The Colored Man in the Methodist Episcopal Church

by L. M. Hagood

THEORY AND PRACTICE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The application of the principle is the other matter to be considered. Who was to apply it? Somebody in Detroit or Boston, or the trustees and faculties intrusted with the care of the institutions? To ask the question is to answer it. A mistake in the application of the principle in a given case might be made, but are those making it to be adjudged worse sinners than those upon whom the tower of Siloam fell therefor? If those applying a principle mistakenly be worthy of death, of how much sorer punishment shall they be thought worthy who gave them the principle to apply? But the General Conference of 1884 declared the policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church to be ... that ‘no student shall be excluded from instruction in any and every school under the supervision of the Church because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’ What of it? Had that deliverance the force of an enactment? Was it true to history? Will any claim it to be history? Who have declared it? When and where was the declaration made? Had such a policy been carried into execution? When? By whom? Had it been at Athens or Little Rock, the only other schools established for whites at the South?

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

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

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

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

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

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

“‘To the question of mixed schools we have given our most serious and prayerful attention. It is a subject beset with peculiar difficulties. That the colored man has a just and equal right, not only to life and liberty, but also to the means of grace and facilities for education, we not only admit, but most positively affirm. We are in duty bound to provide for and to secure to every class of our membership, so far as possible, a fair and equal opportunity in Church and school accommodations. And in so far as this is done our duty is performed, and the equal rights justly demanded of us thus fairly and fully conceded. Mixed congregations and mixed schools may, in many places, be most desirable and best for all concerned. In other cases one class or the other, or both, may prefer separate congregations and separate schools. Equal rights to the best facilities for intellectual and spiritual culture; equal rights in the eligibility to every position of honor and trust, and equal rights in the exercise of a free and unconstrained choice in all social relations, is a principle at once American, Methodistic, and Scriptural.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“‘You can and you can’t,

You shall and you sha’n’t.’

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

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

“The first action said: ‘The question of separate or mixed schools we consider one of expediency, which is to be left to the choice and administration of those on the ground.’ That said, ‘You can.’

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

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

‘You can and you can’t,

You shall and you sha’n’t,

You will and you won’t;

You’ll be damned if you do,

And be damned if you don’t.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Central Christian Advocate of March 9, 1887, said:

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

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

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

The Northwestern Advocate of March 2, 1887, contained the following by J. B. Stair:

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

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

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

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

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

ART DEPARTMENT OF CLAFLIN UNIVERSITY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

CHAPTER XIV
WHAT WILL THE HARVEST BE?

After the examination we have made, and trying to scan the future, we see what has been gained by the colored members who remained in the Methodist Episcopal Church. They have been admitted to full membership, to communion at her altars, official relation as laymen, given work in the pastorate, presiding elderate, and given to understand that “color is no bar to an election to the episcopacy.”

“But these attained, we tremble to survey

The growing labors of the lengthened way;

The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes;

Hills peep o’er hills, and Alps on Alps arise.”

Will a time ever come in the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church when she will tire of the race question, and abandon forever her work among and for the colored man? It is hardly conceivable that this will ever occur. The discussion of the race question becomes beautifully less at each General Conference. It is true that new phases develop now and then, and there follows a clash at arms; but it never, nowadays, amounts to more than a passage at arms, for the reason that the average agitator receives but comparatively little encouragement from those Churches in this country which have turned their backs upon the colored man. They tremblingly hope the Methodist Episcopal Church will make some awkward step that will eventually drive the colored man out; but they have seen her stand by him in the hottest contests unflinchingly, and in the face of a gainsaying prejudice that is as old as the venerated Constitution and as deep rooted as sin, and they fear to say yea or nay touching what it will or will not do. The Methodist Episcopal Church can never forsake the colored man, and be consistent. It declared in 1816, 1844, 1861, and 1872, by its actions, that the duty of the Christian Church was to stand by the colored man, by making him feel at home within it as much as possible. Now to go back, would be to say that the Church South in 1844 was right in defending slavery, and right in ridding itself of the colored man in 1870, and that that which the Methodist Episcopal Church did at those periods was wrong. This it can never do, and be consistent.

