Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume 1 (of 2)

by W. M. Leftwich

“Stanton-Ames Order.”

“War Department, }

Washington, D. C., Nov. 30, 1863. }

“To the Generals Commanding the Military Departments of Mississippi, the Gulf, the South, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, etc., etc.:

“You are hereby directed to place at the disposal of Rev. Bishop Ames all houses of worship belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in which a loyal minister who has been appointed by a loyal Bishop of said Church does not officiate. It is a matter of great importance to the Government, in its efforts to restore tranquillity to the community and peace to the nation, that Christian ministers should, by precept and example, support and foster the loyal sentiments of the people.”

“(Signed) E. M. Stanton, Sec’y of War.

Thus armed, Bishop Ames started on his Episcopal raid upon the Southern Methodist Churches, taking with him and picking up along the route down the Mississippi a goodly number of “loyal ministers.” The details of his exploits in the South, seizing and appropriating to the uses of a “loyal religion” the churches of others would not be appropriate to this work, but will be left to the history of these strange times in their appropriate localities.

In Memphis, Tenn., Vicksburg and Jackson, Miss., Baton Rouge and New Orleans, La., the Episcopal General found and possessed himself of fine and costly churches. In the latter city he called the Official Board of Carondelet street Church together—the largest, finest and wealthiest Southern Methodist church in the city—and formally demanded the surrender of that and the other Southern Methodist churches in the city to him.

They objected, and in their objection set forth that “Bishop Ames, as an officer of another Church, had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over them.” He replied that he “claimed no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over them any more than over the Catholic or Episcopal Churches, but that he came with an order from the United States Secretary of War, and an order from General Banks, Department Commander at New Orleans, and by that authority he demanded the surrender of the churches.”

They replied that, as they “held the property in trust for the use and benefit of the M. E. Church, South, they could not voluntarily give up that trust. If they did so it must be under the stress of a compulsion they had no power, civil or military, to resist—the Bishop would have to compel them.”

Whereupon the Bishop obtained a military force, and the churches were taken, just as Memphis, Vicksburg, New Orleans and Richmond were taken.

An extract from the Special Order of Major-General Banks, then commanding the “Department of the Gulf,” will show the light in which this church-seizing business was viewed by the military authorities as a moral “war measure.”

“Headquarters Dep’t of the Gulf, }

New Orleans, Jan. 18, 1864. }

“Special Order, No. 15.]

“V. In accordance with instructions contained in a letter from the Secretary of War, under date of Nov. 30, 1863, all houses of worship within this Department belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in which a loyal minister, who has been appointed by a loyal Bishop of said Church, does not now officiate, are hereby placed at the disposal of the Rev. Bishop Ames.

“Commanding officers at the various points where such houses of worship may be located are directed to extend to the ministers that may be appointed by Bishop Ames, to conduct divine service in said houses of worship, all the aid, countenance and support practicable in the execution of their mission.

“Officers of the quartermaster’s and commissary departments are authorized and directed to furnish Bishop Ames and his clerk with transportation and subsistence, when it can be done without prejudice to the service; and all officers will afford them courtesy, assistance and protection.

“By command of Major-General Banks.

“George B. Drake,

Ass’t-Adj’t-General.”

Under this “Special Order No. 15” the Bishop was put in possession of many churches, his ministers protected, and this general superintendent and representative of the M. E. Church and his clerk were furnished transportation and subsistence by the Government as a “war measure.”

This involves more than that Church will admit, now that military protection from the judgment of enlightened Christendom will not avail, and now that ecclesiastical criticism is as unsparing as ecclesiastical presumption was then reckless. The corollary that the M. E. Church made distinct and aggressive war upon the M. E. Church, South, and hence claimed belligerent rights to capture and hold the property of the enemy in perpetuity, or until formally given up under treaty stipulations, is a very unwelcome and uncomfortable position to those whose religious consciences were not destroyed by a “military necessity.” Strenuous efforts are required of the pulpit and press to break the force of the popular verdict of the people upon the religious and ecclesiastical aspects of this “Episcopal Raid.”

