[Illustration:
REV. L. M. HAGOOD, M.D.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COLORED MAN
IN THE
Methodist Episcopal Church.
BY
THE REV. L. M. HAGOOD, M.D.,
OF THE LEXINGTON CONFERENCE.
---------------------
CINCINNATI:
CRANSTON & STOWE.
NEW YORK:
HUNT & EATON.
1890.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright by
_L. M. HAGOOD,_
1890.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREFACE.
----------
The history of the relations existing between the Methodist Episcopal
Church and the colored man—or rather, the status of the colored man
within the Church—so far as known, has never been written. There are
many cogent reasons why such a history should be written. From the time
of the landing of a cargo of twenty African slaves at Jamestown,
Virginia, in 1620, until this hour, the colored man has been the subject
of much discussion. Touching his status as a man, there have always been
two sides: one in favor of enslaving him, and the other objecting to
enslaving him. Both sides of this vexed question have always been
represented within the Church. The fact that there has always been a
majority in the Church opposed to enslaving him; that therefore the
Church early enlisted in the cause of his emancipation,—has kept up a
continuous though bloodless warfare within the Church.
Thus the colored man early learned to love Methodism, and soon large
numbers were brought into its communion. The emancipation and
enfranchisement of the race did not put a quietus upon the agitation of
the question. Many white and colored members are not conversant with the
history of our Church touching this subject. It has always been a
question to many, why men of the race within the Church have not been as
ready to write the _actual facts_ in the case, as some of the race in
other Churches have been to record many _half truths_ relating thereto.
It is true that while the public eye and ear appear always open and
attentive to anything written or spoken by those who can claim kin with
Jefferson, Clay, Sumner, Lincoln, or Grant, there is an apparent
unwillingness to give audience to those who have always been subjected
to ostracism.
These lines are written because it is believed that our Church has had
to suffer because only _one side_ of the story has been told by any
person of the race, and in nearly, if not every instance, by those
unfriendly to the relation the colored man has sustained to the Church;
because some wrong impressions may be righted by the collation of facts
that lay bare the glaring inaccuracies hitherto related concerning the
imposition of the white members of the Church upon the colored; to show
that, so far as the question goes, the heart of the Methodist Episcopal
Church has always been right; and that, though errors may have been
committed, they have been, in most instances, from the head and not from
the heart of the Church; that it has come as near reaching the proper
solution of the question, “What shall be done with the colored man?” as
any other organization that has had to do with the question.
There has been no intentional reflection or false or prejudicial
statement made herein. Many “_stubborn facts_” have been left out, that
might have been properly included. Though the story has not been told
with the polished language of a Chesterfield, nor the logical acuteness
of Aristotle, nor with the erudite diction of one born in the college,
it is hoped that some good, and _no harm_, may be accomplished thereby;
those of the race who have not had the opportunity to know some facts
herein related may be enabled to teach their children that there is no
need of blushing when the past history of the Church touching this
question is being recited; but that it is a benefit to the race, as well
as an honor, to be numbered with the million and a half members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS.
----------
CHAPTER I
PAGE.
BEFORE THE WAR, 17
CHAPTER II
THE COLOR-LINE SECESSIONS, 35
CHAPTER III
THE CRISIS—ITS CAUSE, 64
CHAPTER IV
THE COLORED PASTORATE, 83
CHAPTER V
THE RETROSPECT, 104
CHAPTER VI
DURING THE WAR, 116
CHAPTER VII
THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1864, 130
CHAPTER VIII
THE BEGINNING OF A GREAT WORK, 148
CHAPTER IX
THE COLORED BISHOP QUESTION, 167
CHAPTER X
WHY ASK FOR A BISHOP OF AFRICAN DESCENT? 192
CHAPTER XI
THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1884, 207
CHAPTER XII
THE PROBLEM, 230
CHAPTER XIII
THEORY AND PRACTICE—A GENERAL 259
DISCUSSION,
CHAPTER XIV
WHAT WILL THE HARVEST BE? 292
CHAPTER XV
UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS, 309
---------------------
ILLUSTRATIONS.
