Chapter XIII

THEORY AND PRACTICE—A GENERAL DISCUSSION.

While the board of managers was in session, as well as before and afterward, a general discussion, pro and con, was going on. We give but a few of the many expressions of opinion on the subject; enough, however, for one to form an intelligent opinion touching the real intention of the Church. If it should appear to any one that the actions taken by the last General Conference were ambiguous, not to say plainly contradictory, not only with themselves but the past record of the Church, it will occasion no surprise. The _Central Christian Advocate_, at St. Louis, spoke editorially, March 2d, as follows:

THEORY AND PRACTICE.

“The decision of those who are in charge of the new university
at Chattanooga, erected under the direction of, and out of the
funds collected for, the Freedmen’s Aid Society, that colored
students shall not be admitted to its benefits, has brought the
Methodist Episcopal Church face to face with certain questions
which only the next General Conference can settle. But in the
meantime it is wise to examine the questions involved from every
point of view, and, if possible, thoroughly comprehend the
situation; for, in matters of this kind, we are apt to form
opinions before we have canvassed the whole field, and to make
accusations that will not stand investigation. That there are
differences of opinion in regard to the intention of the last
General Conference in its legislation on the subject under
discussion, no one can doubt. There were those in that body who
understood that certain action in which they had a part
established the rule that no distinctions founded on race or
color should be made under any circumstances in any of our
schools. But there are others who as certainly understood that
there would probably be circumstances where the success of our
educational work in the South would depend upon setting apart
some of the schools there exclusively for the whites. It is not
a difference of opinion that admits any suspicion of a lack of
honesty or piety in either party, much less the accusation of
trickery or intentional wrong-doing. And it will be found, we
think, after proper consideration, that these differences may be
easily explained; that they are simply the differences of
opinion which always arise in the transformation and development
of society between the party of theory and that of experience
and practice.

“The Methodist Episcopal Church holds to the theory that God
‘hath made of one blood all nations of men;’ that they were all
involved in the fall, and all have been redeemed by Christ, and
may become partakers of the same faith and eternal inheritance.
We hold that the social and civil distinctions which prevail in
society are of men, not of God. ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor
female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’ It is not
possible—so at least it appears to us—to conceive of Christ as
recognizing these distinctions except to condemn them, and to
show his sympathy for the oppressed or degraded party. The
conviction and faith of the Methodist Episcopal Church is as
strong, and her practice as nearly in accord with her faith, as
that of any Protestant Church; but her faith and practice are
not, and never have been, in harmony in regard to the colored
people. The simple fact is, that wherever the colored people
have become Methodists, and are found in any considerable
number, they have been formed into separate societies; when a
number of societies have been formed they have been organized
into a separate district, and in the end into separate
conferences. The line of procedure has been the same in the
North, where slavery has not prevailed for generations, and the
rights of the colored people are fully recognized, as in the
South where the prejudice against them is the greatest. So that
there is not to-day, so far as we know, a single colored Church,
able to support a pastor, in charge of a white pastor. There is
not a society of whites, in any condition of poverty or
ignorance, served by a colored pastor. There are a few districts
of colored societies served by white presiding elders, but not
one white district by a colored presiding elder. And we do not
believe there is a society of whites anywhere in the Church that
have asked for or would receive a colored pastor, whatever might
be his grade of talent. They would not object to hear one of
this description preach, and they would treat him with
consideration, but they would hardly ask him to become their
pastor.

“We believe this to be a fair statement of the situation. It
does not mean that we intend to be unjust or unchristian, nor
that we harbor secret prejudice against our colored brethren,
but simply that the condition of things about us makes it
impossible, as we say, to put our theory in practice. We are not
hypocrites, nor are we consciously faint at heart in contending
for the equal rights of all men; but we have learned that the
leaven of Christianity has not yet leavened society. We find our
theory and the practical reason not in accord, and we follow
reason. For we are not propagating a theory but engaged in
obtaining actual benefits for men. The object we have in view is
itself a step towards the overthrow of error and sin and
prejudice. It is not a surrender, but accepting what we can not
at once change that we may yet reach the object in view.

“Some one, however, may say, But what about the schools? The
school is not a necessity in the same sense that the Church
is; and if people prefer to remain ignorant rather than obtain
education under certain circumstances, let them take the
responsibility. This means, we take it, that we shall not
undertake to do anything towards the education of the whites
in the South. And yet it is by education alone that this
prejudice which we are asked to combat is to be removed. Those
in charge of the Chattanooga University have not, we think,
taken counsel of their fears in this matter, but have an
intelligent conviction of their duty under the circumstances.
And yet it might have been worth the experiment to have made
the test, and let the Church know exactly the difficulty which
confronts a company of men who have at heart the welfare alike
of white and colored. But right here is where the difference
of opinion comes in—where theory and practice come in
collision; the one party is no more willing to yield than the
other. Whether we can maintain a condition in our Church
schools which we have failed to maintain in the Church—where
prejudice should have less influence than anywhere else—is, to
say the least, problematical. And the question which will come
before the next General Conference is: Shall we undertake to
establish a condition of affairs in the South which we have
utterly failed to establish in the North under more favorable
circumstances.”

