III.Cumberland Presbyterians.

It is the duty of every master of a family to give his slaves liberty to attend the worship of God in his family, and likewise it is his duty to convince them of their duty; and then to leave them to their own choice.[93]

In 1789 John Leland proposed the following resolution in the Triennial Convention, which was adopted:

Resolved, That slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature, and inconsistent with a republican government, and therefore recommend it to our brethren, to make use of every legal measure to extirpate this horrid evil from the land; and pray Almighty God that our honorable legislature may have it in their power to proclaim the great Jubilee consistent with the principles of good policy.[94]

This protest, while very strong in its declaration, was ineffective. The Baptists were no exception to mankind as to slaveholding. The Baptists became slaveholders in large numbers, and adopted the policy that it was the work of the church to mitigate slavery into a humane institution.[95]

The Baptists were more successful in adding negroes to the church than any other denomination. There are more negroes in the Baptist church today than in all other churches combined. One out of every five Southern negroes is a Baptist.[96]In 1813, there were 40,000 negro Baptists, mostly in the South, among whom were a great many negro preachers and exhorters.[97]

Among the attractive features of the Baptist faith to the negroes were immersion, the congregational form of government,which gave them participation in church meetings, the liberality of the Baptists in permitting them to preach, and the Baptist method of communion, which did not discriminate against them.[98]These advantages of Baptism[99]caused negroes to withdraw from other churches.[100]

The Baptists despite the advantages that a form of local church government gave them in handling the slavery question, were not able to prevent its frequent discussion. It was not so difficult for the individual congregations to settle the matter by a majority vote and select a preacher whose views agreed with the majority. But it was inevitable that the forces that finally united the Southern Methodists would produce the same effect upon the Southern Baptists. The Southern Baptists were among the largest slaveholders of the South, and in due time came to be defenders of slavery, while Northern Baptists became increasingly anti-slavery.[101]

That separation was inevitable was evident to many of the leaders, although both Northern and Southern Baptists tried to relegate slavery to the background. Rev. Richard Fuller was one of the first to see this impending division in the church, and he hastened to take steps to prevent it. He tried to distinguish between the church as an organization and its membership. In the Triennial Convention of 1844 he secured the adoption of a resolution to the effect that as a church they should disclaim all sanction of slavery or anti-slavery, either expressed or implied, but that as individuals they should have the freedom both to express and to promote their views on these subjects in a Christian manner and spirit.[102]

This was apparently a happy solution of the question, a philosophical way to handle the problem, but slavery would not down. The incident that most of all precipitated the organization of the Southern Baptist Convention was theattitude of the Board of Foreign Missions of the church. This board, apparently on its own initiative, adopted in 1844 a resolution to the effect that,

In the thirty years in which the board has existed, no slaveholder, to our knowledge, has applied to be a missionary. And as we send out no domestics, or servants, such an event as a missionary taking slaves with him, were it morally right, could not, in accordance with all our past arrangements and present plans, possibly occur. If, however, anyone should offer himself as a missionary, having slaves, and should insist on retaining them as his property, we can never be a party to any arrangements which would imply approbation of slavery.

The American Baptist Home Missionary Society in April, 1845, found itself in the same predicament that the Foreign Missionary Society was facing. This board said: “We declare it expedient that members shall hereafter act in separate organizations, at the South and at the North, in promoting the objects which were originally contemplated by the society.”

This announcement of policy was regarded by the Southern Baptists as a violation of the rights of the convention of the church. This policy was soon put into effect by the rejection of Rev. James E. Reeves, a slaveholder and applicant to become a missionary.[103]This was a challenge that was immediately accepted. The Southern Baptists said: “This is forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles.... We will never interfere with what is Caesar’s. We will not compromise what is God’s.”[104]

The Southern Baptist Convention was organized at Augusta, Georgia, in the summer of 1845. There were 377 delegates present. They said that “a painful division has taken place in the missionary operations of the American Baptists.... They differ in no article of the faith. They are guided by the same principles of gospel order.”[105]

The Tennessee Baptists were, like the Baptists as a whole, divided on the question of slavery. In general, the attitude of the National Triennial Convention down to 1845 reflects the opinion of Tennessee Baptists. There are no local histories nor any minutes of local bodies that give us any insight into the particular feelings of different groups of Baptists in Tennessee. Tennessee Baptists went with the Southern Convention in 1845, but there were anti-slavery Baptists scattered throughout the state.

