Chapter V: Religious and Social Aspects of Slavery (2)

The Quakers led decidedly in the movement of abolition. As early as 1770 in their annual meeting attention was called to the treatment of the slave and to “the iniquitous practice of importing negroes.”[128] In 1772 it was decided in their annual meeting that no Friend should buy a slave of any other person than a Friend in unity. This regulation might be violated if it was to unite husband and wife or mother and children, or for other reasons if approved by monthly meeting.[129] Advance was made again in 1774 and in 1775 when the yearly meeting decided “That Friends in unity shall neither buy nor sell a negro without the consent of the monthly meeting to which they belong.”[130] In 1776 the Friends reached complete abolition.[131] The yearly meeting advised with unanimity that the members of the Friends’ Society “clear their hands” of the slaves as rapidly as possible. By the close of the Revolution the Friends were practically rid of slaves. In the year 1787 there was not a slave in the possession of an acknowledged Quaker.[132] They never recanted on this proposition.

The attitude of the Southern Quakers was at first amelioration of the condition of the slave. They were interested in the physical condition of the negro, possibly as much for economic reasons as for altruistic motives.[133] In North Carolina, where the immediate background of Tennessee Quakerism is found, the question of slavery was slow in rising, but soon thereafter became a very stubborn question.[134] The yearly meetings of 1758 and 1770 took decidedly hostile attitude toward the buying and selling of slaves, and demanded that those that were inherited be treated well.[135]

The Quakers in North Carolina worked personally among the Friends for abolition and as an organization they petitioned the Legislature of the State to modify its laws in the direction of justice and mercy. They protested bitterly against free negroes, who had been given their freedom by conscientious masters, being taken to other states and sold into slavery.[136]

The harshness of North Carolina law created a modified Quakerism not to be found elsewhere. The yearly meeting created agents to take charge of slaves that masters wanted to manumit, and look after them. By this method they proposed to give virtual freedom to the slaves when legal freedom was not recognized by the state.[137] This practice continued to the Civil War.

The Friends in Tennessee not only refrained from owning slaves themselves, but by manumission societies, by petitions to legislatures, and by abolition literature, sought to abolish slavery. Reference is made in a previous chapter to the work of such men as Embree, Osborn, and Lundy, who, if they had remained in Tennessee with all the Friends, instead of going to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, might have helped to bring about a different result. Charles Osborn, who was the leader in organizing the Tennessee Manumission Society, and who moved to Ohio and began publishing the Philanthropist, an anti-slavery paper, later moved to Indiana, whither he was followed by Jesse Wills and John Underhill, Friends who had helped to organize manumission societies in Tennessee. The Emancipator, Embree’s publication, referring to these emigrations to the North, said:

Thousands of first-rate citizens, men remarkable for their
piety and virtue, have within twenty years past removed from
this and other slave states, to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois,
that their eyes may be hid from seeing the cruel oppressor
lacerate the back of his slaves, and that their ears may not
hear the bitter cries of the oppressed. I have often regretted
the loss of so much virtue from these slave states, which held
too little before. Could all those who have removed from slave
states on that account, to even the single state of Ohio, have
been induced to remove to, and settle in Tennessee with their
high toned love for universal liberty and aversion to slavery,
I think that Tennessee would ere this have begun to sparkle
among the true stars of liberty.[138]

From about 1809 to 1834, the Friends in Tennessee were regularly petitioning the Legislature of the State. Their petitions usually asked for the abolition of slavery, if possible; if not, to mitigate the evil “of separating husbands, wives, and children.”[139] They believed that the elimination of this practice would make the slaves more virtuous and increase their respect for the marriage relation. They petitioned against the domestic slave trade as they saw this was increasing the grip of slavery on the state.

The Friends were the most vigilant anti-slavery workers in the State. If all the Protestant churches had been as devoted to the cause of freedom in the early days of the State before there were many slaves in the state and before West Tennessee was settled, the story of the Convention of 1834 would likely be different. The Friends like the other religionists had to succumb to the superior pro-slavery forces that always controlled the state government.

V. THE PRESBYTERIANS.

The Presbyterians were the first denomination to cross the frontier line into Tennessee. Rev. Charles Cummings and Rev. John Rhea, both of this church, were the first preachers in Tennessee.[140] “It was the custom of Mr. Cummings on Sunday morning,” says Goodspeed, “to dress himself neatly, put on his shot pouch, shoulder his rifle, mount his horse, and ride to church, where he would meet his congregation, each man with his rifle in his hand.” In 1778 Samuel Doak was called to the congregations, Concord and Hopewell, in what is now Sullivan County. Rev. Doak in 1785 chartered Martin Academy, first educational institution west of the Alleghanies. In 1775 Abingdon Presbytery was founded, and it became the gateway of Presbyterianism to the other portions of the State. Thos. B. Craighead and Rev. William McGee, brother of the Methodist John McGee, were also among the early ministers of this denomination.[141]

The Presbyterians, like all the denominations that were national, could not in the very nature of things remain a unit on the slavery question. The question came up in various synods in 1774, 1780, and 1787, when the synods of New York and Philadelphia declared in favor of training the slaves for freedom.[142]

The question reached the General Assembly in 1793 and 1795, when it was decided that as there were differences of opinion relative to slavery among the members of the church, “notwithstanding which they live in charity and peace according to the doctrine and practice of the apostles, it is hereby recommended to all conscientious persons, and especially to those whom it immediately respects, to do the same.”[143]

At this same assembly, a committee made a strong recommendation, urging religious education of the slave. The assembly rejected the report of the committee, and said they “have taken every step which they deem expedient or wise to encourage emancipation, and to render the state of those who are in slavery as mild and tolerable as possible.”[144] The assembly referred the members of the church to its action of 1787 and 1793 for its position on slavery.