March 2d the following appeared in the _North-western Christian Advocate_, from the pen of A. Wheeler, D.D.:

“The refusal of the Chattanooga University to admit the colored
students who made application for reception into its halls has
exposed them to severe criticism, not to say malediction. A
reconstruction of its administration is loudly called for, more
in harmony with the policy and principles of the Church. The
suggestion that the great wrong done should at least be divided
with another authority seems not to have occurred to any of the
horrified accusers living a thousand miles away from the scene
of trouble. Is this as it ought to be? Is it justice? Is it fair
play?

“In this transaction two things claim attention,—the principle
underlying it, and its application. As to the principle: The
General Conference of 1876 indorsed the principle of separate
conferences and societies. Is the principle of separation right
in the house of God, and wrong in the house of learning? The
General Conference of 1884 recognized the principle as
appropriate also to our schools in the South. Was this done as
an abstraction, with no expectation of a concrete application?
If so, it ought to have been known. If the principle is wrong,
it is but just that condemnation fall upon the General
Conferences enacting it, and moral cowardice to visit such
indignation on the Chattanooga agents of the Church carrying out
a principle ordained by the highest authority of the Church—a
principle to be carried into operation under certain
contingencies.

“The application of the principle is the other matter to be
considered. Who was to apply it? Somebody in Detroit or Boston,
or the trustees and faculties intrusted with the care of the
institutions? To ask the question is to answer it. A mistake in
the application of the principle in a given case might be made,
but are those making it to be adjudged worse sinners than those
upon whom the tower of Siloam fell therefor? If those applying a
principle mistakenly be worthy of death, of how much sorer
punishment shall they be thought worthy who gave them the
principle to apply? But the General Conference of 1884 declared
the policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church to be ... that ‘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.’ What of it? Had that
deliverance the force of an enactment? Was it true to history?
Will any claim it to be history? Who have declared it? When and
where was the declaration made? Had such a policy been carried
into execution? When? By whom? Had it been at Athens or Little
Rock, the only other schools established for whites at the
South?

“The statement never ought to have been made by the committee,
nor indorsed by the General Conference. The policy of exclusion
had never been adopted, it is true, but the trend of the
legislation of the Church since 1876 had been in the direction
of separation in worship and education, under certain
conditions. To institute such legislation, and then visit
unsparing indignation on those whose duty it is to apply it, is
neither just nor manly, unless the application has been made in
a way faithless to a committed trust. I am not defending the
principle of separation in conferences or schools. It may be
wrong. If it is, let us say so and abandon it; but till we do
abandon it, let us not blame those for whose benefit it was
adopted for using it when the conditions for its use are
present. Nor let us conclude that one of the qualifications for
judging conditions is distance from the scene of action, and
that competency is in proportion to remoteness. Let those of us
who voted the principle, if it be blameworthy, bear our part of
the blame, and not saddle it all off upon the Chattanooga
authorities. Let us hold them responsible for a misuse of it
only. To legislate a principle that was never to be used would
be simply a mockery.”

March 9th the following contribution, which appeared in the columns of the _Western Christian Advocate_, was written by A. B. Leonard, D.D.:

“There appears to be no small amount of confusion in the minds
of not a few, who ought to be perfectly clear, as to the action
of the late General Conference on the question of caste in the
Churches and schools of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The
action of that body was of such a character as to put the whole
question beyond the realm of doubt.

“On May 22, 1884, Report No. 3 was presented by the chairman of
the Freedmen’s Committee to the General Conference, and was
adopted with but little discussion, almost without opposition.
The third resolution of that report was as follows:

“‘_Resolved_, 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.’

“In regard to mixed schools and congregations the preamble said:

“‘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 in so far 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 many
places, be most desirable and best for all concerned. In other
cases one class or the other, or both, may prefer separate
congregations and separate schools._ Equal rights to the best
facilities 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.’

“Upon a more thorough examination of the italicised parts of
this report it was feared by many that it would justify
_forcible_ separation on the color-line where ‘those on the
ground’ saw fit to adopt that policy. In the light of recent
events that fear was well founded. The Chattanooga University
trustees have done just what it was feared might be done under
the resolution and preamble above quoted. If no further action
had been taken by the General Conference, that body would be
compelled to bear the responsibility of the rejection of colored
students by the Chattanooga authorities. In the absence of
further action the trustees could say that the ‘question of
separate or mixed schools’ is ‘one of expediency, which is to be
left to the choice and administration of those on the ground.’
‘We are _on the ground_, and we hold that _expediency_ requires
that colored students shall be excluded from our university, and
we so decree.’