----------
REV. L. M. HAGOOD, M.D., _Frontispiece._
MORGAN COLLEGE, FOR COLORED STUDENTS, 48
NEW ORLEANS UNIVERSITY, MAIN BUILDING, 96
BENNETT SEMINARY, GREENSBORO, N.C., 144
REV. A. E. P. ALBERT, D.D., 192
MEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE, NASHVILLE, 240
TENN.,
ART DEPARTMENT OF CLAFLIN UNIVERSITY, 288
GAMMON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, LIBRARY 312
BUILDING,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION.
----------
It is a difficult matter to write of a battle while it is still raging.
The combatants are not usually the best judges of the merits of their
cases. Prejudice, education, preconceived notions of the right or wrong
in the case, prevent the mind from weighing the arguments with equity.
There are principles lying at the foundation of ethics which will not be
denied by Christians. They come with the authority of a “Thus saith the
Lord.” However distasteful these truths may be to the natural man, the
obligation to receive them still remains. The Lord quoted certain
proverbs which were authorities among the Jews, which they had observed
as rules for their action towards others. One was “Thou shalt love thy
neighbor, and hate thine enemy.” Christ gives another, and with divine
authority: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, do good to them that
hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute
you.” Such teachings were not palatable in that day, any more than in
the present. Human nature was no more ready to receive and practice such
truths then than now. But the obligation existed then, and still
survives. Then, too, the Savior taught another lesson equally
unpalatable to the Jew. The man who fell among thieves was left by
priest and Levite to suffer, but was delivered by the Samaritan, who was
considered an enemy. “Who is my neighbor?” was the question that brought
out this answer from Jesus with its illustration; viz., that every one
needing help is a neighbor. The two great precepts of the same Teacher
embrace all that is necessary in the practical treatment of the question
of our relation to others: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;”
and, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to
them.” Whatever apology there may have been for slavery in the past, in
the days of ignorance, when God winked at it, as he did at polygamy, it
is certain that the treatment of the slave as the New Testament requires
would have destroyed slavery. To have educated the slave to read and
write, and otherwise giving him the privilege to develop his mental
faculties; to have secured him his wife—a God-given right; to have given
these parents their rights, in obedience to the Divine command, to train
up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; to secure
to them their right of a fair compensation for their labor, and to use
it as they chose for their own benefit; to have granted them the
privilege of worshiping their Maker as heaven required,—would have
destroyed the whole system of involuntary servitude as it existed in
these United States. More than two centuries slavery continued, while
the enlightened conscience of the nation protested against the system,
against the traffic in human beings, against its demoralizing influences
on the white, and its degrading influence on the black man.
Methodism came into the country, and found slavery intrenched in its
laws and civilization. Its preachers proclaimed a gospel of
regeneration, of love to God, of a personal knowledge of forgiveness of
sins, the witness of the Holy Ghost, of love to neighbors. The converts
declared the religion of Christ: the “love that suffereth long and is
kind.” It turned out the old man and let in the new. White and black
shared alike in the new life. Down in the cabin, up in the “great
house,” alike were heard the shouts of joy over this new-found pearl of
great price. Tears of joy coursed down the ivory and the ebony cheek, as
each spoke of redeeming love. Melted by this divine fire, fused into one
spirit, there came to heart, to conscience, to understanding, as the
white clasped the black hand with loving grip, the whispered voice of an
inner consciousness, “Surely we be brethren.” White Bishop Asbury
declared the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, black Harry by his side
preached the same gospel of the Son of God. The black messenger was
honored by the divine presence attending his Word, as well as the white,
and souls were saved when black Harry pointed sinners to the cross, as
well as when the first bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church called
them to repentance.
Peter was astonished when he was sent to the Gentiles. He was more so
when he saw them receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and heard them
declare the wonderful things of God. But he recognized them as brethren;
and when his people at Jerusalem call him to account for his conduct in
going among the Gentiles, he gives the history of the event, and sums it
all up in these words: “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as
he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I
could withstand God?” This settled the question for Peter, that the
Gentiles were entitled to all the rights and blessings of the Jew, as
followers of Christ. If God honored the blacks with his Spirit’s
presence, filling them with joy and peace, enabling them to show forth
the power of a Christian life in the fruits of holy living; if he
anointed more than one black Harry “to preach good tidings unto the
meek, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” and honored their
ministry in awakening and saving souls, is it a matter of wonder that
there should be the conviction in the minds of Methodists that these
slaves are men like ourselves? If men, then they are our neighbors; if
our neighbors, then we must love them as ourselves. If we love them as
men—as ourselves—then slavery, as it exists here, is wrong. The
enlightened conscience of the Methodists said, “Slavery is wrong;” and
this conviction was soon embodied in the question, which found its way
into the Church law, and held its place there till it received its
formal, practical answer in emancipation, “What shall be done for the
extirpation of the evil of slavery?”
The author of this book has treated of the relation of the Methodist
Episcopal Church to the colored people from this stand-point of a clear
perception of the evil of slavery, and the unrighteousness of one
Christian holding his fellow-Christian, his brother in Christ, as a
chattel. The writer traces the action of the law-making power of the
Methodist Episcopal Church for nearly a hundred years, in her treatment
of the colored man as a member of this Church, as an office-holder, and
as a preacher under the system of slavery.
The author shows that the Methodist Episcopal Church has never swerved
from the recognition of the rights of her colored members, in all her
general and annual conferences. She denounced slavery as an evil to be
extirpated, and at one time required her members to emancipate their
slaves. (Had she adhered to her requirement, what a sea of wasted
treasure, what a world of agony of the slave, what an ocean of bitter
strife, and what a host of precious lives might have been saved!) She
forbade the buying and selling slaves; she tried to enforce rules for
the merciful treatment of the bondmen; she made provision to have all of
the gospel preached to them that the masters would allow or the preacher
thought safe. She did what she could to have the relation of husband and
wife duly recognized. He also tells us that, as soon as the sounds of
battle had ceased, this Church began her work again among the colored
people. She organized them into Churches, took their own men and made
them pastors; although poorly qualified for this work, received them
into conferences with their white brethren, and gave them all the rights
and privileges of members and ministers of the Methodist Episcopal
Church.
The reluctance of some to accept the situation of Negro equality in the
Church led to the discussion of the question, What shall we do with the
Negro? The author gives the outline of this discussion and the action of
the Church authorities in reference to it. The unwillingness to
recognize the manhood and brotherhood of the Negro on the part of some
members and ministers of the Church, gave rise to such treatment of the
colored brethren that they were easily persuaded that the white brethren
did not want to be associated with them in Church or conference
relation. Hence, when the white brethren asked the colored to go out of
the conferences and set up for themselves, the colored brethren did so,
not always because they thought it absolutely best, but best under the
circumstances; not because they thought it right, but because they were
disposed to yield to the desires of the white brethren. The reasons for
the treatment of the Negro are very much the same as the grounds for
neglect of the poor, ignorant, and degraded of any community. People do
not like to come in contact with the uncultivated in intellect and
morals. Hence the fine church, where it is written in the dress and
bearing of the worshipers, “No poor are desired here.” Hence the mission
Churches, where the action of both the poor and the wealthy members of
the Church says: “No rich are expected here.” There is a disposition to
separate the Christian Church into classes corresponding to classes in
social life. The distinctions, so marked in society, are carried into
the Church. In the case of the Negro, this feeling against the
ignorance, uncouthness, which is found in the lowest strata of whites,
is intensified by two circumstances, which belong exclusively to the
Negro. The first is the color. There exists more or less color
repugnance in most persons not accustomed to seeing colored people.
There is less objection to having colored persons about them among the
Southern people than the Northern. The Southern women largely let the
slaves nurse their children, and many of the prominent Southern men and
women speak very kindly of their Negro mammies—color repugnance is not
instinctive. The second great cause of the unwillingness to treat the
Negro as an equal, in State and Church is, no doubt, his former
condition of servitude. That it is not altogether his color is evident
from the treatment that the Indian, the Hindoo, or the Japanese
receives, many of whom are as dark as the great mass of the Negroes. He
was a slave, kept a slave, and wronged by the white man. One of the
hardest things for poor human nature to do is to confess a wrong and
make restitution. That slavery is wrong, is recognized by all the action
of the Methodist Episcopal Church on that subject; and the question
should be, How can we best atone for the wrong, and remove from the
Negro, as speedily as possible, all the effects of this wrong?
