THE SEGREGATION OF THE RACE INTO COLORED ORGANIZATIONS.

It is impossible to build up a first-class membership out of second-class material. This has been one of our weak points. Such efforts as “Tanner’s Apology” were aimed along this line. Now, why is it that in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and, for that matter, everywhere in this country except in the Southern States, the colored man has sought a colored organization? Why the segregation of the race in the North, where slavery never came? Dr. A. G. Haygood believes, with many others, that race instinct segregates them. He says: “Instinct never yet surrendered to arguments; it is their race instinct, deep and strong and inexpugnable,” as Carlyle would say. Who that heard their impassioned speeches at Cincinnati, in May, 1880, could not see that their appeal came, not from the cold conclusions of the reason, but red-hot out of their hearts, from the irresistible promptings of instinct? Listening to their speeches, I felt strongly the mighty under-current that their words but feebly revealed, and I felt—“They are right; they do well to ask this conference for a bishop of their own race.” Listening to the words of the white leaders of the conference, and looking at the subject in the light of cold judgment, I said to myself: “This conference is also right to decline the request.” This instinctive disposition to form Church affiliations on the color basis may be wise or unwise. But it is in them—deep in them. The tendency is strengthening all the time. This instinct will never rest satisfied till it realizes itself in complete separations. The movements that grow out of race instincts do not wait upon the conclusions of philosophy; nor do they, for a long time, take counsel of policy. We may, all of us, as well adjust our plans to the determined and inevitable movements of this instinct, that does not reason, but that moves steadily and resistlessly to accomplish its ends. It is a very grave question to be considered by all who have responsibility in the matter, whether over-repression of race instincts may not mar their normal evolution; may not introduce elements unfriendly to healthful growth; may not result in explosions. I have seen a heavy stone wall overturned by a root that was once a tiny white fiber. Instinct is like the life-force that expresses itself in life or death.

Let us see. “Is it race instinct” that tends to segregate the colored man? We answer, No. His desire to segregate is only a self-defensive measure. The colored man in this country is desperately in earnest in his effort to remove every vestige of the prejudice against him arising from his previous condition of servitude. In the North he found that the white people knew him only as a slave or a freedman. If the former, then he was considered a mendicant—ignorant, superstitious, and immoral, as a natural result of slavery. They could not think of taking him into their homes—cultured, refined, and religious homes—to be at once associated with the members of their families. As to their Churches, he was wholly unfitted for their mode of worship; for to him it appeared foolishness, fashion, and fastidiousness, void of “the true, heart-felt religion” of the plantation where “his sons and his daughters prophesied, his old men dreamed dreams, and his young men saw visions.” As a result, he pretty soon began to feel uneasy, and sighed for “the seasons of the past.” The white man of the North could not possibly meet the social or religious demands of the slave. If he put him in the parlor or school-room with white children, or in the congregation of the Lord—though given a front seat, and in every conceivable way made welcome—he was uneasy. Rev. Richard Allen says that it “was quite a task for me to preach the gospel in St. George’s Church, in Philadelphia.” The white man of the North could not make the colored man from the South feel at home. If he had had a separate building in which to allow him and his family to live, it would have appeared more like home to him. I do not here speak of the many noble exceptions, for we all know “what’s bred in the bone is not easily eradicated from the flesh.” It is a hard matter, indeed, in after years to change all at once the habits of men’s past lives, whether they be religious, moral, or temporal. Again, the white man of the North had no work the colored man of the South was adapted to do. The house-work usually was done either by “the hale housewife with busy care,” or by a foreign domestic. The same was true of the out-door work. All this in the South the colored man enjoyed without a rival. The whole affair was in an abnormal condition with the colored man from the South. Those who doubt these statements have but to note the line of demarkation that is not even yet effaced between the “free colored man of the North” and the former slave colored man of the South, to-day, everywhere. Their mode of Church polity, songs, prayers, sermons, dress, deportment, and all, are different. This to-day makes—for awhile at least—the colored man of the South in the North shy, not to say uncomfortable. What relation could be farther from the wishes of the poor, ignorant, and superstitious colored man of those days than the social equality granted him? What could make him wish more to be carried “back to his old Kentucky home?”