“But there was another General Conference committee that could
properly consider and report on the question of caste—the
Committee on the State of the Church—which had, according to the
statement of its chairman, Governor Pattison, made upon the
floor of the General Conference, given special attention to this
question, even before the report from the Freedmen’s Committee
was adopted. The unsatisfactory nature of the report from the
Freedmen’s Committee, already adopted, was regarded as
sufficient reason why the report from the Committee on the State
of the Church should be pressed upon the attention of the
conference. That report was presented and adopted May 28th, the
last day of the session. The report was as follows:

“‘_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.’

“It was well known at the time that this latest action of the
General Conference was intended to make it impossible under any
circumstances, forcibly or morally, to ‘exclude colored people
from any Church or school under the control of the Methodist
Episcopal Church.’

“The resolution was earnestly opposed by a small minority, and
all parliamentary tactics were employed to prevent its adoption.

“Dr. Lanahan opposed it because the conference had already
declared that ‘color is no bar to any right or privilege of
office or membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church,’ and
moved to postpone indefinitely.

“Rev. C. J. Howes moved to substitute a minority report, as
follows:

“‘_Resolved_, That there is no call for any farther action upon
the relation of the races in our Church.’

“Brother Howes made a vigorous speech against the report and in
favor of the substitute, at the close of which the previous
question was ordered. Before the vote was taken, Governor
Pattison, as chairman of the committee, made an earnest plea for
the rejection of the substitute and the adoption of the
resolution. The substitute was lost. A. Shinkle, a layman,
called for a vote by orders, but the call was not sustained. The
Rev. Dr. T. C. Carter called for a vote by orders, but the call
was not sustained. The vote was then taken on indefinite
postponement, and lost. A. Shinkle called for the yeas and nays,
and the call was not sustained. The report of the committee was
then adopted without amendment, a small minority voting against
it.

“The adoption of this report, as narrated above, leaves no room
for a doubt as to the position of the General Conference on the
question of caste. There is no conflict between the two reports.
The report from the Freedmen’s Committee is to be interpreted in
the light of the report from the Committee on the State of the
Church.

“The attempt made by certain persons to make the impression that
the latest deliverance of the General Conference was hasty and
not well considered, is hardly less than a perversion of the
facts in the case. Being the latest, it is the _mature_ judgment
of that body, and was intended to set at rest the question of
caste.

“It is passing strange that any attempt should be made,
particularly by members of the late General Conference, to
justify the course pursued by the Chattanooga trustees. They
have simply violated both the letter and the spirit of the
deliverance of the Church through its only legislative body.
There was but one thing, therefore, that the Freedmen’s Aid
Society could do without joining hands with the Chattanooga
trustees; namely, to condemn their policy of rejecting colored
students; and that, thank God, it has done. Let its resolution
be engraved in letters of gold, and conspicuously displayed over
the doors of all the schools under its care. Let it be announced
boldly by bishops, editors, college faculties, and ministers,
that the Methodist Episcopal Church knows no caste, either in
its houses of worship or schools of learning.

“Now that this vexed question is settled, so far as it is
possible to settle it by the action of the Freedmen’s Aid
Society, and settled in harmony with the action of the General
Conference and the teachings of the New Testament, let the
support of the society be more generous than ever before. There
is no cause that is more worthy, and when its merits are fairly
stated it can not fail to meet a generous response.”

The following appeared in the _Western Christian Advocate_ of same date, written by Isaac Crook, D.D.:

“‘You can and you can’t,
You shall and you sha’n’t.’

“Allow a word now from one outside of the responsibilities of
General Conference membership in 1884, and of ambitions for
1888, and with no votes to be defended. The action had on the
report (No. 3) from the Freedmen’s Aid Committee seemed to
outsiders to say, ‘That action is inspired by the prudence come
from experience, and through those ‘on the ground.’’ It is in
harmony with the liberty needful in all similar work North and
South, and is sustained by the Pauline wisdom which ‘took and
circumcised Timothy because of the Jews in those quarters.’
Local prejudices did control the ‘policy’ of St. Paul.

“The report of the Committee on the State of the Church (No. 4
adopted afterward) looked like a halt, and even a retreat, under
some alarm at what had thus been done six days before.

“The first action said: ‘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.’ That
said, ‘You can.’

“Then came, six days later, the adoption of this: ‘No student
_shall be excluded_ in any and every school under supervision of
the Church.’ How could it say more clearly, ‘You can’t’
‘exclude?’ It is not now, as it was six days ago, ‘left to the
_choice_ of those on the ground,’ except as they choose to
_admit_.

