THE CRISIS—ITS CAUSE.
The General Conference of 1844 sat in the city of New York, from May 1st
until June 10th—forty-five days. It has gone down into history as the
most noted of any General Conference of the Church. There was at stake
the peace, unity, and strength of Methodism in this country. The
question most prominent, and that was calculated to stir up most
enthusiasm, was that of the abolition of American slavery. An
unprecedented, as well as strange case, came up for consideration. Rev.
James Osgood Andrew, one of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, who was elected at the General Conference of 1832, a few months
before the session of the General Conference of 1844 had married an
estimable lady of the best families of Georgia, who was the owner of
slaves. This act on the part of the bishop, from the very nature of
things, caused much excitement and more comment. This was a trying
attitude for the Church. There had arisen within a party in the North
that accused it of being pro-slavery in sentiment—at least to a certain
extent. Notwithstanding it hitherto had occupied such strong positions
on the question of human slavery, the above sentiment arose to such a
height in 1842 as to cause a secession, and the formation of the
Wesleyan Methodist Church. It did, therefore, seem strange that such a
thing had happened.
But now it appeared as if the crisis had been reached. Just what action
that General Conference could or would take now on the question of
slavery in general, and the bishop’s case in particular, was hard to
imagine. The natural supposition with the Abolitionists was that the
same vituperation and obloquy would be manifested against slavery as of
yore; that the rules relating to slavery would be adhered to, even where
it involved a popular bishop of that Church. It was a trying situation.
Others declared it impracticable and irrational for the great Methodist
Episcopal Church to interfere with the personal rights of the bishop by
declaring that he was in the wrong, when he did not claim the slaves as
his property. Some declared the Church would now back down, and thus
verify the allegations of the Wesleyan brethren. If it had not been for
the confidence the Church had in the bishop, and in many others who
professed to believe slavery right, they could easily have concluded
that a trap had been set to catch the General Conference, because the
bishop was not the only one involved. A member of the Baltimore Annual
Conference had also, by marriage, become a slaveholder and refused to
manumit his slaves. In the State of Maryland emancipation was possible.
After the Baltimore Conference had carefully considered his case, he was
suspended from the ministry of the Church. He appealed from the decision
of his conference to the ensuing General Conference. When the case came
up on the appeal, the decision of the lower court was sustained by a
large majority. In the meantime the Committee on Episcopacy waited upon
Bishop Andrew. He informed the committee that he had married a wife who
inherited slaves from her former husband; that her husband had secured
them to her by a deed of trust; and that she could not emancipate them
if she desired to do so. The committee, however, aware of the fact that
it was possible for the bishop to remove from the State of Georgia where
emancipation was not possible, to a State where it was possible, took
the case under consideration.
Here were two factions—one in favor of standing up for the emancipation
of slaves, supported by thousands of influential Northern and Eastern
men and money; the other, supported by not less than fifty thousand
members, institutions of learning, and the slaveholding States and
slaveholding sympathizers from the Atlantic to the great West, from the
Lakes to the Gulf, and every slaveholding country in the entire world.
Speeches, noting these facts, and declaring a bitter unwillingness to
crouch before the spirit of freedom, manifested by that part of the
Church which opposed the holding of slaves, began to make a breach in
the Church that eternity alone, we fear, can only close. The Board of
Bishops were divided on the question. From North to South, from East to
West, the Church of God was disturbed. Not only this, but the world knew
that if the Methodist Episcopal Church split then and there on that
question, and any respectable portion opposed slavery, it would be the
beginning of the end of slavery on American soil. Therefore, even the
political and mercantile worlds were anxiously waiting, as well as
earnestly working, either to reconcile the affair or compromise it. Any
way in the world not to divide on _that question at that time_. God only
knows how many colored people in this country sent up prayers from the
rice-swamps of the Carolinas, the cotton-fields of Mississippi, and the
cane-brakes of Louisiana, that “the God of Elijah, who answered prayer
by fire,” would bow the gentle heavens and visit New York City with a
baptism of the Holy Ghost, that that General Conference—the men of God
therein—might have victory in favor of the Church, suffering humanity,
and God. If there was ever any time at which more prayers besieged the
throne of grace than another, it surely must have been during the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1844. It is not
an exaggeration to say the eyes and ears of the world were turned toward
that General Conference. And why not? Were not even then the interests
of every Methodist in the known world, of every colored man, woman, and
child, and children of the race then in the womb of the future—aye, the
future destiny of him who pens these lines, with that of our holy
Christian religion at stake? Most assuredly it was so.