This action settled the question for 20 years. It came before the assembly again in 1815, due to the action of the Synod of Ohio. This assembly urged religious education and the use of prudent measures to prevent the slave traffic.[145] The assembly of 1816 asked that masters who were members of the church present the children of parents in servitude for baptism.[146]

The sale of a slave member of the church provoked rather drastic action by the Assembly of 1818,[147] but in the same proceedings it expressed its sympathy for those upon whom slavery had been entailed as “a great and most virtuous part of the community abhor slavery, and wish its extermination as sincerely as any others.”

The Assembly of 1825 said:

We notice with pleasure the enlightened attention which has
been paid to the religious instruction and evangelization of
the unhappy slaves and free people of color of our country in
some regions of our church.... No more honored name can be
conferred on a minister of Jesus Christ than that of Apostle to
the American Slaves; and no service can be more pleasing to the
God of Heaven or more useful to our beloved country than that
which this title designates.

The slavery question came up again in 1836 when the church was pretty well divided. There was a majority report which recommended taking no action, and a minority report which strongly opposed slavery. The majority report was accepted by the assembly.[148] Twenty-eight members protested this action of the assembly. The Presbyterians had an anti-slavery element all along that they could not control. This element separated from the church in 1821 and called itself the Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church.[149] There was a second element, calling itself the New School, that based its action very largely on slavery. This element kept up an anti-slavery propaganda, repeating in 1846 and in 1849, the slavery declaration of 1818. The southern and more conservative element was able to control the assembly, and in 1853 the New School element withdrew from the church.[150] This was the last division in the church until the guns fired on Fort Sumter.

The attitude of the Tennessee Presbyterians on slavery was well expressed by the Synod of Tennessee in 1817, in an address to the American Colonization Society. This memorial, after congratulating the society upon its purpose, said:

We wish you, therefore, to know, that within our bounds
the public sentiment appears clearly and decidedly in your
favor.... We ardently wish that your exertions and the best
influence of all philanthropists may be united, to meliorate
the condition of human society, and especially of its most
degraded classes, till liberty, religion, and happiness shall
be the enjoyment of the whole family of man.[151]

There were several very prominent anti-slavery Presbyterian leaders in Tennessee, among both the laymen and the clergymen. Judge S. J. W. Lucky was a prominent example of a layman who was an active anti-slavery worker. Hon. John Blair, who was a ruling elder and representative of his district in Congress for twelve years, became convinced that slavery was wrong, and offered to give a bill of sale of his slaves to Dr. David Nelson. He was unable to see any practical way out of slavery.[152]

Among the ministers were three who did valuable service in the cause of freedom. Rev. John Rankin’s work as an anti-slavery leader has been noticed in another connection. He was one of the pioneers in the cause. Rev. Dr. David Nelson, a native of Washington County, and brother-in-law of Chief Justice James W. Frederick, was one of the most determined anti-slavery men in the country.[153] He had to be saved from a mob for proposing to his congregation to take a subscription with which to buy and colonize slaves. He was eloquent in promoting colonization.[154] Rev. E. T. Brantley, a West Tennessee Presbyterian minister, said of him: “He cordially disapproved of slavery. He found no justification of it anywhere. All look forward to the extinction of slavery.... If the North could be aware of the progress of anti-slavery sentiment at the South, particularly among Christians, they would think the day of emancipation had already dawned.”[155] Rev. Dr. Ross, of Tennessee, was one of the most able leaders in Presbyterianism in the South. He was the spokesman of Southern Presbyterianism in the general assembly, which met at Buffalo in May, 1853. It was in this assembly that the committee on slavery recommended that a committee consisting of one member from each of the synods of Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and Virginia, be appointed to investigate the slaveholding members of the church on the following points, and report to the next general assembly:

1. The number of slaveholders in connection with the churches,
and the number of slaves held by them.

2. The extent to which slaves are held, from an unavoidable
necessity imposed by the laws of the States, the obligation of
guardianship, and the demands of humanity.

3. Whether the Southern churches regard the sacredness of
the marriage relation as it exists among the slaves; whether
baptism is duly administered to the children of the slaves
professing Christianity; and, in general, to what extent, and
in what manner, provision is made for the religious well-being
of the enslaved.[156]

Dr. Ross warmly opposed this action, asserting emphatically that the South never submitted to a scrutiny. He proposed a substitute motion to the effect that “a committee from each of the Northern synods ... be appointed to report to the next general assembly on the following points:

1. The number of Northern church members who traffic with
slaveholders, and are seeking to make money by selling them
negro clothing, handcuffs, and cowhides.

2. How many Northern church members are concerned, directly or
indirectly, in building and fitting out ships for the African
slave trade, and the slave-trade between the States?

3. How many Northern church members have sent orders to New
Orleans and other Southern cities, to have slaves sold, to pay
debts coming to them from the South? (See Uncle Tom’s Cabin.)

4. How many Northern church members buy the cotton, sugar,
rice, tobacco, oranges, pineapple, figs, ginger, cocoa, melons,
and a thousand other things, raised by slave labor?

5. How many Northern church members have intermarried with
slaveholders, and have become slaveholders themselves, or enjoy
the wealth made by the blood of the slaves, especially if there
be any Northern ministers of the Gospel in such a predicament?

