The Colored Man in the Methodist Episcopal Church

by L. M. Hagood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The following sums were appropriated to schools among whites: