The Colored Man in the Methodist Episcopal Church

by L. M. Hagood

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.