One other question at this juncture arises. It is one fraught with much interest, as it is one that would involve the entire eight millions of colored people in this country, that would naturally widen the chasm between the white and colored races in this country, and would sustain the same relation to a war of races in this country that the separation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, sustained in 1844 to the war of the Rebellion. It is, Will the colored members within the Methodist Episcopal Church eventually be separated from it? If the existing relations between the Church and her colored members remain as they are now, No. There could be no reason for a separation, since “there is no word white” known within the letter of the law of the Church to indorse invidious distinctions “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude;” there are no privileges accorded to any man of one race in the Church, that another of any other race within the Church is not entitled to by law. There is no church-building with the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church inscribed upon it, into which any person “having a desire to flee the wrath to come” may not go as a worshiper, or become a member. This is also true of any university, college, or school under the auspices of the Church. There is no annual conference of the Church to which the colored man has not a perfect right to belong; no position within the gift of the Methodist Episcopal Church, from janitor to bishop, to which any member, white or colored, may not aspire, be elected or appointed to, and discharge the functions pertaining thereto, without hindrance. In a word, the white and colored membership within the Church is, according to the enactments of the General Conference, equal in all that pertains to Church membership and privileges. Hence there is now no cause for the colored membership seeking separation from the Church. “We know not what a day may bring forth;” but, judging the future by the past, there will never come a time when it will be absolutely necessary for the Church to put away its colored membership, nor an absolute necessity for the colored membership to withdraw from the Church. The question of the inferiority of the colored man within the Church to the average white member within the Church, is fast disappearing, whether we speak of this in reference to General or annual conferences. The Methodist Episcopal Church is turning out enough young colored men from her universities, colleges, and schools, from Boston to Austin, Texas, each year, to form an annual conference. The graduates from her schools are everywhere joining the Church and conferences, and, to a certain extent, coping with those whose chances have been more favorable. No absolute necessity for separation exists, and, for that matter, may never exist. May it not be found more profitable, after a short time, for all the colored Methodists in this country to unite and form one grand united body of colored Methodists? This question has been urged by many different parties, with as many different motives at the bottom. Let us notice a few. In “Our Brother in Black” (by Dr. A. G. Haygood, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,) at page 226, we find the following touching the point at issue:

“The most remarkable tendency that has so far shown itself in the development of their ecclesiastical life is the strong and, as I think, resistless disposition in those of like faith to come together in their religious organizations. The centripetal is stronger than the centrifugal force. We have already a number of African Churches. Indeed, the great majority of them belong to Churches not only of their own ‘faith and order,’ but of their own ‘race and color.’... This disposition has become very pronounced, and has expressed itself on a very large scale since they were set free.”

At page 236 the good Doctor reaches his point when he says:

“If every colored Methodist in the United States were to-day in one organization, this would not change the grounds or nature of our obligations to them in any respect, so far as fraternal love, fraternal aid, and co-operation are concerned. It would then, as now, be our duty to help them in all possible ways; and considering their history in this country, and the providential indications of their relation to the salvation of Africa, just as much our duty then as now. If there were not one Negro in the Methodist Episcopal Church the Freedmen’s Aid Society would be as much needed as it is now. ‘The colored Methodist Episcopal Church of America’ that was ‘set up’—I hope not ‘set off’—needs the help of its mother, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, every whit as much as if they were still with us. Nay, all the more, because they are not with us. And we ought, before God, to help them.” We simply add, it is about time.

In a book written by a layman of our Church, John A. Wright, of Philadelphia, with the title, “People and Preachers in the Methodist Episcopal Church,” at pages 262–6, touching the question of separation, he says:

“A conclusive argument in favor of separation would be made if it could be satisfactorily proven that the connection as it now exists is injurious and demoralizing to both parties; if it could be shown that their presence is a danger, and has a corrupting influence on the main body of the Church; and that such separation could be made without injury to the colored man. There has been an unwillingness, a hesitation on the part of the Church to discuss this question, but the undoubted use that was made of the colored votes in the last General Conference (1884) to secure places was so patent to every careful observer that it can not be kept down. The ease with which the influence and votes of these innocent and generally very ignorant representatives were secured by those nearest to them, shows how great a danger there would be in the abuse of the confidence placed by them in their avowed friends.

