
commanding the “Department of the Gulf,” will show the light in which
this church-seizing business was viewed by the military authorities as a
moral “war measure.”
“HEADQUARTERS DEP’T OF THE GULF, }
NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 18, 1864. }
“Special Order, No. 15.]
“V. In accordance with instructions contained in a letter from the
Secretary of War, under date of Nov. 30, 1863, all houses of worship
within this Department belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, in which a loyal minister, who has been appointed by a loyal
Bishop of said Church, does not now officiate, are hereby placed at the
disposal of the Rev. Bishop Ames.
“Commanding officers at the various points where such houses of worship
may be located are directed to extend to the ministers that may be
appointed by Bishop Ames, to conduct divine service in said houses of
worship, all the aid, countenance and support practicable in the
execution of their mission.
“Officers of the quartermaster’s and commissary departments are
authorized and directed to furnish Bishop Ames and his clerk with
transportation and subsistence, when it can be done without prejudice to
the service; and all officers will afford them courtesy, assistance and
protection.
“By command of Major-General Banks.
“GEORGE B. DRAKE,
Ass’t-Adj’t-General.”
Under this “Special Order No. 15” the Bishop was put in possession of
many churches, his ministers protected, and this general superintendent
and representative of the M. E. Church and his clerk were furnished
transportation and subsistence by the Government as a “war measure.”
This involves more than that Church will admit, now that military
protection from the judgment of enlightened Christendom will not avail,
and now that ecclesiastical criticism is as unsparing as ecclesiastical
presumption was then reckless. The corollary that the M. E. Church made
distinct and aggressive war upon the M. E. Church, South, and hence
claimed belligerent rights to capture and hold the property of the enemy
in perpetuity, or until formally given up under treaty stipulations, is
a very unwelcome and uncomfortable position to those whose religious
consciences were not destroyed by a “military necessity.” Strenuous
efforts are required of the pulpit and press to break the force of the
popular verdict of the people upon the religious and ecclesiastical
aspects of this “Episcopal Raid.”
The authority thus given to Bishop Ames had a much wider and a more
general application than his personal operations. This gave the sanction
to the church seizures in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, East Tennessee,
and all through the South. The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church
and their ministers penetrated the South in every direction, and were
keen on the scent of abandoned (?) churches and other property of the M.
E. Church, South. They went to the large cities and railroad centres;
got possession of churches by military order or otherwise—“honestly, if
they could, but”—_they got them_, and then went out in every direction
in search of abandoned, embarrassed and libelled property which they
could seize and appropriate to the uses of a “loyal Methodism.”
While this plan was being executed in the South the “Church Extension
Society” in the Northern States and the “Missionary Society” were
furnishing the material aid necessary to support the preachers, buy up
old church debts, force sales and bid in the property for the amount of
the debt, and thus possess themselves of property for “less than half
its value.”
To show how the business was carried on, see the following extracts from
a letter of one of their missionaries in Alabama—Rev. W. P. Miller—to
the Corresponding Secretary of the Church Extension Society of the M. E.
Church, published in the _Western Christian Advocate_ of Jan. 1, 1868:
“There are two churches that I could secure with a little ready money.
Can you help us in time of need?
“1. A church, 45 by 55, a plain frame, covered with shingles, good
floor, with seats and pulpit, but not ceiled; built during the war, but
has never been paid for.
“Last year I raised two hundred and fifty dollars, leaving one hundred
and fifty unpaid. The man who owns the land and built the house says if
we pay him the hundred and fifty dollars he will give us a deed, but we
are so prostrated that we can not do it now. If we fail others will do
it, and we will be shut out of doors.
“Another church, 40 by 50, in general description like the first. * * *
This house was also built during the war and partly paid for. The
builder built on his own land, and was to convey the title when paid
for. He died in the war, but his widow says she will give us a deed if
we will pay her the balance, one hundred dollars. Please help us, if
possible, in this case also.”
They held “Church Extension” meetings in all the Methodist churches in
the Northern States to raise funds to meet just such emergencies. An
account of a “Church Extension Meeting,” held in Indianapolis, Ind., is
given in the _Western Christian Advocate_ of February 19, 1868, soon
after Mr. Miller’s letter appeared. The following is an extract:
“At Ashbury chapel Bishop Clarke preached with great power, and in
conclusion set forth the claims of the Society. He presented the wants
of three Churches in Alabama—one could be _saved_ for fifty dollars,
another for one hundred, and a third for one hundred and fifty. The
Bishop asked the Church to aid these societies of loyal Christians
struggling for an existence, and Asbury most cheerfully responded in a
contribution of three hundred dollars.”
Upon the same subject the _Northwestern Christian Advocate_ of March 18,
1868, says:
“When the Church Extension Society was first organized, in commending
the new cause to our people, the Bishops in their address said ‘We know
of no agency in which the contribution of our people can accomplish a
greater amount of good.’ At a later date Bishop Clarke, after a careful
survey of the field, and especially of the South, put the case in
stronger terms, and said: ‘I do not know where else a man’s money can be
used with such certainty of sure and large returns.’”
He then mentions as an illustration the churches reported by Rev. W. P.
Miller, and says: “The money was forwarded to Bro. Miller and he has
written to the Corresponding Secretary the results, as follows: ‘I have
invested the means you sent me, and have secured the two churches of
which I wrote; title all right. The churches are frame, and are worth
here about $1,000.’”
The Missouri and Arkansas Conference, held in Louisiana, Mo., March 7,
1866, adopted the following:
“_Resolved_, That the preachers be urged to exercise personal
supervision over such church property not yet secured to trustees, urge
the churches to select trustees, and when this can not be done, to
petition the County Court to appoint such officers.” (Pub. Minutes, p.
36.)
The Louisiana and Boonville Church property cases are in illustration.
All the Bishops and all the Conferences of the M. E. Church endorsed the
work of Church Extension in the South, just as it was carried on by Mr.
Miller, Mr. Drake, Mr. Pearne, Dr. Newman and their associates, and the
plan was successful.
In the philosophy of some men the end justifies the means, and success
satisfies all the demands of modern ethics. It will not do to question
every wealthy man or wealthy Church too closely as to how their property
was acquired during the war. It is enough for the curious to know that
they have property, and to hope that they have consciences as well.
That the M. E. Church has property in the Southern States in churches,
parsonages and literary institutions is an admitted fact. That nearly
all, if not all, of this property has been acquired in a very few years,
and years, too, of great poverty and destitution through the South, will
not be denied. Now, take the following facts and figures:
The Tennessee Conference was organized Oct. 11, 1866, with thirteen
churches valued at $59,100. At its second session it reported thirty
houses of worship and one parsonage. The Georgia Conference, at its
organization, Oct. 10, 1867, reported forty-nine churches. The
Mississippi Conference was organized in 1866 with five churches, and at
its session held in December, 1867, reported forty-seven churches, five
parsonages and eight institutions of learning. In 1866 the South
Carolina Conference reports no churches, but at its session in
Charleston, February, 1868, reported forty-nine churches and six
parsonages. The Holston Conference was organized by Bishop Clarke in
1865 with 100 churches, valued at $31,250. At its session in October,
1867, just two years after, it reported 203 churches and six parsonages.
These five Conferences, with an average existence of two years, report
408 churches, eighteen parsonages and eight institutions of learning, at
an estimated aggregate value of $446,659. The increase up to 1868 will
reach largely over half a million.
Others may ask where and how they acquired so much property in so short
a time, and amongst a people desolated and torn by war and impoverished
even to beggary and want by the sword, the torch, the pestilence, the
famine, the floods, the drouth, the Bureau and the reconstruction.
The policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as announced in their
great official organ, the New York _Christian Advocate_, and carried out
as far as could be by their emissaries in the South, was to
“_disintegrate and absorb the M. E. Church, South_.”