Some declared that Bishop Andrew would have willingly yielded to the
opinions of the General Conference had not his brethren in the
slaveholding States and others persuaded him that it was his duty to
stand by them on this question, involving their personal rights. While
we do not stop to express a doubt as to whether, indeed, this was
uppermost in his mind, we are glad to note that, notwithstanding the
interests at stake, and that the Church at that time could have saved
itself much trouble, filled its coffers with “golden ducats,” increased
its popularity, and the sound of its applause would have resounded on
earth from sea to sea and from shore to shore, after a protracted
discussion, that General Conference, by a vote of 110 to 68,
“_Resolved_, That it is the sense of this General Conference
that he [Bishop Andrew] desist from the exercise of his office
so long as this impediment remains.”
At this action the Southern conferences felt deeply aggrieved. A clap of
thunder from a clear sky could not have spread greater consternation and
excited more feeling than did this action. Like wildfire the news began
to spread. So far as the United States mails could carry it, the news
was spread before a fortnight. What was to be the outcome but few
hesitated to say. What could it be but that which had been repeatedly
predicted, the separation of the Southern conferences from the Methodist
Episcopal Church?
At once meetings were called by the Southern delegates, and steps were
taken looking to the organization of a Church in the South. The
following year the organization was accomplished, showing that the
matter had been thoroughly canvassed, and a conclusion reached by the
slaveholding element that was not to be surrendered. Is he a philosopher
who sees in this a counterpart to the drama of Pharaoh and the Hebrews?
Is it not possible to trace the finger-marks of Providence all along the
pages of every resolution offered by the Methodist Episcopal Church on
this question from 1796 to date? Does not it appear in all this that our
God,
“Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never-failing skill,
Treasures up his bright designs
And works his sovereign will?”
The chief part of the membership in the entire slaveholding territory,
with the exception of the States of Maryland and Delaware, separated and
formed the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The grand old Methodist
Church, by adhering to her anti-slavery principles in this particular
case, lost nearly five hundred thousand members, the control of much
Church property, and many institutions of learning; incurring thereby
the ill-will, everywhere, of every man, woman, and child who was
pro-slavery in theory or practice. But what effect had this action of
the Church on the minds of the colored people? Did they really believe
it meant what the pro-slavery element declared it meant, that the
Methodist Episcopal Church was an inveterate enemy to what Wesley called
“the sum of all villainies?” Any one who doubts the fact that the
colored man everywhere, who was capable of properly appreciating
philanthropy, appreciated the situation, has but to note the fact that,
comparatively, the States of Maryland, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and South Carolina, so far as Methodism among our people is concerned,
_belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church_; some of the most intelligent
colored men of the Church are there. The saying, “It is an ill wind that
blows nobody good,” was verified in this instance. The colored
membership within the Church renewed its resolutions, redoubled its
diligence, and had its faith strengthened in the integrity of Methodism.
They recognized in the Church a mother whose tender solicitude and
maternal care were not based upon anticipated future benefits derivable
from the colored membership, but, commensurate with their integrity and
Christianity, she expected to help them; that she was a mother who not
only labored to have them “flee from the wrath to come,” but to save
them, as well, from the rigorous burdens of the unrequited toil of
slavery; that she was a mother who loved them for Jesus’ sake, and stood
by them when it was neither profitable nor pleasant to do so. A new
inspiration seems to have come to the entire Church. But was not that to
have been expected as a matter of course, under the command with
promise, “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, and prove me
herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of
heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough
to receive it. And all nations shall call you blessed.” Had not the
Church planted itself upon the Ten Commandments—the rock of ages; and
was there not to be seen everywhere the bright, shining light from the
Sermon on the Mount athwart the path of the Church in its onward march
in favor of the recognition among all men, of whatever complexion, of
the wholesome doctrine and practice of the common Fatherhood of God and
the brotherhood of man? As a result, that part of the Methodist
Episcopal Church that believed it better to obey God than man, to be
unpopular and sneered at, but right; that “bore unmoved the world’s
dread frown, nor heeded its scornful smile,” received a new baptism of
the Holy Ghost, and continued receiving it until _a new door was opened
unto the Church_.