One of the most noted of the anti-slavery Baptists in Tennessee was Professor J. M. Pendleton, of Union University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee (now at Jackson, Tennessee). Professor Pendleton was born in Virginia in 1811. He moved to Kentucky in 1817 and to Tennessee in 1857. He was in 1858 professor of theology at Union, and joint editor with Rev. A. C. Dayton of the Tennessee Baptist, published at Nashville, and was one of the editors of the Southern Baptist Review.[106]

In 1858, Dr. Dawson, editor of the Alabama Baptist, accused him of being an abolitionist. He was brought before the board of trustees of Union. Professor Pendleton explained the charge in the following way: “I suppose he (Dawson) made no distinction between an ‘Abolitionist’ and ‘Emancipationist.’ The latter was in favor of doing away with slavery gradually, according to state constitution and law; the former believed slavery to be a sin in itself, calling for immediate abolition without regard to consequences. I was an Emancipationist ... but I was never for a moment an Abolitionist.”[107]He frankly stated his views before the board, and was acquitted.[108]

The Southern Baptists made special effort to evangelize the slaves after their separate organization was accomplished. “This department of our labor,” says the report of 1845, “is increasing in interest every year. Whenever it is practicable, the missionaries of the board hold separate services for the special benefit of the slaves. And all bear favorable testimony to the happy influence of the Gospel upon the hearts and lives of that people. Their owners are becoming more and more awake to their special wants. Some are erecting houses of worship on their plantations, others are making liberal donations to sustain the ministry among them.”[109]The general proposition of the convention to any local church was that it would pay half the expense of a mission among the negroes if the church would pay the other half. In 1855, the Baptists had missions at Rogersville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Cumberland Mountains, Huntingdon, and Memphis.[110]

The convention of 1859 said:

Our slaves, too, demand our attention. They form part of our families, speak our language, are easy of access, and are impressible beyond any other people. They number more than three and a half million, and out of this multitude scarcely more than three or four hundred thousand are professed Christians.[111]

The character of the slave converts as given by Rev. Pendleton, seemed to justify the efforts of the church. He said, “I saw among them in the days of slavery as pious Christians as I ever saw anywhere. They attended church, occupied the place assigned them in the meeting-house, and partook of the Lord’s Supper with their white brethren.”[112]

The special training that the negroes received in the Baptist church largely prepared them to establish and manage their own churches. “The first negro Baptist church inTennessee,” says Pius, “was the Mt. Lebanon Baptist Church, organized at Columbia, October 20, 1843.”[113]This church now has a membership of 200 and property worth $15,000. In 1853, Spruce Street Baptist Church was built at Nashville. Beal Street Church at Memphis was also one of the early negro churches.

The Cumberland Presbyterians present the interesting situation of a church originating in a slave state after slavery was rather substantially established. This church was organized in Tennessee in 1810 in the log cabin of Samuel McAdoo. Samuel McAdoo, Finis Ewing, and Samuel King, all ordained ministers of the Presbyterian church, were the constituent founders of the first Presbytery.[114]Of these three cofounders, Ewing was a slaveholder, but he soon emancipated his slaves.[115]

One would expect this church, born of the environment of slavery, to be rather mild in its opposition to slavery, if, indeed, not pro-slavery, but, as a matter of fact, it was strongly anti-slavery. Ewing, after freeing his slaves, boldly preached against “the traffic in human flesh.” He said:

But where shall we begin? Oh! is it indeed true that in this enlightened age, there are so many palpable evils in the church that it is difficult to know where to commence enumerating them? The first evil which I shall mention is a traffic in human flesh and human souls. It is true that many professors of religion, and, I fear, some of my Cumberland brethren, do not scruple to sell for life their fellow-beings, some of whom are brethren in the Lord. And what is worse, they are not scrupulous to whom they sell, provided they can obtain a better price. Sometimes husbands and wives, parents and children, are thus separated,and I doubt not their cries reach the ears of the Lord of Sabbath.... Others who constitute a part of the visible Church half feed, half clothe, and oppress the servants. Indeed, they seem by their conduct toward them, not to consider them fellow-beings. And it is to be feared that many of them are taking no pains at all to give their servants religious instruction of any kind, and especially are they making no efforts to teach them or cause them to be taught to read that Book which testifies of Jesus, whilst others permit, perhaps require, their servants to work, cook, etc., while the white people are praying around the family altar.[116]

He says again, “I have determined not to hold, nor to give, nor to sell, nor to buy any slave for life. Mainly from the influence of that passage of God’s word which says, ‘Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal.’”

Samuel McAdoo, one of the three founders of the church, and a Cumberland preacher, was a most outspoken opponent of slavery. He did not want his family through marriage or inheritance or otherwise to become connected with it. To accomplish this he joined the contingent of anti-slavery leaders that Tennessee contributed to the Northwest. He moved to Illinois, where he could preach his convictions without fear and trembling.[117]

Some of the early Cumberland preachers, who were very conscientious on the subject of slavery, wanted to free their slaves, but they did not believe they could be self-sustaining and independent members of society. Rev. Ephriam McLean was one of these who decided that he would perform the experiment of giving his slaves a chance to demonstrate that they could be self-supporting. He gave his slaves the use of a farm, farming implements, and live stock adequate for their purposes, and set them free to work for themselves. In a few years idleness and drunkenness broughtthem to suffering, and they begged him to take them back. He did so.[118]

Rev. Robert Donnel, a Cumberland minister, inherited slaves. He taught his slaves the Scriptures and called them to family prayer daily. He wanted to free his slaves, but they did not wish freedom, because they did not want to go to Liberia. The free states at the North did not want them. He could not drive them to Africa. The state would not let him free them unless he sent them outside of it, so he did not know how to dispose of them.[119]

Southern anti-slavery men would buy the slaves of their own brothers to keep them from being sold separately to pay their debts. Such men would intend to emancipate these slaves, but they would soon discover that the slaves had rather die than be sent to Canada or Africa. They remained slaveholders because they had a real interest in negroes. In 1855, Dr. Beard, a leading Cumberland Presbyterian minister, said, “the longer I live the more deeply I regret that I ever became involved in it. My heart always hated it, and now loathes it more and more every day.”[120]

Not only were the leading ministers in the Church anti-slavery, but the literature of the Church denounced slavery, and the legislation of the Southern States. The Revivalist, a Cumberland paper published at Nashville from 1830 to 1836, speaking of legislation of South Carolina upon slavery, said: “Such acts are foul blots upon the records of a free people, which our posterity will blush to behold. They are not only unjust and cruel but actually impolitic.”

“The extensive slaveholder,” said the Revivalist, “is at too great a remove from the slave to learn the workings of his mind and the feelings of his heart. There is no contact of feeling, no interchange of sympathies between most Southern planters and their servants. They govern, control, and direct their slaves by proxy; and too many mastersare dependent upon their representatives of heartless overseers for a knowledge of the character and disposition of their own slaves. Southern planters, who govern by proxy, are, therefore, unprepared to do justice to the African character.”[121]

The Revivalist exhorted slaveholders to teach their slaves to read and to give them moral and religious instruction. This, it said, “will not only make better men of them but better servants.”[122]

The Cumberland Presbyterian, of Nashville, mother organ of the Church, said in 1835: “We proclaim it abroad we do not own slaves. We never shall. We long to see the black man free and happy, and thousands of Christians who now hold them in bondage entertain the same sentiments.”[123]

It will be shown in the chapter on abolition that a change of attitude toward slavery followed the action of the Convention of 1834. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church was no exception to this rule. The action of a Pennsylvania Synod in 1847 precipitated the issue. This Synod met and rescinded its action at a previous session declaring that the relation between it and American slavery to be such as to require “no action thereon,” and adopted the resolution, “That the system of slavery in the United States is contrary to the principles of the Gospel, hinders the progress thereof, and ought to be abolished.”[124]

The General Assembly of the Church of 1848, which met at Memphis, appointed a committee to review the action of the Pennsylvania Synod. This committee in its report regretted the action of the Synod and disapproved “any attempt by jurisdiction of the church to agitate the exciting subject of slavery,” closing with the observation that “the tendency of such resolutions, if persisted in, we believe is to gender strife, produce distraction in the church, and thereby hinder the progress of the Gospel.”[125]

The General Assembly of 1851, which met at Pittsburg, received six memorials on slavery from Ohio and Pennsylvania with about one hundred and fifty signatures.[126]The committee to whom these memorials were referred made the following report, which was adopted:

The Church of God is a spiritual body, whose jurisdiction extends only to matters of faith and morals. She has no power to legislate upon subjects on which Christ and his apostles did not legislate, nor to establish terms of union, where they have given no express warrant. Your committee, therefore, believe that this question on which you are asked by the memorialists to take action, is one which belongs rather to civil than ecclesiastical legislation; and we are all fully persuaded that legislation on that subject in any of the judicatories of the church, instead of mitigating the evils connected with slavery, will only have a tendency to alienate feeling between brethren; to engender strife and animosities in your church; and tend, ultimately to a separation between brethren who hold a common faith, an event leading to the most disastrous results, and one which we believe ought to be deprecated by every true patriot and Christian.But your committee believe that members of the church holding slaves should regard them as rational and accountable beings, and treat them as such, affording them as far as possible the means of grace.Finally, your committee would recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:1. That inasmuch as the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was originally organized and has since existed and prospered under the conceded principle that slavery was not and should not be regarded as a bar to communion; we, therefore, believe that it should not now be so regarded.2. That, having entire confidence in the honesty and sincerity of the memorialists and cherishing the tenderest regard for their feelings and opinions, it is the conviction of this General Assemblythat the agitation of this question which has already torn asunder other branches of the church, can be productive of no real benefit to master or slave. We would, therefore, in the fear of God, and with the utmost solicitude for the peace and welfare of the churches under our care, advise a spirit of mutual forbearance and brotherly love; and, instead of censure and proscription, that we endeavor to cultivate a fraternal feeling one toward another.[127]

But your committee believe that members of the church holding slaves should regard them as rational and accountable beings, and treat them as such, affording them as far as possible the means of grace.

Finally, your committee would recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:

1. That inasmuch as the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was originally organized and has since existed and prospered under the conceded principle that slavery was not and should not be regarded as a bar to communion; we, therefore, believe that it should not now be so regarded.

2. That, having entire confidence in the honesty and sincerity of the memorialists and cherishing the tenderest regard for their feelings and opinions, it is the conviction of this General Assemblythat the agitation of this question which has already torn asunder other branches of the church, can be productive of no real benefit to master or slave. We would, therefore, in the fear of God, and with the utmost solicitude for the peace and welfare of the churches under our care, advise a spirit of mutual forbearance and brotherly love; and, instead of censure and proscription, that we endeavor to cultivate a fraternal feeling one toward another.[127]

This platform remained the orthodox position of the Church to the abolition of slavery. The Cumberland Church was primarily a Southern church, and, therefore, never divided on the question. It would have suffered very little loss of either membership or property by a division.

The Cumberland Church, it appears, took the most sensible position on the slavery question of any of the churches in Tennessee. It always preached abolition and ultimate freedom as the final solution of the problem, but, at no time did it overlook the entire set of facts connected with the institution. It recognized that slavery had been forced on the forefathers, that it had become the central institution of Southern society, that, therefore, it would be violent revolution to abolish the institution at one stroke of the pen. It appreciated the fact that only a small part of the slave population was ready for freedom and a responsible place in the body politic. The Cumberland Presbyterians believed that slavery was an evil, but denied responsibility for it. They thought that slavery was an educating institution, that the rights of the slave should be restored to him as fast as his evolution would permit, but that in this process the welfare of society as a whole was the major consideration.

The Quakers led decidedly in the movement of abolition. As early as 1770 in their annual meeting attention wascalled to the treatment of the slave and to “the iniquitous practice of importing negroes.”[128]In 1772 it was decided in their annual meeting that no Friend should buy a slave of any other person than a Friend in unity. This regulation might be violated if it was to unite husband and wife or mother and children, or for other reasons if approved by monthly meeting.[129]Advance was made again in 1774 and in 1775 when the yearly meeting decided “That Friends in unity shall neither buy nor sell a negro without the consent of the monthly meeting to which they belong.”[130]In 1776 the Friends reached complete abolition.[131]The yearly meeting advised with unanimity that the members of the Friends’ Society “clear their hands” of the slaves as rapidly as possible. By the close of the Revolution the Friends were practically rid of slaves. In the year 1787 there was not a slave in the possession of an acknowledged Quaker.[132]They never recanted on this proposition.

The attitude of the Southern Quakers was at first amelioration of the condition of the slave. They were interested in the physical condition of the negro, possibly as much for economic reasons as for altruistic motives.[133]In North Carolina, where the immediate background of Tennessee Quakerism is found, the question of slavery was slow in rising, but soon thereafter became a very stubborn question.[134]The yearly meetings of 1758 and 1770 took decidedly hostile attitude toward the buying and selling of slaves, and demanded that those that were inherited be treated well.[135]

The Quakers in North Carolina worked personally among the Friends for abolition and as an organization they petitioned the Legislature of the State to modify its laws in thedirection of justice and mercy. They protested bitterly against free negroes, who had been given their freedom by conscientious masters, being taken to other states and sold into slavery.[136]

The harshness of North Carolina law created a modified Quakerism not to be found elsewhere. The yearly meeting created agents to take charge of slaves that masters wanted to manumit, and look after them. By this method they proposed to give virtual freedom to the slaves when legal freedom was not recognized by the state.[137]This practice continued to the Civil War.