Dr. Newman, editor of the New Orleans _Advocate_, said in the New York
_Methodist_, of May 23, 1868:
* * * “And we solemnly hold that it would be of incalculable advantage
to the South, and the cause of Christianity therein, if the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, should cease to be.”
Upon the reunion of the two Churches, Dr. N. E. Cobleigh, of Athens,
Tenn., in an article in the _Northern Christian Advocate_, of April 1,
1868, says:
“The Church property, too, of which we have taken possession in the
South, must be given back to them (the M. E. Church, South,) before they
will consent to treat upon the subject.”
Dr. Daniel Curry, editor of the New York _Christian Advocate_, said
before the Preachers’ Meeting of New York, in May, 1866:
“Wherever we have taken churches the policy has proved bad. The first
act of the Church, South, toward us, after this, was a charge of church
stealing—a high crime before the law. We did not mean to do wrong, but
it has put us in a bad position.”
The New Orleans _Advocate_, of Feb. 10, 1866, says:
“We have seen a letter from Bishop Ames, which was dated Baltimore, Md.,
Jan. 20, 1866, and which contained this glorious news: ‘The President
has issued an order putting us in possession of 210 churches and 32
parsonages, which the Rebel Methodists in Virginia have occupied during
the war.’”
This was “glorious news” to Dr. Newman, himself occupying at the time a
church obtained from “Rebel Methodists” by this same Bishop Ames upon an
order from Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War. These Bishops had a summary
way of getting possession of other people’s property. The cry of “Rebel
Methodists” and treason against the Government from them and their tools
could always move the Government officials to issue such orders as would
put them in possession of the property of rebels. But whether the rebels
themselves were crushed out or made better by the transaction, are
matters about which little was said.
There is yet another aspect of this general question worthy of note.
While Bishop Ames was in the South prosecuting under War Department
orders his great scheme of ecclesiastical piracy, and the many smaller
ecclesiastics were similarly engaged in other portions of the conquered
provinces, steps were being taken to forestall the Bishop when his
ecclesiastical ram should be directed against the “Rebel Methodists” of
St. Louis. Hon. John Hogan, member of Congress from St. Louis, went to
Washington and made representations to the President of the facts in the
case, and when the good Bishop reached St. Louis he was met by an order
from the War Department, with an endorsement from the President of the
United States, repealing his Stanton order and putting an estoppel upon
his proceedings, especially in Missouri.
The following order was obtained by Mr. Hogan from the War Department,
with President Lincoln’s endorsement exempting the churches of Missouri
from seizure under Mr. Stanton’s order:
“WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL’S OFFICE, }
“WASHINGTON, February 13, 1864. }
Order.]
“_Major-General Rosecrans, U.S. Volunteers, Commanding Department of
the Missouri, St. Louis, Mo._:
“SIR: I am directed by the Secretary of War to say that the orders
from the Department placing at the disposal of the constituted Church
authorities in the Northern States houses of worship in other States
is designed to apply only to such States as are designated by the
President’s Proclamation as being in rebellion, and is not designed to
operate in loyal States, nor in cases where loyal congregations in
rebel States shall be organized and worship upon the terms prescribed
by the President’s Amnesty Proclamation.
“I am, sir, very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
“JAS. A. HARDIE,
“Assistant Adjutant-General.”
This order bears the following endorsement in Mr. Lincoln’s own proper
hand:
“As you see within, the Secretary of War modifies his order so as to
exempt Missouri from it. Kentucky was never within it; nor, as I learn
from the Secretary, was it ever intended for any more than a means of
rallying the Methodist people in favor of the Union in localities
where the rebellion had disorganized and scattered them. Even in that
view I fear it is liable to some abuses; but it is not quite easy to
withdraw it entirely, and at once.
A. LINCOLN.
“_February 13, 1864._”
That is a damaging disclosure. Were Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War, and
Mr. Lincoln, President of the United States, imposed upon and deceived
by these high Church dignitaries? The famous Stanton-Ames order “never
intended for any more than a means of rallying the Methodist people in
favor of the Union in localities where the rebellion had disorganized
and scattered them!” Was it ever used for other purposes? How about the
Churches seized and appropriated by authority of this same order in
cities and communities where the Methodist people had never been
disorganized and scattered, and where “the Methodist people” intended to
be “rallied” had never been organized—never even had an existence?
