Chapter XI: The General Conference of 1884

To the General Conference of 1880 there was presented a memorial from “the leading educators (fifty in number) in our white schools in the South,” asking that the work of the Freedmen’s Aid Society be extended so as to aid the schools of the Church in the South where only white pupils attended. No special emphasis was put upon the matter, save that of “aiding” the above-named schools. The Committee on Freedmen’s Aid Work in the South carefully considered the subject, and reported to that conference as follows:

“Your Committee on Freedmen’s Aid and Southern Work respectfully
report:

“1. That, in its judgment, the present organization of the
Freedmen’s Aid Society should remain unchanged.

“2. That under the phrase ‘and others’ of Article II, in the
Constitution of the Freedmen’s Aid Society, we see the way clear
to aid the schools which have been established by our Church in
the Southern States among the white people, and hereby ask the
General Conference to recommend to the Board of Managers of this
society to give such aid to these schools during the next
quadrennium as can be done without embarrassment to the schools
among the freedmen.”

As soon as the report was read, considerable feeling was apparent. The question had hitherto seemed of small importance. While the report was pending the feeling manifest found vent in “a motion to appropriate twenty-five per cent of all moneys raised by the Freedmen’s Aid Society to schools among the whites.” It was laid on the table. After this there seemed a determination to separate, if possible, the educational work of the Church in the South among the whites from that of the blacks. Rev. A. J. Kynett, therefore, offered the following as a substitute for the second item:

“_Resolved_, That the Board of Education be, and is hereby,
instructed to make such provisions as may be necessary and
practicable for the aid of our educational institutions in the
South not aided by the Freedmen’s Aid Society.”

Had this substitute been accepted, we certainly would have had two separate and distinct educational societies within the Church; the Educational Society would have been so burdened as to have had to withdraw, to a certain extent, from the plan of aiding indigent students as hitherto, or increase its resources. That, at any rate, to have thus burdened it would have crippled, if not killed it, is suspected. That substitute was covered by the following as a substitute for the whole:

“_Resolved_, That in the judgment of this General Conference the
present organization and perpetuity of the Freedmen’s Aid
Society should remain unchanged.”

But both these substitutes were laid on the table. The other extreme view was manifested by the following substitute, which went the way of the preceding:

“_Resolved_, 1. That the collections of the Freedmen’s Aid
Society shall be wholly appropriated to aid the schools for the
colored people.

“_Resolved_, 2. That the Committee on Education be requested to
make provisions for giving aid to schools among the white people
of the South.”

That a disposition to separate the educational work of the Church in the South between the races prevailed, appears on the face of the foregoing. The report, as given above, was then adopted. It is plainly seen that the Church did not, even in this, intend to be partial on account of race or color. One would naturally infer from the foregoing and that which follows, that considerable feeling was manifested. In Report No. 2 of the Committee on Freedmen appears the following:

“_Resolved_, That our pastors, in presenting the claims of this
society to the Church, should remind our people that a portion
of the appropriations of the society will be made for the
education of the white population connected with our Church in
the Southern States, but not to the embarrassment of the work
among our people of color.”

This, in itself, showed that the friends to the educational work of the Church among the white people of the South were on the alert; that the next General Conference would have to speak out as to aiding them.

During the quadrennium following the adjournment of that General Conference the question of changing the name of the Freedmen’s Aid Society was discussed. During the discussion it was very evident that “the color-line” was being crossed and recrossed, denied and affirmed, objected to and supported, execrated and declared a blessing. Some declared that the reason for wanting the name of the society changed was: (1) Not simply that the society might help more largely in carrying on educational work begun by our white membership in the South, but (2) to make them eligible to such aid without being considered second to the colored man, or seeming to have to accept the crumbs that fall from the colored man’s table, prepared for him by the Methodist Episcopal Church in the presence of his enemies; (3) that those who are willing to aid in the educational work of the Church among the whites, without _any_ of it being used to help colored students, may have a chance thus to display their liberality; (4) that those within the Church who have all along refused to contribute to the support of the benevolences of the Church because of their objection to the bringing in of this Gentile proselyte on an equal footing, may have a chance to empty their liberal gifts into the coffers of the Church. Indeed, so high ran this discussion during the quadrennium, that some even went so far as to declare it an effort to fan anew the slumbering but not quenched embers of caste prejudice; to keep verdant the rank weeds of race prejudice that continue to grow rank and prolific in the swamps and bayous, on the mountains and hill-sides, the plains and valleys of some of our Church-work in the South. This question, in many minds, swung around to the previous conditions of the two races within the Church in the South. To give some idea of the previous conditions of the two races within the Church in the South hitherto, we quote from the address of the president of the society, Bishop Walden, the following:

“Our Church had access to two classes on entering this
field,—the whites in North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia,
Alabama, Arkansas, and Texas, and the colored people in all of
the States from which she had been excluded. The condition of
these classes was different. The whites were impoverished by the
war, but they had some possessions and some kinds of business;
they had church-buildings, however dilapidated; but in some
places all Church organizations had been disbanded, and in other
places the connectional bonds were broken; they were ready,
however, for reorganization, and in Eastern Tennessee almost an
entire conference (the Holston) voluntarily sought and was given
a place among our annual conferences. The colored people had not
lost property, for they had none to lose; they had no Church
organizations nor buildings, and their Church membership, at
best, was only nominal; all they had was their recently
proclaimed freedom and their hands trained to toil.

“Picture to yourselves for the moment those to whom our Church
found an open door—the impoverished and almost churchless white
people, and the colored people, who were not only without homes,
but without the relations of the home; not only without earthly
possessions, but impoverished in the best elements of their
nature. It may be no marvel that societies were soon gathered
and conferences soon organized among the whites, for with them
it was chiefly a work of reorganization and edification. But
what of the work among the freed people—those who had only
toiled as house-servants and slave-mechanics and field-hands?
Here, among them, the very foundations of Church-work had to be
laid, and our first movement in this direction—the necessary and
the right movement—was to give them, at once, their normal
relation in and to the Church.”

Let us examine the status of these two classes. The whites had been (1) “impoverished by the war,” whether they took sides with the Union or against it. If the latter was the case, it is evident that they had been slaveholders themselves or friendly to the slave oligarchy. And yet these same people had left them some “possessions and some kinds of business.” They had “church-buildings, however dilapidated. They were ready for reorganization.” It was not so with the colored people. “These were without homes, without the relations of home; not only without earthly possessions, but impoverished in the best elements of their nature.” These poor colored people had never had the advantages of any enlightening influences save such as came to “house-servants, slave-mechanics, and field-hands.” How true is it that “here among them the very foundations of Church-work had to be laid.” The Methodist Episcopal Church went down South hunting “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” for whom no denomination seemed to care much at that time. The whites had for twenty years, more or less, worshiped with, or were members of, the Southern Methodist Episcopal Church; a few standing alone and waiting till a better day appeared. Here was an opportunity also to turn aside and give aid to this other class of our membership in the South, by teaching them the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Such men as Rev. John P. Newman and Bishop Gilbert Haven went down to help. Their eloquence, erudition, religious and moral force, told only here and there. Such men made but little headway toward the bringing in of “whole annual conferences” among the whites into our Church. They were unpopular save among the poor freedmen. Some of the white members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the South have no interest in the work of the Methodist Episcopal Church that does not come to them unencumbered by any reminiscences of the past or present relations of the two races. The growth of our white membership in the South during the last ten years has been considerable. Is it not strange that the whites and the blacks within the Methodist Episcopal Church in the South sustain _to-day_, in some places, the same relation to each other that the Jews used to sustain to the Samaritans? Do we not find, just along here somewhere, the key to the situation in the South within our Church, as well as cause for the action of the General Conference above referred to?

If required to state from our own knowledge what is positively believed to be an ungarnished truth, we would say that so far as a majority of our white membership in the South is concerned we, as a Church, have not succeeded in dislodging a _single one_ of the old prejudices against “race and color.” It is known that there are beautiful exceptions, but they are like angels’ visits to earth nowadays. The only redeeming feature has been, that the Church, as such, has never yielded a single point in favor of caste in the South. We have known instances where white preachers of white congregations in our Church in the South stayed away from colored annual conferences to keep from being introduced as members of our Church. The instances in the South in which the white ministers demanded a separate conference, because of the relations of the two races, are not few. The Methodist Episcopal Church understood all the while that this was the condition of affairs in every nine cases in ten in the South where “a color-line conference” was desired. Hence, the heart of the Church being right, she always put in “a proviso” when authorizing the creation or division of conferences.

The action taken by the General Conference of 1876 on the question, corroborates the above statement. It is as follows:

“The committee have, by a large sub-committee, given much time
to its consideration, and have investigated carefully the
matter referred to them. They have considered the numerous
memorials, petitions, and resolutions presented to the General
Conference on the subject, whether from annual conferences,
conventions, or private individuals. They have consulted with
most, if not all, the delegates to the General Conference, who
represent conferences particularly interested in the question
of division, and have studied the history of the movements in
several conferences seeking to effect or prevent division
within a few years past, and report the following result of
its investigation.”

Then follows a concise, yet full, statement of the reasons, pro and con, with this conclusion:

“From these facts, and after impartially inquiring into the
whole subject, your committee recommend for adoption the
following resolutions:

“_Resolved_, 1. That where it is the general desire of the
members of an annual conference that there should be no division
of such conference into two or more conferences in the same
territory; and where it is not clearly to be seen that such
division would favor or improve the state of the work in any
conference; and where the interests and usefulness of even a
minority of the members of such conference, and of the members
of Churches in such conference, might be damaged or imperiled by
division, it is the opinion of this General Conference that such
division should not be made.

“_Resolved_, 2. That whenever it shall be requested by a
majority of the white members, and also a majority of the
colored members, of any annual conference, that it be divided,
then it is the opinion of this General Conference that such
division should be made; and, in that case, the bishop presiding
is hereby authorized to organize the new conference or
conferences.” (Journal, 1876, pp. 329–331.)

In the case of the division of the Tennessee Conference, the colored members retained the original name, and the whites had to find a descriptive, or rather distinctive, adjective to retain the “Tennessee” part of the name. In this case, if not in many others, general dissatisfaction and injury ensued. Aspiring colored men, in a number of our own colored conferences, allowed their aspirations for honors to exceed their better judgment, and hence voted “aye” when their hearts said “nay.” There was, by the time the General Conference of 1884 met in Philadelphia, a party among the delegates who were determined to do one of two things; either to bring the white work within our Church (that was brought under the fostering care of the Freedmen’s Aid Society by the words “and others” inserted in the constitution) up to an equal share of the money appropriated by the Church for its work in the South, or else have the Educational Society take _entire control_ of the educational work among the whites. This would have shaded the demarcation caste-line to the satisfaction of his Satanic majesty, and at the same time turned into other channels the aid hitherto rendered by that society to indigent colored pupils, and would have, by this, made it popular indeed to be a white Methodist within the great Methodist Episcopal Church “without any unnecessary contamination with any disturbing element.” The friends of humanity, equity, and righteousness also “trusted God, but kept their powder dry.” The conference had but fairly got to work when the oncoming storm began to gather. J. M. Shumpert, under the call, presented the following, which was referred to the Committee on State of the Church:

“Inasmuch as there has been a great deal of discussion, both in
the religious and secular press, of caste in the Methodist
Episcopal Church; and inasmuch as caste is a curse to any
nation, and more especially to a religious denomination; and
inasmuch as we believe that caste prejudice is a sin, and is
born of ignorance and hate, that it narrows the mind, embitters
the heart, and harms the American citizens, both as men and as
Christians; therefore, be it

“_Resolved_, That it is the sense of this General Conference
that no trustees of churches, schools, colleges, or
universities, nor any pastor, principal, president, or any other
person in authority of church or school property, belonging to
or under the control of the Methodist Episcopal Church, should
exclude any person or persons from their churches, schools,
colleges, or universities, of good moral character, on account
of color, race, or previous condition of servitude.”

This was the beginning of a conflict. At the General Conferences we all understand that the “fighting” is all done in the committee-room. That the spirit of this resolution was opposed in the committee-room no member of “the Committee on the State of the Church” will deny. To one who was at a great distance from the scene of action it appeared that the forty-three colored delegates in that General Conference could easily be seen to belong to the two elements that usually make up our General Conferences, the radical and conservative; but not equally divided. Indeed, there were not more than five “conservative” of the forty-three. Now I have used the words “radical” and “conservative,” and mean by these terms just what they have meant in every General Conference of our Church since, if not before, 1840. The former believe in “hewing to the line, let the chips fall where they may.” The other believes it better, for policy’s sake, to be lenient to the extreme of compromise in some instances. In that General Conference the radicals desired to march into the field against caste prejudice, floating “the black flag.” The conservatives wanted to be all things to some men that they might not lose any, and, at the same time, “save some.” It is easy to see how the thirty-eight could go home and look their black constituents squarely in the face and say: “No timidity or other inducement persuaded me to depart from the wholesome teachings of common sense and race pride.” Before the intended import of that last sentence is _misconstrued_ we add, the others, returning home, could easily have said to their constituents: “We have adopted a policy for future action that we hope will bring peace out of confusion.” The ardent desire of the conservative faction to change the name of the Freedmen’s Aid Society was closely connected, as all can easily see, with the question of caste prejudice—whether for or against we do not stop now to say. The question of mixed or separate schools among our members in the South had been discussed during the quadrennium.

The establishment of the Little Rock University—overshadowing that section of the country, as well as Philander Smith College, where colored youth were being educated—with that of the Chattanooga University, at Chattanooga, Tennessee, helped to agitate the question. It is said that the items touching this subject were presented in the General Conference by a resolution adopted without reference to a committee, through reports from the Committee on Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the South, and through a resolution from the Committee on the State of the Church. Any criticism in opposition to work done for the whites by the Freedmen’s Aid Society was broken by the General Conference adopting the following:

“_Resolved_, That we fully indorse the administration of the
Freedmen’s Aid Society during the past quadrennium.”

This is the resolution above referred to. The following was part of the work done and reported to that General Conference as its administration during the quadrennium:

“The following sums were appropriated to schools among whites:

In 1879 and 1880, 0 00

In 1880 and 1881, $2,600 00

In 1881 and 1882, 19,453 75

In 1882 and 1883, 26,847 25

───────────────────────────────────────────
Total receipts during $437,986 89
quadrennium,
Appropriations for schools 48,901 00
among whites,
───────────────────────────────────────────
Appropriations for schools $389,085 89
among colored,

“The whites received a little less than one-ninth of the
receipts, and a little less than one-eighth as much as the
colored people.”

It is to be remembered that “the schools among the whites” were not constitutionally eligible to aid from the Freedmen’s Aid Society until after the General Conference of 1880; that the work had been chiefly confined to its then legitimate channel, the colored work, and, of course, appropriations to the work among the colored people began with the work of the society. Viewed from that point, another phase of appropriations appears.

Resolutions came rather briskly and presenting many different phases of the question. On May 12th, Rev. C. O. Fisher, of the Savannah Conference, presented the following resolution, signed by himself and twenty-two others, which, on motion, was adopted:

“_Resolved_, That the General Conference hereby confirms and
reaffirms the opinion previously expressed that ‘color is no bar
to any right or privilege of office or membership in the
Methodist Episcopal Church,’ but we recognize the propriety of
such administration as will hereafter, as heretofore, secure the
largest concession to individual preferences on all questions
involving merely the social relations of its members.”

Now, the above resolution in some way or other, was afterward the cause of no little dispute as to who was the author of it, and who signed it. There followed some discussion, through the papers, between Dr. Marshall W. Taylor and Dr. Fisher as to it. Like Topsy in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, it seems to have had no parents at all, “but jus’ growed up.” _Its purport, some declare, was not indorsed by all who signed it._ It, however, was a tally for the conservative element, whether so intended or not.

Report No. 3 of Committee on Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the South was adopted May 22d, as follows:

“Your Committee on Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the South have
carefully considered the several memorials referred to us,
involving the question of separate or mixed schools for the
accommodation of our colored and white membership in the South,
and as the result of our deliberations present the following:

“It is an historical fact, highly honorable to the Methodist
Episcopal Church, that she has been the constant friend of the
common people, and especially of the colored man.

“The Freedmen’s Aid Society, organized for the purpose of aiding
in the education and elevation of the freedmen, is the
unanswerable proof of our friendship to them in the hour of
their need. Twenty-four institutions of learning—academies,
seminaries, colleges, and theological schools—established and
maintained among them at a cost of more than $1,250,000 for the
benefit of the colored people, constitute a magnificent
demonstration of our devotion, which requires no elaboration and
admits of no denial.

