Chapter V: Religious and Social Aspects of Slavery (1)

The Protestant churches in America approached the question of Christianizing the negro very cautiously. There were several reasons for this attitude.[1] It was generally believed that paganism was the basis of slavery, that a Christian slave was a paradox, that Christianizing the slave would destroy his humble qualities and lessen his economic value, that it would add an element in the cost of maintaining the institution, that an idea of equality prevailed in the slave’s attending church and participating in communion with the master, and that this idea would add to the difficulty of governing him. Of course, there was the social relation that came into the problem that was very obnoxious. It was unpleasant to commune with a freshly imported brother from Africa; even a Stowe, or a Garrison would likely have hesitated.

The church, being a human institution, could not disregard its environment. It worked its way out of all the complexities of the situation, its position varying somewhat as to section and as to sect. With the exception of the Friends, there was very little difference in the attitude of the Protestants toward slavery, until after the Revolution. They were, in general, anti-slavery in sentiment, were willing to baptize slaves and receive them into the church. The Friends in this early period were the only religious body in America that saw any inconsistency in Christians holding slaves.[2] There were a great many slave communicants in all the churches prior to the Revolution.[3]

The general background can be made a bit more specific for Tennessee by particular reference to the relation of the churches to slavery in Colonial North Carolina since this was the parent state of Tennessee. The Lord Proprietors in the Fundamental Constitution of 1663 declared that conversion did not free nor enfranchise the negro.[4] This provision was kept in the new constitution of 1698.[5] It is noticeable here that this was primarily a political question—a question of freedom and suffrage—a question of state, not of church. The state was declaring its right to state the effect of conversion on the slave. It is well to note this point in the beginning, because the splits and schisms in the various churches in the period immediately preceding the Civil War came up over this point. James Adams, a clergyman, of the Episcopal Church of North Carolina, declared in 1709 that the masters would “by no means permit (their slaves) to be baptized, having a false notion that a Christian slave is by law free.”[6]

This attitude of the slaveholders did not last long in North Carolina, because Rev. Marsden in 1735 speaks of baptizing at Cape Fear “about 1300 men, women, and children, besides some negro slaves.”[7] In 1742 a missionary speaks of baptizing nine negro slaves.[8] Through a series of missionary reports, it is noticeable that, as the idea becomes fixed, that baptism does not free the slaves nor give them the suffrage, the number of baptized blacks increases. In 1765, a report speaks of 40 blacks that were baptized[9]; another report, 46;[10] and a third, 51.[11] In 1771 a report states that 65 were taken into the church and in 1772 a Rev. Taylor states that in thirteen months he had baptized 174 whites and 168 blacks.

The attitude of the Protestant churches on slavery depended very largely on the strength of their organic connection with the South. All the churches that were strong in the South preserved a compromise policy so long as it was possible. The Congregational and Unitarian churches, being Northern only, could without friction readily become anti-slavery. The Episcopal church was primarily a Southern church and was made up of the slaveocracy of the South. It remained more indifferent toward slavery than any of the other churches.[12] It is my purpose now to make a study of the anti-slavery activities of these churches in Tennessee in the order of the effectiveness of their work.

I. THE METHODISTS.

Methodism came to America in 1766.[13] There were two wings of it from the beginning. Wesleyan Methodism in Maryland and New York was anti-slavery, while Whitefield Methodism in Georgia was pro-slavery.[14] Methodism spread rapidly from these centers and became national in its organization by 1773, when the first General Conference was held at Philadelphia.[15]

The anti-slavery history of Methodism may be divided into the following periods: 1766-1784, a period in which there was a growth of anti-slavery feeling in the church that reached a high water mark in 1784; from 1784 to 1816, a period of reaction, culminating in the compromise law of 1816; from 1816 to 1836, a period of practically no change in legislation, although the church in the North was becoming more anti-slavery in sentiment, and in the South, more pro-slavery; from 1836 to 1844, a period of conflict with 1840 as the date of the greatest compromise; from 1844 to 1860, the period of two branches of Methodism.

A brief characterization of these periods forms a fitting background for the anti-slavery history of Tennessee Methodists:

A. From 1776 to 1784. This was a period of little dissension on the slavery question.[16] It was characterized by an increasing anti-slavery feeling, expressing itself first in 1780[17] and more effectively in 1784, when the Baltimore Conference enacted a general code of regulations for both laymen and preachers, prohibiting “the buying or selling the bodies and souls of men, women or children with the intention of enslaving them,”[18] and requiring abolition of the slaves of its members within one or two years. This was to be done, however, conformably to the laws of the various states. This was the high water mark of anti-slavery Methodism.

B. From 1784 to 1816. This period is marked by concession to slaveholders, finally ending in the adoption in 1808 of the policy of letting the annual conferences regulate slavery.[19] The church here definitely recognized that it could not enforce requirements upon its members in violation of the civil laws of the states. This really amounted to a split in the church on this question, because it meant the establishment of two policies, one conformable to the free states of the North, and the other to the slave states of the South. This change in the policy of the church was a victory for the slaveholders.