6. How many Northern church members are descendants of the men
who kidnapped negroes in Africa, and brought them to Virginia
and New England, in former years?

7. What is the aggregate and individual wealth of church
members thus descended, and what action is best to compel
them to disgorge this blood-stained wealth, or to make them
give dollar for dollar in equalizing the loss of the South by
emancipation?

8. How many Northern church members, ministers especially, have
advocated murder in resistance to the laws of the land.

9. How many Northern church members own stock in underground
railroads, running off fugitive slaves, and Sabbath-breaking
railroads and canals?

10. That a special committee be sent up Red River, to ascertain
whether Legree, who whipped Uncle Tom to death (and a Northern
gentleman), be not still in connection with some Northern
church, in good and regular standing.

11. How many Northern church members attend meetings
of Spiritual Roppers, are Bloomers, or Woman’s Rights
Conventionalists?

12. How many are cruel husbands?

13. How many are henpecked husbands?”[157]

Dr. Ross said: “He did not desire discussion on this subject, but still he had no opposition to make if others wished to discuss it. As a citizen of the state of Tennessee, a state which partakes of the fire of the South and the prudence of the North, he was perfectly calm on the subject.[158] He said again, “If anyone would present him with a handsome copy of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, he would keep it on his center-table, and show it to all his visitors.”[159]

The Presbyterians had a large number of slaves as members, but in their reports there is no distinction made between whites and blacks. “In many places,” says Rev. James H. McNeilly, “separate houses of worship were provided for them, and in a great many churches large galleries with comfortable seats were assigned to them. Often the planters on large plantations built neat and commodious chapels for them, and in these chapels the planter and his family frequently worshipped with their servants. In the cities and towns the white people gave up their churches to the negroes for afternoon service.” Dr. McNeilly says: “I remember that in 1855 the Presbyterian General Assembly met in the First Presbyterian Church at Nashville, Tenn. Dr. Edgar, the pastor, gave some of the Northern commissioners opportunity to see and preach to some of the negro congregations. These ministers were surprised to see the fine dressing, the happy faces, the apparent devotion of the people, and were much gratified to find the evidence of the interest of the churches in the spiritual welfare of the slaves.”

“In the spring of 1860,” says Dr. McNeilly, “I was licensed to preach by the Presbytery of Nashville and spent nearly six months in preaching in two counties of Middle Tennessee. The members of my congregation owned a considerable number of slaves, to whom I preached regularly every Sabbath afternoon, although most of them were members of Methodist and Baptist churches.”[160]

The Presbyterians were profoundly interested in the welfare of the slaves. In the Synods of Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Tennessee, “it is,” says Harrison, “the practice of a number of ministers to preach to the negroes separately once on the Sabbath or during the week.”[161] There were Sabbath Schools also, and, with few exceptions, a number of negroes formed a portion of every Sabbath congregation.

The Presbyterians did not let the negroes preach as much as the Baptists and Methodists did. These denominations had real preachers with their congregations, but the Presbyterian conception of the character of a preacher practically excluded the negro. They had, however, negro exhorters. In fact, the negroes did not want a preacher they could understand. Even a white preacher, if he tried to simplify his language to suit them, would become unpopular with them. They liked big words, and would always praise the Lord when a high-sounding word was used. Rev. McNeilly tells of a young theologian who began his sermon to the negroes thus, “Primarily we must postulate the existence of a duty.” After a short pause, some old colored patriarch fervently responded, “Yaas, Lord, dat’s so. Bless de Lord.”[162]

The Tennessee Presbyterians voted against the Spring Resolutions in the general assembly at Philadelphia, and participated in the convention at Atlanta in August, 1861, which adopted among other resolutions, the following: “Our connection with the non-slaveholding states, it cannot be denied, was a great hindrance to the systematic performance of the work of evangelization of the slave population. It is true that the northern portion of the Presbyterian Church professed to be conservative, but their opposition to our social economy was constantly increasing.”[163] The synods of Memphis and Nashville, together with various Presbyteries, participated in the convention at Augusta, Georgia, in December, 1861, which organized the Southern Presbyterian Church. Tennessee has remained a strong center of Southern Presbyterianism to the present.

VI. THE EPISCOPALIANS.

The Episcopal Church from the beginning of its work in America stressed the improvement of the condition of the slaves. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was incorporated under William III, in 1701, and on investigation it was decided that the work in America “consisted of three great homilies: the care and instruction of our people settled in the colonies, the conversion of the Indian savages, and the conversion of the negroes.” Rev. Samuel Thomas, the first missionary, who was sent to North Carolina in 1702, reported that “he had taken much pains also in instructing the negroes and learned twenty of them to read.”[164] The Episcopal Church, like the Presbyterian, did not report as a rule separate statistics for colored members of the church. In 1817 there were 828 colored members in the Episcopal churches at Charleston.[165] In 1822 there were 200 colored children in their Sunday Schools.[166]

The Episcopal Church had a sort of philosophical attitude toward the negroes. It was never the church of feeling, like the Methodists and Baptists. In 1823 Rev. Dr. Dalcho of the Episcopal Church at Charleston issued a pamphlet entitled, “Practical Considerations, Founded on the Scriptures, Relative to the Slave Population of South Carolina.” The church was vitally interested in the welfare of the slave throughout the South.