It did not require Mr. Lincoln’s sagacity to see that such an order was
“liable to some abuse,” but it does require a good deal of effort to
believe that even Northern Methodist Bishops could deceive the
Government, and then pervert and “abuse” an order from the War
Department. But we are forced to accept the facts in the case.
The action of Mr. Hogan and his success in defeating the purposes of
Bishop Ames gave hope and courage to others, and in June, 1865, Dr.
Keener, of New Orleans, went to Washington and made a formal and most
earnest application to the President and Secretary of War for the
restoration of the churches in Louisiana to their rightful owners.
He remained in Washington prosecuting his almost hopeless mission for
four long, weary months. After this wearisome prosecution of what seemed
to be a forlorn hope, the President (Mr. Johnson) gave the order and
restored the property, which the Northern Bishops could have restored
with the stroke of a pen. This gracious favor was obtained from the
President much upon the principle of the widow and the unjust judge:
“And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him and said,
avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for awhile; but afterward
he said within himself, though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet
because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her
continual coming she weary me.”
So it was the Churches, at least some of them, were restored. “And will
not God avenge his own elect which cry day and night unto him? I tell
you, he will avenge them speedily.”
Enboldened by success, others made application to the President for the
restoration of their churches. Upon such application the churches in
Vicksburg, Miss., Memphis and Nashville, Tenn., were given up.
In regard to the latter a Nashville (Tenn.) correspondent of a Northern
Methodist paper says:
“Things are moving slowly, as far as our church is concerned. Upon an
order from Bishop Simpson, we vacated McKendree last week, and are now
holding services in Masonic Hall. Our congregations are small, but we
hope for better times. * * * * Our dear Southern brethren of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, persuasion are flocking back to their
old haunts, and hold up their heads as if they were not guilty of the
blood and suffering of the past four years.”
“Upon an order from Bishop Simpson” they vacated McKendree, after they
had been put into it and occupied it so long upon an order from Bishop
or General somebody else. But who “ordered” Bishop Simpson? Why did he
require his brethren to “vacate McKendree?” For the same reason that Dr.
Newman vacated Carondelet street Church, New Orleans, and the churches
in Memphis, Vicksburg and other places were vacated.
Others may detail the “pious fraud” upon the churches at Knoxville, and
Athens, and other places in Tennessee, while the general subject only
requires here a notice of the Memorial of the Holston Conference, M. E.
Church, South, to the General Conference of the M. E. Church at Chicago,
in the spring of 1868, and the notice taken of it by that General
Conference. The following is the
MEMORIAL OF THE HOLSTON CONFERENCE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH.
“_To the Bishops and Members of the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, at Chicago, Ills., May, 1868_:
“The undersigned were appointed a committee at the session of the
Holston Conference of the M. E. Church, South, held at Cleveland, East
Tennessee, in October last, to memorialize your reverend body, and to
set forth distinctly the wrongs which we are suffering at the hands of
agents of the M. E. Church within our bounds; and also to entreat you to
devise some means by which an end may be made to these outrages, for the
honor of Methodism and for the sake of our common Christianity.
“Our churches have been seized by ministers and members of the M. E.
Church, and are still held and used by them as houses of worship.
“To give the semblance of legality to these acts and of right to this
property, trustees have been appointed by the authorities of the M. E.
Church; and these churches are annually reported by your ministers in
their Conference statistics.
“From these churches our ministers are either excluded and driven, or
allowed only a joint occupancy with your ministers. From some of them
our ministers in their regular rounds of district and circuit work are
excluded by locks and bars, or by armed men meeting them at the doors;
from others they are driven by mobs, and threatened with death should
they attempt a return; at one a presiding elder and a preacher in charge
of the circuit, at a quarterly meeting appointment, were arrested and
marched fifteen miles amidst indignities and insults; at another, an
aged and godly minister was ridden upon a rail; at another, the same man
found at the door bundles of rods and nails, and also a written notice
prohibiting him from preaching at the risk of torture; at another, a
notice was handed to our preacher, signed by a class leader in the M. E.