C. From 1816 to 1836. The conference of 1816 adopted the famous compromise law by which slaveholders in free states could not be officers in the church. This prohibition did not apply to the slave states.[20] The conference of 1836 with absolutely no dissent expressed a determined opposition to abolition.[21]

D. From 1836 to 1844. During this period the anti-slavery forces were organizing to break the grip of the slaveocracy of the church. In 1840, the pro-slavery forces registered their greatest victory in the history of the struggle. The result was the secession of 1842 and the formation of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America at Utica, New York in 1843, with a non-slaveholding membership.[22] It was now seen that the church could no longer pursue a compromise policy. The annual conferences began to adopt resolutions condemning either anti-slavery fanatics or slaveholding thieves. It was now impossible for officers of the church to be administrators in sections of the country with which their views on slavery did not agree.

E. From 1845 to 1860. It was early seen that the General Conference of 1844 would likely divide on the question of slavery. The contest of 1844 related to Bishop Andrews, whose wife was a slaveholder, and ended in the passing of the Finley Resolution by the decisive vote of 110 to 68, deposing Bishop Andrews from the Episcopacy,[23] although he had violated no law of the church.[24] The Southern delegates attempted in vain to have this action of the conference interpreted as merely advisory in character.[25]

The general conference of the church finally agreed to its reorganization under two general conferences. This plan was accepted almost unanimously, and led to the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at the convention of the delegates of the Southern Methodist churches in Louisville, Kentucky, in 1845.[26]

The purpose of this brief sketch of the anti-slavery history of Methodism in general is, first, to give a reflection of Tennessee Methodism, which, like that in the nation generally, was divided on the slavery question; and, secondly, to form a background for a comparative study of Tennessee Methodists in particular.

The Methodists were among the pioneers of Tennessee, when it was customary to attend church with the shot-pouch well filled and the rifle in trim. Among their pioneer preachers were Jeremiah Lambert, who came to Holston circuit in 1783, Rev. Benjamin Ogden, who in 1786 carried Methodism to John Donelson’s settlement on the Cumberland, and Rev. John McGee, who arrived in Tennessee in 1798.[27] The Methodists were leaders in the famous revivals from 1800 to 1810.[28]

In 1797, one-fourth of the membership of the Methodist church was negroes. Of the 11,280 negroes in the church in 1797, 10,824 were in the Southern States. There were 42 slaves in the Methodist church in Tennessee in 1797.[29]

The Tennessee Methodists were a part of the Kentucky conference until 1801, and were strongly anti-slavery, because only the mountainous portion of these states was settled at this time. In 1801, Tennessee became a part of the Western Conference, and remained so until 1812. It was in the first meeting of this conference in 1808 that Tennessee Methodists first expressed themselves on the question of slavery.[30]

It will be remembered that the General Conference of 1808 gave the annual conference the power to legislate on the question of slavery.[31] In accordance with this plan, the Western Conference, which met at Liberty Hill, near Nashville, Tennessee, in 1808, took the most drastic action against slaveholding to be found in the annals of Methodism. This conference instructed the Quarterly Conference to summon before them all persons speculating in slaves and expel from the church those found guilty. It further declared that any member of the church “who should buy or sell a slave unjustly, inhumanly, or covetously,” was subject to excommunication.[32] This rule of the conference prevailed until 1812.[33] Some of the presiding elders and circuit riders were even more strongly anti-slavery than was the conference. Rev. James Axley and Rev. Enoch Moore refused to license slaveholders to preach, or even to grant them the privilege of exhorting or leading in prayer. They denounced slaveholders as thieves and robbers.

The Tennessee Conference, which was a division of the Western Conference, held its first annual meeting at Fountain Head, Tennessee, in 1812. This conference made some interesting changes in the regulations for slaveholders that remind one of the compromise policy of the general conferences.[34] The phrase, “unjustly, inhumanly, and covetously,” used by the conference of 1808 with reference to the buying and selling of slaves, was changed to “justice and mercy.” The slaves of officers of the church were to be emancipated when practicable.[35]

An elaborate system of trial for violations was established. The quarterly conference was made the court of first instance. If the president of this conference differed from the majority, he could refer the case to the annual conference, or the accused could appeal his case to the annual conference. At this conference, a slaveholder made application to preach, but he was not admitted to the ministry until he had given security that he would emancipate his slaves as soon as it was practicable.[36]

The conferences of 1813 and 1814 did not raise the question of slavery, but in 1815, the conference held at Bethlehem Meeting House in Wilson County, Tennessee, adopted a policy with the laws of the states. This was simply a recognition of the fact that the church should not undertake to control civil matters. The committee on slavery made the following report:

We most sincerely believe, and declare it as our opinion, that
slavery is a moral evil. But as the laws of our country do not
admit of emancipation without a special act of the Legislature,
in some places, nor admit of the slave so liberated to enjoy
freedom, we cannot adopt any rule by which we can compel our
members to liberate their slaves; and as the nature of cases in
buying and selling are various and complex, we do not think it
possible to devise any rule sufficiently specific to meet them.
But to go as far as we can, consistent with the laws of our
country and the nature of things, to do away with the evil, and
remove the curse from the Church of God, it is the resolution
of this conference that the following resolutions shall be
adopted:

“1. If any member of our Society shall buy or sell a slave
or slaves in order to make gain, or shall sell to any person
who buys to sell again for that purpose, such member shall be
called to an account as the Discipline directs, and expelled
from our Church; nevertheless, the above rule does not affect
any person in our Society, if he or she make it appear that
they bought or sold to keep man and wife, parents and children,
together.