“When Lorenzo Dow would answer high Calvinism, which declared
for the freedom of the human will, but that freedom possible
only in one direction, he flung out the rhyme heading this
article:

‘You can and you can’t,
You shall and you sha’n’t,
You will and you won’t;
You’ll be damned if you do,
And be damned if you don’t.’

“Is not Chattanooga University caught between the two horns of a
parallel case of decreed liberty? ‘Left to the choice and
administration of those on the ground,’ says Freedmen’s Report,
No. 3. Those on the ground administer for a white school under
that General Conference ‘_can_,’ when lo! they are caught by the
younger member of the decrees governing the case, which says
‘_you can’t_’.

“There is not a school under our Church-care in all the South
but is liable to both horns of this dilemma of double decrees.
No school in the North is so hampered.

“Let the next General Conference take out the Calvinism of the
last action had, and adhere to that broad doctrine of human
rights which allows not even the tyranny of any majority or
minority, though it be of one headstrong person. Let us have
freedom of election in both doctrine and polity, not to mention
of delegates. May, the name of the beautiful month when General
Conference meets, would make a good substitute for ‘shall’ and
‘sha’n’t’ in all far-reaching legislation for distant and future
contingencies.

“Those who show no faith in posterity, or people differently
surrounded from themselves, provide for embarrassment and often
for revolution. The antecedents and the present love of justice
in the heart of Methodism may be trusted to see that every
member of every color shall have right to the pursuit of ‘life,
liberty, and happiness,’ with no other exclusions than a
righteous Christian prudence may, as exceptions dictate,
require. Even then the ‘strong should bear the infirmities of
the weak.’”

In the same paper, March 23, 1887, the following, contributed by Gershom Lease, appeared:

“That there should be a difference of opinion among good men, in
so important a matter as our work in the South, is by no means
strange. That even a General Conference of grave divines and
honored laymen, while navigating so dark a sea without compass
or precedent, should occasionally run against breakers, is not
to be wondered at. The only wonder is that, in twenty years of
unremitting effort, the Church has not seriously embarrassed
herself by her own action. The Church has had the wisdom and the
grace to enter this unexplored field with her evangelizing
agencies, and by her wisdom and success commend herself to the
continued confidence of the people. For the first time in the
history of this great work we are brought face to face with a
problem, the solution of which is taxing the best thought of the
Church, and exciting somewhat grave apprehensions in the minds
of good men. The difficulty is in the interpretation of the
action of the last General Conference upon our educational work
in the South. It is not strange that there should be a
difference of opinion; for there does really seem to be a want
of harmony in the action of that body.

“On the nineteenth day of the session of the conference it
adopted a carefully prepared report, presented by the Committee
on Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the Church on our educational work
in the South. The third resolution of this report (No. 3) says
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.’ On the twenty-fourth day of the session the
conference adopted a report presented by the Committee on the
State of the Church, which declares the policy of the Church to
be, that ‘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.’ These two
resolutions do not seem to be in harmony; each declares a
distinct and different policy. The one declares the policy of
the Church to be, that ‘no student shall be excluded from
instruction in any of our institutions of learning,’ while the
other just as distinctly declares that the ‘question of mixed
schools is one of expediency, to be determined by those on the
ground.’ How it is possible to harmonize these two resolutions
it is certainly difficult to see. The theory that the one
provides for the admission of a sprinkling of colored students
into a white school is not satisfactory. This interpretation
still leaves the question open, what per cent of sprinkling can
be accommodated; which, in effect, breaks down the theory.
Neither is it satisfactory to say that mixed schools is the
policy of the Church, and separate schools the exception. Though
this exposition might be preferable to the former, still it does
not materially affect the situation; for the exception is left
to the judgment of the parties ‘on the ground and more
immediately interested,’ which is equivalent to saying that any
of our schools may be exclusive, which is just what Report No. 3
declares.

“The two resolutions, then, declaring a separate and distinct
policy, it becomes a simple question of _weight_ between them.
It can not be fairly said that the practical policy of the
Church has been mixed schools or Churches; so that the
resolution of the Committee on the State of the Church embodies
a principle that has only had a shadow of application in the
practical work of the Church; and the reason for it is founded
in the fact that, after a fair trial, mixed schools and Churches
have been found inexpedient. The preamble of Report No. 3 of the
Committee on Freedmen’s Aid declares that the ‘establishment of
schools for our white membership’ ‘has greatly redounded to the
benefit of our colored people.’ The resolution, then, so far as
it declares for a uniform policy is not in harmony with that
principle of practical expediency that we have found necessary
in our work in the South.

“Again, the report of the Committee on the State of the Church
seems to have been volunteered. It was not necessarily binding
on that committee to prepare and present a report on that
subject.