That the Negro is an inferior part of the human family is stoutly
asserted by some people, though it has never been proved. Suppose, for
the moment, we admit it; granted that the Negro is inferior in some
respects, no matter what; then we ask, Does this misfortune entitle the
more gifted part of God’s family to the right of treating the
unfortunate ones unjustly, of depriving them of liberty, of the pursuit
of happiness? Does the misfortune of the hunchback entitle the straight
ones to the privilege of abusing him? Does the cripple, on his crutches,
entitle the strong to the right of elbowing him out of the way? Do not
these very misfortunes demand our sympathy and kindly offices? Why not?
If the Negro is unfortunate, let him have our kindness instead of our
kicks? The caricatures of the Negro, seen in the public prints, have
their influence in confirming this low estimate of the colored people.
The history of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in her ecclesiastical
action, is generally worthy of commendation. There are, however, cases
of individual action that are not creditable to these persons or
societies, either as patriots, philanthropists, or Christians. The
Protestant Churches should be as open to the Negro as to any other
division of the human family. The public places should be as easy of
access to them as to others. They should receive just as much for their
money as the white, red, or brown man. This is not in the power of the
Methodist Episcopal Church to bestow; but the membership should bear in
mind that with God there is no respect of persons. The utterances which
the Methodist Episcopal Church has made are all demanded by the
enlightenment of the nineteenth century. What is needed is for the
practice to correspond with these utterances. Why should the Negro be
ostracized any more than any other member of the human family? Why
should our Churches and schools be closed to him? Why should he be
compelled to ride in the smoking-car, when he pays for first-class
accommodations? Why driven from our hotels, and forced to seek shelter
in private families? Why are the colored ministers and members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church compelled to endure these wrongs? The author
might have called attention to the fact that this Church, with its
millions of members and adherents, with its press and its pulpits, has
never raised her mighty voice in a grand protest against these wrongs
perpetrated against a quarter of a million of her membership. What is
needed, perhaps, most of all, is to regard the Negro as belonging to the
human family, and treat him as such. The social question, which is
protruded upon all occasions, must not be a matter of legislation; each
individual must settle that for himself. An intelligent Negro lady, when
asked by a white man, “Shall we admit the Negro to our parlors?”
replied, “If you white gentlemen will stay out of our parlors, we will
stay out of yours.” The social bugbear, that is constantly bandied about
in this discussion, has no more to do with the recognition of the rights
of the Negro than has the question of the annexation of Canada. The
author has given facts of history which all the Church should know; and,
knowing, they will have no reason to be ashamed of the record of the
Methodist Episcopal Church. This subject demands the honest, earnest
consideration of the membership of the entire Christian Church, and
specially of the membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The fact
that there are nearly a quarter of a million of her members who have as
much right to recognition in her sanctuaries as any other class of men,
who are invited and urged to go off by themselves, and be ignorant
teachers of ignorant scholars, because the Heavenly Father has given
them a little darker dress, and because they have been more abused and
wronged than any other part of the human family, is not creditable to
those who profess to be governed by the Golden Rule. The Church should
see to it that the colored members of her communion may feel at home in
her churches, whether they be stone-front palaces in the metropolis of
the nation or cabins in the swamps or mountains of the South. To bring
this about, the Methodist Episcopal Church has not done all she can.
Theoretically, the utterances are all right, but the practice must be
brought up to the theory. The press and the pulpit should give no
uncertain sound. The conferences, annual as well as General, should be
exemplifications of the brotherhood of man and the Fatherhood of God.
This book will wake up thought on a subject on which the membership of
the Methodist Episcopal Church need to think and to act. The millions of
colored people in this country need to be held close to the heart of
Protestant Christianity, so they will be found on the side of the Church
of God in the struggle for the conquest of this world for Christ. The
book well merits a careful reading, as the author speaks from the
stand-point of an intelligent appreciation of the treatment of the
Negro, as he has had some personal experiences which entitle him to be
heard. He writes clearly, and presents his case forcibly, yet without
bitterness, and recognizes gratefully what the Methodist Episcopal
Church has done for the colored man. The spirit of the writer is
commendable, although the conflict is not ended, and he is one of the
combatants.
JOHN BRADEN.