“There are important movements among the colored people that should be noted. All will remember the enthusiastic patriotism, civil and religious, which was to abolish all color-lines and all laws that recognized black and white, or their intermediate shades. Yet a law of nature, of race, and of common sense is asserting itself among the colored people, in that they want to be separated from such close connection with the white man. They feel that there is an incongruity, an unfitness, a something that causes them to desire to be free from his presence and government. They have but little respect for the whites who remain among them. It is a growing belief among the more intelligent colored people that their religious growth would be increased by their independence of the white Church. So strong is this feeling in certain places, that a secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the formation of independent Methodist Churches, is seriously discussed. In obedience to this growing sentiment, the General Conference, in 1884, recognized the policy of basing membership of annual conferences on a color-line. An argument in favor of caution in treating this question may be drawn from the relation of the colored people to the interests of the country. The colored vote in the United States is accepted as a source of danger in the future to this country. The present colored vote, as it has or has not had the privilege of free expression, has determined who should be President of the United States.... It may or may not be an idle fear, but wise men are looking at the question in sober earnestness.... The Church, then, should be carefully guarded against danger arising from the presence of so large a colored membership through the use of its power in the General Conference. The idea of separation for better work is not new among us. We have the German and colored conferences, and would have Scandinavian if there were enough Scandinavians. There is a law of association that is the best regulator of such questions. That a separation into conferences on the color-line will become general is inevitable. The questions will come up before the General Conference to decide, whether the colored ministers can be so educated as to continue in the Methodist Episcopal Church without any serious danger to its interests; if not, the lesser must suffer, if suffering it would be, for the sake of the greater; or whether, when they are prepared, they will not do more good by being transferred to some branch of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

“There are the African, the Zion, and the Colored Methodist Episcopal Churches, which last was wisely set apart by the Southern Methodist Episcopal Church at the end of the war. They are all strong, aggressive, and independent Churches. If the members of these Churches could be united with the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church they would make a membership of nearly one million of people. What an opportunity for usefulness to their race would be thus placed before them! It must be admitted that their continued connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church does not tend to promote their dependence upon themselves. Government aid makes a restless pauper class; Church support has the same tendency. That the two races do not work well together, or rather that the colored Churches do not prosper when intimately connected with white Churches, is pretty well exemplified in the city of Philadelphia, where the only two colored Churches, living side by side with the large white Church membership of that city, had so dwindled in numbers and financial ability in 1884 that the Church Extension Society had, practically, to purchase two churches for their use, so that the colored brethren from the South might have a Church home when they came to the General Conference. During the same time the African and the Zion Methodist Episcopal Churches have been very successful in that city, have done much good, have able bishops, leaders, and a respectable membership. On the one side there was dependency, and on the other independency. It is risking but little to assert that the number, character, and self reliance of the members of the colored Methodist Episcopal Church, South, are far greater and better than they would have been if their connection had continued with the old Church.

“A further thought deserves consideration at this point. If the colored members are to be continued in the Church, or as long as such connection may last, would it not be to the interests of all parties to dissolve the annual conferences in which they are in a large majority, and form them into mission conferences, as they were prior to the General Conference of 1868, without a voting representation in the General Conference? By doing this the Church would be saved from the low average grade of intelligence of the General Conference of 1884, caused by the presence of nearly forty of such representatives, and from the corrupting influences that were so palpable. The colored people would then understand that their connection was not permanent, but was in the line of educating them to take care of themselves. In the meantime the Church could continue its good work in giving them the advantages of education, training in trades, and to the most promising a fitting education for the ministry and learned professions. The suggestions made hereinbefore as to the proper basis of representation in the General Conference, connected with that of the last paragraph, would reduce the number of delegates to the General Conference from the colored conferences, and thereby lessen the danger. It is important that this or some other protective plan should be adopted before the separation that is inevitable between the white and colored work takes place. No mere pride of numbers or prestige should have any influence to prevent the Church from saying to the colored brethren, ‘Go in peace, and may the God of heaven protect and guide you;’ and with this benediction handing over to them all the churches, colleges, and property that have been accumulated for their use.”