“2. No person, traveling or local, shall be eligible to
the office of a deacon in our church, unless he assures us
sentimentally, in person or by letter, that he disapproves
slavery and declares his willingness and intention to execute,
whenever it is practicable, a legal emancipation of such slave
or slaves, conformably to the laws of the State in which he
lives.”[37]

This report was adopted and ordered to be copied into the Steward’s Book of the Circuit.

The Conference of 1817 dealt very extensively with slavery.[38] It made provision for the buying and selling of slaves. It prohibited the selling of slaves into perpetual bondage on penalty of forfeiture of membership in the church. The quarterly conference was given the power to regulate the term of slavery for which a member of the church could sell his slave. The preacher of each congregation was empowered to appoint a committee of three to judge of the length of service that slaves purchased by members could be required to render. All of these requirements were conditioned on practicability, the consent of the state, violation of justice and mercy, and assumption of financial responsibility against charge of emancipated slaves. The conditions of the execution of these regulations show what a travesty the whole procedure was.

The case of Hardy M. Cryer, which came before the conference of 1817, illustrates the difficulty that the church faced in trying to enforce its policy. Mr. Cryer was secretary of the conference of 1817. He had failed to emancipate his slaves according to a promise made the previous conference. He had in the meantime bought a negro boy. He was able to make satisfactory explanation of his conduct to the conference, and was appointed elder. In other words, he was able to show the conference that his conduct had been consistent with “justice and mercy” and that its requirements as to emancipation were “impracticable.”[39]

One of the most eminent of Tennessee historians made the following comment on the action of the church in the conference of 1817:

Such was the legislation of a body of ministers with reference
to a subject over which they had no control, provided the laws
themselves did not admit of emancipation, which they themselves
assumed to be the fact. Hence, the adoption of a proviso which
in every case, taking things as they were, either nullified the
rule or made it easy for a member or a minister to retain his
slaves; for whenever he determined to own slaves it was easy
to make it appear that it was in accordance with justice and
mercy to retain those already in possession, or that under the
law it was impracticable to set them free. Such legislation
would seem to be sufficiently absurd, but it is amazing that
an intelligent body of men should gravely attempt to compel a
preacher or member to emancipate a slave at an expiration of a
term of years after having surrendered ownership and control
of same. The only theory conceivable that can relieve the
conference of the accomplishment of a solemn mockery is the
supposition that they, having confidence in the justice of
the future, must have believed themselves to be anticipating
civil legislation—that the legal emancipation of the slave was
an event which the immediate future must produce. However,
the attitude of the conference on this subject is of great
historical value, bringing into clear relief, as it does, the
strong conviction of the Methodist body of Christians that
slavery was a great moral evil, the existence of which was
deplorable, and to be opposed by every means attached to which
there was any hope of its gradual abolishment.[40]

The conference of 1818, which met at Nashville, repealed the regulations of the conference of 1817, and decided that the “printed rules on slavery, in the form of discipline” was full and sufficient on that subject.[41]

The conference of 1819 also met at Nashville and decided “that no man who is known to hold slaves is to be admitted to the office of deacon or elder.”[42] Peter Burum and Gilbert D. Taylor, who were recommended for admission to the ministry, were rejected by this conference because they were slaveholders.[43] Several applicants for deacon’s orders were rejected for the same reason.

The conference of 1819 witnessed a determined contest between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces, caused by an accusation made by Peter Cartwright,[44] that a number of ministers in the state were “living in constant violation of the discipline of the church.”[45] Felix Grundy and Andrew Jackson represented the two factions. “The discussion of the subject of slavery,” said Peter Cartwright, “worked up some bad feeling, and as we had at this conference to elect our delegates to the general conference which was to hold its session in Baltimore in May, 1820, these slaveholding preachers determined to form a ticket to exclude every one of us who were for the Methodist Discipline as it was, and is to this day. As soon as we found out their plans we formed an opposite ticket, excluding all advocates of slavery, and we elected every man on the ticket.”[46]

Sixteen local preachers filed the following protest against the action of the conference in refusing to admit slaveholders to the office of deacon or elder:

We deprecate the course taken as oppressively severe in itself
and ruinous in its consequences, and we disapprove of the
principle as contrary to and in violation of the order and
discipline of our church. We, therefore, do most solemnly, and
in the fear of God, as members of this conference, enter our
protest against the proceedings of the conference as it related
to the above-mentioned course and principle.[47]

This protest was supported by the slaveholders, and laid before the general conference in 1820, but no definite action was ever taken on it.[48]

The period from 1819 to 1824 was a transition period to some extent. There was no important action by any of the conferences during this period. Rev. John Johnson in 1820 proposed that the church recognize slavery as a municipal institution and try to humanize it.[49] This was the position that most of the churches had already taken on slavery. The struggle over slavery in Missouri revealed the earnestness of the forces on both sides. Anti-slavery leaders began to leave the state. Among the Methodists were Wesley Harrison, an influential layman, who went to Ohio; James Axley, a presiding elder; and Enoch Moore, a strong anti-slavery preacher.[50] It was in this period, says McFerrin, that “the church came to a standstill, and was in a measure paralyzed and powerless for good. As a means of averting greater evils, and saving the church if possible, colonization and emancipation societies were formed, and it was believed by many that such organizations did a great deal to prevent a serious rupture in the church till the storm passed over.”[51]