The Episcopal Church did not establish itself in Tennessee until anti-slavery feeling was on the wane. The first Episcopal Church in Tennessee was established at Franklin, Williamson County, August 25, 1827, by Rev. James H. Otey.[167] He began to preach occasionally at Columbia and Nashville, and by 1830 there were two additional clergy. In this same year, on July 1, the first convention of the church was held at Nashville, and in this year the Diocese of Tennessee was formed. There were about fifty communicants at this time in Tennessee.[168]

The church grew very slowly. The state was still in a frontier condition. The inhabitants were democratic, and were already members for the most part of the Methodist and Baptist churches. What aristocracy there was belonged to the Presbyterian Church. There was no American bishop in the Episcopal Church to consecrate candidates for the ministry. They were forced to go to England for the laying-on of hands. Again, the War of 1812 had further intensified the prejudice against the English church.

Rev. Otey was a persistent worker, and after his consecration in 1834 he began to lay the foundation for educational and religious expansion of this church. Mercer Hall, a school for boys, was opened in his home in 1836. Columbia Female Institute was founded in the same year, and preparations were begun to found a university the same year, but were not successful until 1857, when the University of the South was established in the Cumberland Mountains about ten miles from Winchester at Sewanee, Tenn. Bishop Otey became its first president.

By 1844 there were thirteen resident clergymen in the state besides Rev. Otey. The number of communicants had grown from 117 in 1834 to 400.[169] In 1860, the last year of the Journal of the Convention for the South until after the war, there were 27 members of the clergy, 26 parishes, and 1500 communicants.

The Episcopal Church in Tennessee was practically synonymous with Bishop Otey, who directed and controlled its policy. He owned a plantation out from Memphis and a number of slaves. He was a typical Southern, Christian slaveholder. He believed that patriarchal slavery was a great institution for the negro. He felt that the North misunderstood the institution, and was in its agitation doing irreparable damage to the nation and the South. Writing to the Northern clergymen, May 17, 1861, he said:

As to your coming South, let me just here state, for all, that
you wholly misapprehend the spirit of our people. We ask not
one thing of the North which has not been secured to us by the
Constitution and laws since they were established and enacted,
and which has been granted to us until within a few years past.
We demand no sacrifice nor the surrender of Northern rights
and privileges. The party that elected Mr. Lincoln proclaimed
uncompromising hostility to the institution of slavery—an
institution which existed here, and has done so from its
beginning, in its patriarchal character. We feel ourselves
under the most solemn obligations to take care of, and to
provide for, these people who cannot provide for themselves.
Nearly every free-soil state has prohibited them from settling
in their territory. Where are they to go?

Here the bishop is seen as a defender of Southern institutions and ideals, yet he was loyal to the Union as an old Whig just as long as he could be. He wrote letters to members of the cabinet, begging caution and consideration. But when he felt that the South had been unnecessarily attacked, he fully identified himself and the Tennessee Episcopalians with the cause of the South. Writing to his daughter, May 24, 1861, he said, “And now, my dear child, you ask me if I think the cause of the South just, and that God will favor us and defends us. I answer, in very deed, I do.”[170]

When his slaves were set free in 1862, he called them into his parlor and gave them a father’s advice. He said: “I do not regret the departure of my servants, except Lavinia and Nora (children of eight and seven years of age); I pity them—I have endeavored to treat them always humanely. They had as comfortable rooms, and as many necessary comforts as myself. If they can do better by leaving me, they are free to do so.”[171]

It is undoubtedly true that the general spirit of frontier life was against slavery. It was always opposed to convention and privilege. In the early period of Tennessee politics when the anti-slavery feeling was strongest, frontier conditions prevailed. These pioneers, in the period from 1790 to 1834, were fighting for the suffrage, representation, and the right to hold office. These privileges were enjoyed only by property holders. Under such conditions, opposition to slaveholders, who primarily stood for privilege, was inevitable. The anti-slavery attitude of the churches was partly a result of these conditions as well as of religious sentiment. These people could express themselves through churches and independent societies more freely than through politics, which was generally dominated by slaveholders.

In estimating the work of the churches as a whole, one is compelled to acknowledge the value of their services to the negro. Practically all of the outstanding anti-slavery leaders were prominent churchmen. The anti-slavery literature of the early period was published under the inspiration of the church. The churches constantly advocated manumission to the masters, and sought easier terms from the legislature for emancipation. They preached against the slave traffic and the inhuman practice of separating families. Their influence also softened the character of the slave code in both its make-up and administration. In the later forties and fifties when the negroes came into the churches in increased numbers, their field of service was increased. There was almost as large a percentage of slaves belonging to the churches in 1860 as there is of negroes in the church today.[172]

The church was given a freer hand with the slaves, missions were established, church houses were built, and many of the slaves learned to read under the guidance of the church. Their characters were improved. The influence of the churches was always directed toward better living conditions, better food and clothing, and better treatment generally. Their influences were felt directly by the negroes as well as indirectly through Christian masters.

The individual churches in Tennessee differed considerably in their attitude toward slavery in the early period. In the order of their degree of hostility to slavery, the Friends should have first place, the Methodists second, Cumberland Presbyterians third, Baptists fourth, Presbyterians fifth, and Episcopalians sixth. From point of service, the Methodists should rank first, and the Baptists second. These two churches represented the masses of the slaveholders and contained the majority of the slaves that belonged to the church. It is difficult to estimate the work of the Baptists because there are no records of their local associations or their individual congregations. Through biographies and actions of Tennessee delegations to the Southern Convention after 1845, one can find convincing evidence that Tennessee Baptists did a valuable work for the negro. The sources for the study of the Methodists are much more abundant. It appears, therefore, that their work assumed larger proportions than that of any other denomination. “High and low alike,” says Harrison, “entered into this noble work. There was no phase of it too humble, no duty connected with it too unpleasant to deter the most earnest and painstaking effort. Bishop McTyeire, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, declared that during a long ministerial life there was nothing connected with it in which he took more pride and satisfaction than the remembrance of the more than three hundred services he had preached to negro congregations.”[173]

FOOTNOTES

[1] Jernegan, M. W., Slavery and Conversion in the Colonies, pp. 516-7.