The authority thus given to Bishop Ames had a much wider and a more general application than his personal operations. This gave the sanction to the church seizures in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, East Tennessee, and all through the South. The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church and their ministers penetrated the South in every direction, and were keen on the scent of abandoned (?) churches and other property of the M. E. Church, South. They went to the large cities and railroad centres; got possession of churches by military order or otherwise—“honestly, if they could, but”—they got them, and then went out in every direction in search of abandoned, embarrassed and libelled property which they could seize and appropriate to the uses of a “loyal Methodism.”

While this plan was being executed in the South the “Church Extension Society” in the Northern States and the “Missionary Society” were furnishing the material aid necessary to support the preachers, buy up old church debts, force sales and bid in the property for the amount of the debt, and thus possess themselves of property for “less than half its value.”

To show how the business was carried on, see the following extracts from a letter of one of their missionaries in Alabama—Rev. W. P. Miller—to the Corresponding Secretary of the Church Extension Society of the M. E. Church, published in the Western Christian Advocate of Jan. 1, 1868:

“There are two churches that I could secure with a little ready money. Can you help us in time of need?

“1. A church, 45 by 55, a plain frame, covered with shingles, good floor, with seats and pulpit, but not ceiled; built during the war, but has never been paid for.

“Last year I raised two hundred and fifty dollars, leaving one hundred and fifty unpaid. The man who owns the land and built the house says if we pay him the hundred and fifty dollars he will give us a deed, but we are so prostrated that we can not do it now. If we fail others will do it, and we will be shut out of doors.

“Another church, 40 by 50, in general description like the first. * * * This house was also built during the war and partly paid for. The builder built on his own land, and was to convey the title when paid for. He died in the war, but his widow says she will give us a deed if we will pay her the balance, one hundred dollars. Please help us, if possible, in this case also.”

They held “Church Extension” meetings in all the Methodist churches in the Northern States to raise funds to meet just such emergencies. An account of a “Church Extension Meeting,” held in Indianapolis, Ind., is given in the Western Christian Advocate of February 19, 1868, soon after Mr. Miller’s letter appeared. The following is an extract:

“At Ashbury chapel Bishop Clarke preached with great power, and in conclusion set forth the claims of the Society. He presented the wants of three Churches in Alabama—one could be saved for fifty dollars, another for one hundred, and a third for one hundred and fifty. The Bishop asked the Church to aid these societies of loyal Christians struggling for an existence, and Asbury most cheerfully responded in a contribution of three hundred dollars.”

Upon the same subject the Northwestern Christian Advocate of March 18, 1868, says:

“When the Church Extension Society was first organized, in commending the new cause to our people, the Bishops in their address said ‘We know of no agency in which the contribution of our people can accomplish a greater amount of good.’ At a later date Bishop Clarke, after a careful survey of the field, and especially of the South, put the case in stronger terms, and said: ‘I do not know where else a man’s money can be used with such certainty of sure and large returns.’”

He then mentions as an illustration the churches reported by Rev. W. P. Miller, and says: “The money was forwarded to Bro. Miller and he has written to the Corresponding Secretary the results, as follows: ‘I have invested the means you sent me, and have secured the two churches of which I wrote; title all right. The churches are frame, and are worth here about $1,000.’”

The Missouri and Arkansas Conference, held in Louisiana, Mo., March 7, 1866, adopted the following:

“Resolved, That the preachers be urged to exercise personal supervision over such church property not yet secured to trustees, urge the churches to select trustees, and when this can not be done, to petition the County Court to appoint such officers.” (Pub. Minutes, p. 36.)

The Louisiana and Boonville Church property cases are in illustration.

All the Bishops and all the Conferences of the M. E. Church endorsed the work of Church Extension in the South, just as it was carried on by Mr. Miller, Mr. Drake, Mr. Pearne, Dr. Newman and their associates, and the plan was successful.

In the philosophy of some men the end justifies the means, and success satisfies all the demands of modern ethics. It will not do to question every wealthy man or wealthy Church too closely as to how their property was acquired during the war. It is enough for the curious to know that they have property, and to hope that they have consciences as well.