The Friends in Tennessee not only refrained from owning slaves themselves, but by manumission societies, by petitions to legislatures, and by abolition literature, sought to abolish slavery. Reference is made in a previous chapter to the work of such men as Embree, Osborn, and Lundy, who, if they had remained in Tennessee with all the Friends, instead of going to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, might have helped to bring about a different result. Charles Osborn, who was the leader in organizing the Tennessee Manumission Society, and who moved to Ohio and began publishing the Philanthropist, an anti-slavery paper, later moved to Indiana, whither he was followed by Jesse Wills and John Underhill, Friends who had helped to organize manumission societies in Tennessee. The Emancipator, Embree’s publication, referring to these emigrations to the North, said:

Thousands of first-rate citizens, men remarkable for their piety and virtue, have within twenty years past removed from this and other slave states, to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, that their eyes may be hid from seeing the cruel oppressor lacerate the back of his slaves, and that their ears may not hear the bitter cries of the oppressed. I have often regretted the loss of so much virtue from these slave states, which held too little before. Could all those who have removed from slave states on that account, to even the single state of Ohio, havebeen induced to remove to, and settle in Tennessee with their high toned love for universal liberty and aversion to slavery, I think that Tennessee would ere this have begun to sparkle among the true stars of liberty.[138]

From about 1809 to 1834, the Friends in Tennessee were regularly petitioning the Legislature of the State. Their petitions usually asked for the abolition of slavery, if possible; if not, to mitigate the evil “of separating husbands, wives, and children.”[139]They believed that the elimination of this practice would make the slaves more virtuous and increase their respect for the marriage relation. They petitioned against the domestic slave trade as they saw this was increasing the grip of slavery on the state.

The Friends were the most vigilant anti-slavery workers in the State. If all the Protestant churches had been as devoted to the cause of freedom in the early days of the State before there were many slaves in the state and before West Tennessee was settled, the story of the Convention of 1834 would likely be different. The Friends like the other religionists had to succumb to the superior pro-slavery forces that always controlled the state government.

The Presbyterians were the first denomination to cross the frontier line into Tennessee. Rev. Charles Cummings and Rev. John Rhea, both of this church, were the first preachers in Tennessee.[140]“It was the custom of Mr. Cummings on Sunday morning,” says Goodspeed, “to dress himself neatly, put on his shot pouch, shoulder his rifle, mount his horse, and ride to church, where he would meet his congregation, each man with his rifle in his hand.” In 1778 Samuel Doak was called to the congregations, Concord and Hopewell, in what is now Sullivan County. Rev. Doakin 1785 chartered Martin Academy, first educational institution west of the Alleghanies. In 1775 Abingdon Presbytery was founded, and it became the gateway of Presbyterianism to the other portions of the State. Thos. B. Craighead and Rev. William McGee, brother of the Methodist John McGee, were also among the early ministers of this denomination.[141]

The Presbyterians, like all the denominations that were national, could not in the very nature of things remain a unit on the slavery question. The question came up in various synods in 1774, 1780, and 1787, when the synods of New York and Philadelphia declared in favor of training the slaves for freedom.[142]

The question reached the General Assembly in 1793 and 1795, when it was decided that as there were differences of opinion relative to slavery among the members of the church, “notwithstanding which they live in charity and peace according to the doctrine and practice of the apostles, it ishereby recommended to all conscientious persons, and especially to those whom it immediately respects, to do the same.”[143]

At this same assembly, a committee made a strong recommendation, urging religious education of the slave. The assembly rejected the report of the committee, and said they “have taken every step which they deem expedient or wise to encourage emancipation, and to render the state of those who are in slavery as mild and tolerable as possible.”[144]The assembly referred the members of the church to its action of 1787 and 1793 for its position on slavery.

This action settled the question for 20 years. It came before the assembly again in 1815, due to the action of the Synod of Ohio. This assembly urged religious education and the use of prudent measures to prevent the slave traffic.[145]The assembly of 1816 asked that masters who were members of the church present the children of parents in servitude for baptism.[146]

The sale of a slave member of the church provoked ratherdrastic action by the Assembly of 1818,[147]but in the same proceedings it expressed its sympathy for those upon whom slavery had been entailed as “a great and most virtuous part of the community abhor slavery, and wish its extermination as sincerely as any others.”

