Transcriber’s Note:

New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain.

MARTYRDOM IN MISSOURI
A HISTORY OF
RELIGIOUS PROSCRIPTION, THE SEIZURE OF CHURCHES, AND THE PERSECUTION OF MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL, IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI
DURING THE LATE CIVIL WAR,
AND UNDER THE
“TEST OATH” OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION.

BY

REV. W. M. LEFTWICH, D. D.

VOLUME I.

SAINT LOUIS:

S. W. BOOK & PUB. CO., 510 & 512 WASHINGTON AVE.

PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR.

1870.

Dedication.

TO THE

MARTYRS OF MISSOURI,

AND THE

CAUSE FOR WHICH THEY SUFFERED,

THIS BOOK

IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED,

BY THE AUTHOR.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by

W. M. LEFTWICH,

In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.

PREFACE.

“We are making history,” was the convenient and popular boast of certain politico-religious fanatics during the late civil war, and for a few years subsequent to its close. It will not be considered impertinent, now that the “piping times of peace” have come, and men are permitted to look back upon the cooled passions and crystallized events of that dreadful period with somewhat of calm philosophy, if the fact should be announced that “we are writing history.” It is one thing to make the history, it is quite another thing to write it. If others could afford to “make history,” and, then, in popular cant and with prurient vanity, boast of it, we can well afford to write it up for them. And if our part of the task be fairly, candidly and correctly done, they will have little reason to complain if they appear before the world and go down to posterity in the light of the history they have made, and with their true character brought out by the shadows they have thrown forward upon the future. History is valuable, not merely as a catalogue of events and an inventory of things, but for the principles involved and the lessons taught. The events herein narrated are notorious, the principles involved are vital, and the lessons important.

Missouri will ever be conspicuous in the annals of history as the only State in the American Union to inaugurate and authorize a formal opposition to Christianity, as an institution, and legalize the persecution of ministers of the gospel, as a class. The fact will not be denied, and the history furnishes the saddest, wisest lessons. Ministers of the gospel have been robbed, arrested, imprisoned, and even murdered, for no other cause than that they were ministers of the gospel. They have been indicted by grand juries, arrested and imprisoned with common felons, mobbed and put to death for no other cause than that of preaching the gospel without taking the “Test Oath” of the New Constitution. A pure, unsecular Christianity owes much to the moral heroism of the Missouri ministry. The faith once delivered unto the saints, the integrity of the Church of Jesus Christ, as a kingdom not of this world, the purity of the gospel, the divine authority of the ministry, the liberty of conscience, and the rightful sovereignty of Christ in his Church, with every principle and phase of religious liberty, have been illustrated in the lives and sublimely vindicated in the sufferings of the ministers of the gospel in Missouri.

The author fully appreciates the delicacy and difficulty of dealing with such recent events and so many living names—events, too, which belong to the catalogue of crime, and names that will pass into history associated with the persecution and stained with the blood of the Lord’s annointed. But if the task is difficult and the questions delicate, the duty is no less imperative. It is due alike to the martyrs, living and dead, and to the holy cause for which they suffered, that their names and deeds be preserved, and that their unswerving fidelity and sublime devotion to a principle and a cause, equal to the purest heroism of the ancient martyrs, should not be lost to the Church. It is one of the gravest responsibilities of the hour, and one of the most gracious opportunities of the Church, to preserve the history, vindicate the faith, maintain the principles and impress the lessons of the turbulent past upon the peaceful future, that grace may abound through suffering and God may be glorified in his servants.

A diluted charity says, “Let the dead past bury its dead, and let the living present draw the mantle of charity over the unfortunate by-gones.” This might be well enough if the “dead past” did not contain the imperishable gem of a resurrection life that speaks to us with authority in the vital principles of yesterday, to-day and forever, and tells us, amongst other thins, that the chief of the Christian virtues—a pure, discriminating charity—has no mantle for crime, however Christ-like may be its compassion for the penitent criminal.

Both Federal and State legislation shield those who committed the crimes of the war from legal prosecution; but such enactments possess no control over the pen and the press.

In presenting this work to the public the author is fully conscious of its many literary defects. But for all that, he dare not sacrifice the facts of history, even to literary excellence. Many subjects possess an importance and a grandeur wholly independent of those who handle them.

If, in treating of so many men and such recent events, injustice has been done the living or the dead, the author pleads the absence of intention and claims the benefit of a discriminating charity.

Both the work and the author will receive the severest criticism—perhaps censure—possibly abuse. The first—he would not escape if he could; the second—he could not escape if he would; the third—well—it is no new thing under the sun for those who are set for the defense of truth and righteousness to be abused.

The following prefatory notes, furnished by Dr. M‘Anally and Bishop Marvin, together with the Introduction by Dr. Summers, will not only assure the timid and establish the doubtful, but will be as grateful to the Methodist and general public as to the author:

PREFATORY NOTE.

“In the following pages the reader may find an account of some of those horrible outrages perpetrated on Christian ministers in Missouri, chiefly because they were Christian men and Christian ministers; but scarce a tenth of all such outrages have been, or likely ever will be, placed before the public. They have cast a foul and ineraseable blot upon the fame of the State of Missouri, and must consign the immediate perpetrators to an infamy as lasting and as hateful as that of the most cruel persecutors of Christians in gone-by ages. And what deepens, blackens and renders more odious the guilt of these things is, they were for the greater part done by, or under the sanction of, men professing to love and follow the Lord Jesus Christ; with a claim to, and under the pretext of, a purer patriotism and holier Christianity, they committed atrocities that would disgrace barbarians and savages.

“It is well the record of these horrible deeds be preserved, that the better portion of the people in this and other States may have some knowledge of what was done and suffered here during the dark and bloody days, from 1861 to ’65.

“Many of those, directly or indirectly, implicated in these deeds of cruelty and shame are now loud and earnest in their entreaties for ‘by-gones to be by-gones,’ and profess great grief that anything should be said or done ‘to keep alive the feelings of the past.’ It is not strange they should feel thus; but can they reasonably expect an honest and outraged people should continue to cover up such abominations, receive those who committed them into respectable society, and treat them as though they were innocent, honest, high-minded, Christian gentlemen? That would be strange—passing strange! No! Truth and righteousness, justice and mercy, alike demand that a faithful record of all such inhuman outrages be made, extensively circulated and carefully preserved; that all the perpetrators, instigators and abettors be consigned to that infamy they so deservedly earned. Of such a record this is the first volume, and it is hoped another, and another, and, if need be, yet another, will be forthcoming, until the whole matter shall be placed in its true and proper light.

“Of the manner in which the author has performed his work in the pages following I need not speak. Each reader will judge for himself, and each will find something to interest and instruct. The facts developed are exceedingly suggestive, and suggestive, too, in regard to all the interests of society.

“The thoughtful render will naturally inquire as to the cause of, and reason for, such things, as well as to their natural and legitimate effects, and this may induce an honest, healthful inquiry as to what influences should be brought to bear to make men better, and thus prevent the recurrence of such things as are here detailed. Let the book be extensively circulated, carefully read, and its contents well considered.

“D. R. M’ANALLY.

“Carondelet, Mo., December 29, 1869.”

“St. Louis, December 24, 1869.

“Rev. W. M. Leftwich:

“Dear Sir—I have seen the proof sheets of a large portion of the first volume of ‘Martyrdom in Missouri,’ now soon to come from the press.

“The publication of this book meets my hearty approval. I have met with some who say, ‘Let the past sleep; let all its crimes, and the had blood engendered by them, be buried forever.’ I have not so learned Christ. He, the Incarnate Love, charged the blood of the prophets upon the sons of their murderers. The true work of Christian charity is to eradicate crime, not to ignore it. The maudlin sentiment that would daub over the great public crimes committed by the highest dignitaries of the Northern Methodist Church and their representatives in the South and along the border, is not charity. It is at best a clumsy counterfeit of that chief of the virtues. True charity will seek to bring them to confession and recantation of their deeds.

“To all their former misdeeds they now add, to avoid the shame of the past, denials, equivocation and, as in the case of the Holston property seized by them, false recriminations. The sober truth is that they never hesitated during the time of our public trouble to use the influence an active partisanship gave them with the party in power, to take possession of our property, either by military order, or terrorism, or mob violence. The public conscience of that Church seems to have been debauched by their efforts to defraud us of our property at the time of the division of the Church.

“But the stench of these recent atrocities is so strong in the nostrils of the people that the perpetrators resort to the ever open refuge of the evil-doer—denial. This book is opportune. The great body of the preachers and members of the Church North are honest men. The denials made by their leading men and Church papers they suppose to be true. Here are facts in detail, with places, names, dates, and copies of legal proceedings taken from official sources.

“Before the war, when Northern preachers were objects of suspicion, and public demonstrations were sometimes made against them, the editor of the St. Louis Christian Advocate, Rev. D. R. M‘Anally, raised his voice against all mobs and mob violence with a will and an emphasis that left no covert suggestions of encouragement to those who might have been disposed to resort to violent measures. Led by the Advocate, the whole Southern Church in the State gave its influence, publicly and privately, against all violent proceedings. If that paper and our Church had, at that time, pursued the course that the Northern preachers and papers did towards us during the war, they would have been driven from the State. As it was, in order to get credit for persecution, they had to resort to the most remarkable tricks. Take, for instance, the case, given with proper names in this book, of one of their camp meetings being broken up by the preacher in charge of it being caught in the act of adultery—broken up by their own members. This they published to the world as a case of persecution by Southern people.

“While I do not agree fully with all the views set forth in the preliminary chapters of this volume, I am prepared to say that the facts bearing on the main topic have been collected and verified with great care, and that there can be no doubt of the accuracy of the statements. You have been pleased to hold yourself responsible, giving proper names, dates, etc. I do not hesitate to invite upon myself a full share of the responsibility.

“Hoping that you will soon have the second volume, containing the names of our other murdered brethren, ready for the press,

“I am, very respectfully,

“E. M. MARVIN.”

INTRODUCTION.
BY
REV. T. O. SUMMERS, D.D.

The author of the following work has desired an expression of our opinion in regard to its publication. We have read the manuscript with painful interest, and are free to say that we have had some misgivings as to the expediency of sending it forth to the world. The facts here brought to light are so revolting, and their record is so damaging to the reputation of those by whom they were perpetrated and their aiders and abettors, that we might well hesitate, as to the propriety of their publication. As Methodists, in particular, we are strongly tempted to throw the veil of oblivion over those scenes of oppression and outrage, in which many of our co-religionists of the North bore so conspicuous a part.

But the cause of truth and righteousness demands the publication. There is a measure of retribution which must not be relegated to the “judgment to come,” but which must be dealt out in the present world.

We owe it to “the noble army of martyrs,” whose lives were sacrificed to appease the demands of fanaticism, bigotry, cruelty, and hate, that their murderers shall not go unwhipped of justice—at least, such castigation as the truth of history can inflict.

We owe it to those who were made widows and orphans by the monsters who enacted these bloody scenes, to let the world know that the husbands and fathers of these innocent sufferers were not rebels and traitors, but good men and true, “of whom the world was not worthy.”