“The management of this portion of our educational work, we
believe, in the main, has been wise, efficient, and successful.
Our effort in this direction should not be relaxed, but
increased.

“The establishment of schools for the benefit of our white
membership in the South we believe to have been a wise and
necessary measure. Their success has been gratifying. The
beneficial results have not been confined to those immediately
interested, but their liberalizing effects upon public sentiment
have greatly redounded to the advantage of our colored people.
We regret that, for so great and important a work, so little has
been done by the Church, and we desire most emphatically to give
expression to our conviction that the time has come when this
portion of our educational work should be strengthened and
placed upon a strong and permanent basis, as its importance
certainly demands. To the question of mixed schools we have
given our most serious and prayerful attention. It is a subject
beset with peculiar difficulties. That the colored man has a
just and equal right, not only to life and liberty, but also to
the means of grace and facilities for education, we not only
admit, but most positively affirm.

“We are in duty bound to provide for and to secure to every
class of our membership, so far as possible, a fair and equal
opportunity in Church and school accommodations. And insofar as
this is done our duty is performed, and the equal rights justly
demanded of us thus fairly and fully conceded.

“Mixed congregations and mixed schools, may in some places, be
most desirable, and best for all concerned. In other places, one
class or the other, or both, may prefer separate congregations
and separate schools.

“Equal rights to the best facilites for intellectual and
spiritual culture, equal rights in the eligibility to every
position of honor and trust, and equal rights in the exercise of
a free and unconstrained choice in all social relations, is a
principle at once American, Methodistic, and Scriptural.
Therefore:

“_Resolved_, 1. That we most sincerely rejoice in the progress
made in the work of education among our colored people in the
South, and pledge ourselves to stand by and assist them in the
further prosecution of this work, to the extent of our ability,
and, so far as possible, to the extent of their need in this
direction.

“2. That we heartily sympathize with our white membership in the
South in their efforts to provide adequate educational
facilities among themselves, and assure them of such
co-operation and assistance as we may be able to render.

“3. That the question of separate or mixed schools we consider
one of expediency, which is to be left to the choice and
administration of those on the ground and more immediately
concerned: _Provided_, there shall be no interference with the
rights set forth in this preamble and these resolutions.

“4. That the entire educational work in the Southern States
should be under the direction of one society.

“5. That in view of the great success of the Freedmen’s Aid
Society during the past four years in carrying forward the
educational work in the South, this society ought to have the
full charge of this work in that section.

“6. That the pastors, in presenting the claims of this society
in making appeals for funds, should state plainly that the work
is among both races, and that all contributors should be
allowed, whenever they may desire to do so, to designate where
their gifts shall go.”

REPORT NO. 2—ADOPTED MAY 23D.

“_Resolved_, That we fully appreciate the administration of the
Freedmen’s Aid Society during the past quadrennium.”

REPORT NO. 4—ADOPTED MAY 23D.

“_Resolved_, That an appeal be made to the whole Church for half
a million of dollars as a centennial offering to the great work
of the Freedmen’s Aid Society, and while through all other
portions of the Church the usual agencies are employed in
raising this amount, the Freedmen’s Aid Society is hereby
authorized and directed to organize and prosecute such financial
effort among the conferences of the South.”

REPORT NO. 5—ADOPTED MAY 23D.

“_Resolved_, That it would be unwise, by addition or otherwise,
to change the name of the Freedmen’s Aid Society.”

REPORT NO. 6—ADOPTED MAY 23D.

“Your committee recommend the following changes in the
Discipline, so that paragraph 1 shall read:

“‘For the mental and moral elevation of freedmen and others in
the South, who have special claims upon the people of America
for help in the work of Christian education.’

“Paragraph 310: ‘It shall be the duty of each preacher in charge
to present this subject to his congregation, or cause it to be
presented, once each year in a sermon or address; to aid in the
diffusion of intelligence in regard to the work of the society,
and to use due diligence to collect the amount apportioned to
his charge. He shall report to the annual conference the sum
collected, and the collections shall be published in a column in
the General Minutes, and in the Minutes of the annual
conferences. In presenting the claims of this society, the
preacher in charge shall state plainly that the educational work
of the society is among both white and colored people.’”