The Assembly of 1825 said:

We notice with pleasure the enlightened attention which has been paid to the religious instruction and evangelization of the unhappy slaves and free people of color of our country in some regions of our church.... No more honored name can be conferred on a minister of Jesus Christ than that of Apostle to the American Slaves; and no service can be more pleasing to the God of Heaven or more useful to our beloved country than that which this title designates.

The slavery question came up again in 1836 when the church was pretty well divided. There was a majority report which recommended taking no action, and a minority report which strongly opposed slavery. The majority report was accepted by the assembly.[148]Twenty-eight members protested this action of the assembly. The Presbyterians had an anti-slavery element all along that they could not control. This element separated from the church in 1821 and called itself the Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church.[149]There was a second element, calling itself the New School, that based its action very largely on slavery. This element kept up an anti-slavery propaganda, repeating in 1846 and in 1849, the slavery declaration of 1818. The southern and more conservative element was able to control the assembly, and in 1853 the New School element withdrewfrom the church.[150]This was the last division in the church until the guns fired on Fort Sumter.

The attitude of the Tennessee Presbyterians on slavery was well expressed by the Synod of Tennessee in 1817, in an address to the American Colonization Society. This memorial, after congratulating the society upon its purpose, said:

We wish you, therefore, to know, that within our bounds the public sentiment appears clearly and decidedly in your favor.... We ardently wish that your exertions and the best influence of all philanthropists may be united, to meliorate the condition of human society, and especially of its most degraded classes, till liberty, religion, and happiness shall be the enjoyment of the whole family of man.[151]

There were several very prominent anti-slavery Presbyterian leaders in Tennessee, among both the laymen and the clergymen. Judge S. J. W. Lucky was a prominent example of a layman who was an active anti-slavery worker. Hon. John Blair, who was a ruling elder and representative of his district in Congress for twelve years, became convinced that slavery was wrong, and offered to give a bill of sale of his slaves to Dr. David Nelson. He was unable to see any practical way out of slavery.[152]

Among the ministers were three who did valuable service in the cause of freedom. Rev. John Rankin’s work as an anti-slavery leader has been noticed in another connection. He was one of the pioneers in the cause. Rev. Dr. David Nelson, a native of Washington County, and brother-in-law of Chief Justice James W. Frederick, was one of the most determined anti-slavery men in the country.[153]He had tobe saved from a mob for proposing to his congregation to take a subscription with which to buy and colonize slaves. He was eloquent in promoting colonization.[154]Rev. E. T. Brantley, a West Tennessee Presbyterian minister, said of him: “He cordially disapproved of slavery. He found no justification of it anywhere. All look forward to the extinction of slavery.... If the North could be aware of the progress of anti-slavery sentiment at the South, particularly among Christians, they would think the day of emancipation had already dawned.”[155]Rev. Dr. Ross, of Tennessee, was one of the most able leaders in Presbyterianism in the South. He was the spokesman of Southern Presbyterianism in the general assembly, which met at Buffalo in May, 1853. It was in this assembly that the committee on slavery recommended that a committee consisting of one member from each of the synods of Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and Virginia, be appointed to investigate the slaveholding members of the church on the following points, and report to the next general assembly:

1. The number of slaveholders in connection with the churches, and the number of slaves held by them.2. The extent to which slaves are held, from an unavoidable necessity imposed by the laws of the States, the obligation of guardianship, and the demands of humanity.3. Whether the Southern churches regard the sacredness of the marriage relation as it exists among the slaves; whether baptism is duly administered to the children of the slaves professing Christianity; and, in general, to what extent, and in what manner, provision is made for the religious well-being of the enslaved.[156]

1. The number of slaveholders in connection with the churches, and the number of slaves held by them.

2. The extent to which slaves are held, from an unavoidable necessity imposed by the laws of the States, the obligation of guardianship, and the demands of humanity.

3. Whether the Southern churches regard the sacredness of the marriage relation as it exists among the slaves; whether baptism is duly administered to the children of the slaves professing Christianity; and, in general, to what extent, and in what manner, provision is made for the religious well-being of the enslaved.[156]

Dr. Ross warmly opposed this action, asserting emphatically that the South never submitted to a scrutiny. He proposeda substitute motion to the effect that “a committee from each of the Northern synods ... be appointed to report to the next general assembly on the following points:

1. The number of Northern church members who traffic with slaveholders, and are seeking to make money by selling them negro clothing, handcuffs, and cowhides.2. How many Northern church members are concerned, directly or indirectly, in building and fitting out ships for the African slave trade, and the slave-trade between the States?3. How many Northern church members have sent orders to New Orleans and other Southern cities, to have slaves sold, to pay debts coming to them from the South? (See Uncle Tom’s Cabin.)4. How many Northern church members buy the cotton, sugar, rice, tobacco, oranges, pineapple, figs, ginger, cocoa, melons, and a thousand other things, raised by slave labor?5. How many Northern church members have intermarried with slaveholders, and have become slaveholders themselves, or enjoy the wealth made by the blood of the slaves, especially if there be any Northern ministers of the Gospel in such a predicament?6. How many Northern church members are descendants of the men who kidnapped negroes in Africa, and brought them to Virginia and New England, in former years?7. What is the aggregate and individual wealth of church members thus descended, and what action is best to compel them to disgorge this blood-stained wealth, or to make them give dollar for dollar in equalizing the loss of the South by emancipation?8. How many Northern church members, ministers especially, have advocated murder in resistance to the laws of the land.9. How many Northern church members own stock in underground railroads, running off fugitive slaves, and Sabbath-breaking railroads and canals?10. That a special committee be sent up Red River, to ascertain whether Legree, who whipped Uncle Tom to death (and a Northern gentleman),be not still in connection with some Northern church, in good and regular standing.11. How many Northern church members attend meetings of Spiritual Roppers, are Bloomers, or Woman’s Rights Conventionalists?12. How many are cruel husbands?13. How many are henpecked husbands?”[157]

1. The number of Northern church members who traffic with slaveholders, and are seeking to make money by selling them negro clothing, handcuffs, and cowhides.

2. How many Northern church members are concerned, directly or indirectly, in building and fitting out ships for the African slave trade, and the slave-trade between the States?

3. How many Northern church members have sent orders to New Orleans and other Southern cities, to have slaves sold, to pay debts coming to them from the South? (See Uncle Tom’s Cabin.)

4. How many Northern church members buy the cotton, sugar, rice, tobacco, oranges, pineapple, figs, ginger, cocoa, melons, and a thousand other things, raised by slave labor?

5. How many Northern church members have intermarried with slaveholders, and have become slaveholders themselves, or enjoy the wealth made by the blood of the slaves, especially if there be any Northern ministers of the Gospel in such a predicament?

6. How many Northern church members are descendants of the men who kidnapped negroes in Africa, and brought them to Virginia and New England, in former years?

7. What is the aggregate and individual wealth of church members thus descended, and what action is best to compel them to disgorge this blood-stained wealth, or to make them give dollar for dollar in equalizing the loss of the South by emancipation?

8. How many Northern church members, ministers especially, have advocated murder in resistance to the laws of the land.

9. How many Northern church members own stock in underground railroads, running off fugitive slaves, and Sabbath-breaking railroads and canals?

10. That a special committee be sent up Red River, to ascertain whether Legree, who whipped Uncle Tom to death (and a Northern gentleman),be not still in connection with some Northern church, in good and regular standing.

11. How many Northern church members attend meetings of Spiritual Roppers, are Bloomers, or Woman’s Rights Conventionalists?

12. How many are cruel husbands?

13. How many are henpecked husbands?”[157]

Dr. Ross said: “He did not desire discussion on this subject, but still he had no opposition to make if others wished to discuss it. As a citizen of the state of Tennessee, a state which partakes of the fire of the South and the prudence of the North, he was perfectly calm on the subject.[158]He said again, “If anyone would present him with a handsome copy of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, he would keep it on his center-table, and show it to all his visitors.”[159]

The Presbyterians had a large number of slaves as members, but in their reports there is no distinction made between whites and blacks. “In many places,” says Rev. James H. McNeilly, “separate houses of worship were provided for them, and in a great many churches large galleries with comfortable seats were assigned to them. Often the planters on large plantations built neat and commodious chapels for them, and in these chapels the planter and his family frequently worshipped with their servants. In the cities and towns the white people gave up their churches to the negroes for afternoon service.” Dr. McNeilly says: “I remember that in 1855 the Presbyterian General Assembly met in the First Presbyterian Church at Nashville, Tenn. Dr. Edgar, the pastor, gave some of the Northern commissioners opportunity to see and preach to some of the negro congregations. These ministers were surprised to see the fine dressing, the happy faces, the apparent devotion of the people, and were much gratified to find the evidence of the interest of the churches in the spiritual welfare of the slaves.”