The conference of 1824, in response to a memorial on slavery presented by the Moral and Religious Manumission Society of West Tennessee, declared “that slavery is an evil to be deplored and that it should be counteracted by every judicious and religious exertion.”[52] It is noticed that while slavery was condemned as an evil, it was to be handled “judiciously.” What did “judiciously” mean in the eyes of the slaveholders? “This resolution,” says McFerrin, “was proposed by two members, who themselves or their parents were slaveholders.”[53] Evidently, this was a modified attitude of the church. “What a misfortune,” says McFerrin, “that this sentiment had not always obtained, treating the matter in a religious manner, and not intermeddling with it as a civil question.”[54]

From 1824 to 1834 was a period of growth of pro-slavery sentiment in Tennessee. Anti-slavery workers from all denominations left the state. Manumission societies died. The colonization movement was a failure. Abolition literature was discontinued. Exclusion policy was adopted in 1831.[55] Slaveholders began to advocate preaching to the slaves, and made heavy contributions for this purpose. Separate negro churches were established after the master ceased to be suspicious of the preachers, and missions were established among the slaves at the expense of the masters. “Owners of large plantations,” says Harrison, “coming to the knowledge of this change in the disposition of the Methodist preachers, and finding many of them following the example of the illustrious bishop, then Mr. Capers, and seeing the good effects produced by the preaching to the negroes on the plantations of their neighbors, ultimately gave their consent to permit their slaves to hear the gospel from the lips of capable white missionaries.”[56]

The Methodist Church had always had slave members in it. In 1791, there were 12,844; in 1803, there were 22,453, most of whom were in the South.[57] In 1824, there were 1749 negro members in the Methodist church in Tennessee; in 1840, there were 8,820; and in 1846, there were 18,122.[58] Following the lead of the missionary movement to slaves begun by Bishop Capers in 1829,[59] the Tennessee annual conference of 1832 established two missions to which were sent Thomas M. King and Gilbert D. Taylor. By the close of 1832 these missions numbered 190 members.[60] Missionary work among the slaves in Tennessee expanded conservatively until 1844. By 1839, Tennessee had nine missions with 2,316 members and ten missionaries, and was paying $2,700 to missions among the slaves.[61]

Some very strong preachers developed among the slaves. Probably the greatest negro preacher in all Methodism, if not in all Christendom, was Pompey. He was probably a native of Africa, and in his youth was a slave of Rev. N. Moore, brother-in-law of Bishop McKendree. He traveled as a servant with Rev. Moore, and at one of his revivals was converted. He then became interested in the Gospel, and soon learned to read. He gave close attention to his master’s sermons and sometimes suggested improvements. “He ventured to tell his master one day,” says Rev. H. H. Montgomery, “that he felt, or believed, he could have made a better sermon than he did the day before. ‘Pomp, do you think you could preach?’ ‘Yes, master, I have felt and thought a great deal about it.’ ‘Then, Pompey, you shall preach tomorrow.’ He preached the next day and his master thought so well of the sermon that he set Pompey free.”[62]

Pompey studied the Scriptures very closely, and became able to quote freely from them. He was a very popular preacher to both whites and blacks. He preached in both Tennessee and Mississippi. Rev. Montgomery gives the following account of his preaching:

The first time I remember to have seen him was in the
Christmas holidays of 1832. The weather was very cold, but
the congregation was so large that old “Center” church could
not hold the people by one-half. So they adjourned to the
campground, where the vast congregation listened attentively to
an evangelical and powerful sermon for an hour from him. I was
a boy of thirteen years, but a very deep impression was made
on my mind. He related the circumstances of his awakening,
repentance, and conversion. There seemed to be scarcely one
that was not weeping. And when he described the simplicity
of that faith by which he received pardon and salvation, and
the great change of heart and feeling which he realized, and
everything was new—so new that he could hardly realize that it
was Pompey, till he looked at his hands and felt of his wool,
and found it was Pompey’s skin and Pompey’s wool, but it was
Pompey with a new heart—there was a burst of glory and praise
that went up from many of that congregation.[63]

There were, in the state, other negro preachers of unusual ability, among them Emanuel Mark of Fayette County. He was given a pass by his master to preach anywhere. He preached to both white and black. Silas Phillips of La Grange, Tennessee, was another remarkable negro preacher. Simeon Hunt was also a negro preacher of wonderful eloquence.[64]

After the defeat of the anti-slavery forces in 1834, it was recognized that slavery was a fixed institution in society, and that it would require violence to overthrow it. The Methodists had gradually been reaching this conclusion. It was easy for them, therefore, to adopt a slightly different attitude toward it. Their position was well phrased by Dr. A. L. P. Green, who said he favored the institution, “when it was properly controlled, and regarded it as a blessing to the slave. He believed the negro incompetent and unfitted for self-government, and hence a wise, good master was a necessity.”[65] The Methodists were forced either to adopt this attitude or see the slaveholders withdraw their slaves to churches whose attitude toward slavery was more favorable. The missionary spirit of the church saw that the slaves offered a great field for domestic missions, and the Christian slaveholder came to be regarded as a blessing.[66]

The eleven delegates from the three conferences in Tennessee—Holston, Tennessee, and Memphis—to the general conference in 1844, sharing the above feeling, voted solidly against the Finley Resolution. These annual conferences at their next meeting sustained the action of their delegates. The Holston conference said, “That our delegates to the last General convention merit the warmest expression of our thanks, for their prudent, yet firm, course in sustaining the interests of our beloved Methodism in the South.”[67] The Tennessee conference said, “That we do most cordially approve the course of our delegates, in the late general conference.”[68] The Memphis conference said, “That we do heartily approve the entire course pursued by our delegates at the late general conference.”[69] These resolutions also demanded that the convention at Louisville establish a coördinate branch of Methodism under a general conference in accordance with the plan adopted by the conference of 1844, “and, in so doing,” they said, “we positively disavow secession, but declare ourselves, by the act of the general conference, a coördinate branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church.”[70]