“And, further, the necessity for such a report seems to have
been questionable. The position and policy of the Church, as to
the equal rights of the colored man, had been sufficiently
declared by the general policy and administration of the Church
for the last twenty years. The policy of the Church in its
Discipline and administration has been, and still is, to grant
to the colored man all the rights, privileges, honors, and
immunities of the white man. On the question of personal rights
the Church knows no difference. He is the peer in Methodism of
the white man in Church membership, in all the councils of the
Church, and as eligible to any position of honor or trust in the
gift of the Church as the white man. No resolution of the
General Conference of 1884 could in any way dignify either the
man or his equality of rights in the Church above that which he
already enjoyed in the fundamental organism of the Church. There
seems to have been no necessity for this action. It can be of no
practical utility to the colored man.

“After the passage of Report No. 3 of the Committee on
Freedmen’s Aid, it could do nothing but invite conflict and
embarrass the Church in its work. With all due respect to any
action of the General Conference, the report of the Committee
on Freedmen’s Aid seems to carry with it a greater weight of
obligation than the other. This committee was specially
charged by the General Conference with the investigation of
this subject. In fact, this was the object of the committee.
The report itself shows that the committee appreciated the
gravity of the situation, and thoroughly considered the extent
and magnitude of the work, as well as the embarrassments
because of race and color that have met the Church in the
past. It embodies the godly judgment of the most thorough and
painstaking investigation of any body of men authorized to
speak upon that subject. This report is the deliberate and
specially-provided-for judgment of the Methodist Episcopal
Church upon this subject, and consequently carries with it all
the weight that the deliberate action of the highest council
of the Church can give it. Add to this the fact that it is in
harmony with the practical policy of the Church founded in
experience, and it seems to carry a weight with it, a force of
authority, that would at least relieve a faculty and board of
trustees that acted under it, of that severe censure that the
authorities at Chattanooga have been subjected to. This would
seem to be specially the case where an institution had been
erected with the distinct understanding that it was for a
particular race. We can but regard the action at Chattanooga
as within the provision of authority. To waive all question of
superiority, the action of the General Conference under which
they acted is of equal authority with the other. The other
view of the case practically annuls Report No. 3, and leaves
it a dead letter.

“While we would certainly entertain all due respect for the
deliberate judgment of the ‘board of managers of the Freedmen’s
Aid Society,’ as set forth in their late action, yet we would
respectfully submit that the _intentions_ of the board as
therein set forth, to dissolve its connection with the
university, provided the local authorities do not rescind their
action, may be hasty and unwarranted. The action proposed is one
of serious import, which, if carried into effect, ought to have
a clear and unchallenged justification.”

The _Central Christian Advocate_ of March 9, 1887, said:

“A few weeks ago we expressed the opinion that the Chattanooga
University case would not be settled until the next General
Conference. We thought there was ground, untenable indeed, for
the position of the trustees, and that they would have a hearing
before that body, and then the question of ‘separate’ schools
would be discussed on its merits, and the Southern side would
have the opportunity of presenting its views. But the action of
the trustees and faculty in regard to Professor Caulkins
revealed a state of affairs that no one suspected, and for which
there was no defense from any point of view whatever. So great a
misapprehension of the feeling and conviction of the Church in
regard to her colored members had never occurred before. The
path of duty was so plain that no one should have had a moment’s
doubt about it, nor should the university for one moment have
hesitated to follow the suggestion of the authorities of the
Freedmen’s Aid Society. But the university party could not so
see it, and declined to dismiss the offensive professor. This
placed the whole affair in a new light, and the board of
managers of the society were literally compelled to take the
action set forth in their report which we printed last week.

“That they will have the support of the Church there can be no
doubt. For while the Church may be willing to yield something to
prejudice and custom, and agree that some of its schools may be
properly classified as white, and others as colored, it will not
sacrifice the principle of equality of rights among its members.
No General Conference could be convened that would rescind the
action of the last General Conference, when it declared that 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.’ We do not call in
question the desire of the authorities of the Chattanooga
University to secure the highest interest of the Church and of
the two races. They do not design to perpetuate caste, but to
bridge over the present till a better condition shall be
established; and the Church intended to assist them in so worthy
a work. But they did not take into account, as they should have
done, the feeling of the Church. They misinterpreted the phrase
‘expediency,’ when they attempted to establish a rule which
excluded all colored persons from the university.