The sequel will show that the writer of that book knows but little concerning the colored people. Let us for a moment stop and look more closely at the above chapter from Brother Wright’s facile pen. There is no mistake, Brother Wright has in some way had his plans upset. That he intended to “get even” with some one is also apparent. This general attacks first one and then the other division of the grand army of Methodism. First he attacks the army at large for neglecting to bring more laymen to the van. He then charges upon the clerical regiment, declaring it is in the way of his “consummation devoutly to be wished.” Being somewhat repulsed, he falls back in disorder, only to find the colored regiment supporting, in some sort, the former. At once his guns are leveled, and he makes a Fort Pillow charge upon “the black brigade.” Of this brigade, within the Methodist army, he declares: “A conclusive argument for separation would be made if it were proven that the connection existing [between the white and colored people] within the Church is injurious to both classes.” He attempts to prove the proposition, by declaring that, by the presence of colored representatives from Southern and mixed conferences, “but few are fitted for their places and are still grossly immoral,” in the General Conference “grades down the intelligence and wisdom of the whole body, to a level too low for safety; that the ease with which the influence and votes of these innocent, and generally very ignorant, representatives were secured by those nearest to them, shows how great a danger there would be in the abuse of the confidence placed by them in their avowed friends.” The gentleman should not have stayed so far away from those “innocent and generally very ignorant representatives.” Knowing, as he must, that the man whose intelligence gives him advantage, even in a Methodist General Conference, over “the innocent and generally very ignorant” is the greater sinner, he strikes at “the avowed friends” of the colored man. But in a great many instances some of the “avowed friends” of the colored man in the General Conference of 1884 were those whom Methodism, within and without this country, “delights to honor.” But aside from this, it were well for the good brother had the revisers of the Old Testament elided the “thou shalt not bear false witness.”

We question very much whether a single proper delegate to that General Conference was “innocent and generally very ignorant” enough to miss the truth as far as he seems to have missed it, and for the same purpose. He also says: “The colored men feel that there is an incongruity, an unfitness, a something that causes them to desire to be freed from his presence and government. They have but little respect for the whites who remain among them.” If that is so, it is too bad. If it is not so, then—? When a witness testifies to one thing, and then contradicts himself, if he is adjudged sane, the court will throw out his testimony, declaring him either ignorant of the truth of the facts he would relate, or else a perjurer. If the former, he should be reprimanded for meddling with matters he knew nothing about; if the latter, the law would punish him. If the colored men within the Methodist Episcopal Church feel “that there is an incongruity, a something that causes them to desire to be freed from his presence [the white man] and government,” it could arise from no better source than that such men persist in remaining within the Church who abuse them.

“They have but little respect for the whites that remain among them.” We think no man who understands our work in the South will deny that Drs. J. C. Hartzell, J. Braden, and A. Webster, “remain among them.” But Dr. Hartzell was for five years or more the secretary of the Louisiana Conference, where the colored men are in the majority. He has repeatedly been elected to the General Conference by his brethren, and usually on the first ballot. Rev. John Braden, D.D., president of the Central Tennessee College, at Nashville, Tennessee, has been there for nearly twenty years, and as a member of the Tennessee Conference has been treated by his conference brethren like Dr. Hartzell, of Louisiana Conference. Dr. Alonzo Webster, of the South Carolina Conference, being, we believe, the only white man in it, has been treated by his conference brethren just as the brethren of the Tennessee Conference treated Dr. Braden. Without multiplying illustrations, we ask, what becomes of Brother Wright’s argument? It follows, that his darts fall futile at the door of a Church that by law knows “no word white.”

Again: “The General Conference must yet decide whether colored ministers can be educated so as to continue in the Church. If not, the lesser [the colored man, of course] must suffer; or whether, when they are prepared, they will not do more good by being transferred to some branch of the African Church.” When did our bishops receive authority to “transfer” ministers into another Church? When the time for that transferring comes, would not the members of the General and annual conferences be privileged to vote upon it?

In speaking of the three colored organizations, the African, African Zion, and Colored Methodist Episcopal Churches, he says: “They are all strong, aggressive, and independent. The last was wisely set apart by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at the end of the war.” The African Methodist Recorder, of July, 1887, contained an article signed by Rev. J. H. Welch, of that Church on “Union of Colored Methodists in this Country.” The facts there stated have not been called into question, not even by the editor. So that the facts stated stand unquestioned. In speaking of the African Methodist Episcopal, the African Zion Methodist Episcopal, and the Colored Methodist Episcopal Churches of America, the very ones spoken of by Brother Wright, he says:

“But as we stand to-day separated, all of us are weak and inefficient. In almost every city, town, and village, each branch of the Methodist family has planted a Church, and in many places neither of the Churches can give the pastor a comfortable support. Neither of the branches above referred to has a first-class institution of learning nor an efficient corps of professors and teachers; and those we have are just existing, and that is all. Neither of these organizations has a missionary system operating as it should. Neither branch of these Methodist bodies has a first-class book concern.”

