The Colored Man in the Methodist Episcopal Church

by L. M. Hagood

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

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

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

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

THE CHATTANOOGA EPISODE.

An educational convention was held in Athens, Tennessee, in 1882, composed of delegates from nearly all our conferences, composed exclusively of white people, for the purpose of “looking after the educational interests of the work among the whites.” The question of the establishment of a university for the benefit of the white members and patrons of our Church in the central South was decided upon, and a plan was adopted for the co-operation of the conferences and Freedmen’s Aid Society in founding and locating the same, subject to the approval of the conferences. “This action was heartily and unanimously concurred in by the pastors and educators among the whites.” Considering their modus operandi “the best for intellectual and spiritual culture,” as well as the most direct and practical “exercise of a free and unconstrained choice in all social relations, as a principle at once American, Methodistic, and Scriptural,” it was accepted by “those on the ground and more immediately concerned,” and “left to their choice and administration.” Chattanooga was chosen as the seat of the great university in the central South for whites. Now, if no other reason could have been given for that choice, the fact that from Lookout Mountain the rebel soldiers were driven by General Grant during the late civil war was sufficient for historical prestige. The relevancy of the following quotation from Ridpath’s History, giving an account of the movements of General Grant around that city during the civil war, may not at once appear to all. He says: “General Grant, being promoted to the chief command, assumed the direction of affairs at Chattanooga. General Sherman also arrived with his divisions, and offensive operations were at once renewed. A position seemingly more impregnable could hardly be conceived of.” Chattanooga having been selected as the place for “a central university for the South,” fourteen acres of ground, costing thirty-one thousand dollars, were purchased, and a magnificent structure, costing forty thousand dollars, was erected thereon. Of this amount the citizens of the city contributed fifteen thousand dollars. It has been suggested that some of the contributors of that sum, at least, gave their money with the distinct understanding that the university was to be for the benefit of white pupils exclusively. This intelligence was not received from the managers of the Freedmen’s Aid Society, as such; so that, if at all, it may have been received from some of “those on the ground and more immediately concerned.” When the university opened, September 15, 1886, everything looked hopeful, indeed, to “those on the ground and more immediately concerned.” But soon it was found that the brightness of those prospects was but the silver lining of an approaching cloud. Two incidents happened shortly afterward that gave that institution more prominence than any other two incidents in its history can possibly ever do. Among the students who applied for admittance into the institution were four colored youths of that city or vicinity. The trustees of the institution refused to admit them. The board of trustees, by contract with the Freedmen’s Aid Society, reserved the right, not only to appoint the teachers, but to purchase the property whenever they became able to pay back seventy-five thousand dollars to the society, and give the university an endowment of two hundred thousand dollars. But one of the incidents happened before anything was said about the rejection of colored students. One of the professors in the university—Professor Caulkins—met and was introduced to the pastor of our colored Church in Chattanooga, Rev. B. H. Johnson, by Rev. Dr. T. C. Carter, and he refused to shake hands with or recognize him “on general principles,” as he declared. The following, which appeared in the Western Christian Advocate, is explicit and to the point:

PROFESSOR CAULKINS.

“In another column will be found a statement from the executive committee of the Freedmen’s Aid Society, concerning the episode in which Professor Caulkins and the Rev. B. H. Johnson were the principal participants. It will be seen that the executive committee acted in the case with great promptness and decision, the committee’s first action having been taken within four days after the first rumor of the case reached any member of the committee.

“The following extract from the minutes of the meeting of October 26th will show the precise action which was taken at that early day:

“‘Dr. Bayliss moved that the corresponding secretary be instructed to ascertain whether it be true that Professor Caulkins, of Chattanooga University, refused to shake hands with one of our pastors in Chattanooga because he was a Negro; and also in a series of articles made disparaging remarks, and used insulting language in reference to the colored people, and that if these rumors should prove true, the president shall lay the matter before the local board, and ask for his resignation. Carried.’