Tennessee Methodists sent twenty-two delegates to the Louisville convention of 1845.[71] They voted for the following resolution, which the conference adopted without a dissenting vote, as its interpretation of the law of the church on slavery:

That under the provisional exception of the general rule (or
law) of the church, on the subject of slavery, the simple
holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave property
in states or territories where the laws do not admit of
emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom,
constitutes no legal barrier to the election or ordination of
ministers to the various grades of office known in the ministry
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot, therefore, be
considered as operating any forfeiture of rights, in view of
such election and ordination.[72]

After the organization of the Southern branch of Methodism, strong efforts were made along the border conferences to induce them to go with the Northern branch. The Holston Conference, which included East Tennessee, with only one dissenting vote, resolved to cast its lot with the new organization. This one dissenter later joined the M. E. Church, South.[73] There was no question of loyalty in the other conferences. There were Methodists throughout the state who still adhered to the “Old Church.” Even in West Tennessee, in certain counties there were strong organizations of the “Old Church” that still persist.

The Southern Methodists increased their activities among the slaves after 1845. The slaveholders were now assured that no insurrectionary doctrines would be taught to their slaves. “Masters and mistresses, even little children,” says Harrison, “helped with the work.”[74] In 1846, the Southern Methodists had 29 missions in Tennessee with 7,100 members in charge of 34 missionaries who received $7,762;[75] in 1863 there were 41 missions with 5,947 members in charge of 39 missionaries receiving $11,748.46.[76] The difference in the attitude of the Methodist slaveholders after the organization of the Southern church is shown by the fact that from 1829 to 1844 Tennessee Methodist spent $23,208.01 on slave missions, but from 1844 to 1864 they spent $213,736.62.[77] The Southern Methodists numbered 18,122 negro members in 1846;[78] 18,045 in 1848;[79] 18,940 in 1850;[80] 18,748 in 1842; 19,239 in 1860.[81] From 1860 to 1864 there was a gradual loss of negro membership, due, of course, to the various influences and tendencies of the war period.[82] Some of the conferences did not meet regularly during the war, and some met in other states. The statistics are incomplete and inaccurate.[83]

The interpretation of the laws of the church on slavery remained unchanged to 1858. In that year, the General Conference of the M. E. Church, South, met in the House of Representatives at Nashville, with 151 accredited delegates. This conference declared “that slavery is not a subject of ecclesiastical legislation. It is not the province of the church to deal with civil institutions in her legislative capacity.... We have surrendered to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and holding ourselves to be debtors to the wise and the unwise, the bond and the free. We can now preach Christ alike to master and the servant, secure in the confidence and affection of the one and the other.... The salvation of the colored race in our midst, as far as human instrumentality can secure it, is the primary duty of the southern church.”[84] They struck from their Discipline at this meeting by a vote of 140 to 8 the rule forbidding “the buying and selling of men, women, and children, with intention to enslave them.”[85]

The social side of the relations of the two races in their religious life is very interesting. The two races came very close together. The negroes were called together by a horn or a bell once a day for family prayer in which the master, mistress, and the children participated. Sometimes the master conducted the services, and sometimes a slave would do it. Slaves sang at these services, and frequently became so religious as to embrace their master and mistress before the close of service. In their religious life, slaves became little children indeed.

On Sunday as a rule, the slaves attended church with the white folks. They either sat in the galleries or had a special portion of the church set apart for them. They were given the communion after the white people had been served. There was usually in the afternoon on Sunday a special service for the slaves, conducted by the pastor of the church, and there was generally a separate business meeting for the slaves. At these separate services, the slaves practically had charge. Their own leaders, exhorters, and preachers were merely directed by the white pastor. It was in these meetings that they received their greatest training and had their truest religious experience.[86]

Few men knew the negro so well as the Methodist preacher, or did so much to elevate his character. He presided at their church trials, of which one of their number was secretary. He was the general umpire to whom all their church difficulties were referred. He baptized them, married them, visited them in their cabins, comforted them in their distress, prayed with them when on beds of sickness, was their counsellor, friend, and spiritual guide, and he preached their funerals when they died.[87]

The Methodist people did more for the negro than any other denomination, whether for abolition or for their general improvement. Peter Cartwright once said that the Methodist Episcopal Church had “been the cause of the emancipation of more slaves in these United States than all other religious denominations put together.”[88] “It is a notorious fact,” said Cartwright, “that all the preachers from the slaveholding states denounced slavery as a moral evil; but asked of the General Conference mercy and forbearance on account of the civil disabilities they labored under so that we got along tolerably smooth. I do not recollect a single Methodist preacher at that day that justified slavery.... Methodist preachers in those days made it a matter of conscience not to hold their fellow creatures in bondage, if it was practicable to emancipate them, conformably to the laws of the state in which they lived. Methodism increased and spread, and many Methodist preachers, taken from comparative poverty, not able to own a negro, and who preached loudly against it, improved and became popular among slaveholding families, and became personally interested in slave property. They then began to apologize for the evil; then to justify it, on legal principles; then on Bible principles.”[89]

II. THE BAPTISTS.

The Baptists were among the original settlers in Tennessee. They were strong in North Carolina by 1750,[90] and by 1780 were coming into Tennessee from both Virginia and North Carolina in great numbers.[91] They settled in the Holston country and on Boone’s Creek, but they were not so numerous in these early days as the Presbyterians and Methodists.[92] In 1784 there were 400 Baptists in Tennessee; 900 in 1792, and 11,325 in 1812.