We owe it to the institutions of our country to let it be known that the appalling scenes that were enacted during the late reign of terror were not the result of the principles which underlie our Federal and State governments, but of the palpable contravention of them.

We owe it to the ecclesiastical bodies of the South that posterity shall be told who invaded their rights; who robbed them of their churches, parsonages, cemeteries, and seminaries; who murdered, scourged, and plundered, and banished many of their ministers and lay members, including even women and children, because they would not compromise principles which they held dearer than life itself.

It is well for the world to be told that moral heroism has not, like Astræa, left the earth and ascended to the skies. Thank God! there have been heroes in our times; and we are encouraged to believe that the race will not soon become extinct. The night of persecution would bring such stars to view again. Daniel and the “three children,” the Maccabees, the Apostles, Polycarp, Ignatius, and other victims of Pagan persecution in primitive times—the Albigenses, Waldenses, Huguenots, the Marian martyrs, and other victims of papal persecution—Nonconformist and Remonstrant confessors, who “took joyfully,” or at least patiently, “the spoiling of their goods,” imprisonment, exile, and sometimes death—these have had their successors in the fearful times through which we have passed, and the record of them gives us a guaranty that under similar circumstances such heroes will appear again.

In perusing this work one is constantly reminded of the saying of the wise man, “Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time which was before us.” He had seen similar evils to those which we have seen and suffered. “There is an evil which I have seen under the sun as an error which proceedeth from the ruler: folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place. I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.” “So I returned and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter.” Then, as in our late calamitous times, good men mourned as they were forced to

——bear the whips and scorns of time,

Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,

The insolence of office, and the spurns

That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes.

The history of these terrible transactions is valuable, too, as an admonitory lesson, teaching us that no sect is absolutely proof against the seductive influence of political power and ascendency. Down to the present decade the Methodists could plume themselves with an honest satisfaction upon the fact that while nearly all other sects had risen to power and abused it to persecuting purposes, they never had. It was, indeed, sometimes insinuated that they never had persecuted because they never had the power to do so. But they contended, and, it was thought, with good reason, that the principles of Methodism, being so pure, spiritual, and catholic, would be a sure safeguard from political alliances, worldly ambitions, and persecuting practices; but, alas! that ground of boasting is taken away. The devil came with his “third temptation” to Northern Methodists, including even bishops of the Church, and they did not say, “Get thee hence, Satan!” They ascended by the devil’s ladder to “thrones of power,” and played such tricks during the continuance of their brief authority as made the angels weep! The wrongs of 1844 and 1848 developed into horrible atrocities in the sun of political prosperity which shone upon them during the war which subjugated the South. The lesson, we repeat, is admonitory. We trust in God no such temptation will ever be set before the Southern Church; it seems to be “a test for human frailty too severe.”

It is not intended by these remarks to inculpate all the ministers and members of the Northern Methodist Church. God forbid! There are thousands among them who have not bowed the knee to Baal. They are attached to the Northern connection because of their location—they denounce the evil deeds of their brethren; indeed, in many instances they are not apprised of them, or honestly believe that they are gross exaggerations.

These enormities, however, are, to a great extent, charged upon the Northern Methodist Connection because they were perpetrated by its bishops and other agents; endorsed, or at least not disowned, by General and Annual Conferences, and have not been repented of until this day. Need any one seek further for a reason why the Southern Church wants no fellowship with those who murder, rob, oppress, and slander its ministers and members, or sanction those who do?

It must not be supposed that we lay all the blame upon Northern Methodists—other Churches furnished their quota of persecution and oppression, though, for obvious reasons, Southern Methodists suffered more from their Northern co-religionists than from any other parties. Thus was it with pagan and popish persecutions—a man’s foes were frequently those of his own household. Apostates have ever been the most bitter and unscrupulous persecutors. This is a painful reflection. The eagle is pierced by an arrow feathered from an eagle’s wing! Thus history repeats itself.

The perusal of this work will teach us not to put our trust in man, not even in princes; no, nor in institutions of our own framing, written constitutions, compacts, and the like, which upon occasion may prove to be worth no more than the parchment on which they are engrossed.

Nothing is perfectly true, and just, and good, and stable, but the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, the recital of the horrors portrayed in this book, which contains a mere modicum of what might be narrated, ought to lead us to thank God most devoutly that these calamities are nearly overpast, and we have the prospect of civil and religious liberty, which we know better than ever how to appreciate. The changes which have taken place in the government of the United States lead many to entertain gloomy anxieties for the future, and to despair of the permanency of republican institutions; yet we venture to hope that a wise, gracious, and powerful Providence will so interpose in behalf of our country that these forebodings will not be realized.

We may just state that we are assured of the truth of many of the details in this work by other testimonies; and for the rest we depend confidently on the accuracy of the author, who has taken great pains in collecting his materials from the most trustworthy sources. He is a reputable minister of the Missouri Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and holds himself responsible for all that he narrates.

T. O. S.

Nashville, Tenn., Nov. 22, 1869.

CONTENTS.

MARTYRDOM IN MISSOURI.

CHAPTER I.

Missouri Distinguished for Religious Persecution—Religious Liberty Secured to every Citizen by the Constitution of the United States, by every State Constitution, and every Department of the Federal and State Governments—Religious Liberty Protected and Enjoyed for two Centuries—The Stephen Girard Will Case—Mr. Webster’s Great Speech—Religious Rights Defined—General Assembly of Missouri Refuses to elect a Chaplain—Legalizes Sunday Beer Gardens—A Card—A Renegade Minister—Reflections.

The State of Missouri is justly entitled to the distinction of being the first and only State in the American Union to inaugurate and authorize a formal opposition to Christianity, as an institution, and to legalize a systematic proscription and persecution of ministers of the gospel, as a class. Her constitution, statute books and judicial proceedings alone reproduce the ordinances, enactments and decisions of the “dark ages,” without the papal superstitions and priestly conscience. Her prison walls and dungeons dark have revived the horrors of Spain without the Inquisition, and her civil and military officers, her courts and mobs, have re-enacted the cruel tyranny and the religious intolerance of Austria, with the papal “concordat” left out.

Her fertile soil has been stained with the blood of real martyrs, and the “seed of the church” has been scattered all over her broad prairies and along her winding streams. Unmarked graves and marble monuments here and there fix the eye of God as he watches the dust of his martyred servants awaiting the resurrection, and a double portion of his Spirit is given to the living watchman in answer to the brother’s blood that cries from the ground.

The Spirit of the Divine Master, in whose service they fell, inspires charity for the living, and will not rebuke the tears that fall for the dead. We have both, and it is profitable to indulge them, while we accord to Missouri the distinction she has justly won in reviving the laws and repeating the religious persecutions which an enlightened Christianity vainly hoped had passed away with the barbarous times which produced them.

The right to worship God without molestation, according to the dictates of conscience, was not only secured by the Federal and State Constitutions, but was always sacredly preserved and defended by the three co-ordinate branches of the Federal Government, and by the executive, judicial and legislative departments of the several State governments, until it had become so thoroughly interwoven with every form and feature, every principle and fiber of our institutions, and had penetrated so deeply and permeated so generally the popular heart, that its defenses were considered impregnable and its sacredness inviolable.

Every attempt to abridge the religious liberties involved in the rights of conscience, from whatever quarter and under whatever disguise, has been met and resisted by a public sentiment that pronounced it the most dangerous and unwarranted invasion of the dearest rights of American citizens. The enactment of laws to restrain the liberties of the citizen in any other direction might be tolerated, but whenever and wherever the enactment of laws, the decision of courts or the exercise of power have impinged upon the rights of conscience, or placed religious institutions under disability, the American people have moved to a resistance that subordinated all minor differences and distinctions and put their hearts and lives, their all, upon the defense.

The strenuous efforts made to break the will of Stephen Girard, in the courts of Pennsylvania, in 1839 and ’41, and in the Supreme Court of the United States in 1844, are too fresh in the minds of American jurists and many of the American people to require more than a reference to one single item in this connection as an illustration.

The founding of the institution in the city of Philadelphia that bears the name of Girard, and his princely bequest for that purpose, would have passed his name down to the generations to come as one of the great benefactors of his race, but for one restrictive clause in his will; and it was in the light of that clause that the case assumed a national importance, and enlisted some of the ablest advocates of the American bar, prominent amongst whom was Mr. Webster.

After providing for all the college buildings that would be necessary, and the enclosure of the grounds by high stone walls, with iron gates for ingress and egress, he adds the following restrictions:

“Secondly—I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary or minister of any sect whatever shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college, nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of said college.”

Mr. Girard had a right to dispose of his estate in any way that his wisdom might direct, provided, however, the rights of others were duly respected; and Mr. Webster’s unanswerable argument clearly sets forth the relations of Christianity to the State, and shows that such disabilities are in direct conflict with the institutions of the country, against the public policy of Pennsylvania, and every other State in which Christianity is recognized as the law of the land, and must be subversive of the dearest rights and liberties of the people.

What is the value of Mr. Girard’s bequest, however great or munificent, when it touches the very foundations of human society—when it touches the foundations of religious liberty, of public law, and endangers the well-being of the State?

The restrictive provisions of Mr. Girard’s will, in the opinion of Mr. Webster, distinctly repelled Christianity in the person of its accredited ministers; for whatever proscribes the minister of Christianity proscribes Christianity itself. The ministry is a part of Christianity, divinely instituted and authorized, and whoever makes war upon ministers of the gospel, as a class, makes war upon the Christianity they teach and represent.

In the light of these facts the State of Missouri, by her military and civil officers, her conventions, her General Assembly and her courts, has fairly won the unenviable distinction here announced, the painful history of which is recorded in these pages.

The ground work of this persecution was laid in the public mind years before its manifestation. The first out-croppings of the anti-Christian spirit was in the session of the General Assembly of 1858–9, in declining to elect a Chaplain, and in the refusal to repeal what was called the “Sunday Law.” The encouragement given to this infidel spirit by a large portion of the press of the State, and by many so-called benevolent associations of foreigners, and from other influential sources hereafter noticed, prepared the public mind for the legislation, the military and civil despotism, and the mob violence which authorized and executed a system of persecution, the history of which presents a catalogue of crime and scenes of blood and murder disgraceful to the State and revolting to the whole civilized world.

The refusal of the General Assembly to elect a chaplain, December, 1858, derives its importance, not from the fact, but the animus of the debates, and the sentiment reflected by the action.

The journal of the House of Representatives, of Dec. 29th, 1858, contains the following:

“Evening Session.—Mr. King, of St. Charles, offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the House do now proceed to the election of chaplain. Mr. Edwards, of Dallas, offered the following amendment to the resolution: ‘And that the individual members of this House pay said chaplain for his services out of their private means;’ which, on motion of Mr. Sitton, was tabled by a vote of 79 to 43.