CENTRAL TENNESSEE COLLEGE,
NASHVILLE, TENN., 1889.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COLORED MAN
IN THE
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
----------
CHAPTER I
BEFORE THE WAR.
From time immemorial men have differed upon nearly every phase of human
existence; and, for that matter, every other kind of existence. So far
as we know, no organization has ever existed, formed by man, or formed
by Deity for man (it makes no difference for what purpose it was
formed), in which there was not manifested individuality to the point of
wide divergence on most important questions. Unconverted human nature is
the same the world over, and different propensities and dispositions,
coupled with jealousy, have manifested themselves in nearly every family
since that of the first pair driven in shame from Eden.
As strange as it may sound, the Church of God has been no exception to
this rule in general, nor the Methodist Episcopal Church in particular.
The Methodist Episcopal Church was born of necessity, and has
perpetuated itself and prospered in proportion as it has obeyed the
mandates of Almighty God. When, for any reason, the Church has turned to
the right hand or to the left hand out of “the king’s highway,” God has
gently reproved her. It was but a short time after its organization when
it became a recognized, potent factor in God’s hands of ameliorating the
condition of those with whom it had influence. No other Church, since
its organization in this country, has figured more conspicuously than
the Methodist Episcopal Church in all the living, burning questions
touching the salvation of men’s bodies and souls. It may be true that in
many instances the Church has not come up to the ideal of some of its
devotees, or accomplished all it was considered able to do. Probably
instances would have occurred, if it had succeeded in the former, when
it would have displeased God; if the latter, it might have bound error
with a rope of sand, and thus frustrated all effective plans.
From the beginning the Church has gone after “the lost sheep of the
house of Israel.” A Church needs no higher encomium than that the
“common people” hear her ministers gladly. This has been, and we hope
now is, the glory of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Should a time ever
come when this can not be truthfully said of the Church, her pristine
glory will have departed. Worldly popularity has not hitherto been the
acme of her ambition. May it never be! Where duty called, popular or
unpopular, the Church has given the command, “Go forward,” with the
understanding that “it is better to obey God than man.” The wholesome
doctrine of “the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man,” as
taught by the apostle when he exclaimed, “God hath made of one blood all
nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,” has been
taught by the Methodist Episcopal Church ever since John Wesley declared
slavery “the sum of all villainies.”
It may be, as you scrutinize the last sentence, a fear may arise that it
will not remain intact under the electric light of investigation. The
redeeming feature is, that the Methodist Episcopal Church has come as
near preaching and practicing that doctrine as any other American
ecclesiastical organization. This may not be much in its favor, when
taken in reference to the colored man, but it is something. There has
never been an hour since Bishop Asbury preached Jesus and him crucified
to a poor slave on the bank of a river in South Carolina, in the which
the great heart of the Methodist Episcopal Church did not throb with
sympathy for the poor colored man in this country. As evidence, it is
only necessary to look up or remember the Herculean efforts it made on
his behalf as early as 1796, to save him from the cruelty and barbarism
of his subjection. Could the Church, at so early a period, have received
the moral and religious support of the good people of other
denominations, the civil war might have been averted, and the poor slave
rescued from the power of Satan unto God, from the midnight of sin to
the marvelous light and liberty of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The following explains itself on this question, as enacted by the
_General Conference of 1796_:
“_Question._ What regulations shall be made for the extirpation of the
crying evil of African slavery?
“_Answer_ 1. We declare, that we are more than ever convinced of the
great evil of the African slavery which still exists in these United
States; and do most earnestly recommend to the yearly conferences,
quarterly meetings, and to those who have the oversight of districts and
circuits, to be exceedingly cautious what persons they admit to official
stations in our Church; and, in the case of future admission to official
stations, to require such security of those who hold slaves, for the
emancipation of them, immediately or gradually, as the laws of the
States respectively, and the circumstances of the case will admit. And
we do fully authorize all the yearly conferences to make whatever
regulations they judge proper, in the present case, respecting the
admission of persons to official stations in our Church.
“2. No slaveholder shall be received into society till the preacher who
has the oversight of the circuit has spoken to him freely and faithfully
on the subject of slavery.