“We regret that they did not put to the actual test their
conviction, that the admission of colored students of the class
that could claim entrance to a school of its grade ‘would be
fatal to the prosperity of the institution.’ There are many
persons who do not believe this. They do not doubt the honesty
of the university authorities, but believe that they have taken
counsel of their fears. They believe it possible to maintain a
university in the South under the same conditions as in the
North. This would have gone far towards settling the question,
for some years at least. As it is, the question has to be taken
up again under less favorable conditions for its determination.
But we shall not fail in the end. So long as our hearts are
right, blunder as we may, we will make certain progress in the
right direction; for this question of justice and equal rights
to the colored race has been thrust upon us by God himself, and
he will lead us on, if we will suffer ourselves to be led, to a
decision that will be approved in heaven.”

The _Northwestern Advocate_ of March 2, 1887, contained the following by J. B. Stair:

“Dr. Smart, in a short article on the caste question, asks some
very pertinent questions concerning our Church in the South, but
does not answer them so satisfactorily. The implication,
however, is that we are there because the Methodist Church
already there is so permeated by that ‘devilish’ and
‘unfraternal spirit’ [of caste] ‘worthy to be accursed of God
and good men,’ that she can no longer do efficient evangelistic
work. It would seem that a Church so afflicted would not only be
incapacitated for any good, but would necessarily be without the
pale of fellowship with any other Christian body; and yet
somehow we continue to recognize our Southern sister as one of
us, send to and receive from her Christian and fraternal
greetings on every proper occasion, receive her pastors into our
pulpits, hang by the thousands upon their words, profit
numerically and spiritually by their labors, and devote half
pages of our great Church weeklies to an advertisement of their
sermons. Are we justified in thus figuratively taking to our
arms a Church possessed of a spirit ‘worthy to be accursed of
God’—a Church whose course is so radically incompetent and wrong
that able missions from our own Church are demanded to
counteract it? If somebody can, will he please point out the
consistency in all this? If we are in the South to convert
people to our view of the caste question, we are there for a
laudable purpose perhaps, but one doomed to failure. That
question was not involved in Adam’s fall, nor is our view of it
necessary to salvation. If the politicians among us would stop a
moment and consider the fact that caste exists elsewhere than in
the South, and with reference to the colored race, it might at
least furnish us with the occasion to divide our missionary
forces with a view to a better distribution. Perhaps no country
under Christian influence is more painfully afflicted with this
‘curse’ than England is, and yet Dr. Smart evidently fails to
find a reason for sending missionaries there. True, the Negro is
not there involved, nor are ante and post bellum rivalries; but
that ought not to be an essential circumstance. The fact seems
to be that caste exists about everywhere, even in our own dear
Church. We have, and might again see, a form of it manifested,
should the powers that be so far forget themselves as to send a
doctor of divinity to a three hundred-dollar appointment in the
backwoods; and instances are not beyond our own ken in which
good Methodist families persistently forget to ask the servants
to eat with them in the dining-room, even when the table is not
crowded. It is remarkable how much color and climate have to do
with the question of caste. Social relations, morally clean, are
not a fit subject for the missionary works of a great Church.
The legitimacy of our errand in the South will depend much upon
the question whether we find there territory unoccupied, or
whether we are there as rivals merely, of a Church with whom we
have long been at political swords’ points. Politicians, Church
or other, should not be allowed to decide. If we are in the
South, as are other evangelical Churches, for the purpose of
saving the souls of men, we deserve Godspeed. But if the only
reason we can give for being there is to eradicate caste, social
prejudice between races, the foundation for our errand will
deservedly be alike unsubstantial with its completed results.”

The intention in thus presenting the Chattanooga affair, like that of the rest of this work, has been to sustain the facts: (1) There has never been a disposition on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church to ignore its obligations to the colored man, but it has, in every conceivable way, aided him intellectually, financially, and spiritually. (2) That the Church, as such, has always not only respected his manhood, but encouraged him, where circumstances or previous condition persuaded him to believe he possessed none, to respect his manhood and feel himself somebody. (3) That the Methodist Episcopal Church, as such, has done this to a greater degree, and with as much, if not more, consistency than _any other Church in this country, and at greater cost_. It is quite a different thing to say that she has always declared that _none but mixed schools_ should be supported by the Freedmen’s Aid Society. The simple and unambiguous statement, “the question of separate or mixed schools is one of expediency, which is to be left to those on the ground and more immediately concerned,” forever excludes any such idea. If the mind of the Church can be known at all, it certainly is best known by the enactments of the several General Conferences on this question. From these we conclude that it is not the policy of the Church to truckle to caste prejudice in any form anywhere. It has declared that as a Church it favors “equal rights to the best facilities 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.” But the whole is greater than any part; therefore there is not, nor can there be, any Church or school conducted under the auspices of the Methodist Episcopal Church into which _any member or pupil_ may not enter, or from which any proper person can be excluded “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” This is the declared policy of the Church; also, the letter of the law on this question. The apostle Paul, a man of profound learning and great piety, as well as keen foresight—a man that so spurned caste prejudice as to withstand his brother Peter to his face concerning caste—says: “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient. The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.” It is true of the colored man in the Methodist Episcopal Church that “_all things are lawful_” unto him that are lawful unto any other man within the Church. It is equally true for the colored man that “all things are not expedient” for him any more than they are for white men within the Church.