Every effort or advance made by the white man toward the colored man found his superstition of white men repulsive. First, the thought would come to him, “I should suspect some danger nigh, where I possess delight.” Again, the colored man of the South knew nothing of business principles in general, and of the Yankee idea of business principles in particular. When the rigid rules of active business life were exacted of him by his white Northern neighbor or employer, it was but a sad contrast to the loose and illegitimate business principles he had been under in the South, and it was but a short time until he naturally began to suspect that the Northern white man thought he was a thief. Again, after the war the better class of colored men—such as the land-owner, the stock-raiser, the mechanic, and the farmer, and those who had some learning—did not go North. In 1870 there were residing in sixteen Southern States, beginning with Missouri, west with Texas, and east with the Carolinas, 4,609,541, being 15.8% of the whole population; leaving but 726,521 colored people elsewhere in these United States. As late as 1880 there were 6,200,646 colored people in the United States, while there were but 180,393 residing in Northern States. It took but very little inducement to make the colored man believe, therefore, that while the white man of the North had helped to free him, he now cared but little for him. It is true that “birds of a feather do flock together,” especially young birds; at any rate, throughout the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms the example is given by nature to man, in that all these only flourish in congenial climates and soil, while for all his life the colored man had been taught to suspect the Yankee as only loving him for what he could get out of him. Again, in the South the colored man had seen and become conversant with the irresponsible, careless plantation life, and with the prodigality of his master, who thought nothing of tossing him a quarter now and then. Up North the last farthing was exacted from him; he was expected to pay his house-rent, grocery bill, keep clean, and make but little noise around his home, at Church, and on the public thoroughfares. This to him—recently liberated—was all new and strange. If he became disorderly, the white man of the North, instead of laughing at him, and passing on the other side, would at once have him arrested; if dishonest, punished. He had been used to “better things,” as he thought; and hence it took but little persuasion for him to believe the white man of the North not as friendly as the Southern white man.

To say that the cultivation of such superstition on the part of some of the so-called leading colored men was an advantage; that such talk from the “book-learned colored man,” who either thought he spoke the truth or perjured himself, had the effect of segregating the colored people into separate Churches, is apparent to all. The statement of the colored man who is reported to have established a bank for colored folks is, to my mind, illustrative at this point. When he had accumulated two or three thousand dollars of the money of his people he tacked a card on his front door with this inscription: “This bank am busted.” When his depositors came in great crowds about his door, and loudly called for him, he came forth and said: “Now, gentlemuns and ladies, we is free. We must act jus’ like white folks do. White folks put money in der banks and de banks burst; and when dey see it, den dat’s de end ob de matter. So it mus’ be wid us.” This is said to have satisfied the creditors.

When some colored men saw the advantage of segregating the colored people, they found a great amount of gratuitous help. Every white man, woman, and child, who objected to “Negro equality,” at once lent his or her aid. The white orator and editor and preacher of this class joined with the so-called leader in segregating the colored people. This no sane man will deny. And now, in these latter days, philosophers arise and declare it “instinct.” Everything was in favor of the segregation. A great many white men, as well as a great many good colored men, deprecated this, and fought desperately against it. In “Chauncey Judd” we have an illustration of this spirit, even as early as Colonial days. A Presbyterian minister was invited to marry a free colored couple. The bargain the groom made with the clergyman was, that if he would marry him like a white man he would pay him like a white man. The bride was very pretty, but as large and black as pretty. The guests were of both races. It was customary at that day for the clergyman to kiss the bride. This the clergyman forgot to do, for some reason. When about to take leave of the couple the clergyman incidentally remarked that the ceremony was incomplete without “the fee.” “Why,” said the groom, “I sticks to de contrac’.” “Well, that is right,” said the clergyman, “for you said if I would marry you like a white man you would pay me like a white man.” “That’s jus’ so,” said the groom, “but you didn’t kiss the bride.” “O well,” said the clergyman, “that is no matter, any way.” “O well, it’s no matter ’bout de fee, any way,” said the groom.

Colored men who aspired to leadership among the colored people, and were willing to stoop so low, when they knew better, saw that the support of colored men, politically, religiously, or morally, would at once bring them prestige, influence, and power with white men. To segregate the colored people would, as Rev. Richard Allen intimated, create “a necessity” for his services. If they remained associated with white people, there would soon come a time when it would be impossible for him to be of service to his people so as to benefit himself pecuniarily. We do not aim here to charge all leaders of the race, political or ecclesiastical, with perfidy, but to prove that it is not “instinct” alone that is responsible for the segregation of the race, or that this instinct will not allow them to associate on perfect equality with white people; that it is not ordained of God that colored members must be under colored pastors in colored Churches, controlled by colored men exclusively. That the disposition of the more intelligent colored man of the North rather seeks separation or independency, than segregation, is being ocularly demonstrated annually, and becoming more acceptable as he becomes more cultured. If this be not so, why is it that the cultured young colored man, who “tips” his education in some Eastern or Northern college, comes back South, dissatisfied to remain? Dr. Haygood must find some better and more philosophical answer.