That the M. E. Church has property in the Southern States in churches, parsonages and literary institutions is an admitted fact. That nearly all, if not all, of this property has been acquired in a very few years, and years, too, of great poverty and destitution through the South, will not be denied. Now, take the following facts and figures:

The Tennessee Conference was organized Oct. 11, 1866, with thirteen churches valued at $59,100. At its second session it reported thirty houses of worship and one parsonage. The Georgia Conference, at its organization, Oct. 10, 1867, reported forty-nine churches. The Mississippi Conference was organized in 1866 with five churches, and at its session held in December, 1867, reported forty-seven churches, five parsonages and eight institutions of learning. In 1866 the South Carolina Conference reports no churches, but at its session in Charleston, February, 1868, reported forty-nine churches and six parsonages. The Holston Conference was organized by Bishop Clarke in 1865 with 100 churches, valued at $31,250. At its session in October, 1867, just two years after, it reported 203 churches and six parsonages. These five Conferences, with an average existence of two years, report 408 churches, eighteen parsonages and eight institutions of learning, at an estimated aggregate value of $446,659. The increase up to 1868 will reach largely over half a million.

Others may ask where and how they acquired so much property in so short a time, and amongst a people desolated and torn by war and impoverished even to beggary and want by the sword, the torch, the pestilence, the famine, the floods, the drouth, the Bureau and the reconstruction.

The policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as announced in their great official organ, the New York Christian Advocate, and carried out as far as could be by their emissaries in the South, was to “disintegrate and absorb the M. E. Church, South.”

Dr. Newman, editor of the New Orleans Advocate, said in the New York Methodist, of May 23, 1868:

* * * “And we solemnly hold that it would be of incalculable advantage to the South, and the cause of Christianity therein, if the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, should cease to be.”

Upon the reunion of the two Churches, Dr. N. E. Cobleigh, of Athens, Tenn., in an article in the Northern Christian Advocate, of April 1, 1868, says:

“The Church property, too, of which we have taken possession in the South, must be given back to them (the M. E. Church, South,) before they will consent to treat upon the subject.”

Dr. Daniel Curry, editor of the New York Christian Advocate, said before the Preachers’ Meeting of New York, in May, 1866:

“Wherever we have taken churches the policy has proved bad. The first act of the Church, South, toward us, after this, was a charge of church stealing—a high crime before the law. We did not mean to do wrong, but it has put us in a bad position.”

The New Orleans Advocate, of Feb. 10, 1866, says:

“We have seen a letter from Bishop Ames, which was dated Baltimore, Md., Jan. 20, 1866, and which contained this glorious news: ‘The President has issued an order putting us in possession of 210 churches and 32 parsonages, which the Rebel Methodists in Virginia have occupied during the war.’”

This was “glorious news” to Dr. Newman, himself occupying at the time a church obtained from “Rebel Methodists” by this same Bishop Ames upon an order from Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War. These Bishops had a summary way of getting possession of other people’s property. The cry of “Rebel Methodists” and treason against the Government from them and their tools could always move the Government officials to issue such orders as would put them in possession of the property of rebels. But whether the rebels themselves were crushed out or made better by the transaction, are matters about which little was said.

There is yet another aspect of this general question worthy of note. While Bishop Ames was in the South prosecuting under War Department orders his great scheme of ecclesiastical piracy, and the many smaller ecclesiastics were similarly engaged in other portions of the conquered provinces, steps were being taken to forestall the Bishop when his ecclesiastical ram should be directed against the “Rebel Methodists” of St. Louis. Hon. John Hogan, member of Congress from St. Louis, went to Washington and made representations to the President of the facts in the case, and when the good Bishop reached St. Louis he was met by an order from the War Department, with an endorsement from the President of the United States, repealing his Stanton order and putting an estoppel upon his proceedings, especially in Missouri.

The following order was obtained by Mr. Hogan from the War Department, with President Lincoln’s endorsement exempting the churches of Missouri from seizure under Mr. Stanton’s order:

“War Department, Adjutant-General’s Office, }

“Washington, February 13, 1864. }

Order.]