Notwithstanding the fact that nearly five hundred thousand members left
the Church on account of the decision on slavery, by no means all left
who wished the colored man would leave or be forced out of the Church
into one of the two colored organizations. It may as well be said now,
that there has always been a faction within and without the Church that
has used, or attempted to use, the colored man in opposition to the
Methodist Episcopal Church. In the first place, they use him as a wedge.
When they are foiled in an attempt to carry any certain thing, they at
once declare that the Methodist Episcopal Church has been, and is now,
taking advantage of the poor colored man. If this does not answer, they
find it convenient to let him (the colored man) understand that he is an
intruder in the Church, and respect for his manhood demands that he go
out and “paddle his own canoe;” that white men will think more of him if
he exhibit “the self-reliance and ability displayed by those members who
are in separate Churches to themselves.” When this proved abortive, they
found it convenient to demonstrate it. They at once invited some
minister of one of the two colored organizations to occupy their (white)
pulpits, and leave the colored minister within our Church without such
invitation. The result was almost inevitable. Pretty soon the more manly
members of our Church, in the community where such tricks were played,
would begin to say: “Well, that’s passing strange, that white ministers
of our Church prefer African ministers to our own. It must be because of
their independence. If that’s so, we want some of it also.” That an
undercurrent of this kind has flowed along the stream of Methodism ever
since the colored membership question has been discussed, is easily
proven. Now the class of which we have just spoken is to be
distinguished from the class who honestly believed that it would be
better for the white and the colored members to be separate. Not that
they (the whites spoken of) were unwilling to aid the colored members,
nor yet because they did not want them saved, but because the loud
professions and _announced_ success of the separate colored
organizations blinded their eyes. These considered, and rightly so too,
all such persons their best allies. The African and African Zion
Churches whispered continually, and sometimes preached, that the colored
membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church was a burden to the white
folks. These organizations, though supported by some within our Church,
saw there were but two ways in which they could induce the colored
element in the Methodist Episcopal Church to join them,—by loud
professions of “race pride,” and appeals to their ignorance and
prejudice. This they attempted by appeals to the dignity of our colored
local preachers; by telling the more ignorant that they were being
imposed upon by “white folks.” They told the local preachers,
class-leaders, etc., among our members, that it was a shame for them to
have white masters during the week and white masters on the Sabbath-day
also; that they were as well qualified literarily to have charge of
congregations with white members as some of the white pastors; that they
possessed intelligence enough to do business for themselves. Then,
again, they would say: “There will never come a time when the Methodist
Episcopal Church will allow one of you colored members to preside as
their presiding elder or pastor; that all the property you buy belongs
to ‘white folks,’ and not to you.”