[2] Ibid., p. 576.

[3] Ibid., p. 514.

[4] Col. Recs., I, 204.

[5] Ibid., 857.

[6] Ibid., 720.

[7] Ibid., IV, 13.

[8] Ibid., 794.

[9] Ibid., VII, 126.

[10] Ibid., 424.

[11] Ibid., 705.

[12] Matlock, L. C., The Anti-slavery Struggle and Triumph in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 17.

[13] American Church History, XI, 1.

[14] Tyerman, L., Life of Whitefield, II, 272. Whitefield is reported as having said: “I should think myself highly favored if I could purchase a good number of slaves in order to make their lives more comfortable and lay a foundation for bringing up their posterity in the nature and admonition of the Lord.” He died owning 75 slaves. American Church History, XI, 5.

[15] Jernegan, op. cit., 515.

[16] Matlock, op. cit., 17.

[17] Minutes of the Methodist Episcopal Conferences, 1773-1813, I, 5-6.

[18] The first paragraph of this law shows the general tenor of these regulations:

1. Every member of our society who has slaves in his possession shall, within twelve months after notice given to him by the Assistant (which the assistants are required immediately, and without any delay, to give to their respective circuits), legally execute and record an instrument whereby he emancipates and sets free every slave in his possession who is between the ages of forty and forty-five immediately, or at farthest when they arrive at the age of forty-five; and every slave who is between the ages of twenty-five and forty immediately, or at farthest at the explication of five years from the date of said instrument; every slave who is between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five immediately or at farthest when they arrive at the age of thirty; and every slave under the age of twenty as soon as they arrive at the age of twenty-five at farthest; and every infant born in slavery after the above-mentioned rules are complied with immediately on its birth. McTyeire, Holland M., History of Methodism, II, pp. 375-378.

[19] Minutes of the General Conferences, 1796-1844, pp. 40-1; Journal of the General Conference of 1800, pp. 37-44; American Church History, XI, 7.

[20] Journal of the General Conference of 1816, p. 170.

[21] “Resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled, That they are decidedly opposed to modern abolition, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention, to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave as it exists in the slaveholding states of this Union.” Journal of the General Conference of 1836, pp. 446-7.

[22] Journal of the General Conference of 1840, p. 136.

[23] The Finley Resolution was: “Whereas, the discipline of one church forbids the doing anything calculated to destroy an itinerant general superintendency; and, whereas, Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery by marriage and otherwise, and this having drawn after it circumstances which, in the estimation of the General Conference, will greatly embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in some places entirely prevent it; therefore, Resolved that it is the sense of this General Conference that he desist from the exercise of this office so long as this impediment exists.” Journal of General Conference of 1844, p. 85.

[24] Bedford, A. H., History of the Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, p. 207.

[25] Journal of the General Conference of 1844, p. 85.

[26] Bedford, pp. 418-503; see also Wightman, W. M., Life of William Capers, pp. 398-425; Smith, G. G., Life and Letters of James Osgood Andrew, pp. 336-385.

[27] Garrett and Goodpasture, p. 156; Goodspeed, p. 647.

[28] Ibid., p. 157.

[29] Harrison, W. P., The Gospel Among the Slaves, p. 61.

[30] McFerrin, J. B., History of Methodism in Tennessee, I, pp. 26, 470, 523; Vol. II, pp. 132, 159, 262; see also McTyeire, p. 462; and Goodspeed, pp. 664, 667.

Note: The minutes of the Annual Conference of the Methodists in Tennessee were burned with the Methodist Publishing House in Nashville, February, 1872. The publishing house has never been able to find another copy. McFerrin’s History of Methodism in Tennessee, which contains copious quotations from these minutes, is the only available source.

[31] Supra, p. 105.

[32] Asbury, Thomas, Journal of Rev. Francis Asbury, Vol. 3, p. 290; Cartwright, Peter, Fifty Years as a Presiding Elder, pp. 53ff.; Goodspeed, pp. 663-667; Temple, O. P., East Tennessee and Civil War, pp. 97ff.

[33] Goodspeed, p. 667.

[34] Supra, p. 106.

[35] McFerrin, II, 261, 283; Goodspeed, pp. 667, 668.

[36] McFerrin, II, 261.

[37] McFerrin, II, 401.

[38] The Code of 1817 is as follows:

“If a local elder, deacon, or preacher, in our Church, shall purchase a slave or slaves, he shall lay his case before the Quarterly-Meeting Conference of his circuit as soon as practicable, which Quarterly-Meeting Conference shall say how long such slave or slaves serve as a remuneration to the purchaser; and on the decision of the Quarterly-Meeting Conference, touching the time the slave or slaves shall serve, the purchaser shall, without delay, enter into a written obligation to the Quarterly-Meeting Conference to emancipate such slave or slaves at the expiration of the term of servitude, _if the law of the State_ will admit; and such obligation shall be entered on the Journals of the Quarterly-Meeting Conference. But should the laws of the State continue rigidly to oppose the emancipation of slaves, so that their freedom, as above contemplated, should prove impracticable, during the term and at the end of the slave’s or slaves’ servitude, as determined by the Quarterly-Meeting Conference, he, the said elder, deacon, or preacher, shall, at the end of the time of servitude, again lay his case before the Quarterly-Meeting Conference, which Quarterly-Meeting Conference shall determine it according to the then existing slave rule of the Annual Conference to which he belongs; and should the said elder, deacon, or preacher, be dissatisfied with the decision of the Quarterly-Meeting Conference, he shall be allowed an appeal to the ensuing Annual Conference, provided he then signifies his intention of so appealing.