“3. Every member of the society who sells a slave shall immediately,
after full proof, be excluded the society. And if any member of our
society purchase a slave, the ensuing quarterly-meeting shall determine
on the number of years in which the slave so purchased would work out
the price of his purchase. And the person so purchasing shall,
immediately after such determination, execute a legal instrument for the
manumission of such slave at the expiration of the term determined by
the quarterly meeting. And in default of his executing such instrument
of manumission, or on his refusal to submit his case to the judgment of
the quarterly-meeting, such member shall be excluded the society.
Provided, also, that in the case of a female slave, it shall be inserted
in the aforesaid instrument of manumission, that all her children which
shall be born during the years of her servitude shall be free at the
following times, namely: Every female child at the age of twenty-one,
and every male child at the age of twenty-five. Nevertheless, if the
member of our society, executing the said instrument of manumission,
judge it proper, he may fix the times of manumission of the children of
the female slaves before mentioned, at an earlier age than that which is
prescribed above.
“4. The preachers and other members of our society are requested to
consider the subject of Negro slavery with deep attention till the
ensuing General Conference; and that they impart to the General
Conference, through the medium of the yearly conferences, or otherwise,
any important thoughts upon the subject, that the conference may have
full light, in order to take further steps toward eradicating this
enormous evil from that part of the Church of God to which they are
united.”
During the ensuing quadrennium this all-important question was argued
and studied as never before within the Church. Considerable feeling was
manifested in many instances, showing at once the deep interest the
question had produced. Men within and without the Church continued to
examine the question, until the question of the continuation of human
slavery became _the_ question of the hour. More than one slaveholding
member of the Church declared, with all the earnestness of his soul,
that it was unwise for the Church to shoulder such a stupendous burden.
Others declared it would be suicidal for the General Conference to
interfere with the deep-rooted institution of slavery. As the
quadrennium advanced, the question was more vehemently agitated. Many
tried to conjecture what action the ensuing General Conference of 1800
would take on this subject, while others tried to forestall any
anticipated action. It was openly declared by the more sanguine
slaveholders within the Church that the General Conference would pay no
attention to the question of slavery; that in the event that memorials
or resolutions should be presented touching the question, they would at
once be referred to a committee, which would fail to notice them. Others
as hopefully and boldly declared that no Christian Church could be
consistent and indorse human slavery; that the future hope of the Church
in its effort to spread Scriptural holiness was dependent, in a measure,
upon the attitude it sustained toward human slavery.
Those who have engaged in the heated discussions that have arisen within
the General Conferences since that day, upon questions growing out of
the system of slavery in this country, can probably imagine the
situation at that time. The General Conference of 1800 sat from the 6th
to the 20th of May, in Baltimore. Delegates from each of the eight
annual conferences were present. Each delegate saw the ominous clouds,
and knew the storm was brewing. This question soon came up for
consideration. We give as near as possible a detailed account of the
proceedings touching the question of slavery:
GENERAL CONFERENCE, 1800.—“Brother Ormond moved, That whereas
the laws now in force in two or more of the United States
pointedly prohibit the emancipation of slaves, and the third
clause of the ninth section of the Discipline forbids the
selling of slaves, it is evident that the members of the
Methodist societies who own slaves, and remove themselves and
families to another State, or to distant parts of the same
State, and leave a husband or a wife behind, held in bondage by
another person, part man and wife, which is a violation of the
righteous laws of God, and contrary to the peace and happiness
of families; and whereas, it is further observed that the rule
now existing among us prevents our members increasing the number
of their slaves by purchase, and tolerates an increase of number
by birth, which children are often given to the enemy of the
Methodists,—my mind being seriously impressed with these and
several other considerations, I move, That this General
Conference take the momentous subject of slavery into
consideration, and make such alterations in the old rule as may
be thought proper.
“Brother Timmons moved, That if any of our traveling preachers
marry persons holding slaves, and thereby become slaveholders,
they shall be excluded from our societies, unless they execute a
legal emancipation of their slaves, agreeably to the laws of the
State wherein they live. Superseded.
_Friday Morning, May 16th._—“Brother Snethen moved, That this
General Conference do resolve, that from this time forth no
slaveholder shall be admitted into the Methodist Episcopal
Church. Negatived.
“Brother Bloodgood moved, That all Negro children belonging to
the members of the Methodist society, who shall be born in
slavery after the fourth day of July, 1800, shall be
emancipated—males at — years, and females at — years. Negatived.