“Dec. 30th, 1858.—The House resumed the consideration of the regular order of business, viz., the election of chaplain, when Mr. King, of St. Charles, nominated Mr. Leftwich; Mr. Brisco, of Cass, nominated Mr. Williams; Mr. Boulware, of Callaway, nominated Mr. McGuire; Mr. Lenox, of Miller, nominated Mr. Litsinger; Mr. Davis, of Buchanan, nominated Mr. Welch. Mr. Ament moved to reconsider the vote on the adoption of the resolution to proceed to the election of chaplain, pending which motion Mr. Morris, of Barton, nominated Mr. Crow. Mr. Welch moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table, which was negatived by a vote of 49 to 69.

“Afternoon Session.—Mr. Ament offered the following resolution as a substitute for the resolution of Mr. King, of St. Charles, in regard to the election of chaplain for the House: ‘Resolved, That the speaker be authorized to invite, each alternate week, the services of the respective resident ministers of this city, in opening, daily, this House with prayer.’”

This resolution awakened a lively discussion, which consumed much of the time of the three succeeding days—at a cost to the tax-payers of the State of not less than $20,000—and was finally passed under the operation of the previous question. Several efforts wore made afterward to reconsider, but to no effect. The Senate, after some discussion, adopted a similar resolution.

The debate upon this resolution was very spirited, and drew out the sentiments of the people’s representatives quite fully. Party lines were drawn clearly between the chaplain men and the anti-chaplain men, and this resolution was considered by both parties a compromise upon the vexed question. But why compromise such a question? Why make it a vexed question at all? Former Legislatures had elected chaplains and paid them, and thus recognized Christianity, not only as an element of national character, but as an accepted institution of the State, the doctrines of which were confessed in the oath of office and in all judicial tribunals, and the institutions of which conserve the highest interests of public weal, as they appeal to the most sacred guardianship of the State.

If the position taken by Mr. Webster, in his great speech before the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Girard will case, is accepted as true—and it is so accepted by all the right-thinking men of the country—there is nothing in the New Testament more clearly established by the Author of Christianity than the appointment of a Christian ministry; that the ministry is a necessary part of Christianity, divinely ordained for its propagation, and whoever rejects the regularly authorized minister of the gospel rejects the Christianity he teaches and represents; whatever repels the ministry repels Christianity, for it is idle, and a mockery and an insult to common sense, to pretend that any man has respect for the Christian religion who yet derides, reproaches and stigmatizes all its ministers and teachers.

The action of the House of Representatives was spread upon the journal, but the animus of the members could only be gathered from the speeches, and then only by one who was present to hear and see. The kiss of betrayal precedes crucifixion.

It was in view of the spirit developed by this action, more than the action itself, that three of the resident ministers of the city held a council, and after due deliberation published the following card in the city papers:

“A CARD.

“We, the undersigned, resident ministers of this city, believing that the discussion just closed in both branches of the General Assembly, on the office of chaplain, is a virtual repudiation of the claims of Christianity by that body; and that the action had is only a compromise measure, designed to reconcile the hostility of members somewhat to that office; and believing that for us to comply with any request to officiate in that capacity, under existing circumstances, will compromise the dignity of our office and the gospel which we preach; therefore,

“Resolved, That we will not sacrifice our self-respect and ministerial dignity to the enemies of Christianity by officiating in the office of chaplain for either branch of the General Assembly.

(Signed) “W. M. Leftwich,

Pastor M. E. Church, South.

“S. D. Lougheed,

Pastor Presbyterian Church.

“R. H. Weller,

Rector Episcopal Church.

“Jefferson City, Mo., Dec. 31, 1858.”

It is due alike to Christian integrity, ministerial fidelity and the truth of history to state that Rev. Mr. Lougheed did subsequently officiate as chaplain to the Senate, upon the solicitation of one or two members of that body, and under the operation of the unrescinded action of December 31st, 1858, after he had solemnly affirmed and formally announced to the world, through the public prints, that to do so would “compromise his self-respect and ministerial dignity.”

This same session of the Legislature was made famous by the failure to repeal what was known as the “Sunday Law,” which was passed merely upon its title, and in disguise, by the previous session, and which legalized the opening of beer gardens, play-houses, and many other places of drunken licentiousness on the Christian Sabbath in St. Louis. Pending the effort to repeal this unchristian law the discussions in both Houses and in the public press assumed an importance and a gravity which greatly alarmed the Christian people of the State for the freedom and safety of all religious institutions, and awakened the faithful watchmen upon the walls to the real issues that the enemies of Christianity would make, and to the real danger that threatened the peace and well-being of society in the not distant future.

CHAPTER II.

Political Excitement of 1859 and ’60—Foreigners—Know-Nothingism—Foreign Element in Politics—Class Legislation to Encourage Immigration, Develop the Resources, and Subvert the Religious Institutions of the State—German Rationalists and Christianity—The True Interests of a State—Modern Spiritualism—Its Pretensions—Phenomena—Influence upon the Credulous—Circles—Mediums—Agents—Lecturers—Free-Loveism—Thousands of Disciples—Midnight Lamp in Thousands of Homes—Many Turned from the Faith to Serve Tables—Most Dangerous and Powerful Form of Infidelity—Free-Thinkers—A Novel Encounter with an “Improved Monkey”—Napoleon’s “Moral Combinations” at Work upon the Public Mind.

Many will remember with unfeigned regret the political excitement that began to agitate the whole country in 1859, and which increased in violence and intensity the nearer the Presidential election of 1860 was approached.

In times of great popular excitement, when partisans are using their utmost efforts to carry elections, it is less surprising than hurtful that politicians should appeal for support to every class of citizens. The German population of St. Louis, St. Charles, Franklin, Cole, and some other counties and cities had increased rapidly in the past few years, and now for the first time began to make their presence and power felt in Missouri politics. They had fairly recovered from the effects of Know-Nothingism, if, indeed, the existence and labors of that singular political freak did not precipitate the foreign born citizens into a distinct political element and foist them into political prominence.

Being courted, and flattered, and fawned upon by political place-seekers, they were easily induced to believe that they held the balance of power at the ballotbox in many of the largest cities of the State, and they began to claim the right, not only to vote, but to be represented as a distinct class in the city and State governments—to hold office and control municipal patronage.

To secure the support of this class of citizens politicians stood ready to enact special laws for their relief, to grant privileges and immunities to them as a class, and to accommodate their social peculiarities and religious castes and creeds. The statutes of the State and the ordinances of cities show that they were the privileged class, and that class legislation, which always endangers the well-being of society, was accommodated in this instance to those peculiarities of the foreign element which looked to the subversion of the Christian institutions of the State, and the protection of an infidel sentiment that dared to invade the sanctity of the Christian Sabbath, disturb the peace of Christian worshipers, and strike down the supreme authority of the Word of God as a code of morals and a system of law.

To encourage foreign immigration for the development of the resources of the State, to build railroads, open coal beds, work lead mines and melt iron mountains, special legislation may have been necessary, but a State consists of something other than broad, fertile acres for agricultural purposes, or coal beds, lead mines, iron mountains and railroads.

These may be fruitful sources of material wealth, and may be necessary to support and sustain a vast population, but they can not create intelligence, promote virtue, regulate the social system, or in any way define and adjust the higher duties and prerogatives of citizenship.

The wisest legislation protects equally the rights of all and confers exclusive privileges upon none, and the best government guarantees equal rights to all its citizens.

It is natural to expect that foreigners coming to these shores and settling in these States would accept the institutions with the protection of the government, and not seek to supplant the institutions of the State that offers them home and shelter; and yet it will not be denied that the foreigners in Missouri, taking advantage of the readiness of politicians to truckle to their passions and prejudices, have made strong demands upon the peculiar institutions of the State, and their demands have not been unheeded. It could not be expected that German rationalists, who could scarcely speak English well enough to carry on the most ordinary traffic, would understand, or care to understand, those institutions of the State which characterized the State as a Christian commonwealth.

Nor did legislators, politicians, editors or preachers consider the moral forces they were starting and fostering for evil, and the subtle agencies that would work with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, and whose coming was after the manner of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, deceiving the very elect, and spending its force and fury upon the desecrated altars and martyred ministers of Christianity.

Other and different agencies were at work, and had been for years, which could not be reached or affected by State legislation, and which contributed no little to that state of the public mind which put the institutions and ministers of Christianity under disability—what was commonly denominated “Spiritualism.” It existed in a multitude of forms, had many names, and manifested itself in many strange phenomena. Professing to hold communication with the spirit world and receive intelligence from departed spirits, it appealed strongly to the curious, the credulous and the superstitious.

Those who believed in the supernatural, or whose hearts of grief kept them near the “region and shadow of death,” or whose caste of temperament made them super-sentimental, or who, by some constitutional or cultivated peculiarity, easily take up with every wild fancy and foolish vagary that produces a new and novel sensation; and many others, too, who had credit for intelligence, refinement and piety—and as for that, some of the most gifted minds of the State—were led away by it, and became its deceived disciples, in one form or another, without suspecting its deceitful moral tendencies.

Lecturers came into the cities and traversed the State, circles were formed, mediums constituted, spirits rapped and wrote, tables moved and turned, and men, women and children forgot their meals, and stood in superstitious awe within the enchanted circles. Thousands of people lost their relish for the Word of God and forsook his altars of worship. Men neglected their fields, women their homes and children their schools, and for whole days and nights hung with bated breath upon the supposed communications from departed spirits, made often through the most ignorant mediums. Not only in the cities full, but throughout the vast populations of the rural districts, all classes seemed more or less affected by and interested in it. In thousands of homes in Missouri the midnight lamp shone upon tables surrounded by groups and circles of people so intent upon the unintelligible incantations and messages of spiritualism, so-called, that sleep was banished from swollen eyes and pillows brought no rest to aching heads. By it many were disqualified alike for secular, domestic and religious duties.

A peculiarity of spiritualism was that night and darkness were necessary to evoke the spirits. They would rarely communicate to mortals in the day time, or perform any very remarkable feats, such as playing on musical instruments, untying mediums, singing in the air, etc., except in total darkness. Evil spirits, like evil men, “love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.”

This modern spiritualism—neither the history nor philosophy of which it is necessary here to discuss—organized itself into bands, circles and societies of men and women in the larger cities, had their places of secret nocturnal meetings, rented halls for public Sabbath exercises, had their rituals and creeds, their priests and prophets, their altars, incantations and genuflexions, which answered to some sort of public worship. The first female lecturers and public speakers were spiritualists, and in the spiritualists’ church, so-called, women are the high priests and the scriptural teachings in regard to the relation of men and women and their duties in the church are reversed.

Indeed, to call them a church at all is a misnomer, and a shameful reflection upon every idea, principle and function of a true church of Jesus Christ, for by believing in a revelation direct from departed spirits in the spirit world they reject God’s revelation.

They commissioned mediums to write, women and men indiscriminately to preach, to heal the sick, to see through the material and reveal the spiritual, to break up the marriage relation, to destroy parental affection, to form new standards of private and social virtue, to disturb and destroy all the old foundations and safeguards of society, and reconstruct the social system upon the modern ideas of socialism and the most offensive forms of free-loveism.

Religious liberty with them meant social licentiousness, and the social virtues were sacrificed to the lustful passions.