It is a fact that a great many colored men who aspire to leadership politically and ecclesiastically, will deny what we have here said. Indeed, we would have hesitated to speak so plainly were it not that we wish, as much as possible, to give the bare facts of the case as they appear to us, aside from any personal consideration. We believe, with all the earnestness and candor of soul and mind, that this whole “color-line” question, from beginning to end, lies at the feet of those aspirants; that most of the opprobrium, ostracism, and caste prejudice that did and do now exist against the race in this country, can be, and is, impartially and legitimately traced to that source; and that the separate African Churches in this country are the parents of not less than ninety-five per cent of this hue and cry against Negro social equality. They are easily conceived, therefore, to be the causes of all other ecclesiastical unrest and “color-line” separations in this country. This is so evident that he who runs may read it.

CHAPTER XI
THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1884.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The following sums were appropriated to schools among whites:

In 1879 and 1880,	0 00
In 1880 and 1881,	$2,600 00
In 1881 and 1882,	19,453 75
In 1882 and 1883,	26,847 25
Total receipts during quadrennium,	$437,986 89
Appropriations for schools among whites,	48,901 00
Appropriations for schools among colored,	$389,085 89

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report No. 2—Adopted May 23d.

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

Report No. 4—Adopted May 23d.

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

Report No. 5—Adopted May 23d.

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

Report No. 6—Adopted May 23d.

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

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

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

From Committee on State of the Church, Report No. 4—Adopted May 28th.

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

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

From Committee on Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the South, Report No. 7—Adopted May 28th.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER XII
THE PROBLEM.

Just what was intended by that General Conference touching this vexed question may be easily found out, if allowed to take as a basis the trite saying, “We have no way of judging the future but by the past.” The declarations of the several General Conferences of our Church warrant us in declaring the following as her principles: “(1) God made of one blood all men for to dwell on the face of the earth; (2) God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” The Methodist Episcopal Church is either founded upon and guided by the Word of God, or is nothing. The Church further declared: “(1) There is no word ‘white’ to discriminate against race or color known in our legislation; (2) Being of African descent does not prevent membership with white men in annual conferences; (3) Nor ordination at the same altars; (4) Nor appointment to presiding eldership; (5) Nor election to the General Conference; (6) Nor eligibility to the highest offices in the Church.” (Journal, 1872, p. 373.) That the actions of that General Conference on the color question were enigmatical, the following will declare. The declaration of the General Conference of 1880 naturally led to, if it did not bring about, the entire discussion. The declaration was as follows:

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

If the words “to aid the schools which have been established by our Church in the Southern States among the white people,” had been “the schools established in the Southern States among our white members, to be held sacredly for them to the exclusion of colored pupils,” it would have died on the spot, and been buried uncoffined, unknelled, and unknown. It may be that a wrong construction is put on the former by the insertion of the latter words. If so, the sequel will so declare it. If not, then the phraseology was, and is, misleading. But it was adopted. What does it say? That the already existing exclusive schools for the whites, established within the Church in the Southern States, are to be fostered by the Freedmen’s Aid Society, with the provision that, as a result, no embarrassment come to the schools for the freedmen. Does not that provision imply separate schools? We are trying simply to state facts as they exist, without committal on the subject at this time.