Now, the above comes from an African Methodist of the African Methodists—a man conversant with the inner and outer workings of the machinery of the three “strong, progressive, and independent” colored Churches. Who is right, Brother Wright? As to the wisdom displayed by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in setting apart its colored daughter, we leave Dr. A. G. Haygood to say, as he has at page 236 in “Our Brother in Black.” However, the aforesaid brother missed it a few years, when he says “set apart at the end of the war,” for it was not “set apart” until 1870. But then, you know, a few years—say seven—don’t amount to much when we have an object in view. At last he feels as if a solution of his troublesome problem has been reached. When speaking further of the three “strong, aggressive, and independent Churches,” he says: “If the members of these Churches could be united with the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they would make a million of people. What an opportunity for usefulness to their race would be thus placed before them!” It’s wonderful, is it not? At this point the good brother reaches his climax. By all means, let it be done! Let us begin now! Come, let us go up to the next General Conference of our Church, and pass a law that all the colored Methodists in America and Canada must come into our Church—bishops, elders, exhorters, and laymen—and thus accept the magnanimous “opportunity for usefulness to our race.” What would the good brother then think of General Conference representation? Would he have it reduced? But fearing that some others may not see the plan as he sees it, he says: “If they [the colored members] are to remain in the Church, would it not be to the interest of all parties to dissolve the annual conferences in which colored members are in the majority, into mission conferences? If not, then reduce the number of colored delegates.” Now, any one can judge from what we have cited from the book, just about how much credence should be had in anything the book, “Preachers and People in the Methodist Episcopal Church,” has presented. And yet it does show that the question of a separation from the Methodist Episcopal Church is being discussed; for even the author of that book has a backing within and without the Methodist Episcopal Church, for he is one of the leading officials in the Arch Street Methodist Episcopal Church, Philadelphia.

Caste prejudice has not been, but will yet be, driven to the owls and bats, before the onrolling tidal wave of intelligence and sober common sense that is even now breaking upon the shores of this country. And yet it does seem as if there is but one of two ways in which it can be done, or by a combination (suiting the case) of the two,—the hump of caste prejudice now resting so adroitly upon the back of our American Protestant ecclesiasticism must be amputated by the impartial but keen blade of the great Physician; or Protestantism must bow so low in the dust and ashes of humiliation, that this unsightly protuberance shall be visible no more forever. Then, and not till then, can we hope to see this camel go unscathed through the eye of the gospel needle.

---

CHAPTER XV
UNION OF COLORED METHODISTS.

What would be the result of such a union? If an organic union of all the colored Methodists in America could be effected, it would make no mean Church. Just think of the African Methodist Episcopal, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion, the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church in America, and the colored members now within the Methodist Episcopal Church, say to the number of three hundred thousand, uniting and forming one Church, composed of 22,076 ministers and a membership of 1,012,300, bringing with them an army of Sunday-school children not far from 1,500,000! If the divine promise were fulfilled in each of these, that “one shall chase a thousand and two shall put ten thousand to flight,” why, such an army of true believers could, as the quaint preacher said, “shake hell to its center” while moving the world toward the cross of Christ!

It was in 1883 when Dr. Tanner, through the columns of the paper he was then editing, the Christian Recorder, of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, suggested the idea of an organic union of all the exclusively colored organizations. A year or so ago the colored Methodists of Canada, under Bishop Nazery, united with the African Methodist Episcopal Church. It did not amount to much then nor since. Several times overtures have been made to the two other colored Churches by the African Methodist Episcopal Church, but it has usually ended in talk. The fact may as well be stated first as last, that a time will never come in the history of this country when all the colored Methodists will belong to one great Negro Church. In the first place, the African Methodist Episcopal, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion, the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church of America, and the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, each and every one of these is looking forward to, and praying for, a time when all the others will come back to mother or come over and live with sister. Again, because the separate and distinct colored Church organizations have been warring with each other from the beginning of their organization, and these old feuds and petty jealousies keep coming up every time organic union is mentioned. It can not occur, because the African Methodist Episcopal and African Methodist Episcopal Zion Churches continued separate before the war, and when it ended expected to, and did, receive a wonderful influx from the Methodist Episcopal and Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Those two organizations saw a few apples still clinging to the parent tree in the South. They began throwing sticks and mud, then they tried “taffy,” and then stones. In 1869 each of the above-named two Churches began to get ready for the reception of the one hundred thousand members then in the Church South. As the General Conference of the Church South in 1870 met, each of those denominations, basing its faith on the repeated promises of many of the prominent preachers of the Church South, began to prepare to receive them. They were chagrined, however, when, instead of “coming over,” they marched out into the broad field of independency, and set up shop for themselves by the assistance of the Church South. The two older Churches then began to bushwhack all they possibly could, seizing “every straggling soul as their own lawful prey.” The two larger colored organizations will not unite, because each is still waiting and expecting her younger sister to visit and remain with her. The three will not unite, because each is expecting a time to come when the three hundred thousand colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church will leave in a body and join it.