“2. If a private member in our society buy a slave or slaves, the preacher who has charge of the circuit shall summon a committee, of which he shall be president, or at least three disinterested male members from the class of which he or she is a member; and if a committee cannot be elected from the class to which the slave purchaser belongs, in such case the preacher may make up the committee from a neighboring class or classes, which committee shall determine the length of time such slave or slaves shall serve as a compensation to the purchaser, and immediately on the determination of the committee, touching the slave’s or slaves’ time of servitude, he or she, the purchaser, shall bind himself or herself in a written obligation to the church to have the emancipation of such slave or slaves, at the expiration of the given time, recorded as soon as practicable, _if the laws of the States in which he or she live will admit of emancipation_; and such obligation shall be filed among the papers of the Quarterly-Meeting Conference of the circuit in which he or she lives. _But should the laws of the State in which the purchaser lives render it impracticable to emancipate said slave or slaves_, during the time of servitude fixed by the committee for said slave or slaves, the preacher having charge of the circuit or station shall call a second committee at the end of the time of servitude who shall determine the case according to the then existing slave rule of the Annual Conference to which he or she belongs; and if he or she feel him or herself aggrieved, he or she shall be allowed an appeal to the ensuing Quarterly-Meeting Conference of his or her circuit. In all cases relative either to preachers or private members, the colored or bond-children born of slaves purchased, after their purchase and during the time of their bondage, male and female, shall be free at the age of twenty-five, _if the law admit of emancipation_; _and if not, the case of those born of purchased slaves in bondage to said elder, deacon, or preacher_, shall be _cognizable_ by the Quarterly-Meeting Conference, and in the case of those born of purchased slaves in bondage to private members, shall be cognizable by a committee of the above-mentioned kind, which Quarterly-Meeting Conference and committee shall decide in such case as the then existing slave rule shall or may direct; _provided_, nevertheless, the above rules be not so construed as to oblige an elder, deacon, preacher, or private member, to give security for the good behaviour and maintenance of the slave or slaves emancipated, should the court require it. If an elder, deacon, preacher, or private member, among us, shall sell a slave or slaves _into perpetual bondage, they shall thereby forfeit their membership_ in our church. Therefore, in case an elder, deacon, or preacher sell a slave or slaves, _he shall first submit the case to the Quarterly-Meeting Conference_ of which he is a member, and said Quarterly-Meeting Conference shall say for what term of years he shall sell his slave, or slaves, which term being fixed, the seller shall immediately record his, her, or their emancipation in the county court; and a private member selling a slave or slaves shall first acquaint the preacher having the charge of the circuit with his design, who shall summon a committee of the above-mentioned kind, of which he, the said preacher, shall be President. Said Committee shall say, for what term of years, he, she, or they shall sell his, her or their slave or slaves, and the seller shall be required immediately to record the emancipation of such slave or slaves in the county court. An elder, deacon, preacher, or private member among us, refusing to comply with the above rules, shall be dealt with as in other cases of immorality, and expelled.” McFerrin, II, 462-466.

[39] McFerrin, II, p. 467.

[40] Goodspeed, p. 669.

[41] McFerrin, III, 19-20.

[42] Ibid., p. 161.

[43] Goodspeed, p. 670.

[44] Ibid., p. 669; Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, the Backwoods Preacher, p. 195.

[45] Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, p. 195.

[46] Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, p. 196.

[47] Goodspeed, pp. 669-670.

[48] McFerrin, II, 195.

[49] He proposed the following program for the church on slavery:

1. That every householder in our church shall provide a comfortable house, with sufficient bed and bedding, for every slave in his possession.

2. That each slave shall be clothed in decent apparel in summer and warm clothing in winter, and shall have plenty of good and wholesome food, and time to eat it.

3. That every slave over ... years of age shall be taught to read the Holy Scriptures.

4. That every slave over ... years of age shall be permitted to attend the worship of God ... times in every ...

5. That every slave shall attend family worship twice a day.

6. That every slave shall be allowed one hour for reading in every ...

7. That no master shall inflict more than ... stripes for any one offense, nor any stripes on any one who is over ... years of age.

8. That no slave shall be compelled to marry against his will.

9. No master shall suffer man and wife, parent and child, to be parted without their consent when it is in his power—he being the owner of one—to prevent it by buying or selling at a fair price.

10. On any complaint being made against a member for violation of these rules let the preacher appoint a committee of ... to investigate the facts and report to the society.

11. Any member violating or refusing to comply with the above rules shall be dealt with as in other cases of immorality.—Recollections of Rev. John Johnson and His House, An Autobiography, 305-6.

[50] McFerrin, II, 95.

[51] Ibid., 494.

[52] Ibid., 261; Goodspeed, 668.

[53] McFerrin, III, 271.

[54] Infra, pp. 153-5.

[55] Harrison, p. 151.

[56] Ibid., pp. 61-2; Wightman, pp. 288-302.