These things can not all be affirmed of all spiritualists, and yet the inevitable tendency is the same, and the extremest consequences are legitimate. To say that thousands of people in Missouri, through the subtle agencies of spiritualism, renounced their religion, forsook the church, neglected to read God’s Word, turned themselves away from paths of piety and works of righteousness to serve tables, and became downright infidels, is not half of the whole truth. To a large extent the minds of men became detached from the foundations of Divine truth, and wandered, like the “unclean spirit, seeking rest and finding none.”

Systems of infidelity, and infidelity without system, sprang up in every direction and found supporters amongst those that were least suspected, and the church began to tremble for the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Free-thinking, so-called, took the place of solid, religious faith, and every form of doctrine received encouragement in the public mind. The tendency in the public mind to skepticism was never more alarming, and the mystic vagaries of Andrew Jackson Davis stood in defiant competition with the New Testament. Lecturers appeared in every city and centre of population, haranguing the people upon the vain philosophies of men and questions of science, falsely so-called, seeking to turn away their ears from the truth unto fables, and “doting about questions and strifes of words” that would and did disturb the foundations of godliness. Nor could both the religions press and pulpit countervail their influence upon the public mind. Infidel clubs and associations were formed under different disguises, and many mischief-makers began to believe and teach “unwholesome doctrines” and deceive the ignorant and unwary. It was a common thing to hear of men lecturing in the principal towns on spiritualism, a higher civilization, phrenology, pathology, physiology, hygiene, and other kindred topics, and selling maps, charts and cheap books. In some places they drove a brisk trade, and set all the old women—and young ones, too—men and boys to talking and querying over the new ideas and theories advanced by these flippant, and often immodest lecturers.

The character of such teachings can not better be illustrated than by relating a somewhat novel adventure which the author had in the spring of 1859 with one of these lecturers.

While stationed in Jefferson City I was invited by the Moniteau County Bible Society to deliver a lecture in California on the Bible cause, and aid them in raising funds to supply the destitute of the county with the Word of God. Arriving in California by the afternoon train I was informed that a gentleman, a stranger, had been there lecturing for several evenings, and would lecture again that evening, in a public hall. My informants had not heard him, and could not tell exactly his subject or his object. When informed that his lectures were free, and that he was selling some kind of books, I was not long at a loss to reckon his moral latitude and longitude, and, indeed, to “guess” whence he came, and what he came for, and hoped that some lucky chance would throw us together.

The meeting of the Bible Society that night was quite a success, but my anxiety to see the lecturer seemed fated to disappointment. The next morning, in company with a friend, I went to the hotel, near the depot, to await the arrival of the down train. A goodly number of gentlemen sat and stood about in the public room awaiting the train also. My friend soon opened the way (as he knew many of them) for an appeal to them for contributions to the Bible cause, to which they pretty generally declined to respond. About this time a rather queer looking genius entered the hotel from the street, hastily and boisterously relieving himself at once of what seemed to be a meal sack half filled with books, and several rather pert exclamations and general salutations, taking a seat near me. I did not at first suspect his identity, but his inveterate loquacity brought him into notice, and my eye soon measured a small, thin-visaged, sharp-nosed, squint-eyed, thin-lipped, cadaverous, nervous specimen of humanity, a stranger to every sense of modesty, propriety and decency, and who believed that with himself all wisdom would die. He soon learned that I lived in Jefferson City, and the following conversation occurred. Turning to me, whom he had evidently been regarding for some time with uncivil curiosity, he said:

“You live in Jefferson City?”

“Yes, sir.”

“On your way home now?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Will you be good enough to make an announcement for me to lecture in your city next week?”

“Well, I don’t know. Our people are not good lecture-goers.”

“Why, don’t you think I can have a good house?”

“That depends upon circumstances.”

“What circumstances? My object is to do good.”

“What subject do you propose to lecture on?” I asked.

“Various subjects; but especially treating of the construction and functions of the human body, the laws of physiology and hygiene.”

“You may possibly do some good by lecturing on such subjects,” said I, “and as we both are trying to do good, but in different ways, possibly if you will help me I may be able to help you.”

By this time, of course, we had the eager attention of all present.

“How can I help you?” he inquired.

“I am trying,” I replied, “to raise money to supply the destitute of this county with the Bible, and as I have applied to all of these gentlemen for help, perhaps you would give me something.”

“No, indeed,” said he, with emphasis, “I would rather give my money to have all the Bibles in the county burned up.”

“You don’t believe much in the Bible, then?”

“Not a bit of it,” he replied. “It has deceived the people long enough already. If the people would only read my books on physiology and hygiene, and learn something of the nature and laws of their own physical organization, and what will promote the health, growth and action of all its parts, and let that ‘old fable’ alone, they would be healthier, happier and better off every way.”

He said this with an air of assurance and authority which he evidently thought and desired would settle the matter with me, at least for the present, as he rose and walked the room nervously.

But I had seen too many men in the West to be bluffed off after that style, and my interest in him was too intense.

“Well, my friend,” I said, after he subsided a little, “If you do not believe the Bible, what do you believe?”

“I am a free-thinker, sir.”

“And what is a free-thinker?”

“One who thinks freely, and as he pleases, upon all subjects, without the shackles and ‘leading strings’ of the Bible, or any other old book—who has the independence and manliness to think for himself.”

“I have long desired to see a free-thinker,” said I, rather coolly.

“Look at me, then, and you will see one,” he replied, rather curtly.

“Will you be kind enough,” I asked, “to tell me what you think, ‘freely,’ upon some subjects of grave importance of which the Bible treats?”

“What subjects?”

“The origin of man, for instance. If you reject revelation, how do you account for the origin of our race?”

“Easy enough;” he replied. “In the same way that I account for the origin of plants and animals by growth and development.”

“You believe, then, in what is called the ‘development theory?’”

“I do, most fully and freely.”

“From what is man a development?” I asked.

“From the lower animals, and immediately from the animals whose organism is nearest like ours.”

“What animal,” I asked, “do you think furnishes the resemblance so striking that leads you to believe that man is a development from it, and an improvement on it?”

With evident embarrassment, he answered, “I suppose the ape or the monkey.”

“Then,” said I, “I think I can have you a fine audience in Jefferson City next week, if I can make the announcement according to your theory.”

“How is that?” he inquired.

“I will tell the people that an improved monkey will lecture to them.”

The excitement of the man was scarcely less than the evident pleasure of the listeners.

“And, moreover,” I continued, “I will readily excuse you for not giving me anything for the Bible cause, and can no longer be surprised that you desire to see all the Bibles destroyed.”

“Why?” he asked, turning upon me sharply.

“Because,” said I, “I can not expect a monkey, however developed and improved, to appreciate a revelation from God.”

He became furious, sprang to his feet, and with gesticulations as rapid and violent as the volubility of his tongue, and as threatening as the intensity of the mingled chagrin and anger that burned in his countenance, delivered himself somewhat as follows:

“You are a Methodist preacher, going about trying to make the people believe that they can get religion—that God can convert them. It is all a deception—a delusion. God can do no such thing. I was deceived once, too, and was fool enough to join the Methodist church and believe that God could convert me. I went to the mourners’ bench, where you try to get people to go; they sang, and prayed and shouted over me, and beat me on the back, and tried to make me believe that I was converted. But it was no such thing. God could not convert me. How could he get into me? Where would he come in at? At the mouth? or nose? or ears? All the men in the world could not make me believe that I could be converted. God ’lmighty could not convert me.”

He closed, pretty well exhausted, and yet with his feelings somewhat in the ascendant, and with marked interest awaited my reply.

“I am not at all astonished at the fact,” said I, “that God could not convert you.”

“Why? Do you not teach the people that God can convert and save men?”

“Certainly I do. But, then, I read in the Scriptures no provision whatever for the conversion and salvation of monkeys, however improved.”

Without another word he wheeled and “went away in a rage,” snatching up his sack of books in his flight, and muttering something that could not be heard above the roar of laughter that followed him. I never saw him afterward. From that moment he went his way, and I mine. Our paths never crossed each other, or at least we never met. Our encounter lasted about half an hour, and when he disappeared so unceremoniously nearly every gentleman present walked up and gave me a dollar for the Bible cause, as the best way of testifying their appreciation of the victory.

This aptly illustrates the pernicious character of the teachings then rife through the State, and this “improved monkey” was a fair specimen of the class of itinerant lecturers that were then talking to thousands upon thousands of the people every week.

The rejection of the office of chaplain by the State Legislature, and the passage of the “Sunday law,” and other class legislation affecting the religious institutions of the State, meant more than the temporary freak of a few irreligious politicians. It was the expression of a wide-spread and growing sentiment amongst the people, and the first bold demand of a fast-maturing infidelity.

The great Napoleon said that “there are certain moral combinations always necessary to produce revolution; and if they do not exist it is impossible to revolutionize a government or interrupt its peaceful administration. Without them a few ambitious leaders, inspired by selfish motives, may struggle in vain for political power.”

If civil revolutions attest the wisdom of this remark of the great military chieftain, much more the moral and religious phases which revolutions assume under given conditions.

The foreign element, with its rationalism, anti-Sabbatarianism and abused Romanism; the irreligious element, with its Spiritualism, Universalism, Free-lovism and open and disguised infidelity—these furnish to the reflecting “moral combinations” sufficient to produce, or at least to control and direct, the great moral agencies that were so efficient during the civil revolution in burning churches, breaking up religious associations, hunting down and dragging ministers of the gospel “to prison and to death,” and adding to the horrors of civil war, this, that the comforting ministrations of Christianity are proscribed, or altogether prohibited, under the penalty of imprisonment or death, or both imprisonment and death, to the man of God whose enlightened conscience teaches him to fear God rather than man.

CHAPTER III.

Characteristics of the Population—All Nationalities and all Social Peculiarities Fused into a Common Mass—Missourian—First Settlers of the State—Where From, and their Type of Domestic and Social Life—The “Kansas-Nebraska Bill”—Its Effect upon the Population of Missouri—“Emigration Aid Societies”—Extremes Brought Together in Missouri—Reflex Tides of Population—Rapid Increase—Unique Social Formation—Social Peculiarities Fuse—Religious Characteristics Become more Distinct—Religious Thought and Feeling, Doctrines and Dogmas, Sharply Defined and Fearfully Distinct in Missouri—Sects and their Peculiarities—Sectarian Strife Uncompromising—Why—Religious Controversy—Published Debates—Their Effect—Sectarian Bigotry and Intolerance—Differences, Essential and Non-essential—History Repeating Itself—Persecution the Same in Every Age—Early Martyrs and the Missouri Martyrs—“The Altar, the Wood and the Lamb for a Burnt Offering.”

The population of Missouri differs in some respects from that of any other State. There is a greater variety of nationalities blended, of blood mingled, and of national, political, social, domestic and religious characteristics crossed and intermixed than can be found in any other State.