We do not believe, nor do we wish to believe, that our Church intended, by anything done in the General Conference of 1884, or desired at that time to annul any of its hitherto impartial acts; to give any particular class of its members any indulgence in wrong-doing; to yield to any kind of race or class prejudice; that it attempted or desired to elevate any class of its members above another; or, on the other hand, that, while it slept, an enemy sowed “tares” in the field. We think no one believes that it was the intention of the Church to dishearten or disband or leave to themselves the schools among our white membership in the South, organized and conducted, as well as supported in part, by conferences of our Church, in the which _there are no colored members_. The Church must have seen and felt that _it is an utter impossibility_ for any Church, indeed for the United States government, to mix promiscuously, perforce, the schools in the South; that if the two races there are to be educated by our Church, in some sort they must be allowed a “free and unconstrained choice in all social matters.” Rome was not built in a day. Diseases that have become chronic, and remain within a system for two hundred and fifty-eight years, can not be eradicated in a month, even though an entire college of physicians attempt it. When the Church requested the Freedmen’s Aid Society “to give such aid to the above-named schools during the next quadrennium as can be done without embarrassment to the schools among the freedmen,” it recognized not only the _existence_ of exclusively white schools, but provided _for their perpetuation_. The situation of affairs is peculiar indeed. The above action was not intended (though we candidly believe that those who claimed the opposite had a right to, and did think so) to recognize the right to exclude _any pupil_ on account of race, color, or previous condition, on the plea of exercising their “free and unconstrained choice.” That General Conference, however, _did intend to allow the two races in the South to have the privilege of separate schools_, if they desired them, as it had not interposed objection to separate annual conferences. As proof of this, the General Conference put the entire educational work of the Church in the South under the direct management of the Freedmen’s Aid Society.

The wisdom of this, to our mind, does not appear on the surface; for, if the Church should at any time in the future call a colored man to the office of corresponding or assistant corresponding secretary in that society, Banquo’s ghost will rise again. Again, it was made, and is now, the duty of each pastor, when asking for collections or presenting the claims of the society, to state plainly that “the funds collected are to be used for both races, and where contributors express the desire, they shall be allowed to say where their funds shall go.” Here, again, we come face to face with a knotty problem as to the wisest method evenly to balance those funds. It is natural to suppose that _the prejudiced class_ in each race will turn all funds into the channel into which his prejudices run. Now, to keep even financially, the two races within the Church in the South must do one of two things, viz.: Either drop the question of races, and let the funds collected be proportionately appropriated, or keep up the race question, and thus keep their funds separate. Which will be done? Does it require the wisdom of a philosopher to guess? Neither can, under the present _régime_, without financial loss, afford to be _less prejudiced_ than the other; for the reason that the funds raised by the unprejudiced class will be equally divided, and it will get only its part of _its collection_, while the prejudiced class will not only receive its _own collections_ but an _equal proportion of the unprejudiced class’s funds_. These complications are but the legitimate outgrowth of the animated discussions in the General Conference of 1884 touching the race question. We do not believe the Church intends to lessen its interest, lag in its zeal, or retard the progress and prosperity, or circumscribe the usefulness of our schools where only colored pupils have chosen to matriculate, or to allow the children of our white membership in the South to grow up in ignorance and superstition while it is able materially to succor both at the same time and in the same way. Is this view not reasonable, equitable, and best? Is it not a reflection upon Methodism to view it otherwise, in the light of the past history of the Church on the race question? While we say “in the same way,” we do not intend to say in the same school-building or recitation-room. To-day it certainly appears utterly impossible to mix promiscuously our Church schools in the South after having founded one class of them upon _an entirely different basis_. It might be done in the North. Might it not? We can not, however, argue along the same lines for Church schools of any denomination for any particular class of students in the South that we can for those in the North. The two cases are as dissimilar ecclesiastically as the two sections of country are politically.