The Baptists were anti-slavery in the early period of American history, just as were the Methodists. 1783 the Baptists said:

It is the duty of every master of a family to give his slaves
liberty to attend the worship of God in his family, and
likewise it is his duty to convince them of their duty; and
then to leave them to their own choice.[93]

In 1789 John Leland proposed the following resolution in the Triennial Convention, which was adopted:

Resolved, That slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights
of nature, and inconsistent with a republican government, and
therefore recommend it to our brethren, to make use of every
legal measure to extirpate this horrid evil from the land; and
pray Almighty God that our honorable legislature may have it in
their power to proclaim the great Jubilee consistent with the
principles of good policy.[94]

This protest, while very strong in its declaration, was ineffective. The Baptists were no exception to mankind as to slaveholding. The Baptists became slaveholders in large numbers, and adopted the policy that it was the work of the church to mitigate slavery into a humane institution.[95]

The Baptists were more successful in adding negroes to the church than any other denomination. There are more negroes in the Baptist church today than in all other churches combined. One out of every five Southern negroes is a Baptist.[96] In 1813, there were 40,000 negro Baptists, mostly in the South, among whom were a great many negro preachers and exhorters.[97]

Among the attractive features of the Baptist faith to the negroes were immersion, the congregational form of government, which gave them participation in church meetings, the liberality of the Baptists in permitting them to preach, and the Baptist method of communion, which did not discriminate against them.[98] These advantages of Baptism[99] caused negroes to withdraw from other churches.[100]

The Baptists despite the advantages that a form of local church government gave them in handling the slavery question, were not able to prevent its frequent discussion. It was not so difficult for the individual congregations to settle the matter by a majority vote and select a preacher whose views agreed with the majority. But it was inevitable that the forces that finally united the Southern Methodists would produce the same effect upon the Southern Baptists. The Southern Baptists were among the largest slaveholders of the South, and in due time came to be defenders of slavery, while Northern Baptists became increasingly anti-slavery.[101]

That separation was inevitable was evident to many of the leaders, although both Northern and Southern Baptists tried to relegate slavery to the background. Rev. Richard Fuller was one of the first to see this impending division in the church, and he hastened to take steps to prevent it. He tried to distinguish between the church as an organization and its membership. In the Triennial Convention of 1844 he secured the adoption of a resolution to the effect that as a church they should disclaim all sanction of slavery or anti-slavery, either expressed or implied, but that as individuals they should have the freedom both to express and to promote their views on these subjects in a Christian manner and spirit.[102]

This was apparently a happy solution of the question, a philosophical way to handle the problem, but slavery would not down. The incident that most of all precipitated the organization of the Southern Baptist Convention was the attitude of the Board of Foreign Missions of the church. This board, apparently on its own initiative, adopted in 1844 a resolution to the effect that,

In the thirty years in which the board has existed, no
slaveholder, to our knowledge, has applied to be a missionary.
And as we send out no domestics, or servants, such an event as
a missionary taking slaves with him, were it morally right,
could not, in accordance with all our past arrangements and
present plans, possibly occur. If, however, anyone should offer
himself as a missionary, having slaves, and should insist on
retaining them as his property, we can never be a party to any
arrangements which would imply approbation of slavery.

The American Baptist Home Missionary Society in April, 1845, found itself in the same predicament that the Foreign Missionary Society was facing. This board said: “We declare it expedient that members shall hereafter act in separate organizations, at the South and at the North, in promoting the objects which were originally contemplated by the society.”

This announcement of policy was regarded by the Southern Baptists as a violation of the rights of the convention of the church. This policy was soon put into effect by the rejection of Rev. James E. Reeves, a slaveholder and applicant to become a missionary.[103] This was a challenge that was immediately accepted. The Southern Baptists said: “This is forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles.... We will never interfere with what is Caesar’s. We will not compromise what is God’s.”[104]

The Southern Baptist Convention was organized at Augusta, Georgia, in the summer of 1845. There were 377 delegates present. They said that “a painful division has taken place in the missionary operations of the American Baptists.... They differ in no article of the faith. They are guided by the same principles of gospel order.”[105]

The Tennessee Baptists were, like the Baptists as a whole, divided on the question of slavery. In general, the attitude of the National Triennial Convention down to 1845 reflects the opinion of Tennessee Baptists. There are no local histories nor any minutes of local bodies that give us any insight into the particular feelings of different groups of Baptists in Tennessee. Tennessee Baptists went with the Southern Convention in 1845, but there were anti-slavery Baptists scattered throughout the state.