Other States may have more nationalities represented in their population, and the political, social and ecclesiastical characteristics may be more sharply defined; but that fact only confirms the position taken—that in Missouri these characteristics lose their identity, to a greater or less extent, and become fused in the common mass. Nearly all the nationalities of Europe, and many of Asia, are represented in Missouri, but only a few years’ residence is sufficient to either destroy or modify their national characteristics.

The social and domestic peculiarities of every State in the Union, with many foreign states, are exotics here; while many of them die out altogether and are abandoned, others compromise and intermingle, until the type of social and domestic life is somewhat of a hybrid, and is peculiarly Missourian.

The bulk of the old population of the State was from Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee and Ohio, with a respectable number from Indiana, Illinois and New York. Up to 1855 and ’56 the types of social life existing in these several States were scarcely disturbed in Missouri. After the passage by Congress of the somewhat notorious “Kansas-Nebraska bill,” in 1854, and the organization of these Territories, the population of Missouri increased rapidly and became of a more general character.

“Emigration aid societies” in New England and the Eastern States threw into these newly-formed Territories thousands of families who represented in their social and religious lives the extreme of New England ideas and New England faith.

Emigration from the Southern Atlantic and Gulf States, whether by aid societies or otherwise, rushed to these Territories, bringing the extremest types of Southern life. The middle and Mississippi Valley States furnished their share, until the swelling population of Kansas presented a scene of contrasts and conflicts turbulent and exciting beyond anything before known in the history of territorial settlement.

It is true that it was the struggle of political parties for dominion, each seeking to incorporate its peculiar class of ideas and cast of policy into the corporate structure of the future State by controlling the Territorial election; yet the effect upon the social and domestic peculiarities of Missouri, as well as the peculiar institutions of the State, was marked and decided.

Missouri caught the reflex tide of population, and her fertile soil, mineral wealth and commercial advantages not only retained this reflex population, but supplied an effective appeal to thousands more from all parts of the country—North, East and South—until for a few years her population increased at the rate of nearly one hundred thousand per annum. And yet, in her extended area of territory, this immense influx was scarcely perceptible. Along her rivers and railroad lines her population thickened, and her great commercial centres felt the life and power of multiplied agencies and resources.

Either the rapid growth of cities, the stir and excitement of trade, the strife for fortune and fame, the magical charm of Western life, or something else peculiar to the climate, the country or the people, all of these distinct and opposing types of social life, began soon to lose their “type force” and blend into a conglomerate social mass, with fewer Northern, Eastern and Southern peculiarities than Western—a rather unique social formation, which the modern sociologists have not yet classified.

Few Southern men and Southern families long retained their purely Southern style of life, and few Eastern or Northern men and families long retained the social and domestic habits that were peculiar to the latitude from which they hailed. It is easy to see how the social life that derives its characteristics from such different and distant systems would be peculiar in itself and to itself.

People lose their social characteristics much sooner and more easily than they do their religious peculiarities. The former are based on education, taste, association and habit, the latter on principles vital and divine. As every national and social characteristic known to American society has become mixed and blended in Missouri, so every shade of religious thought and feeling, every form of religious doctrine and dogma, together with every type of ecclesiasticism known to modern American civilization, exists in the hearts and homes of Missouri—at least to some extent. Nearly every shade of religious belief has a representative in Missouri, and stands out more or less distinct upon the moral phases of society.

These do not blend. No moral alchemist can fuse the distinct religious peculiarities of a people. Men may relinquish their social and domestic characteristics because they are matters of taste or convenience; but to give up their distinctive religious characteristics is considered a sacrifice of principle and conscience.

Men do not struggle long to maintain and propagate that which was peculiar to their former social life, but will contend forever for that which is peculiarly distinctive in their religious belief. That which men hold lightly and esteem of little value to them elsewhere assumes an importance and a value in the West, and will not be surrendered tamely. Religious ideas which in Massachusetts and South Carolina existed in the mind crudely or loosely; exerting no influence upon the life, would in Missouri take a permanent shape, seek affinities, and ultimately grow into churches struggling for a place in the great moral agencies of the State. Men whose religious habits were scarcely formed, and whose lives had not assumed any positive ecclesiastical type in the older States, on coming to Missouri became positive, decided, unequivocal, sectarian partisans, and often uncharitable bigots. Men who would contend fairly for their distinctive tenets elsewhere contend fiercely here, and very few live long in this State without espousing, to some extent, the cause of some religious sect.

There are causes for this state of things. Society is, to a great extent, in a formative state. In very few places, if any, has society settled down into grooves, and channels, and circles, and social and church castes, as in the older States; and then society exists in a great variety of unassimilated elements, Northern, Southern, Eastern, Western; English, French, German, Scotch, Irish, with a hundred different shades of social and domestic life, which are too distinct to become homogeneous, and which seek in church creeds and church associations their social as, well as religious affinities.

The result is that, perhaps, no other State can furnish as great a variety of distinct sects, or denominations of Christians, with the religious population so liberally distributed amongst them. There may be more sects in States that have a much larger population, but in proportion to the population, no State has a greater variety of churches which accommodate such a diversity of belief, each of which has so large a hold upon the public mind.

It would, indeed, be anomalous if all of these sects could exist together in peace. Missouri can not claim such exceptional distinction. In, perhaps, no State or country has denominational contention and strife been more general and uncompromising.

Not willing to accept the standards of doctrine published and recognized by each church, nor to abide by the verdict of learned debates upon all questions of difference, ministers and members, with astonishing freedom and with defiant presumption, enter the arena of controversy, public and private, with a zeal and a spirit equally hurtful to Christian charity and the general cause of true piety. Nothing can awaken a community more generally and excite the people more intensely than a public debate, formally arranged and pitched by two noted champions. The notoriety gained by the antagonistæ outlasts, if it does not outreach, the settlement of disputed questions. And, then, each man or woman, however old or young, must become an adept in religious controversy, and convert every road side, street corner, shop, office, counting room, kitchen and parlor into a place for petty, spiteful theological disputation. Instead of edifying one another in love, and deepening the work of grace in the heart by appropriate religious conversations, they embitter the sectarian spirit, destroy Christian charity, alienate personal friendship, a and “dote about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth.”

With many, sectarian jealousy is equaled only by sectarian bigotry, and the great work of soul-saving is made only tributary to denominational success. Indeed, many go so far as to deny the virtue of saving grace to all but themselves, and vainly imagine that the saving virtues of the atonement are transmitted to the hearts of men only through their church ministrations and distinctive ordinances.

Nothing excites sectarian jealousy more thoroughly than great religious awakenings and revivals in any given church. It is natural that the minister of the gospel who, as a human instrument, is very successful in winning souls to Christ should be “highly esteemed in love for his work’s sake,” and yet nothing exposes him more to the unjust criticisms and unchristian detractions of his less successful brethren in the ministry. Let a revivalist be successful in stirring the religious life of a whole community and in producing a general religious awakening, and the ministers and members of other churches, instead of joining heartily with him in the great work and laboring together for the general good, will watch with jealous interest the progress of the work, discuss with uncharitable criticism its character, and seize the first opportunity to begin a meeting Of their own, that they may make the religious awakening of the community inure to their denominational advantage. Should the revival occur in a small town where the whole population Christianized could not more than adequately support one healthy church organization, with one pastor, instead of assimilating all the religious elements, it would act like a moral solvent, disparting and isolating each shade of religious belief and thought. “Where two or three are gathered together” of the same belief they will organize, send for a pastor and set up for themselves. Thus the little community becomes divided into little sectarian factions, each to drag out a half-conscious, miserable, contentious existence, instead of uniting in one large, healthy, self-sustaining congregation, with all the benefits and advantages of a first-class minister well supported, a good church and Sabbath school, with all the regular ministrations of the gospel.

These things can not be affirmed of all ministers of the gospel, nor of all churches and communities in Missouri; but the facts are too common, too prominent and deplorable to be overlooked in any legitimate search for the animus of sectarianism in Missouri.

Where the differences between denominations are essential they are agreed upon their differences and live in peace, each pursuing a distinct line of operations in its own way unmolested, and their lines rarely, if ever, cross each other. On the other hand, where the difference is non-essential, they will not agree to disagree, and wrangling and contention, disputings and debates, mark the conflict. Where the difference lies in fundamental doctrines, debates are rare and formal. If the difference lies in ecclesiastical polity, or in forms of worship, or in sacraments or modes of ordinances, the discussions are interminable and the petty disputations endless. The nearer denominations approach each other in all that is essential in doctrine, worship and works of righteousness, the deeper seated and more bitter the jealousy and strife between them. Non-fraternization and non-intercourse are maintained with much punctiliousness between those Churches which are one in origin, one in doctrine, and one in all of their essential characteristics, but which have separated from each other upon questions of ecclesiastical polity, or for some other like cause.

Judging from the character of the strife between them, their methods of ecclesiastical warfare, and the downright animosity that enters into and characterizes these strifes, one would readily suppose that, according to their own interpretation, their peculiar commission is to overcome, root out, exterminate and supplant the church that bears the same “image and superscription.” Particularly is this true when the essential grounds of difference are political.

For confirmation of this position it is only necessary to refer to the two Methodist, the two Presbyterian, and recently the two Baptist Churches of this State, which are divided, not upon doctrines or ordinances, but upon questions of ecclesiastical polity—whether ecclesiastical bodies, as such, have the right to legislate upon or intermeddle with questions that belong to the State, and must be controlled by the State.

This allusion is sufficient for the present purpose. It only remains to be noted here how readily ecclesiastical partisans take advantage of everything in political and civil strife that will confer upon them power and position. How readily they identify themselves with dominant parties, if by so doing they can damage their ecclesiastical opponents and gain position and power for themselves! How heartily they endorse the policy of the party in power, if by it their own disability is exchanged for temporary enfranchisement, and their own minority is invested with temporary power to oppress and persecute the hated majority!

History repeats itself; and the genius of religious persecution and proscription has discovered very few new expedients and adopted very few new instruments since the days of the Master. The manger of Bethlehem cradled the Incarnate Innocence, and Pilate’s judgment hall gave birth to the diabolical genius of persecution, which was equal to the task, in that it did there and then invent and employ the only expedient that could at once be successful in the crucifixion of Incarnate Innocence, and in transmitting itself to every country and age with undiminished efficiency to pursue to prison and to death the followers of its first and greatest Victim as long as time should last. The cry of disloyalty and treason made by ecclesiastics is now, as it always has been, the strongest appeal to the guardians and defenders of the State; and as that was successful before Pilate, and forced him to sign the death warrant of the Master, so it has been successful in every tribunal of earthly power, and procured the death warrant of all the martyrs in every country and age, and under every form of government and every phase of ecclesiasticism from that day to this. “We found this fellow perverting the nation, forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that he himself is Christ—a king.” “If thou let this man go thou art not Cæsar’s friend; whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar.” Such declarations made by the High Priests of the Church could, and did, influence the Roman Procurator against the convictions of his better judgment, against reason, against all the facts, again right and against innocence. What were all these to the life blood of their victim?