“Major-General Rosecrans, U.S. Volunteers, Commanding Department of the Missouri, St. Louis, Mo.:

“Sir: I am directed by the Secretary of War to say that the orders from the Department placing at the disposal of the constituted Church authorities in the Northern States houses of worship in other States is designed to apply only to such States as are designated by the President’s Proclamation as being in rebellion, and is not designed to operate in loyal States, nor in cases where loyal congregations in rebel States shall be organized and worship upon the terms prescribed by the President’s Amnesty Proclamation.

“I am, sir, very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

“Jas. A. Hardie,

“Assistant Adjutant-General.”

This order bears the following endorsement in Mr. Lincoln’s own proper hand:

“As you see within, the Secretary of War modifies his order so as to exempt Missouri from it. Kentucky was never within it; nor, as I learn from the Secretary, was it ever intended for any more than a means of rallying the Methodist people in favor of the Union in localities where the rebellion had disorganized and scattered them. Even in that view I fear it is liable to some abuses; but it is not quite easy to withdraw it entirely, and at once.

A. Lincoln.

“February 13, 1864.”

That is a damaging disclosure. Were Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War, and Mr. Lincoln, President of the United States, imposed upon and deceived by these high Church dignitaries? The famous Stanton-Ames order “never intended for any more than a means of rallying the Methodist people in favor of the Union in localities where the rebellion had disorganized and scattered them!” Was it ever used for other purposes? How about the Churches seized and appropriated by authority of this same order in cities and communities where the Methodist people had never been disorganized and scattered, and where “the Methodist people” intended to be “rallied” had never been organized—never even had an existence?

It did not require Mr. Lincoln’s sagacity to see that such an order was “liable to some abuse,” but it does require a good deal of effort to believe that even Northern Methodist Bishops could deceive the Government, and then pervert and “abuse” an order from the War Department. But we are forced to accept the facts in the case.

The action of Mr. Hogan and his success in defeating the purposes of Bishop Ames gave hope and courage to others, and in June, 1865, Dr. Keener, of New Orleans, went to Washington and made a formal and most earnest application to the President and Secretary of War for the restoration of the churches in Louisiana to their rightful owners.

He remained in Washington prosecuting his almost hopeless mission for four long, weary months. After this wearisome prosecution of what seemed to be a forlorn hope, the President (Mr. Johnson) gave the order and restored the property, which the Northern Bishops could have restored with the stroke of a pen. This gracious favor was obtained from the President much upon the principle of the widow and the unjust judge: “And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him and said, avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for awhile; but afterward he said within himself, though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.”

So it was the Churches, at least some of them, were restored. “And will not God avenge his own elect which cry day and night unto him? I tell you, he will avenge them speedily.”

Enboldened by success, others made application to the President for the restoration of their churches. Upon such application the churches in Vicksburg, Miss., Memphis and Nashville, Tenn., were given up.

In regard to the latter a Nashville (Tenn.) correspondent of a Northern Methodist paper says:

“Things are moving slowly, as far as our church is concerned. Upon an order from Bishop Simpson, we vacated McKendree last week, and are now holding services in Masonic Hall. Our congregations are small, but we hope for better times. * * * * Our dear Southern brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, persuasion are flocking back to their old haunts, and hold up their heads as if they were not guilty of the blood and suffering of the past four years.”

“Upon an order from Bishop Simpson” they vacated McKendree, after they had been put into it and occupied it so long upon an order from Bishop or General somebody else. But who “ordered” Bishop Simpson? Why did he require his brethren to “vacate McKendree?” For the same reason that Dr. Newman vacated Carondelet street Church, New Orleans, and the churches in Memphis, Vicksburg and other places were vacated.

Others may detail the “pious fraud” upon the churches at Knoxville, and Athens, and other places in Tennessee, while the general subject only requires here a notice of the Memorial of the Holston Conference, M. E. Church, South, to the General Conference of the M. E. Church at Chicago, in the spring of 1868, and the notice taken of it by that General Conference. The following is the