“Brother Lathomus moved, That every member of the Methodist
Episcopal Church holding slaves shall, within the term of one
year from the date hereof, give an instrument of emancipation
for all his slaves, and the quarterly-meeting conference shall
determine on the time the slaves shall serve, if the laws of the
State do not expressly prohibit their emancipation. Negatived.
“Moved, That when any of our traveling preachers become owners
of a slave or slaves by any means, they shall forfeit their
ministerial character in the Methodist Episcopal Church, unless
they execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such
slave or slaves, agreeably to the laws of the State wherein they
live. Agreed to.”
This motion was originally offered by Brother Timmons, and was
conceived by the secretary to have been superseded in the
progress of the business upon slavery. But the conference voted
that they would act upon it, with the amendments, the same as a
new motion.
It can be plainly seen by the foregoing report into what a strait the
General Conference was brought by this question, as well as how
earnestly and faithfully that General Conference strove to ascertain
“the mind of the Holy Spirit” as to the question. Just think of the fact
that in _one day_ of that General Conference six different phases of
this question were presented. Amid these were: (1) To prevent the
separation of husband and wife; (2) To change a former rule that allowed
a Methodist to buy a husband or wife when they belonged to separate
parties, so as to prevent a separation. Even in this form the buying and
selling of human beings was objected to strenuously. It was considered
“doing evil, that good might come therefrom.”
As we stop to contemplate it, we shudder to render a decision. They
voted down every proposition that looked in any way like buying or
selling human beings. It is not superstition to say, they attempted to
“avoid even the appearance of evil.” They consented to allow, (1) The
expulsion of _any minister_ of the Church “who shall marry a woman
owning slaves;” (2) No slaveholder to be received into the Church; (3)
All traveling preachers who owned slaves to forfeit their ministerial
character. It is no wonder that such action was taken, when it is
remembered that the Church was even then recognizing and licensing
colored local ministers, and employing them to preach. It now concluded
not only nominally to recognize local preachers, but to ordain them as
well. As early as 1784, at “the Christmas conference,” rules prohibiting
slavery had been enacted. And these rules were not simply hanging about
the necks of slaveholders as mere ornaments; for it was positively
declared by the Church, “every person concerned, who will not comply
with these rules, shall have the privilege quietly to withdraw.” We know
of _no instance_ in the history of the Church in which there has ever
been a single human being directly driven from her ranks, pews, or
pulpit because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Then
why wonder when such a Church ordains one of her sons, and sends him
forth to tell with simplicity the story of the cross?
Many objected to going so far with the slaves, for fear of offending the
slaveholder. But the Church paid no attention to such cries; hence the
following action was taken by the General Conference, under the heading
“A REGULATION _respecting the ordination of colored people to
the office of deacons_:
“The bishops have obtained leave, by the suffrages of this
General Conference, to ordain local deacons of our African
brethren in places where they have built a house or houses for
the worship of God: _Provided_, they have a person among them
qualified for that office, and he can obtain an election of
two-thirds of the male members of the society to which he
belongs, and a recommendation from the minister who has the
charge, and his fellow-laborers in the city or circuit.”
This action at once recognized the efforts of the race at
elevation, and gave the colored people to understand, that
though in bondage to earthly task-masters, they were
fellow-heirs of the inheritance of the saints, heirs of God, and
joint heirs with Jesus Christ, the righteous. The gainsaying,
slaveholding world stood aghast as it read and re-read the
action taken by that General Conference on the question of human
slavery. God pulled back, as it were, the curtains of the upper
world, and blandly smiled approval. A general baptism of the
Holy Ghost ratified the action in that such a revival of
religion followed that again the world cried, as Methodist
preachers began to preach Jesus and him crucified: “They that
have turned the world upside down are come hither also.”
In the General Conference that met in the city of Baltimore, Md., from
May 7th to 28th, 1804, much discussion was had on the question of
slavery. Notwithstanding other questions of Church polity claimed the
attention of this conference to such a degree that Bishop Asbury refused
to vote on one of the questions put, the conference sympathized with the
colored man enough to legislate in his behalf.