In some form or other these charges have been repeated in every systematic persecution of ministers of the gospel and martyrs for the truth, from Stephen, Antipas, Polycarp and Barnabas to the Bartholomew Massacre in Paris, and from the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the Papal Inquisition to the last great tragedy in the drama, occurring during and since the late civil war in America, in free Missouri and under the ægis of institutions that boast of religious liberty, and the sanction of men who profess to represent the advanced Christian civilization of the age.

But, then, “the disciple is not above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord.” “Remember the word that I said unto you, The disciple is not above his Lord. If they have persecuted me they will persecute you.”

They beheaded John, crucified Christ, stoned Stephen, murdered Paul, “and others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonment; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented; of whom the world was not worthy.”

Every age and country have reproduced in some form the altar and the victim, the persecutor and the persecuted, the Caiaphas and the Christ, without material alteration in the charge or the trial. Missouri has provided the altar, the wood, the fire and the sacrifice for the offering demanded by this age and country in the interest of the Church. Woods, Sexton, Glanville, Wollard, Robinson, Wood, Headlee and others supplied the sacrifice.

While this chapter prepares the way, in an important sense, for the better understanding of the subject in hand, it will also embody a standing declaration and testimony against the peculiar spirit and character of sectarian strife in Missouri.

CHAPTER IV.

Division of the Church in 1844—Slavery only the Occasion—Action of the General Conference in 1836—Slavery in the Church in 1796 and in 1836—No Change of its Moral Aspects in 1844—Facts Perverted—Constitutional Powers of the Church—Bishop Andrew, a Scapegoat—Protest of the Southern Conferences—Resolution and Plan of Separation—Dr. Elliott and Schism—The Vote—The Question in the South—Louisville Convention in 1845—Division—The Bishops of the M. E. Church Accept the Division the following July—Failure to Change the Sixth Restrictive Rule—General Conference of 1848 Pronounce the Whole Proceedings Null and Void—Dr. Lovick Pierce Rejected—Fraternization Denied—Responsibility of Non-Fraternization—Northern Church Refuse to Make any Division of Property—Appeal to the Civil Courts—Decision of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York—Justice McLean—United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio—Judge Leavitt’s Decision—Supreme Court of the United States—Points Decided—The Decision of the Supreme Court in Full.

It is due to the uninformed that a true statement be made here of the causes, conditions, plan and immediate results of the great division, in 1844, of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. This is made the more necessary by the misrepresentation of the facts made by the press and pulpit of the Northern wing of the Church, and the political and other uses a perversion of the facts was made to subserve in Missouri.

1. Slavery was not, in any proper sense, the cause of division, but was made, incidentally, the occasion only. American slavery had existed in the Church for sixty years in the same form, and under the same civil and religious sanctions that authorized and covered it in 1844. If it was the “sum of all evils” in 1844, it was the same in 1796; and the moral character of the institution was not changed in 1836, when the General Conference in Cincinnati, by a vote of 120 to 14, adopted the following preamble and resolutions:

“Whereas, Great excitement has prevailed in this country on the subject of modern abolitionism, which is reported to have been increased in this city recently by the unjustifiable conduct of two members of the General Conference, in lecturing upon and in favor of that agitating subject; and, whereas, such a course on the part of any of its members is calculated to bring upon this body the suspicions and distrust of the community, and to misrepresent its sentiments in regard to the points at issue; and, whereas, in this aspect of the case, a duo regard for its own character, as well as a just concern for the interests of the Church confided to its care, demand a full, decided and unequivocal expression of the ideas of the General Conference in the premises; therefore,

“Resolved, By the delegates of the Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled, that they disapprove, in the most unqualified sense, the conduct of two members of the General Conference, who are reported to have lectured in this city recently upon and in favor of modern abolitionism.

“Resolved, That they are decidedly opposed to modern abolitionism, and wholly disdain any right, wish or intention to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave as it exists in the slaveholding States of this Union.”—Bangs’ History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. 4, pp. 245, 246.

This is rather strong language, but not more so than the pastoral address issued by the same General Conference. In that address the following language is used: “It can not be unknown to you that the question of slavery in these United States, by the constitutional compact which binds us together as a nation, is left to be regulated by the several State legislatures themselves, and thereby is put beyond the control of the general government as well as that of all ecclesiastical bodies, it being manifest that in the slaveholding States themselves the entire responsibility of its existence or non-existence rests with those State legislatures; and such is the aspect of affairs in reference to this question that whatever else might tend to ameliorate the condition of the slave, it is evident to us, from what we have witnessed of abolition movements, that these are the least likely to do him good.” Reasons are given amply sufficient to prove that abolition speeches and publications all “tend injuriously to affect his temporal and spiritual condition, by hedging up the way of the missionary who is sent to preach to him Jesus and the resurrection, and thereby abridging his civil and religious privileges.”

“These facts,” the address continues, “which are only mentioned here as reasons for the friendly admonition which we wish to give you, constrain us, as your pastors, who are called to watch over your souls, as they who must give an account, to exhort you to abstain from all abolition movements and associations, and to refrain from patronizing any of their publications, and especially from those of that inflammatory character which denounce in unmeasured terms those of the brethren who take the liberty to dissent from them.” * * * * “From every view of the subject which we have been able to take, and from the most calm and dispassionate survey of the whole ground, we have come to the solemn conviction that the only safe, scriptural and prudent way for us, both as ministers and people, to take, is wholly to refrain from this agitating subject which is now convulsing the country, and consequently the Church, from end to end, by calling forth inflammatory speeches, papers and pamphlets. While we cheerfully accord to such all the sincerity they ask for their belief and motives, we can not but disapprove of their measures as alike destructive to the peace of the Church and the happiness of the slave.”—Bangs’ History of the M. E. Church, vol. 4, pp. 258, 260.

It is patent to every candid observer that the Church in 1836 did not consider the subject of slavery as the “sum of all evils,” and therefore to be extirpated at whatever cost to Church and State, but rather that the danger to the peace of the Church and country was not in slavery itself, but in the “abolition movements,” “speeches and papers” that were “convulsing the country and Church from end to end,” and “that the only safe, scriptural and prudent way for both ministers and people was wholly to refrain from this agitating subject.” Slavery was, according to this address, “beyond the control of all ecclesiastical bodies,” and it would have been fortunate for the peace and welfare of both the Church and the country had it remained beyond their control, and had the teachings and deliverances of all ecclesiastical bodies upon this subject remained just as this General Conference expressed it in 1836. Slavery remained unchanged; and if it was “safe, scriptural and prudent” for the Church in ’36 to let it alone, and leave it under the “control of the State legislatures,” where “the constitutional compact which binds us together as a nation placed it,” why was it not “safe, scriptural and prudent” to do the same in ’44? Did slavery, as a domestic, moral or civil institution present any new aspects in 1844? What civil or moral questions were applicable to slavery in 1844 that did not equally apply in 1836 or 1796? Had slavery just been admitted into the Church for the first time, then those who contend that it was the cause of division would have some show of reason. If slavery was the “sum of all villainy” in 1844 it was in 1798, unless time can change the character of “villainy,” for it did not change the character of slavery. If a slaveholder was “a thief, a robber, a murderer and a sinner above all others” in 1844, he was the same in 1836. Nathan Bangs, George Peck, Charles Elliott, Orange Scott, and many others were members of the General Conference of 1836, but they did not discover such mighty man-defrauding, God-defying wrongs in slavery and slaveholders then. Their optics were different when, in 1844, the effort to make the institution of slavery a proper subject for ecclesiastical legislation, by deposing Bishop James O. Andrew from the Episcopal office because his wife had inherited slaves, revealed the dangerous advances the Church had made toward the control of civil questions.

In this case “certain constructions of the constitutional powers and prerogatives of the General Conference were assumed and acted on, which were oppressive and destructive of the rights of the numerical minority represented in that highest judicatory of the Church.” It was upon the “construction of the constitutional powers of the church” that they differed, and in the discussions and decisions that followed “certain principles were developed in relation to the political aspects of slavery, involving the right of ecclesiastical bodies to handle and determine matters lying wholly outside of their proper jurisdiction.”

No candid man who will study the philosophy of that memorable Conference in the light of the plain facts can believe that slavery was more than the occasion for the separation.

When men willfully pervert the facts of history, or misrepresent the connection and bearing of these facts, they must have a motive, and candid men are justified in suspecting an end that can not be reached by straightforward, honorable means.

Northern Methodist preachers had become fanatical on the subject of the abolition of slavery—had recently discovered great moral wrong in the “peculiar institution,” and commenced a war upon everything that favored the existing relations of master and slave. All at once it was discovered that all the resolutions and pastoral address of 1836 were in sympathy with the “sum of all villainies,” and for that reason should be disregarded. It was discovered that ministers of the gospel were slaveholders—which had been the case from the beginning—and the most noted instance then existing was James O. Andrew, a man of unblemished character, unswerving integrity and singular purity of heart and life. Why not take him for a scapegoat? They needed one, for many of them had been connected with the same institution in one way or another. But how could they reach his case? Did the law of the Church cover the case? Did the constitution of the Church confer upon the General Conference the power to depose a Bishop because his wife had inherited a slave, and the laws of the State would not admit of emancipation? Could not a majority of the General Conference so interpret and construe the law that the case could be reached, and the “abolition movement” that had been unequivocally condemned eight years before be just as unequivocally indorsed now and greatly advanced by the great Methodist Church in the United States? And what if this assumption of constitutional power should be rejected? Aye, there was the rub. This was the cause. Admit the authority of the General Conference to depose a man from office for incidental or even positive complicity with slavery, and with it the right is established to depose a man from the ministry for complicity with democracy, republicanism, or any thing else purely political. The same authority extends to the ballotbox and all the distinctive privileges of citizenship.

There were other questions incidentally brought out at the Conference of 1844 which tested the animus of the delegates from the North, and disclosed the construction placed by their leaders upon the constitutional prerogatives of the college of Bishops.

Any one at all acquainted with ecclesiastical government can readily see how these questions could divide the Church whether slavery had an existence or not. The same questions have produced division in ecclesiastical bodies since slavery was abolished.

It was not the three cents a pound upon tea that caused the American revolution of 1776, but the right to tax tea to that amount involved the right to make every man in the British colonies a slave; and the right to depose Bishop Andrew implied the right to depose every man from the ministry who differed from the numerical majority upon any political question whatever.

To all sober, unbiased, right-thinking, candid men this position will be undeniable—unanswerable. To others it will be like “casting pearls before swine.”

2. The plan of division provided a remedy for the cause of division. The one stands in the light of the other. When the action in the case of Bishop Andrew was taken in the General Conference of 1844 the delegates from thirteen Annual Conferences, making fifty-one in all, drew up a declaration in which they set forth the fact that in the slaveholding States the objects and purposes of the ministry would be defeated by it. Upon this protest the General Conference raised a committee of nine, six from the Northern Conferences and three from the Southern Conferences, to whom the declaration was referred. After deliberation they submitted what is known in history and in law as the “Plan of Separation.”