Church, in which was the following language: ‘If you come back here
again we will handle you;’ and, true to the threat, on a subsequent
round, not two miles from the place, this worthy minister, as he was
passing to his appointment on the second Sabbath in February last, was
taken from his horse, struck a severe blow upon the head, blindfolded,
tied to a tree, scourged to laceration, and then ordered to lie with his
face to the ground until his scourgers should withdraw, with the threat
of death for disobedience. All this he was told, too, was for traveling
that circuit and preaching the gospel as a Southern Methodist preacher;
from another, the children and teachers of our Sabbath School were
ejected while in session by a company of men, who were led by a minister
of the M. E. Church.
“Our parsonages, also, have been seized and occupied by ministers of the
M. E. Church, no rent having been paid to us for their use.
“Thirty-six hundred dollars, appropriated upon our application to the
United States Government for damages done to our church at Knoxville
during the war, were, by some sleight-of-hand movement, passed into the
hands of a minister of the M. E. Church. This money is still, held from
us.
“In other cases, school and church property of our’s on which debts were
resting has been forced upon the market by agents in your interests, and
thereby wrested from our poverty and added to your abundance.
“Members of the M. E. Church constitute, in part, the mobs that insult
and maltreat our preachers, while ministers of the same Church, by words
and acts, either countenance or encourage our persecutors. In no
instance, so far as we are advised, has any one for such conduct been
arraigned, or censured even, by those administering the discipline of
your Church.
“We could specify the name of each of these churches, and the locality,
were it necessary, in which our ministers and people are either
permitted sometimes to worship, or from which they are excluded and
driven by locks, threats, mobs and bloody persecutions. Their names are
in our possession, and at your disposal. About one hundred church
edifices are held in one or another of these ways, with a value of not
less than seventy-five thousand dollars.
“Of this property, it should be added, some was deeded to the M. E.
Church before 1844, and the rest, since that time, to the M. E. Church,
South. That it is all claimed by the M. E. Church in East Tennessee we
suppose to be true, or it would not be reported and received in their
Annual Conference statistics. That it belongs to the M. E. Church,
South, we suppose also to be true, inasmuch as all deeds since 1844 have
been made to us, and all the remainder were granted to us by the
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Church suit;
unless the ground be assumed by your reverend body that when Lee
surrendered to Grant the M. E. Church, South, surrendered also to the M.
E. Church all her property rights. Surely if the United States
Government does not confiscate the property of those who are called
rebels, the M. E. Church, in her highest legislative assembly, will
hardly set a precedent by claiming the property of their Southern
brethren.
“But it may, perhaps, be said that we have been sinners, rebels,
traitors, touching our civil and political relations to the Government.
If this be so, we are unable to comprehend by what authority we are to
be punished by the M. E. Church, since for our moral obliquities we are
responsible alone to God, and for our political crimes only to the
United States Government.
“It may also be asked, what jurisdiction has your General Conference
over these deeds of injustice? No civil jurisdiction, we are aware; but
your reverend body does possess a moral power of such weight that, if
brought to bear in East Tennessee, there would be an end to these acts
of oppression and cruelty. A word of disapproval, even, from your Board
of Bishops, or the publication in your Church papers of some of the
above cited facts, with editorial condemnation, would have done much to
mitigate, if not entirely to remove, the cause of our complaints; but we
have neither heard the one nor seen the other. Why this has not been
done is believed by us to be a want of knowledge of these facts, of
which we now put you in possession. Familiar as we are with the
condition of things in East Tennessee, and with the workings of the two
Methodisms there, we are satisfied that your body could, by judicious
action, remove most, if not all, of the causes which now occasion
strife, degrade Methodism, and scandalize our holy religion. We,
therefore, ask—
“1st. That you will ascertain the grounds upon which the M. E. Church
claims and holds the property in church buildings and parsonages within
her bonds in East Tennessee, as reported in her Holston Mission
Conference statistics.