The language of their most accurate historian will give a faint idea of
the pressure we speak of, which was and is now brought to bear upon our
people in some localities. He says: “It is true our colored brethren
within the communion of the Methodist Episcopal Church worship in a
large number of churches in Maryland, Delaware, and other of the
Southern States, and many of them are fine ones; but the question is:
‘To whom do they belong—the congregations worshiping in them, or the
Methodist Episcopal Church?’ We all know that it is our glory, that our
churches belong to no one congregation or body of trustees in
particular, but to the connection in general.” Again, _ibid_: “It would
have been a source of unspeakable joy had he been able or permitted
truthfully to record that your Church had acknowledged your full and
true manhood, and not denied it both in practice and in law; that it had
opened its school-doors to you, as did other Christian bodies, and like
them, too, have received you into conference upon a perfect ministerial
equality; but, alas! the doors of its schools, and of its conferences as
well, were locked, and bolted, and barred against you.” He was quoting
and commenting upon the words of another. Such strong talk, mixed as it
was with braggadocio, pretty soon had the desired effect upon two large
classes amongst us—the ambitious illiterates and the pompous, aspiring
for recognition, minus merit. These two classes were soon, after such a
process of pumping, inflated until their sides puffed nearly to
bursting. A number of the above-mentioned classes soon concluded that
they must be in a Church where there was a favorable chance for every
member of an annual conference to be put forth before the world as a
noted preacher, appointed presiding elder or a General Conference
officer, or elected to the bishopric. It is difficult for any one, who
understands in some sort the feelings of white men when they are
ambitious for notoriety or office and fail, to say or appreciate the
feelings of a disappointed colored man who has known nothing save
ostracism. To expect him to refuse preferment, emolument, or office,
when tendered, is to expect an ox in August to refuse the shade.
Notwithstanding the disadvantages the colored man has labored under
hitherto, he has found out that in a nation of blind men the one-eyed
man ought to be, and is, king. To this day but few white people have
learned that it is not always the most profitable thing to exchange an
old lamp for a new one; that “it is better to bear the ills we have,
than fly to others we know not of.”
To say that at no time a single colored member within the Methodist
Episcopal Church imagined the wool was being pulled over his eyes by men
of lighter hue, is going too far. To say there never was a white man in
the Methodist Episcopal Church who refused to recognize or affiliate
with the colored members because of their color, who refused to do for
him there what he would have done if he had been elsewhere, or had been
“manly and independent like some others, and paddled his own canoe,” or
that all such have left the Methodist Episcopal Church, is going farther
than truth warrants or the case requires. To say that any organization
among men is absolutely perfect, is preposterous; for even the Methodist
Episcopal Church in this country is not what it can and will be. I fear
much of the unrest, and seventy-five per cent of the withdrawals of our
colored membership since 1812, could directly or indirectly be
attributed to the actions of those within and without the Church who
think more of caste than Christ, more of popularity than right, and more
of men’s opinions than of God’s Word. Notwithstanding this, we hazard
the statement that, during that time, there has not been an hour when
the heart of Methodism in general, and the Methodist Episcopal Church in
particular, did not beat in unison with that of the Christ of God, the
blessed Master, who, in the midst of a gainsaying world, said: “I call
you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth; but I
called you brethren.” And yet, in nearly every instance of attack made
by the two colored organizations upon the colored members in our Church
up to this time, and for that matter all time, the exceptions among our
white and colored membership have by them been spoken of as the rule.
Their statements as to the intelligence or ignorance of our colored
membership was the natural if not legitimate outgrowth of the
disposition, action, and words of some of our white members who remain
in, but were not in spirit of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This is
true of some of the ministers as well as white members of our Church.
When the bishops, General Conference officers, pastors, or members of
the two colored organizations visited communities where we had churches,
_they were welcomed as no other colored Methodists were_, if for no
other than for the reason that they were high in authority within their
own Church. This distinction was not always clear in the minds of our
members. There is no doubt that this caused us much trouble as well as
loss of preachers and lay members. In those States where our membership
was the largest and most influential, and where our churches were better
and finer, the effects of such stuff were more telling because of the
spirit of the people. Our members saw at once that one of three things
had to be done to hold our members: a complete colored organization had
to be formed among us; or else join with the one or the other of those
organizations; or else have separate annual conferences within our
Church, so that the presiding elderate, pastorate, trusteeship, and
stewardship would be in the hands and charge of our colored members.
It was not in the mind of the two eagles that stirred up this nest, that
matters would turn out as they did—that instead of an exode from the
mother of Methodism into the bosom of the daughter, a separate perch
could and would be prepared. The anticipation was that all the colored
members in the Church would flock into the two African Churches. This
hope kept those two organizations from uniting, while each thought its
numbers would soon be increased by the coming of the colored members
from our Church. The more intelligent colored men in our Church saw and
felt that something _had to be done_, and done quickly. I could wish
they had opened their eyes sooner. Those two organizations knew well
enough that if the colored members within the Methodist Episcopal Church
in the North, East, and the States bordering on the above sections
decided to leave, one or the other, or both of these, would get them.