[57] Goodspeed, p. 676.

[58] Harrison, p. 155.

[59] Ibid., p. 161.

[60] Harrison, p. 194.

[61] Ibid., p. 195.

[62] McFerrin, III, 387.

[63] McFerrin, III, 389-90.

[64] Harrison, 338-343.

[65] Green, Wm. M., Life of A. L. P. Green, 167.

[66] Bedford, pp. 214-5; 301.

[67] Bedford, p. 601.

[68] Ibid., p. 603.

[69] Ibid., p. 605.

[70] Ibid., p. 600.

[71] Bedford, p. 423.

[72] Ibid., p. 449.

[73] These resolutions show the frame of mind of these people:

“Whereas, the long-continued agitation on the subject of slavery and abolition in the Methodist Episcopal Church did, at the General Conference of said church, held in the city of New York, in May, 1844, result in the adoption of certain measures by that body which seriously threatened a disruption of the Church; and to avert this calamity, said General Conference did devise and adopt a plan contemplating the peaceful separation of the South and the North; and constituting the conferences in the slaveholding States, the sole judges of the necessity for such separation; and, whereas, the conferences in the slaveholding States, in the exercise of the right accorded to them by the General Conference, did, by their representatives in convention at Louisville, Ky., in May last, decide that separation was necessary, and proceeded to organize themselves into a separate and distinct ecclesiastical connection, under the style and title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, basing their claim to a legitimate relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States upon their unwavering adherence to the Plan of Separation adopted by the General Conference of said church in 1844, and their devotion to the doctrines, discipline, and usages of the church as they received them from their fathers.

And as the Plan of Separation provides that the conferences bordering on the geographical lines of separation shall decide their relation by the votes of the majority ... and also that ministers of every grade shall make their election North or South without censure—therefore,

1. Resolved, That we now proceed to determine the question of our ecclesiastical relation by the vote of the conference.

2. That we, the members of the Holston Annual Conference, claiming all the rights, powers, and privileges of an Annual Conference of the Methodist Church in the United States, do hereby make an election with, and adhere to, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

3. That while we thus declare our adherence to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, we repudiate the idea of secession in any schismatic or offensive sense of the phrase, as we neither give up nor surrender anything which we have received as constituting any part of Methodism, and adhere to the Southern ecclesiastical organization. Plan of Separation, adopted by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church at its session in New York in May, 1844.

4. That we are satisfied with our Book of Discipline as it is on the subject of slavery, as recorded in that book; and that we will not tolerate any change whatever, except such verbal and unimportant alterations as may, in the judgment of the General Conference, facilitate the work in which we are engaged, and promote uniformity and harmony in our administration.

5. That the journals of our present session, as well as all our official business, be henceforth conformed in style and title to our ecclesiastical relation.

6. That it is our desire to cultivate and maintain fraternal relations with our brethren of the North. And we do most sincerely deprecate the continuance of paper warfare either by editors or correspondents, in our official church papers, and devoutly pray for the speedy return of peace and harmony in the Church, both North and South.

7. That the Holston Annual Conference most heartily commend the course of our beloved Bishops, Saule and Andrew, during the recent agitations which have resulted in the territorial and jurisdictional separation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and that we tender them our thanks for their steady adherence to principle and the best interests of the slave population.”—Bedford, pp. 500-503.

[74] Harrison, 302.

[75] Ibid., 318.

[76] Harrison, 324.

[77] Ibid., 326.

[78] Minutes of the Annual Conferences of M. E. Church, South, I, 1845-1859, 16-25.

[79] Ibid., 167, 172, 181.

[80] Ibid., 273, 290, 295.

[81] Ibid., 385, 392, 403.

[82] Ibid., II, 214, 218, 223.

[83] Minutes of the Annual Conference of M. E. Church, South, II, 1845-1859, 214, 218, 203.

[84] American Church History, XI, pp. 66-7.

[85] 26th Annual Report of American Anti-slavery Society, 1859, 115.

[86] McTyeire, III, 536.

[87] Milburn, W. H., Ten Years of a Preacher’s Life, 337.

[88] Cartwright, Fifty Years a Presiding Elder, p. 24.

[89] Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 157.

[90] Col. Recs., III, p. 48.

[91] Garrett and Goodpasture, p. 156.

[92] Newman, A. H., History of Baptist Churches in United States, p. 338.

[93] Briggs, Charles A., American Presbyterianism, pp. 59-60.

[94] Newman, p. 305.

[95] Ibid., p. 338.

[96] Pius, N. H., An Outline of Baptist History, p. 131.

[97] Harrison, pp. 65, 91.

[98] Col. Recs. VIII, 164.

[99] Buckley, James M., History of Methodism, I, 373, 375.

[100] Harrison, 58.

[101] Riley, B. F., History of the Baptists in Southern States East of the Mississippi, p. 199.

[102] Ibid., p. 201.

[103] Riley, p. 205.

[104] Proceedings of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1845, pp. 18, 19.

[105] Riley, p. 211.

[106] Pendleton, J. M., Reminiscences of a Long Life, p. 112.

[107] Ibid., 113.

[108] Professor Pendleton remained at Union University during the war and was a loyal unionist. He preached on Sunday and worked on the farm during the week. He constantly expected to be taken from his home and hanged. He always prepared at night a method of escape, yet he, despite proposals by the citizens of the community to hang him, never had to execute his plans. He lived in constant fear until the Army of the Cumberland occupied Murfreesboro in 1863.—Pendleton, op. cit., 127.