“2d. If in the investigation any property so reported shall be adjudged
by you to belong of right to the M. E. Church, South, that you will
designate what that property is, and where; and also instruct your
ministers and people to relinquish their claims upon the same, repossess
us, and leave us in the undisturbed occupancy thereof.
“3d. Inasmuch as your words of wisdom and of justice will be words of
power, that you earnestly advise all your ministers laboring in this
field to abstain from every word and act the tendency of which would be
the subversion of good order and peace in the communities in which they
move.
“In conclusion, allow us to add, that in presenting this memorial to
your reverend body we are moved thereto by no other spirit than that of
ardent desire to promote the interests of our common Redeemer by
‘spreading scriptural holiness over these lands.’
“E. E. WILEY,
“W. G. E. CUNNYNGHAM,
“WM. ROBESON,
“B. ARBOGAST,
“C. LONG,
“J. M. MCTEER,
“GEORGE STEWART,
“Members of the Holston Conference of the M. E. Church, South.
“_April, 1868._”
This memorial, so respectful and dignified, and upon so grave a matter,
was referred, without being read or printed, to a select committee of
seven. And though presented and referred early in the session, no
further notice was taken of the it, and the committee did not bring in a
report until the very last day of the session and just before the final
adjournment. The report of the select committee was read amid great
confusion, and passed without debate by a very small vote, but few of
the members of the General Conference feeling interested enough either
to listen or vote.
The _Daily Advocate_, of June 3, 1868, contains the following account of
the affair, with the report of the special committee as adopted:
“The report of the committee on the memorial of the Holston Conference
was presented and read, and, on motion, adopted.
“The report as adopted, is as follows:
“Your committee have had before them a memorial from a committee of
seven appointed by the Holston Conference, of the M. E. Church, South,
stating that our ministers and people within that region have seized the
churches and parsonages belonging to said Church, South, and maltreated
their ministers. The statements of the paper are all indefinite, both as
to places, times and persons, and no one has appeared to explain or
defend the charges. On the contrary, we have also before us, referred to
our consideration, numerous affidavits from ministers and members of our
Church, in various parts of this country, evidently designed to refute
any charges that might be presented by this committee of seven. It seems
from these papers that as soon as the federal power was re-established
in East Tennessee whole congregations came over to the M. E. Church,
bringing with them their churches and parsonages, that they might
continue to use them for worship. It also seems that much of the
property in question is deeded to the M. E. Church, it being so held
before the secession of the Church, South. We have no proof that any in
contest is held otherwise. The General Conference possesses no power, if
it would, to divest the occupants of this property of the use or
ownership of it, paid for by their means, and would be guilty of great
impropriety in interfering at all at this time when test cases are
already before the courts. If, however, we should proceed so to do, with
the evidence before us largely _ex parte_, it is true, but all that, we
have, the presentation of the memorialists can not be sustained. By
personal examinations we have endeavored in vain to ascertain what
foundation there is for the affirmation that our ministers and people
encourage violence toward the ministers of the M. E. Church, South. We
believe and trust there is no foundation for the charge, for if true, it
could but meet our unqualified disapprobation. Our own ministers and
people in the South suffer severely in this way, and sometimes, we
apprehend, at the hands of our Southern brethren, but neither the spirit
of our Master, the genius of our people, nor our denominational interest
could allow us to approbate in any parties the practice. We are glad to
know that our brethren laboring in that region had their attention early
called to these matters, and we content ourself with repeating the
sentiments of their address to the people. It was in effect as published
in the Knoxville _Whig_, by authority of at least four presiding elders;
and several other members of the Holston Conference, as well as often
stated from our pulpits in the South, and through our Church papers in
the North, that violence toward the preachers and people of the Church,
South, is unwise, unchristian and dangerous. Our preachers and people in
the South, so far as we are apprised and believe, have all and ever held
this position on the subject. We recommend the following:
“_Resolved_, That all the papers connected with this matter be referred
to the Holston Conference, believing as we do that this Conference, in
the future as in the past, will be careful to do justly, and, as much as
lieth in them, to live peaceably with all men.
