The Colored Man in the Methodist Episcopal Church

by L. M. Hagood

The General Conference of 1880.—During the following quadrennium up to this General Conference the colored bishop question was more generally discussed than before. The official papers of the Church began to take notice of the question, while our brethren of the African and Methodist Episcopal Church, South, joined in to help on the good work—the former, in all probability, because of the supposed predicament it put the colored members into; and the latter, because they wished to push what they were pleased to call “the thorn in the flesh” farther into the quick of the white membership in the Church. The Baltimore District of the Washington Annual Conference passed a series of resolutions touching this question. Those resolutions were, in all probability, too radical when they declared the election of a man of African descent to our episcopacy “the only way the Church can hope to prove its good faith or respect for the numerous colored membership within the Church.” The fact is, the Church was not required to bring forth fruits to exhibit any such thing.

The Central Christian Advocate, our official organ at St. Louis, thus spoke on this subject:

“A few weeks ago the members of the Baltimore District Conference, Washington Annual Conference, passed a preamble and resolutions, in which they declare that members of African descent in the Methodist Episcopal Church do not enjoy practically the fullest recognition of Church fellowship and communion; that the only way to prove to them and the world that they are recognized as equals in the Church is the election of a man of African descent to the office of bishop; and they recommend their brethren to ‘agitate’ the question and, if necessary, to ‘demand’ the election of a colored bishop at the General Conference to be held in May, 1880. This is the action of a single district conference; to what extent it represents the opinions of the colored ministers of the Church we have no means of knowing; for, so far as we have observed, no other district conference has yet taken action on the subject.

“The action of a single district conference, however influential and worthy of consideration, scarcely brings a question before the Church sufficiently to make it at once a subject for general discussion in the official papers. We proposed, therefore, to wait and see whether the Baltimore District Conference represented the convictions of others than itself. But our editorial brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, caught it up at once as a choice morsel, which afforded them a nice opportunity to worry, as they believe, the white membership of our Church, and to sow dissension among the colored members. The Richmond Advocate declared that intense mortification and confusion would seize upon the whites when this action of their colored brethren became known, and that not an official paper of the Church would dare mention what had taken place. It was a false prophet. And it must have been doubly surprised when the New York Methodist, which is presumed to represent the more conservative element in the Methodist Episcopal Church, promptly pronounced in favor of the election of one or two colored bishops. The Louisville Methodist thinks we have ‘a difficult problem’ on our hands, and, with an air of compassionate concern, informs our colored brethren ‘that all the important offices of the Methodist Episcopal Church will be filled by white men, notwithstanding the resolutions of the Baltimore District.’

“But the Louisville Methodist is too anxious to make out a case. It says that the colored members of our Church were greatly disappointed that a colored bishop was not elected in 1872. Had the editor consulted the published proceedings of that General Conference instead of drawing upon his imagination for his facts, he would have scarcely made such a statement. There was but one memorial before the conference on the subject, and it had only four signatures attached. The Committee on Episcopacy, to which it was referred, reported ‘that, in their judgment, there is nothing in race, color, or former condition that is a bar to an election to the episcopacy, the true course being for us to elect only such persons as are, by their pre-eminent piety, endowments, culture, general fitness, and acceptability, best qualified to fill the office.’ And no more eloquent speech was made during the conference than that of Hon. James Lynch, of Mississippi, a colored lay member, declaring that the colored men asked no favors on account of race, and that when they produced a man as fit for the place as those about them, it would then be time enough for action.”

The spirit manifested by our Southern brethren in the discussion of this question within our Church smacks of officiousness. They are in no way to be affected whether it is or is not done. While they have a perfect right to take part in any and all discussions worthy of public attention, anything like an attempt to sow the seeds of dissension among the members of any other denomination is, in the eyes of an ignorant black man, reprehensible, not to say unchristian. It gives room for complaint from the world that Southern “Methodists are no better than other folks.” The colored man who is simply a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church for the sake of “important offices” had better leave it—the sooner the better. No Christian white man remains in any Church for that sole reason; and, as Bishop Simpson once said: “A white man is as good as a colored man, if he behaves himself.” One thing is certain, that every such office-seeking colored man in the Church will fail to receive the support of every intelligent colored Christian within the Church. It is true that, on general principles, it was but a short time until the desire of the brethren of the Baltimore District became that of many others; that is, that it was thought necessary that a colored man should be elected to the bishopric.

When the General Conference of 1880 met in Cincinnati for its twenty-third session, this question again came up for discussion. Memorials and resolutions on this subject were presented from Washington Conference, by Henry A. Carroll; from Delaware Conference, by W. F. Butler, Zoar Church and Cambridge charge; J. C. Hartzell, from New Orleans preachers’ meeting; by John H. Dunn and J. H. Shumpert, from Mississippi, et al.; and C. O. Fisher presented an extract from the journal of Savannah Conference and from Atlanta District. On Wednesday, May 12th, on motion, the rules were suspended to allow E. W. S. Hammond to present the following paper:

“Whereas, It is clearly evident, from the memorials and petitions on the subject, and which were duly referred to the Committee on Episcopacy, that the colored people of the Methodist Episcopal Church desire a bishop of their own race; and whereas, the election of a colored bishop would be a practical recognition of our full manhood by the Church, and a grand influence in the extension of our work in the United States and in other lands; and whereas, the General Conference of 1872 did declare, and the General Conference of 1876 did reaffirm, with emphatic significance, that race, nationality, color, or previous condition is no bar to the election of any man to the episcopal office in our Church; and whereas, the General Conference of 1876 did recommend that the memorials, petitions, etc., on the above-named subject should be entitled to a careful consideration whenever the election of additional bishops shall become necessary; and whereas, the necessity for the election of additional bishops is apparent, and the way is now open for the practical operation of the above resolution; be it, therefore,

“Resolved, That this General Conference recommend the election of a colored man to the episcopacy.”

He supported the above preamble and resolution by a vigorous and timely speech, through courtesy of the General Conference, lasting over fifteen minutes.