One of the most noted of the anti-slavery Baptists in Tennessee was Professor J. M. Pendleton, of Union University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee (now at Jackson, Tennessee). Professor Pendleton was born in Virginia in 1811. He moved to Kentucky in 1817 and to Tennessee in 1857. He was in 1858 professor of theology at Union, and joint editor with Rev. A. C. Dayton of the Tennessee Baptist, published at Nashville, and was one of the editors of the Southern Baptist Review.[106]

In 1858, Dr. Dawson, editor of the Alabama Baptist, accused him of being an abolitionist. He was brought before the board of trustees of Union. Professor Pendleton explained the charge in the following way: “I suppose he (Dawson) made no distinction between an ‘Abolitionist’ and ‘Emancipationist.’ The latter was in favor of doing away with slavery gradually, according to state constitution and law; the former believed slavery to be a sin in itself, calling for immediate abolition without regard to consequences. I was an Emancipationist ... but I was never for a moment an Abolitionist.”[107] He frankly stated his views before the board, and was acquitted.[108]

The Southern Baptists made special effort to evangelize the slaves after their separate organization was accomplished. “This department of our labor,” says the report of 1845, “is increasing in interest every year. Whenever it is practicable, the missionaries of the board hold separate services for the special benefit of the slaves. And all bear favorable testimony to the happy influence of the Gospel upon the hearts and lives of that people. Their owners are becoming more and more awake to their special wants. Some are erecting houses of worship on their plantations, others are making liberal donations to sustain the ministry among them.”[109] The general proposition of the convention to any local church was that it would pay half the expense of a mission among the negroes if the church would pay the other half. In 1855, the Baptists had missions at Rogersville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Cumberland Mountains, Huntingdon, and Memphis.[110]

The convention of 1859 said:

Our slaves, too, demand our attention. They form part of our
families, speak our language, are easy of access, and are
impressible beyond any other people. They number more than
three and a half million, and out of this multitude scarcely
more than three or four hundred thousand are professed
Christians.[111]

The character of the slave converts as given by Rev. Pendleton, seemed to justify the efforts of the church. He said, “I saw among them in the days of slavery as pious Christians as I ever saw anywhere. They attended church, occupied the place assigned them in the meeting-house, and partook of the Lord’s Supper with their white brethren.”[112]

The special training that the negroes received in the Baptist church largely prepared them to establish and manage their own churches. “The first negro Baptist church in Tennessee,” says Pius, “was the Mt. Lebanon Baptist Church, organized at Columbia, October 20, 1843.”[113] This church now has a membership of 200 and property worth $15,000. In 1853, Spruce Street Baptist Church was built at Nashville. Beal Street Church at Memphis was also one of the early negro churches.

III. CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIANS.

The Cumberland Presbyterians present the interesting situation of a church originating in a slave state after slavery was rather substantially established. This church was organized in Tennessee in 1810 in the log cabin of Samuel McAdoo. Samuel McAdoo, Finis Ewing, and Samuel King, all ordained ministers of the Presbyterian church, were the constituent founders of the first Presbytery.[114] Of these three cofounders, Ewing was a slaveholder, but he soon emancipated his slaves.[115]

One would expect this church, born of the environment of slavery, to be rather mild in its opposition to slavery, if, indeed, not pro-slavery, but, as a matter of fact, it was strongly anti-slavery. Ewing, after freeing his slaves, boldly preached against “the traffic in human flesh.” He said:

But where shall we begin? Oh! is it indeed true that in this
enlightened age, there are so many palpable evils in the church
that it is difficult to know where to commence enumerating
them? The first evil which I shall mention is a traffic in
human flesh and human souls. It is true that many professors
of religion, and, I fear, some of my Cumberland brethren, do
not scruple to sell for life their fellow-beings, some of whom
are brethren in the Lord. And what is worse, they are not
scrupulous to whom they sell, provided they can obtain a better
price. Sometimes husbands and wives, parents and children,
are thus separated, and I doubt not their cries reach the
ears of the Lord of Sabbath.... Others who constitute a part
of the visible Church half feed, half clothe, and oppress the
servants. Indeed, they seem by their conduct toward them, not
to consider them fellow-beings. And it is to be feared that
many of them are taking no pains at all to give their servants
religious instruction of any kind, and especially are they
making no efforts to teach them or cause them to be taught to
read that Book which testifies of Jesus, whilst others permit,
perhaps require, their servants to work, cook, etc., while the
white people are praying around the family altar.[116]

He says again, “I have determined not to hold, nor to give, nor to sell, nor to buy any slave for life. Mainly from the influence of that passage of God’s word which says, ‘Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal.’”

Samuel McAdoo, one of the three founders of the church, and a Cumberland preacher, was a most outspoken opponent of slavery. He did not want his family through marriage or inheritance or otherwise to become connected with it. To accomplish this he joined the contingent of anti-slavery leaders that Tennessee contributed to the Northwest. He moved to Illinois, where he could preach his convictions without fear and trembling.[117]

Some of the early Cumberland preachers, who were very conscientious on the subject of slavery, wanted to free their slaves, but they did not believe they could be self-sustaining and independent members of society. Rev. Ephriam McLean was one of these who decided that he would perform the experiment of giving his slaves a chance to demonstrate that they could be self-supporting. He gave his slaves the use of a farm, farming implements, and live stock adequate for their purposes, and set them free to work for themselves. In a few years idleness and drunkenness brought them to suffering, and they begged him to take them back. He did so.[118]

Rev. Robert Donnel, a Cumberland minister, inherited slaves. He taught his slaves the Scriptures and called them to family prayer daily. He wanted to free his slaves, but they did not wish freedom, because they did not want to go to Liberia. The free states at the North did not want them. He could not drive them to Africa. The state would not let him free them unless he sent them outside of it, so he did not know how to dispose of them.[119]