“Your committee have also had before them a letter, published in various
Southern journals, and signed by S. F. Waldro, being dated from Chicago,
and presuming to state the objects and intentions of the Methodist
Episcopal Conference in the prosecution of its Southern work. We are
also informed that several similar letters have been published in the
South. No effort that we have been able to make has enabled us to
discover any such person in this city. Certainly no such person has a
right to speak in our behalf or declare our purposes, much less does he
declare them correctly. We recommend that the paper be dismissed as
anonymous and unworthy of our further consideration.
“L. HITCHCOCK, Chairman.
“J. M. REID, Secretary.”
The War Department at Washington issued an order similar to the
“Stanton-Ames Order,” in the interests of the “American Baptist Home
Mission Society,” requiring all houses of worship belonging to the
Baptists in the military departments of the South, in which a loyal
minister did not officiate, to be turned over to the agents or officers
of the American Baptist Home Mission Society, and ordering Government
transportation and subsistence to be furnished such agents and their
clerks. Dated Jan. 14, 1864.
This was a new mode of warfare, and will ever stand upon the historic
page as humiliating to enlightened Christian sentiment, as it is forever
damaging to the spirit and genius of American institutions and the true
interests of Messiah’s kingdom on earth.
While American citizens are generally unwilling to be instructed in the
higher civil and religious interests of this country by foreigners, yet
it will not be denied that many of the finest, shrewdest and wisest
journalists of the country are from foreign lands.
As a befitting close to this part of the subject, and a wise warning to
the politico-religious fanatics who think little of the effect of their
reckless disregard of the sacred relations of Church and State, an
extract from the St. Louis _Anzeiger_, a German paper of much character
and influence, will be appropriate.
It is upon the general subject of the Administration running the
Churches, as developed in the order from the War Department creating
Bishop Ames Bishop of a Military Department, and authorizing him to take
possession of the Methodist churches of Missouri, Tennessee and the Gulf
States. It says:
“Here we have, in _optima forma_, the commencement of Federal
interference with religious affairs; and this interference occurs in
cities and districts where war has ceased, and even in States, like
Missouri, which have never joined the secession movement.
“Doubtless the Federal Government has the right to exercise the utmost
rigor of the law against rebel clergymen, as well as against all other
criminal citizens; nay, it may oven close churches in districts under
military law when these churches are abused for political purposes; but
this is the utmost limit to which military power may go. Every step
beyond this is an arbitrary attack upon the constitutionally guaranteed
right of religious freedom, and upon the fundamental law of the American
Republican Government—separation of Church and State. The violation of
the Constitution committed in the appointment of a Military Bishop—one
would be forced to laugh if the affair were not so serious in
principle—is so much the more outrageous and wicked, as it is attempted
in States which, like Missouri, have never separated from the Union, and
in which all the departments of civil administration are in regular
activity.
“This order of the War Department is the commencement of State and
Federal interference in the affairs of the Churches. It is not a single
military suspension or banishment order, which might be exceptional and
for a temporary purpose. It is not the act of a General who, sword in
hand, commands the priest to pray for him, as we read of in times long
ago. It is far more. It is an administrative decree of the Federal
Government, appropriating Church property, regulating Church
communities, and installing Bishops. A similar order has been issued for
the Baptist Church of the South.
“If this is the commencement, where will the end be? The pretense that
it is merely a proceeding against disloyal clergymen will deceive
nobody. Bad actions have never wanted good pretenses. With the same
right with which the Secretary of War makes Bishop Ames chief of a
Church in the South he may also interfere in the affairs of all other
Churches, or even dissolve any Church at pleasure. We ask again, Where
is the end to be? and what principle of American constitutional law will
remain if freedom of religion and of conscience is at the mercy of any
commander of a military post?”