There was no other Church into which they could go. Hence they worked
and faithfully watched every movement of our Church touching the colored
people. They well knew that if all the colored members in the Methodist
Episcopal Church joined in a body either one of their organizations, the
result would be one great, grand colored Methodist Church. I truly
believe the good men in the Methodist Episcopal Church, among which we
put our bishops, saw it in that light. I believe other white members in
our Church were laboring every day for the sole object of bringing about
a union of all the colored Methodists. They believed that the colored
man had been a source of annoyance; that the good brethren who left the
Church in 1844 would return if the colored members all left the
Methodist Episcopal Church; that it would be a great set-back as well as
rebuke to the “hot-headed Abolitionists” who kept it in an uproar about
the colored man, and would prove conclusively that the radical element
within it was all wrong and the conservative element was all right.
When the General Conference of 1848 met in the city of Pittsburg,
several petitions from the colored members of our Church in
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland were presented. The petitioners
asked that, since the Church had ordained colored ministers, they be
given the charge of the congregations over which white pastors had
presided; that a separate conference be granted them within the
Methodist Episcopal Church. These petitions were not only received, but
respectfully and carefully considered. The petitions were properly and
promptly referred to the Committee on the State of the Church. In due
time the above-named committee reported as follows:
“We find among the papers presented for our consideration
memorials from different places within the slave States from our
colored membership, praying for recognition, in that colored
ministers be sent to them; for the organization and manning of
districts; and that they be granted a separate annual
conference,—which memorials are signed by 2,735 members.”
Thus it is clearly seen that much unrest was caused by the delay on the
part of our Church in granting a separate conference. Our work to-day
would have been as strong, comparatively, in the Eastern and Northern
States as either of the African Churches, had it not been for the delay
in granting us a separate conference. As a result nearly all the colored
members of our Church in the North and East were persuaded to unite with
one or the other of the African Churches which were under the fostering
care in some way of our Church, while they desperately fought the
colored element within it. Of course, this is strange. A fact remains,
that the great Methodist Episcopal Church felt that while under
obligations to help the colored man, and more able to do so than others,
she was unwilling to have him _driven_ away, whether by centrifugal or
centripetal force. The committee above referred to continued its report
as follows:
“We recommend the following:
“_Resolved_, That we recognize all persons in these United
States, who were members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
1844, who have not separated from said Church by withdrawals or
expulsion according to the Discipline of the Church, and who
express a desire to be recognized as under our care and
jurisdiction, as members of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and
that we regard it our duty, as far as practicable, to supply all
such with the preaching and ordinances of the gospel.”
The special report in this case on the petition from the Sharpe Street
Church of Baltimore, asking for a separate conference, reported as
follows:
“That having carefully considered the memorials, and feeling an
earnest desire to do all that can be done to promote the
spiritual interests of our colored people, they recommend to the
General Conference for adoption the following resolutions:
“_Resolved_, That the organization of such (separate)
conferences at present is inexpedient.
“_Resolved_, That the Discipline be so amended that the fifth
answer in section 10, part 2, shall read as follows: ‘The
bishops may employ colored preachers to travel and preach where
their services are judged necessary: _Provided_, that no one
shall be so employed without having been recommended by a
quarterly conference.’”
Thus the work of the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church
began as the great Church itself began, evolving out of necessity, and
guided by Providence.
The already existing Churches—the African and African Zion—were not
allowed to operate to any great extent in the Southern States by the
customs and laws of these States; hence, without giving any reason, it
was wise to conclude that at that time, and in that territory, the
organization of a separate colored conference among our people, within
the Church, was “inexpedient.” And yet the Church was willing to do what
it thought best under existing circumstances. The colored ministers
within the Church were henceforth to travel and preach at the discretion
of the bishops. This was the beginning of colored traveling preachers in
the Methodist Episcopal Church.
------------------------------------------------------------------------