The training has been different. In the first place, the relations of the two races in the two sections have always been, and are to-day, different; the training of the whites in both these sections has been different—a different class of text-books, as well as a different class of teachers, who were educated differently; the changed relations of the two races in late years from master and servant to citizen and freeman, and the _modus operandi_ of the other Churches which are engaged in the same work in the South. What Church, engaged in the education of the colored man in the South, does not maintain separate schools for the colored and white? Not because they favor caste, nor because they think it would not be better, if possible, to educate them together, but they are doing the best they can under the circumstances. There may be beautiful exceptions, but they are exceptions few and far between. I am sorry it is true; but _’tis true_. The promiscuous mixing of our Church schools in the South, if practicable, would now be inconsistent in the face of our separate conferences. There are two influences in the South to-day that are coeval with it—and we came near saying co-eternal—that are as despicable as invincible; the one is the miasma of the swamps, and the other is caste prejudice. Neither the wisdom nor skill of physicians has been able to overcome the one, nor the armies of Cæsar nor of Christ have been able to eradicate the other. Death—the common leveler—has thus far been the only _sure_ remedy. But why frown at this when you remember that the latter of these evils finds congenial soil, if not some cultivation, in some Northern latitudes? If up North it is “the arrow that flieth by night,” we should not be surprised to find it “the pestilence that walketh at noonday” in the South. While all this, and more, is true concerning caste, it does not, for a moment, lessen the crime in the South because it crops out now and then in the North.

ART DEPARTMENT OF CLAFLIN UNIVERSITY.
]

When we contemplate caste in all its blackest and most disgusting phases, we grow sick at heart, and feel as if we would like to snatch it out, top, root, and all; but then we remember it may be that in doing so we might draw up a beard of wheat. We believe, however, that as our membership in the South, of both races, get more and more under the light of the cross, and farther away from “slavery days,” they come nearer together; the more harmony that exists between the two in their efforts to educate themselves and elevate those about them, and with whom they have influence, the more potent factors in the evangelization of the world they become. No sane colored man within the Methodist Episcopal Church believes that it would benefit his race if the Church were to give up all its work in the South among the whites. Nor is it just fair to believe that the colored man is in and remains with the Methodist Episcopal Church for her “loaves and fishes.” It also appears that we as colored men in the Church must be on the alert lest we be pushed up to the point of antagonizing all our Church work in the South, save that among and for ourselves. Following the action of the board of managers of the Freedmen’s Aid Society the Lexington Annual Conference unanimously indorsed the following action, and requested its publication in the Church papers, showing one phase of this question, viz.:

“The results attained by the Freedmen’s Aid Society since its
organization are marvelous, viewed from every point. The work of
this society in the country, Christianizing, elevating, and
educating the people, can not be expressed in figures or told in
words. Wherever its schools have been established the condition
of the people has been bettered and public sentiment
liberalized. Too much in the way of praise and thankfulness can
not be said of this benevolent organization of our Church and
its officers, and we earnestly commend its objects and work to
the thoughtful consideration of our ministers and people,
satisfied that the more thoroughly the operations of the society
are understood, the more hearty the support it will receive.

“As to the Chattanooga troubles, and other matters of the same
nature, we beg to say:

“We do not believe it is right to yield the time-honored
opinions and views of the Church as to the equality,
brotherhood, and perfect freedom of man, nor that a line of
action should be pursued by the society or Church to secure the
favor or countenance of those whose life-teachings are inimical
to the position of our Church, and who really have no objection
whatever to the Negro, so that his relation to them is a servile
one.

“We desire and pray for the success of all our schools in the
South that are under the fostering care of the Freedmen’s Aid
Society, but not at the loss of the manhood and self-respect of
our race. Having been long satisfied that this question would
come up for solution and settlement, and now that it is before
the Church, we are heartily in favor of the Church going
steadily and faithfully forward in the path pointed out for it
by the Master, regardless of prejudice, local or otherwise.
Compromise will only delay the day of settlement, and gain not a
single point for God or humanity.

“Objections are made to the mixing of white and Negro pupils in
the same Church schools, and it is said that there are as good
schools for Negroes as the society provides for whites. Various
other reasons are given favoring this view of the question. For
us to admit that these objections to the children of Negroes
attending the Church schools with whites are of sufficient force
to lead us to be governed by them, is to admit our own
inferiority, and the necessity of such a separation from our
white brethren as to end in the putting out of the Church of
every Negro member in it. If we admit discrimination as being
proper here, we ask, where will it end? Whatever may be the
opinion of others upon the subject, as to its expediency, etc.,
we can have but one opinion, and that is, that we are members of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, yield to none in devotion and
loyalty to that Church, and can not admit that it is injudicious
or impolitic to send our sons and daughters to any of the
schools of the Church.

“Christianity is colorless, and Christianity demands of the
Church that it shall not recognize the exclusion of any of its
members from any of its communities or schools by reason of rank
in society or of race characteristics, especially when this
exclusion carries with it a mark of degradation. The General
Conference has given this principle expression.

“We do not believe it well for this conference to remain silent
upon this subject, when its silence may be construed into an
indorsement of the unholy sentiment that it is proper to bow
before this baseless prejudice, which is a relic of slavery. We
believe this question will be settled, as all other questions
have been settled which tended to elevate the Negro, and we
believe the Church will firmly adhere to Christian principles,
and lay aside everything that has the appearance of mere
policy.”

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