In the last General Conference the second report on Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the South, offered by Rev. J. C. Hartzell, D.D., indorsed the administration of the society during the quadrennium. If the discussion that preceded that General Conference meant anything, it meant that it did not indorse the Little Rock and Chattanooga enterprises as projected. The resolution offered by Rev. C. O. Fisher, D.D., of Savannah Conference, and adopted by that General Conference, without reference to any committee, declared it the sense of the General Conference that color is no bar to any right or privilege of office or membership in the Church; that the propriety is recognized of so administering its affairs as “hereafter, as heretofore, to secure the largest concession to individual preferences involving merely the social relations of its members.” No valid objection can be offered to the last proposition. If it simply means that any and every member of the Church has the right to attend Church or schools wherever he pleases, without let or molestation so far as law goes, it is simply another way of declaring the equality of each and every member of the Church so far as privileges are concerned. If the above supposition is true, any objection on account of race, color, or previous condition, raised by any one in authority over Churches or schools under the auspices of the Church, is a flagrant violation of her law. We can conceive of but three valid reasons for any man offering such a resolution in a General Conference of a Church that has always conceded such, viz.: (1) To show liberal-mindedness. (2) That there is no caste or race prejudice concealed among the colored members within the Methodist Episcopal Church that would cramp another member, or desires to insinuate itself upon the rights and prerogatives of others. (3) To prevent any unnecessary bickerings between the two races within the Church in the South. On top of the above came the report of the Committee on Freedmen’s Aid and Work in the South. It declared the Church a friend to the colored man, and cited as evidence the work done by the society—twenty-four institutions of learning, connecting with it the expenditure of $1,250,000. That this management was (a) wise, (b) efficient, and (c) successful. Then came the other side of the question; the establishment of schools for the benefit of “the whites” within the Church in the South was (1) wise, (2) necessary, (3) gratifyingly successful, and had had a liberalizing effect upon public sentiment there that redounds to the advantage of the colored man; that it was a pity no more had been done, and it should be put upon a strong, permanent basis. Then came the mixed school question. As to the colored man, he was justly entitled to equal rights of not only “life and liberty,” but to the means of grace and proper facilities for education; that the Church is bound to provide and secure to every class of its members, as far as possible, a fair and equal opportunity in Church and school accommodations. As to mixed congregations and schools, they “were in some places most desirable and best for all” (North, we presume), “in other places [South, we guess], one or the other, or both, may prefer separate congregations and schools.” The question of equal rights is declared: (1) “To be the best facilities for intellectual and spiritual culture; (2) in the eligibility to every position of honor and trust; and (3) in the exercise of a free and unconstrained choice in all social relations.” This was declared “a principle at once American, Methodistic, and Scriptural.” Then come the resolutions. The first rejoices in the work done among and for the colored people, supports a pledge to stand by and support it to the extent of its needs, measured by the ability of the Church. The next two resolutions are the most objectionable offered, viz.:

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

Let us scrutinize these a moment. The General Conference, by the adoption of these two resolutions, sympathized with an effort “to provide adequate educational facilities among themselves”—the white members of our Church in the South. If disposed to hunt objections, we would say they had already “adequate educational facilities,” as a result of the educational work done by the Freedmen’s Aid Society, if they would have accepted them, and without additional efforts on their part. Again, the General Conference, by its action, desired to “assure them of such co-operation and assistance as we may be able to render.” It may be short-sightedness or ignorance to say so, but the way these resolutions read they certainly seem not only not to object to discrimination, but to encourage it.

By the second resolution the question of mixed or separate schools was declared: (1) “One of expediency, to be left to the choice and administration of those on the ground, and more immediately concerned.” That which is expedient, Webster declares “a means to an end.” Was it so intended in that resolution? “Those on the ground and more immediately concerned” were undoubtedly the trustees, teachers, and patrons of the schools among the whites in our Church. (2) “Provided, there shall be no interference with the rights set forth in this—the foregoing—preamble and these resolutions.” The preamble declared: “(1) Equal rights to the best facilities for intellectual and spiritual culture, equal rights in the eligibility to every position of honor and trust, and equal rights in the exercise of a free and unconstrained choice in all social relations as a principle at once American, Methodistic, and Scriptural.” Now let us put this and that together; who is to decide what are “the best facilities for intellectual and spiritual culture?” According to the principle of expediency—“the means to an end”—undoubtedly it must be decided by “those on the ground and more immediately concerned.” Now, the question as to whether the contributors—the majority of the most liberal contributors—are “more immediately concerned,” we do not stop to say. Having completed the addition, what do we find as a rational conclusion? What are we to understand by “the exercise of a free and unconstrained choice in all social relations?” Webster says: “The word constrain comes from the Latin constringere. This is composed of con and stringere, to draw tight, to strain; a strong, binding force; to hold back by force.” The word used is unconstrained. I suppose we can conclude it means without constraint. The question naturally arises, Had there been any constraint in our work in the South? If so, at what point? Touching what phase of the work? Whatever constraint the work in the South has been laboring under, the Church was responsible for it. Was it that “race, color, nor previous condition” should be a bar to the full and equal rights of its members in Church, school, or office? There must have been some constraint, or the word “unconstrained” is meaningless, as used. But whatever constrained choice existed previously, it was so intended, and that resolution did abrogate, if it has any force at all. What did “those on the ground and more immediately concerned” understand it to mean? Rather, what naturally grew out of it?