FROM COMMITTEE ON STATE OF THE CHURCH, REPORT NO. 4—ADOPTED MAY
28TH.

“Your committee beg leave to submit the following for your
adoption, namely:

“_Resolved_, That this General Conference declares the policy of
the Methodist Episcopal Church to be, that no member of any
society within the Church shall be excluded from public worship
in any and every edifice of the denomination, and no student
shall be excluded from instruction in any and every school under
the supervision of the Church because of race, color or previous
condition of servitude.”

FROM COMMITTEE ON FREEDMEN’S AID AND WORK IN THE SOUTH, REPORT NO.
7—ADOPTED MAY 28TH.

“The following statement of facts and conclusions respecting the work of our Church in the South is respectfully submitted by the Committee on Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the South:

“The growth of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the Southern
States since the close of the late war is one of the marvels of
modern Church history. Nineteen years ago—1864—the Church had
within the border States of Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky,
and Missouri, 332 effective preachers, 71,037 white
communicants, and 18,770 colored members. Now, in the sixteen
former slave States and the District of Columbia, she has twelve
conferences among the whites, with 693 effective preachers, and
170,710 communicants; thirteen conferences among the colored
people, with 678 effective preachers, and 186,326 members. To
these must be added three mixed conferences—two in Missouri and
one in Florida—with 218 effective preachers, and 41,054 members,
most of whom are white persons. These altogether make 28 annual
conferences, with 1,589 effective preachers, and 398,090
communicants.

“This vast membership represents a following throughout the
South of not less than 2,000,000 of people. Taking the South as
a whole, this membership and following are divided about equally
between the white and colored races—about 203,000 white members,
and about 195,000 colored members. In the border States our
strength is more largely among the white people; in our new
Southern work, in the eleven States where the Church had nothing
at the close of the war, our development has been larger among
the colored people; but in these eleven States a white
membership of 51,961 has been gathered. Over 3,500 new church
buildings have been erected on what was slave territory in 1860.
The increase in Church parsonage property has been $6,282,723,
and of membership 308,183. This is an average of over 20,000
members and $350,000 annually.

“Nearly one-fourth of the entire membership of the Methodist
Episcopal Church is now on what was slave territory, where, but
a few years ago, the Church had no existence except in a few
localities.

“Not less remarkable has been the educational development of our
Church in the South. Since the late war, 48 colleges and
seminaries have been established, and in these there are 194
instructors and over 6,000 young men and women. Of these schools
24 are among the colored people, and 24 among the white people.
These latter have been established almost entirely by our white
members themselves. These 48 institutions of learning are nearly
one-third in number of all the institutions of learning of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, and have in them 25 per cent of all
persons being taught by our Church.

“The day of prosperity for the South is at hand, and the great
questions affecting its civilization are being rapidly settled,
and the spirit of fraternity and mutual helpfulness among all
moral and educational forces at the South is rapidly prevailing.
The presence and success of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
the South have tended largely to these beneficent results;
therefore,

“_Resolved_, 1. That as a General Conference we render thanks to
God for the success that has attended the work of our Church in
the Southern States, by which it has come to be permanently
planted in every State in that section, so that we are now, in
the matter of occupation as well as administration, a national
Church.

“_Resolved_, 2. That we extend cordial greetings and
benedictions to all our people, our teachers and pastors in the
Southern States, and rejoice with them in their success, and
sympathize with them in their labors; and we pledge to them, in
behalf of the whole Church, the largest possible co-operation
and help in every good word and work.”

It can be seen at a glance that there was much conflict over the questions growing out of the relations of the two races within the Church in the South in that General Conference. Notwithstanding, it elected a representative colored man—W. H. Crogman, Professor of Ancient Languages in our Clark University, at Atlanta, Ga.—one of its secretaries; elected another—Rev. A. E. P. Albert, D.D., of Louisiana Conference—secretary of Committee on State of the Church; elected Rev. Marshall W. Taylor, D.D., editor-in-chief of one of the Church papers; yet it is difficult for some persons to understand clearly what _was meant_ by the action taken touching the color question.

------------------------------------------------------------------------