It begins thus:

“Whereas, A declaration has been presented to this Conference, with the signatures of fifty-one delegates of the body from thirteen Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States, representing that, for various reasons enumerated, the objects and purposes of the Christian ministry and church organizations can not be successfully accomplished by them under the jurisdiction of the General Conference as now constituted; and,

“Whereas, In the event of a separation, a contingency to which the declaration asks attention as not improbable, we esteem it the duty of this General Conference to meet the contingency with Christian kindness and the strictest equity; therefore,

“Resolved 1, Provided that should the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, all the societies, stations and Conferences bordering on the line of division, adhering by vote of a majority of the members of the society, station or Conference to either the Church in the South or the M. E. Church, shall remain under the unmolested pastoral care of the church to which they do adhere.”

The rule was not to apply to interior charges, which shall, in all cases, be left to the care of that church within whose territory they are situated.

It should be observed that the Plan of Separation was thus agreed upon by the General Conference: “Should the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection.” They were to be the sole judges of the necessity of such “distinct ecclesiastical connection.” The “plan” also provided for “ministers of every grade and office” adhering either North or South, “without blame,” and for a change of the sixth restrictive rule by a constitutional vote of all the Annual Conferences, so that in the event of separation an equitable pro rata division of the Book Concerns at New York and Cincinnati, and the Chartered Fund at Philadelphia, could be made. It provided, also, for the division of the property by a joint commission, in which N. Bangs, S. Peck and J. B. Finly were to represent the Church North; and the ninth resolution was as follows:

“Resolved 9, That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church in meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, conference funds, cemeteries, and of every kind within the limits of the Southern organization, shall be forever free from any claim set up on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution can be of force in the premises.”

It is pertinent to the case to state here that on the day the “committee of nine” was raised, and before it was formed or announced, the following resolution was passed, without debate:

“Resolved, That the committee appointed to take into consideration the communication of the delegates from the Southern Conferences be instructed—provided they can not, in their judgment, devise a plan for the amicable adjustment of the difficulties now existing in the Church on the subject of slavery—to devise, if possible, a constitutional plan for a mutual and friendly division of the Church.”

The adoption of this resolution, without debate, embodied and announced the decision of the General Conference upon the constitutional powers of the body to divide the Church.

An effort was made to strike the word “constitutional” from the resolution, but it failed, and the resolution as passed forms a part of the history of the division, bearing directly upon the constitutional prerogatives of the General Conference.

Dr. Charles Elliott, who subsequently made himself notorious by denouncing the Church, South, as a secession, and by making war upon the “Plan of Separation” and all that it accomplished, was the first man in the General Conference to move the adoption of the report of the committee of nine, and in a long speech he urged, with many arguments, the practicability, the propriety, the necessity and the expediency of a division of the Church, avowing distinctly that “were the present difficulty out of the way there would be good reason for passing the resolutions contained in the report. The body was too large to do business advantageously. The measure contemplated was not schism, but separation for their mutual convenience and prosperity.

After much debate and a full and free discussion of every possible point that could be raised by that able body of men, amongst whom were many of the best constitutional lawyers of the Church, the report was adopted; the vote on the several resolutions varying from 135 to 153 in the affirmative, and from 22 to 12 in the negative. These were certainly very large majorities, and show plainly the animus of the General Conference of 1844.

With implicit confidence in the sincerity and good faith of this action, the Southern Conferences proceeded to ascertain whether there existed a necessity in the Southern States for the separation thus provided for.

The Southern Conferences were to be the sole judges of the necessity for such action as would make this provisional separation a real one; and that in their judgment such necessity did exist, the history is in proof. However greatly the opinions and purposes of men may change, the facts of history that have gone to official record can not change. Upon such facts intelligent judgment alone can rest, and to such facts an honest public will always make a final appeal.

“The Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States” did “find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection,” and for that purpose met in convention, in Louisville, Ky., in 1845, and reduced the possible contingency to fact. In the organization of a “distinct ecclesiastical connection” the Louisville convention adhered strictly to the plan adopted by the General Conference of 1844. The division of the church into two distinct co-ordinate branches, which was considered a contingency, and, as such, provided for in 1844, was, by the action of the “Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States” represented in the convention at Louisville, made an accomplished fact in 1845. After this convention erected the “Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States” into a “distinct ecclesiastical connection” the Bishops of the M. E. Church (North) met in New York, July, 1845, and passed, among others, the following resolution:

“Resolved, That the plan adopted in regard to a distinct ecclesiastical connection, should such a course be found necessary by the Annual Conferences of the slaveholding States, is regarded by us as of binding obligation in the premises, so far as our administration is concerned.”

They also gave instructions respecting the voting of “those societies bordering on the line of division, to decide for themselves whether they would adhere to the Church North or South.” And they further declared that they did not feel justified in presiding over the Conferences South, and struck them from their plan of Episcopal visitation. Thus the Bishops of the Church, North, quietly and gracefully resigned their jurisdiction over the Southern Conferences, because they considered the “Plan of Separation” adopted in 1844 of “binding obligation.”

The division of the Church was recognized by the Bishops of the North as an accomplished fact, and the “Plan of Separation” as of “binding obligation.” And it may fairly be assumed that, had there been no property interests to be divided according to that plan, pro rata, there would have been “a mutual and friendly division of the Church.” But after the separation had been accomplished and recognized as legitimate and of “binding obligation,” the Northern wing of the Church discovered that the required vote of the Annual Conferences to change the sixth restrictive rule was not obtained, and the pretext was furnished them to refuse a pro rata or any other division of the property that was held by the Northern Church, which consisted of a Book Concern in New York, what was known as a Chartered Fund in Philadelphia, and a Book Concern in Cincinnati.

To ignore and set aside the claims of the Church, South, to the common property it was necessary to pronounce the General Conference of 1844 incompetent to divide the Church, and to declare the “Plan of Separation null and void,” so that “there should exist no obligations to observe its provisions.” This was done by the Northern General Conference of 1848, after the separation had been acknowledged by their Bishops as an accomplished fact, and the “Plan of Separation” as of “binding obligation.”

Dr. Lovick Pierce, father of Bishop Pierce, and the noblest Roman of all, was duly accredited to this General Conference of 1848 as the fraternal messenger of the Church, South, to express to that body the Christian regards and fraternal salutations of his Church. Upon the reception of his credentials the General Conference “Resolved, That as there are serious questions and difficulties existing between the two bodies it is not proper at present to enter into fraternal relations with the M. E. Church, South.”

Fraternal intercourse was declined by official action. The door was shut, and the fraternal messenger of the Church, South, stood without, feeling most keenly the unchristian rejection. That he felt the dishonor, the humiliation, the insult thus offered to his Church most sensibly the closing words of his communication to that body, upon being notified of his rejection, is in evidence: “You will now regard this communication as final on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. She can never renew the offer of fraternal relations between the two great bodies of Wesleyan Methodism in the United States. But the proposition can be renewed at any time, either now or hereafter, by the Methodist Episcopal Church; and if ever made, upon the basis of the Plan of Separation as adopted by the General Conference of 1844, the Church, South, will cordially entertain the proposition.”

His language to the General Conference of the Church, South, in submitting his report to that body, was worthy of the great cause he was delegated to serve, worthy of his Church, and worthy of himself. One single sentence of that report illustrates the whole, and reflects the highest honor on his head and heart: “Thus ended the well-intended commission from your body. Upon this noble effort I verily believe the smile of Divine approbation will rest when the heavenly bodies themselves have ceased to shine. We did affectionately endeavor to make and preserve peace, but our offer was rejected as of no deserving.”

He returned home and, with his entire Church, had to accept the situation thus decreed by the M. E. Church, North. And with the responsibility of non-fraternization rests the shame and disgrace of the fact, in the estimation of the enlightened Christian world, as well as all the damaging results.

But the Church, North, knowing that the Church, South, could not be divested of her legal rights to the property otherwise, proceeded to set aside the Plan of Separation, to pronounce the Church, South, a schism, and to decline all fraternal intercourse. Thus cut off as illegitimate, as schismatics and as secessionists, by an action wholly ex parte, all claim upon the common Church property was denied, and all the authority of commissions to settle with the Church, South, was revoked.

An appeal to the civil courts was thus made necessary, and the strong arm of the civil law was evoked to force the unwilling conscience of the Northern Church, and to become “a judge and a divider over us.”

It is unnecessary to give in detail the history of these civil suits. Suffice it to say, that the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York and the Supreme Court of the United States both recognized and affirmed the authority of the General Conference to divide the Church, pronounced that body competent to provide a plan of separation, fix a boundary line, determine the status of ministers, adjust the rights of property, and erect two separate and distinct ecclesiastical bodies, of co-ordinate existence and authority, out of the M. E. Church of the United States. These highest judicial tribunals of the country did affirm the validity of the “Plan of Separation” adopted by the General Conference of 1844 to be of “binding obligation” in every part and particular; and, notwithstanding the failure of the sixth restrictive rule, the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York caused a decree to be entered, November 26th, 1851, ordering a pro rata share of the property of the New York Book Concern, including both capital and produce, to be transferred to the agents of the M. E. Church, South, and it was referred to the Clerk of the Court to ascertain the amount and value of the property. When he reported, exceptions were filed, the Court could not agree upon some points, and the case was certified to the Supreme Court of the United States for decision.

Judge McLean, a leading member of the M. E. Church, and at the time one of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, induced the Commissioners of the two parties to come together in New York. The result of this interview was an agreement between them about dividing the property of the New York Book Concern, which agreement was afterward made a part of the decree of the U. S. Circuit Court, December 8th, 1852. By this decree the property of the New York Book Concern was settled, of which the Church, South, obtained about $191,000.

It may not be out of place to insert here a part of the decision of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, Justice Nelson and Judge Betts presiding. The former delivered the opinion of the Court.

After analyzing the Plan of Separation, the decision of the Court goes on to say: “Now, it will be seen from this analysis of the Plan of Separation that the only condition or contingency upon which an absolute division of the Church organization was made to depend was the action of the several Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States. If these should find it necessary to unite in favor of a distinct organization, by the very terms of the Plan the separation was to take place according to the boundary designated. It was left to them to judge of the necessity, and their judgment is made final in the matter. And when the division is made, and the Church divided into two separate bodies, it is declared that ministers of every grade and office in the Methodist Episcopal Church may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, or without blame attach themselves to the Church, South. The whole Plan of Separation confirms this view. As soon as the separation takes place, in accordance with the first resolution, all the property in meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, Conference funds and cemeteries, within the limits of the Southern organization is declared to be free from any claim on the part of the Northern Church. The general and common property, such as notes and other obligations, together with the property and effects belonging to the printing establishments at Charleston, Richmond and Nashville, and the capital and produce of the Book Concern at New York, was reserved for future adjustment. This was necessary on account of the restrictive article upon the power of the General Conference. * * * When the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States acted, and organized a Southern Church, as they did, the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church into two organizations became complete. And so would the adjustment of the common property between them, if the assent of all the Annual Conferences had been given to the change of the restrictive article. The failure to give that has left this part of the plan open, the only consequence of which is to deprive the Southern division of its share of the property dependent upon this assent, and leave it to get along as it best may, unless a right to recover its possession legally results from the authorized division into two separate organizations.”