Southern anti-slavery men would buy the slaves of their own brothers to keep them from being sold separately to pay their debts. Such men would intend to emancipate these slaves, but they would soon discover that the slaves had rather die than be sent to Canada or Africa. They remained slaveholders because they had a real interest in negroes. In 1855, Dr. Beard, a leading Cumberland Presbyterian minister, said, “the longer I live the more deeply I regret that I ever became involved in it. My heart always hated it, and now loathes it more and more every day.”[120]

Not only were the leading ministers in the Church anti-slavery, but the literature of the Church denounced slavery, and the legislation of the Southern States. The Revivalist, a Cumberland paper published at Nashville from 1830 to 1836, speaking of legislation of South Carolina upon slavery, said: “Such acts are foul blots upon the records of a free people, which our posterity will blush to behold. They are not only unjust and cruel but actually impolitic.”

“The extensive slaveholder,” said the Revivalist, “is at too great a remove from the slave to learn the workings of his mind and the feelings of his heart. There is no contact of feeling, no interchange of sympathies between most Southern planters and their servants. They govern, control, and direct their slaves by proxy; and too many masters are dependent upon their representatives of heartless overseers for a knowledge of the character and disposition of their own slaves. Southern planters, who govern by proxy, are, therefore, unprepared to do justice to the African character.”[121]

The Revivalist exhorted slaveholders to teach their slaves to read and to give them moral and religious instruction. This, it said, “will not only make better men of them but better servants.”[122]

The Cumberland Presbyterian, of Nashville, mother organ of the Church, said in 1835: “We proclaim it abroad we do not own slaves. We never shall. We long to see the black man free and happy, and thousands of Christians who now hold them in bondage entertain the same sentiments.”[123]

It will be shown in the chapter on abolition that a change of attitude toward slavery followed the action of the Convention of 1834. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church was no exception to this rule. The action of a Pennsylvania Synod in 1847 precipitated the issue. This Synod met and rescinded its action at a previous session declaring that the relation between it and American slavery to be such as to require “no action thereon,” and adopted the resolution, “That the system of slavery in the United States is contrary to the principles of the Gospel, hinders the progress thereof, and ought to be abolished.”[124]

The General Assembly of the Church of 1848, which met at Memphis, appointed a committee to review the action of the Pennsylvania Synod. This committee in its report regretted the action of the Synod and disapproved “any attempt by jurisdiction of the church to agitate the exciting subject of slavery,” closing with the observation that “the tendency of such resolutions, if persisted in, we believe is to gender strife, produce distraction in the church, and thereby hinder the progress of the Gospel.”[125]

The General Assembly of 1851, which met at Pittsburg, received six memorials on slavery from Ohio and Pennsylvania with about one hundred and fifty signatures.[126] The committee to whom these memorials were referred made the following report, which was adopted:

The Church of God is a spiritual body, whose jurisdiction
extends only to matters of faith and morals. She has no power
to legislate upon subjects on which Christ and his apostles did
not legislate, nor to establish terms of union, where they have
given no express warrant. Your committee, therefore, believe
that this question on which you are asked by the memorialists
to take action, is one which belongs rather to civil than
ecclesiastical legislation; and we are all fully persuaded that
legislation on that subject in any of the judicatories of the
church, instead of mitigating the evils connected with slavery,
will only have a tendency to alienate feeling between brethren;
to engender strife and animosities in your church; and tend,
ultimately to a separation between brethren who hold a common
faith, an event leading to the most disastrous results, and one
which we believe ought to be deprecated by every true patriot
and Christian.

But your committee believe that members of the church holding
slaves should regard them as rational and accountable beings,
and treat them as such, affording them as far as possible the
means of grace.

Finally, your committee would recommend the adoption of the
following resolutions:

1. That inasmuch as the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was
originally organized and has since existed and prospered under
the conceded principle that slavery was not and should not be
regarded as a bar to communion; we, therefore, believe that it
should not now be so regarded.

2. That, having entire confidence in the honesty and sincerity
of the memorialists and cherishing the tenderest regard for
their feelings and opinions, it is the conviction of this
General Assembly that the agitation of this question which
has already torn asunder other branches of the church, can be
productive of no real benefit to master or slave. We would,
therefore, in the fear of God, and with the utmost solicitude
for the peace and welfare of the churches under our care,
advise a spirit of mutual forbearance and brotherly love;
and, instead of censure and proscription, that we endeavor to
cultivate a fraternal feeling one toward another.[127]

This platform remained the orthodox position of the Church to the abolition of slavery. The Cumberland Church was primarily a Southern church, and, therefore, never divided on the question. It would have suffered very little loss of either membership or property by a division.

The Cumberland Church, it appears, took the most sensible position on the slavery question of any of the churches in Tennessee. It always preached abolition and ultimate freedom as the final solution of the problem, but, at no time did it overlook the entire set of facts connected with the institution. It recognized that slavery had been forced on the forefathers, that it had become the central institution of Southern society, that, therefore, it would be violent revolution to abolish the institution at one stroke of the pen. It appreciated the fact that only a small part of the slave population was ready for freedom and a responsible place in the body politic. The Cumberland Presbyterians believed that slavery was an evil, but denied responsibility for it. They thought that slavery was an educating institution, that the rights of the slave should be restored to him as fast as his evolution would permit, but that in this process the welfare of society as a whole was the major consideration.

IV. THE FRIENDS.