[109] Proceedings of Southern Baptist Convention, 1845, p. 35.

[110] Ibid., p. 28.

[111] Proceedings of Southern Baptist Convention, 1859-60, p. 89.

[112] Pendleton, p. 127.

[113] Pius, p. 61.

[114] Garrett and Goodpasture, 160.

[115] McDonald, B. W., History of Cumberland Presbyterian Church, p. 411.

[116] Cossitt, Franceway Ranna, The Life of Rev. Finis Ewing, p. 273.

[117] McDonald, p. 411.

[118] Letters furnished by Hon. F. E. McLean (Quoted by McDonald, 412).

[119] McDonald, p. 412.

[120] Diary of Beard, A. J., July 11, 1855.

[121] McDonald, p. 414.

[122] Ibid., 415.

[123] The Cumberland Presbyterian, August 19, 1835.

[124] McDonald, p. 417.

[125] Minutes of the Assembly of 1848, pp. 12, 13.

[126] Minutes of the Assembly of 1851, p. 16.

[127] Minutes of the Assembly of 1851, pp. 56, 57. This committee consisted of LeRoy Woods, Ind., A. J. Beard, Ky., J. J. Meek, Miss., N. P. Modrall, Tenn., J. H. Coulter, Ohio, S. E. Hudson, Penn., and J. C. Henson, Ind.

[128] Weeks, S. B., Southern Quakers and Slavery, p. 199 (Baltimore, 1896).

[129] Ibid., p. 207.

[130] Ibid., 207-8.

[131] Ibid., 208.

[132] American Church History, XII, 245.

[133] Weeks, 201.

[134] Ibid., 206.

[135] Ibid., 207.

[136] Weeks, 221.

[137] Ibid., 225.

[138] Hoss, E. E., Elihu Embree, Abolitionist, p. 11.

[139] Petition of Society of Friends, 1817 (Archives of State). This petition was signed by Elihu Embree and nine other Friends.

[140] Goodspeed, p. 645.

[141] Goodspeed, p. 646.

[142] Gillet, E. H., History of Presbyterian Church in United States of America, I, 201. These synods said:

“We do highly approve of the general principles in favor of universal liberty that prevail in America, and of the interest which many of the states have taken in promoting the abolition of slavery. Yet, inasmuch as men, introduced from a servile state to a participation of all the privileges of civil society, without a proper education, and without previous habits of industry, may be, in some respects, dangerous to the community; therefore, they earnestly recommend it to all the members belonging to their communion to give those persons, who are at present held in servitude, such good education as may prepare them for the better enjoyment of freedom. And they moreover recommend that masters, whenever they find servants disposed to make a proper improvement of that privilege, would give them some share of property to begin with, or grant them sufficient time and sufficient means of procuring, by industry, their own liberty; and at a moderate rate, that they may thereby be brought into society with those habits of industry that may render them useful citizens; and, finally, they recommend it to all the people under their care, to use the most prudent measures consistent with the interest and the state of civil society in the parts where they live, to procure eventually the final abolition of slavery in America.”

[143] Minutes of the Assembly of 1795, Quoted by Gillet, I, 284.

[144] Ibid., p. 285. The committee reported that “a neglect of this (religious education) is inconsistent with the character of a Christian master, but the observance might prevent, in great part, what is really the moral evil attending slavery—namely, allowing precious souls under the charge of masters to perish for lack of knowledge.”

[145] Gillet, I, 453. The assembly urged religious education on the slaves “that they may be prepared for the exercise and enjoyment of liberty when God in his providence may open a door for their emancipation.” As to buying and selling of slaves, it recommended “Presbyteries and Sessions under their care to make use of all prudent measures to prevent such shameful and unrighteous conduct.”

[146] Ibid., II, pp. 239-41. The assembly said: “We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature, as utterly inconsistent with the laws of God, which requires us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the gospel of Christ, which enjoins that all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

[147] Gillet, II, 241.

[148] Ibid., 242. See also Fourth Annual Report of American Anti-slavery Society, 1837, p. 62; and Patton, Jacob Harris, Popular History of the Presbyterian Church, p. 444.

[149] Thompson, R. E., History of Presbyterian Churches in the United States, p. 123.

[150] Thirteenth Annual Report of American and Foreign Anti-slavery Society, 1827, pp. 67-8.

[151] Tenth Annual Report of American Colonization Society, 1827, pp. 67-8.

[152] Quarterly Review of the M. E. Church, South, April, 1892, 119-120.

[153] Methodist Quarterly Review, lxiii, 132.

[154] Quarterly Review of the M. E. Church, South, April, 1892, 120.

[155] Thirteenth Annual Report of the American and Foreign Anti-slavery Society, 1853, p. 80.

[156] Ibid., p. 71.

[157] Thirteenth Annual Report of American and Foreign Anti-slavery Society, 1853, pp. 73-4.

[158] Ibid., pp. 67-8.

[159] Ibid., p. 82.

[160] McNeilly, James H., Religion and Slavery, p. 42.

[161] Harrison, p. 91.

[162] Ibid., p. 92.

[163] Goodspeed, p. 683.

[164] Harrison, p. 40.

[165] Ibid., 67.

[166] Ibid., 73.

[167] Goodspeed, p. 694.

[168] Ibid., p. 697.

[169] Ibid., p. 698.

[170] Memoirs of Rt. James H. Otey, p. 94.

[171] _Memoirs of Rt. James H. Otey_, p. 93.

[172] Harrison, 304.

[173] Harrison, 304.