The suit for a division in the Cincinnati Book Concern was brought in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Ohio, July 12th, 1849. The evidence agreed on by the counsel for both parties was the same used in the New York case. Justice McLean declined to sit in the case, because he had previously expressed his opinion that the Sixth Restrictive Rule could be constitutionally modified by the General and Annual Conferences so as “to authorize an equitable division of the fund with the M. E. Church, South.”

Judge Leavitt presided, and reached the decision that “the General Conference possessed no authority, directly or indirectly, to divide the Church.” And that, as the Annual Conferences did not change the Sixth Restrictive Rule, the Church, South, could not recover; and dismissed the suit. He said, however, that the power to divide the Church “rested with the body of the traveling ministry, assembled en masse in a conventional capacity.” This was fatal to his whole decision; for since the first delegated General Conference in 1808, the whole body of the traveling ministry had been assembling by delegation every four years, and, authorized to exercise all the powers of the entire body of traveling preachers, six clearly defined restrictions on its powers only excepted.

From the decision of Judge Leavitt the Commissioners of the M. E. Church, South, appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. That august tribunal was then composed of Chief Justice Taney, and Associate Justices McLean, Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, Curtis and Campbell. (Justice McLean did not sit in the case.)

The cause was heard in Washington City, in April, 1854, and the decision in favor of the rights of the Church, South, was without dissent from any of the Justices. Judge Nelson delivered the opinion of the Court, April 25th, 1854. The main points settled by that decision are these: (1) That the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States was divided. (2) It was not a secession of a part from the main body. (3) By it neither division lost its interest in the common property. (4) The General Conference of 1844 had the power to divide the Church into two distinct ecclesiastical bodies. (5) The six restrictive articles did not deprive the General Conference of the authority and power to divide the Church. (6) The proposed change of the Sixth Restrictive Rule was not a condition of separation, but to enable the General Conference to carry out its purpose. (7) The separation of the Church into two distinct parts being legally accomplished, the “Plan of Separation” must be carried out in good faith, and a division of the joint property by a Court of Equity follows as a matter of course.

By this decision of the Supreme Court the M. E. Church, South, obtained from the Cincinnati Book Concern, in money, bonds, Southern notes and accounts, about 893,000.

These facts have all been gathered from official documents, and will not be denied. If they serve to place before the public, in a succinct form, the true history of the division of the Church, and by so doing countervail the many misrepresentations and mischievous falsehoods that have led to the unprovoked persecutions of the ministers of the M. E. Church, South, in Missouri and elsewhere, the end will be reached and the labor will not be in vain.

As the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the above case is not accessible to every reader, it may serve the purpose of history, while it serves the cause of truth and righteousness, to put in convenient form, and as a befitting close to this chapter, that decision in full—except so much of it as was necessary to carry out the decree of the Court in detail.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

“William A. Smith, et al., vs. Leroy Swormstedt, et al.

“This was the appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Ohio, which dismissed the bill.

“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Ohio, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by this Court that the decree of said Circuit Court in this cause be and the game is hereby reversed and annulled; and this Court doth farther find, adjudge and decree:

“1. That under the resolution of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, holden at the city of New York, according to the usage and discipline of said Church, passed on the eighth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-four (in the pleadings mentioned), it was, among other things, and in virtue of the power of said General Conference, well agreed and determined by the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as then existing, that in case the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States should find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, the ministers, local and traveling, of every grade and office in the Methodist Episcopal Church, might attach themselves to such new ecclesiastical connection without blame.

“2. That the said Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States did find and determine that it was right, expedient and necessary to erect the Annual Conferences last aforesaid into a distinct ecclesiastical connection, based upon the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church aforesaid, comprehending the doctrines and entire moral and ecclesiastical rules and regulations of the said discipline (except only in so far as verbal alterations might be necessary to or for a distinct organization), which new ecclesiastical connection was to be known by the name and style of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was duly organized under said resolutions of the said Annual Conferences last aforesaid, in a convention thereof held at Louisville, in the State of Kentucky, in the month of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-five.

That by force of the said resolutions of June the eighth, eighteen hundred and forty-four, and of the authority and power of the said General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as then existing, by which the same were adopted; and by virtue of the said finding and determination of the said Animal Conferences in the slaveholding States therein mentioned, and by virtue of the organization of such Conferences into a distinct ecclesiastical connection as last aforesaid, the religious association known as the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as then existing, was divided into two associations, or distinct Methodist Episcopal Churches, as in the bill of complaint is alleged.

That the property denominated the Methodist Book Concern at Cincinnati, in the pleadings mentioned, was, at the time of said division and immediately before, a fund subject to the following use, that is to say, that the profits arising therefrom, after retaining a sufficient capital to carry on the business thereof, were to be regularly applied toward the support of the deficient traveling, supernumerary, superannuated and worn-out preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, their wives, widows and children, according to the rules and Discipline of said church, and that the said fund and property are held under the act of incorporation in the said answer mentioned by the said defendants, Leroy Swormstedt and John H. Power, as agents of said Book Concern, and in trust for the purposes thereof.

“5. That, in virtue of the said division of said Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, the deficient, traveling, supernumerary, superannuated and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows and children comprehended in, or in connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, were, are, and continue to be, beneficiaries of the said Book Concern to the same extent and as fully as if the said division had not taken place, and in the same manner and degree as persons of the same description who are comprehended in, or in connection with, the other association, denominated, since the division, the Methodist Episcopal Church, and that as well the principal as the profits of said Book Concern, since said division, should of right be administered and managed by the respective General and Annual Conferences of the said two associations and Churches under the separate organizations thereof, and according to the shares or proportions of the same as hereinafter mentioned, and in conformity with the rules and Discipline of said respective associations, so as to carry out the purposes and trusts aforesaid.

“6. That so much of the capital and property of said Book Concern at Cincinnati, wherever situated, and so much of the produce and profits thereof as may not have been heretofore accounted for to said Church, South, in the New York case hereinafter mentioned, or otherwise, shall be paid to said Church, South, according to the rate and proportions following, that is to say: In respect to the capital, such share or part as corresponds with the proportion which the number of the traveling preachers in the Annual Conferences which formed themselves into the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, bore to the number of all the traveling preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church before the division thereof, which numbers shall be fixed and ascertained as they are shown by the minutes of the several Annual Conferences next preceding the said division and new organization in the month of May, A. D. eighteen hundred and forty-five.

“And in respect to the produce and profits, such share or part as the number of Annual Conferences which formed themselves into the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, bore at the time of said division in May, A. D. 1845, to the whole number of Annual Conferences then being in the Methodist Episcopal Church, excluding the Liberia Conference, so that the division or apportionment of said produce and profits shall be had by Conferences, and not by numbers of the traveling preachers.

“7. That said payment of capital and profits, according to the ratios of appointment so declared, shall be made and paid to the said Smith, Parsons and Green, as Commissioners aforesaid, or their successors, on behalf of said Church, South, and the beneficiaries therein, or to such other person or persons as may be thereto authorized by the General Conference of said Church, South, the same to be subsequently managed and administered so as to carry out the trusts and uses aforesaid, according to the Discipline of said Church, South, and the regulations of the General Conference thereof.”

CHAPTER V.
FROM THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH, IN 1845, TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CIVIL WAR, IN 1861.

Provisions of the Plan of Separation—Time of Division—The Missouri a Border Conference—Vote on Adhering North or South nearly Unanimous—The Disaffected—Covenant Breakers—The M. E. Church in Missouri after the Division—Her Ministers and Members—How Regarded—Relative Strength of the Two Churches in Numbers and Property—Sympathy—Persecution—Tenacity in Spite of Opposition—Success the only Revenge—The Class of Northern Methodist Preachers—Their Connection with Clandestine Efforts to Free the Slaves—Their Condemnation and their Secret Service—Character of the Old Missourians—Their Vindication—Northern Methodists Condemned for being Secret Political Partisans, and not for Preaching the Gospel—The Anti-Slavery Element in Missouri Ten Years before the War—Lawful vs. Clandestine Means—“Underground Railroad” and other Nefarious Schemes to Run off the Slaves of Missouri—These Things Condemned by the Anti-Slavery Party—Public Meetings of Citizens in the Interest of Order and Peace.

The “Plan of Separation” adopted by the General Conference of 1844, to which attention is given in the preceding chapter, fixed the line of separation along the line of division between the free and the slaveholding States, for the most part, and provided as follows, to-wit:

“1. That, should the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, the following rule shall be observed with regard to the northern boundary of such connection: All the societies, stations and Conferences adhering to the Church in the South, by a vote of a majority of the members of said societies, stations and Conferences, shall remain under the unmolested pastoral care of the Southern Church, and the ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church shall in no wise attempt to organize churches or societies within the limits of the Church, South, nor shall they attempt to exercise any pastoral oversight therein: it being understood that the ministry of the Church, South, reciprocally observe the same rule in relation to societies, stations and Conferences adhering by vote of a majority to the Methodist Episcopal Church; provided, also, that this rule shall apply only to societies, stations and Conferences bordering on the line of division, and not to interior charges, which shall in all cases be left to the care of that Church within whose territory they may be situated.”—General Conference Journal, vol. 2, p. 135.

The Missouri Annual Conference was one of the Conferences “bordering on the line of division,” and the question of adhering North or South was thoroughly canvassed and decided almost unanimously in favor of the South. Those ministers favoring the North were allowed to adhere North “without blame,” by the “Plan of Separation.” They were seven out of one hundred and thirty-six.

Prior to the session of the Conference in Columbia, in the fall of 1845, when the vote was taken, the “societies and stations,” along the border particularly, were asked to decide by a vote of the members whether they would adhere North or South. The vote was so nearly unanimous in favor of adhering South that not a single “society or station” in the Conference gave a majority in favor of adhering North, and in very few of them was there a division at all. In a few societies along the border, such as St. Louis, Hannibal, Lagrange and some others, and a few scattering societies in the interior, there was a small minority in favor of adhering North. These were generally men recently from the Northern States, or mal-contents who rejoiced in the occasion thus afforded to seek notoriety or revenge in a contentious faction. Such persons are found, more or less, in every community, and unfortunately for the peace of society some sections of Missouri unwittingly offered special inducements to that class of immigrants, and received quite a large surplus of them from the older States. Amongst the few disaffected of Missouri Methodists who would not go with the majority in this division may have been some honorable exceptions, but they were few and far between, and only prove the general rule.

The vote to adhere South was so general in the State that no one thought of accepting the “pastoral care” of the ministers of the M. E. Church, North, until after that Church had pronounced the “Plan of Separation null and void,” and had proceeded to violate their plighted faith and disregard every “binding obligation in the premises.”

The right and authority of one party to set aside and declare “null and void” a solemn contract or covenant entered into by two parties, without the consent of the other party, is not debatable. The failure of the sixth restrictive rule, according to the decision of the United States Supreme Court, did not vitiate the covenant, nor had the M. E. Church, South, up to 1854, by act or deed, according to the same high authority, forfeited the covenant to the other party by any failure to comply with its provisions.