Of course, the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church are praised, abused, loved, laughed at, or coquetted, as the case seems to require at the time. It is really amusing at times to hear the stories told—good, bad, and indifferent—by these three organizations, to induce our members to come. And yet, somehow or other, the one does not seem to know why the other should anticipate our coming. We can not see it. Before we had separate conferences it did look as if all our members would be stolen from us. But every day now the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church pitch their tent a day’s march farther from any kind of African Methodism, on the one hand, and from having the oceans circumscribe them by joining “The Colored Methodist Episcopal Church of, or in, America.” If there ever comes a time in the history of the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church when it will be no longer useful, pleasant, or wise to remain, they will undoubtedly form another colored organization, and man it themselves. They have the material. There is no colored Church in this country that is educating so many young people a year as the Methodist Episcopal Church. Our brethren of the three colored organizations in this country will tell you that the time has now passed when their bishops, General Conference officers, etc., can visit the Commencement exercises of our schools and colleges, and take away in their pockets, by flattery or promises, our young people as they were wont to do. This is the explanation of the mushroom “universities and colleges” under the auspices of certain “powers” in this country. Our young men and women begin now to see, as do many others, that a time not far distant must come when the best outlook for cultured colored men and women will not be, as some would have us believe, in Africa, nor among the Africans. Why should it not be a separate organization of our own, if any change must come? Indeed, the thought presents the most flattering prospect,—the twenty or thirty universities, colleges, normal schools, and academies given into the hands of our own competent presidents, professors, and teachers; the real estate, consisting of college buildings, churches, and parsonages, with mortgage on only about twenty-five cents on the dollar; five hundred thousand children in our schools, and over three hundred thousand members, with the great Methodist Episcopal Church behind them! Now and then some good brother, like the author of “Preachers and People in the Methodist Episcopal Church,” advances the utopian idea of handing us over to some one of the existing colored organizations, but the good men and women in the Methodist Episcopal Church are hoping for no such thing. We believe the good men and women predominate.

GAMMON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ATLANTA, GA.
(Library Building.)

In the above-referred-to book the statement is made that “the more intelligent colored people in the Methodist Episcopal Church are seriously thinking of separating from the Methodist Episcopal Church.” If the poll were taken of every intelligent colored man within the Church, such an idea would be laughed at, for no such feeling prevails. There is no such spirit abroad within the Church on the part of the colored members. If it exists at all, it must be sought elsewhere. There is no occasion for it; and though it may be that now and then some word is let fall by some braggadocio, that if so and so is not done, thus and so will happen, yet no such stuff has ever fallen from the lips of the leaders of our colored membership, properly so called. Should anything of the kind ever be broached, there would be no occasion for secrecy, and less for braggadocio; no absolute necessity for rejoicing on the part of any colored organizations, if there might follow overtures to the Methodist Episcopal Church for organic union that are not now made. The thought naturally uppermost at this juncture in the minds of some may be, Would it not be Christian-like and brotherly for the colored members to separate, so that organic union may take place between the “two great branches of Methodism in this country?” Is that what keeps them apart? We would, to the question as to separation, answer, No. If we understand the heart of the Church—and we think we do, having been born naturally and supernaturally in her lap—she does not ask as much. In 1844 the Church, by dropping her interests in and work for the colored man, could very easily and knowingly have preserved her union, power, and influence, kept back the rebellion for a time, received the encomiums instead of the vituperation and obloquy of every slaveholding nation in the world, and brought to her support the strong slave oligarchy of the South. She did not do it. She will never compromise with sin enough to accept even an organic union conceived in caste and born of a hate that excludes one the Lord said should be loved as herself. We believe, laying aside all personal predilections, prejudice, and aspirations that, so far as the Church is concerned, the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church will remain therein until they are pleased to go out, if that is until the sound of the first trumpet.

Would there be anything gained by a separation? To our mind there is nothing to gain, and much to lose, by the colored members of the Methodist Episcopal Church separating from it. In the first place, it would have the same tendency that the now existing colored organizations have, casting reflections upon the wisdom of those good men and women who all along have contended for general equality; it would weaken the race politically and socially; widen, instead of narrowing, the chasm between the white and colored clergy in this country. “Like priests, like people,” would naturally widen the breach between the laity. This would naturally cause variance between neighbors because of color. This would naturally lead to separate schools where they are now mixed, and keep forever separate those that are now separate. In a word, it would magnify caste, race prejudice, and eventually lead to a war of races. The segregation of one million or more colored men in this country into one single organization would endanger the safety of our Republic in more ways than one. In the second place, a separation now from the Methodist Episcopal Church for anything less than a crime against the race would not only be suicidal, but foolhardy, paying kindness with contumely, and subjecting not only the members concerned, but the race to the scorn and laughter of the world. We do not expect to have everything go our way, to count for more than we number, nor to see every law we propose adopted, nor to be fondly dandled in the lap of an affectionate and opulent mother. We expect only what we have always received from the Church—the privilege of full membership therein.

The work which the Church has done in the South, may be seen from the following tables:

BOARD OF EDUCATION UP TO JANUARY 1, 1887.

Name.	Pupils aided.	Amount.	Location.
Centenary Bib’l Institute	46	$1,850 00	Baltimore, Md.
Central Tenn. College	67	2,446 00	Nashville, Tenn.
Claflin University	45	2,015 00	Orangeburg, S.C.
Clark University	12	732 00	Atlanta, Ga.
Cookman Institute	4	158 00	Jacksonville, Fla.
Bennett Seminary	6	200 00	Greensboro, N.C.
Gammon Theol. School	29	1,663 00	Atlanta, Ga.
Haven Normal Institute	3	75 00	Waynesboro, Ga.
Morristown Seminary	22	755 00	Morristown, Tenn.
New Orleans University	44	2,327 00	New Orleans, La.
Philander Smith College	5	228 00	Little Rock, Ark.
Rust University	11	400 00	Holly Spr’gs, Miss.
Rust Normal Institute	2	75 00	Huntsville, Ala.
Wiley University	18	855 00	Marshall, Texas.
West Texas Conf. Sem.	5	140 00	Houston, Texas.
Total	319	$13,919 00
In Northern Colleges	6	2,000 00
Grand Total	325	$15,919 00

WORK OF CHURCH EXTENSION SOCIETY.

Expended to colored membership by donation	$237,000 00
Expended to colored membership by loan	150,000 00
Total given by Church	$387,000 00
Total given by colored members by collection	35,000 00
Amount received by colored members more than they raised	$352,000 00
Churches this saved, built, or helped to build for them,	2,000

WORK OF THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY SINCE THE WAR.

Conference.	Amount.
Central Alabama	$16,600 00
Delaware	23,438 89
Florida	20,228 65
Georgia	38,571 58
Lexington	27,053 50
Louisiana	126,201 50
Mississippi	155,943 63
Missouri	42,486 06
North Carolina	25,622 45
St. Louis	41,279 00
Savannah	20,250 00
South Carolina	49,217 25
Tennessee	34,236 78
Texas	32,103 09
Washington	55,833 68
Little Rock	12,700 00
Colored work in Kansas	7,500 00
Total	$729,266 06

In the above figures the West Texas Conference is included in Texas Conference, East Tennessee in the Tennessee Conference, etc. While no claim is set up that the above figures are exactly true, they are at least an approximation. Where the conference was mixed, one-eighth of the missionary appropriation only has been credited to the colored work, though it is easy to see how mistakes could creep in an account of this. But the work that has been done, and the interest which the Church has had in it are apparent. So long as souls are to be saved, the Church can not relax its efforts toward these people, whether white or colored.