A variety of motions were proposed on the subject of slavery, and, after
a long conversation, Freeborn Garrettson moved “that the subject of
slavery be left to the three bishops to form a section to suit the
Southern and Northern States, as they in their wisdom may think best, to
be submitted to this conference.” This motion was submitted to the
conference, and was carried.
The report of the Committee on Slavery which, with amendments, was
adopted by the Conference, and forms section nine, “Of Slavery,” reads:
“1. We declare, that we are as much as ever convinced of the
great evil of slavery, and do most earnestly recommend to the
yearly conferences, quarterly-meeting conferences, and to those
who have the oversight of districts, circuits, and stations, to
be exceedingly cautious what persons they admit to official
stations in our Church, and in the case of future admission to
official stations, to require such security of those who hold
slaves, for the emancipation of them, immediately or gradually,
as the laws of the States respectively and the circumstances of
the case will admit; and we do fully authorize all the yearly
conferences to make whatever regulations they judge proper in
the present case respecting the admission of persons to official
stations in our Church.
“2. When any traveling preacher becomes the owner of a slave, or
slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character
in our Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal
emancipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the
State in which he lives.
“3. No slaveholder shall be received in full membership in our
society till the preacher who has the oversight of the circuit
or station has spoken to him fully and faithfully on the subject
of slavery.
“4. Every member of our society who sells a slave, except at
the request of the slave, in cases of mercy or humanity,
agreeably to the judgment of a committee of three male
members of the society, appointed by the preacher who has
the charge of the circuit or station, shall, immediately
after full proof, be excluded the society; and if any
members of our society purchase a slave, the ensuing
quarterly-meeting conference shall determine on the number
of years which the slave so purchased should serve to work
out the price of his purchase; and the person so purchasing
shall, immediately after such determination, execute a legal
instrument for the manumission of such slave at the
expiration of the time determined by the quarterly-meeting
conference; and in default of his executing such instrument
of manumission, or on his refusal to submit his case to the
judgment of the quarterly-meeting conference, such member
shall be excluded the society: _Provided_, that in the case
of a female slave, it shall be inserted in the aforesaid
instrument of manumission that all her children who shall be
born during the years of her servitude shall be free at the
following times, viz.; every female child at the age of
twenty-one, and every male child at the age of twenty-five:
_Provided_, also, that if a member of our society shall buy
a slave with a certificate of future emancipation, the terms
of emancipation shall, notwithstanding, be subject to the
decision of the quarterly-meeting conference. Nevertheless,
the members of our societies in the States of North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia shall be exempted from
the operations of the above rules.
“5. Let our preachers from time to time, as occasion serves,
admonish and exhort all slaves to render due respect and
obedience to the commands and interests of their respective
masters.”
The intention of the whole of the foregoing resolutions in general, and
the last part in particular, was to preserve peace between master and
slave, and prohibit the former from having occasion to chastise the
latter, because the latter might use his religious privileges to his own
harm. Though the Church had already a fixed purpose and established
regulations touching the question of slavery, the General Conference of
1808, held in Baltimore, Md., from May 6th to 26th, discussed it, and
took action upon it again. An effort was adroitly made to change certain
paragraphs in the Discipline against slavery. The following settled the
question at that General Conference. It was moved, by Stephen G. Roszel,
and seconded by Thomas Ware, “That the first two paragraphs of the
section on slavery be retained in our Discipline, and that the General
Conference authorize each annual conference to form their own
regulations relative to buying and selling slaves.” The motion was
carried.
During the ensuing quadrennium the question of slavery was not agitated
to any great degree. While the one faction rested upon its laurels, the
defeated faction was recuperating its numerical strength pursuant to
another attack.
At the General Conference of 1812, nothing of importance on this
question was done or needed to be done, more than had already been
accomplished. The city of New York, where the General Conference was
held, had in it the oldest Methodist Episcopal Church, the John St.
Church. Among its first members were colored people, who had worshiped
there in peace all along. Philadelphia, where a number of colored people
resided, had long been celebrated as “the City of Churches.” Colored and
white Methodists for years had worshiped together there in peace. But
now a storm was brewing that threatened not only to inundate the Church,
but the roaring thunder of which would likely rend the Church in twain,
so far as the two races within it were concerned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------