“In the spring of 1860,” says Dr. McNeilly, “I was licensed to preach by the Presbytery of Nashville and spent nearly six months in preaching in two counties of Middle Tennessee. The members of my congregation owned a considerable number of slaves, to whom I preached regularly every Sabbath afternoon, although most of them were members of Methodist and Baptist churches.”[160]

The Presbyterians were profoundly interested in the welfare of the slaves. In the Synods of Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Tennessee, “it is,” says Harrison, “the practice of a number of ministers to preach to the negroes separately once on the Sabbath or during the week.”[161]There were Sabbath Schools also, and, with few exceptions, a number of negroes formed a portion of every Sabbath congregation.

The Presbyterians did not let the negroes preach as much as the Baptists and Methodists did. These denominations had real preachers with their congregations, but the Presbyterian conception of the character of a preacher practically excluded the negro. They had, however, negro exhorters. In fact, the negroes did not want a preacher they could understand. Even a white preacher, if he tried to simplify his language to suit them, would become unpopular with them. They liked big words, and would always praise the Lord when a high-sounding word was used. Rev. McNeilly tells of a young theologian who began his sermon to the negroes thus, “Primarily we must postulate the existence of a duty.” After a short pause, some old colored patriarch fervently responded, “Yaas, Lord, dat’s so. Bless de Lord.”[162]

The Tennessee Presbyterians voted against the Spring Resolutions in the general assembly at Philadelphia, and participated in the convention at Atlanta in August, 1861, which adopted among other resolutions, the following: “Our connection with the non-slaveholding states, it cannot be denied, was a great hindrance to the systematic performance of the work of evangelization of the slave population.It is true that the northern portion of the Presbyterian Church professed to be conservative, but their opposition to our social economy was constantly increasing.”[163]The synods of Memphis and Nashville, together with various Presbyteries, participated in the convention at Augusta, Georgia, in December, 1861, which organized the Southern Presbyterian Church. Tennessee has remained a strong center of Southern Presbyterianism to the present.

The Episcopal Church from the beginning of its work in America stressed the improvement of the condition of the slaves. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was incorporated under William III, in 1701, and on investigation it was decided that the work in America “consisted of three great homilies: the care and instruction of our people settled in the colonies, the conversion of the Indian savages, and the conversion of the negroes.” Rev. Samuel Thomas, the first missionary, who was sent to North Carolina in 1702, reported that “he had taken much pains also in instructing the negroes and learned twenty of them to read.”[164]The Episcopal Church, like the Presbyterian, did not report as a rule separate statistics for colored members of the church. In 1817 there were 828 colored members in the Episcopal churches at Charleston.[165]In 1822 there were 200 colored children in their Sunday Schools.[166]

The Episcopal Church had a sort of philosophical attitude toward the negroes. It was never the church of feeling, like the Methodists and Baptists. In 1823 Rev. Dr. Dalcho of the Episcopal Church at Charleston issued a pamphlet entitled, “Practical Considerations, Founded on the Scriptures, Relative to the Slave Population of South Carolina.” The church was vitally interested in the welfare of the slave throughout the South.

The Episcopal Church did not establish itself in Tennessee until anti-slavery feeling was on the wane. The first Episcopal Church in Tennessee was established at Franklin, Williamson County, August 25, 1827, by Rev. James H. Otey.[167]He began to preach occasionally at Columbia and Nashville, and by 1830 there were two additional clergy. In this same year, on July 1, the first convention of the church was held at Nashville, and in this year the Diocese of Tennessee was formed. There were about fifty communicants at this time in Tennessee.[168]

The church grew very slowly. The state was still in a frontier condition. The inhabitants were democratic, and were already members for the most part of the Methodist and Baptist churches. What aristocracy there was belonged to the Presbyterian Church. There was no American bishop in the Episcopal Church to consecrate candidates for the ministry. They were forced to go to England for the laying-on of hands. Again, the War of 1812 had further intensified the prejudice against the English church.

Rev. Otey was a persistent worker, and after his consecration in 1834 he began to lay the foundation for educational and religious expansion of this church. Mercer Hall, a school for boys, was opened in his home in 1836. Columbia Female Institute was founded in the same year, and preparations were begun to found a university the same year, but were not successful until 1857, when the University of the South was established in the Cumberland Mountains about ten miles from Winchester at Sewanee, Tenn. Bishop Otey became its first president.

By 1844 there were thirteen resident clergymen in the state besides Rev. Otey. The number of communicants had grown from 117 in 1834 to 400.[169]In 1860, the last year of the Journal of the Convention for the South until after the war, there were 27 members of the clergy, 26 parishes, and 1500 communicants.

The Episcopal Church in Tennessee was practically synonymous with Bishop Otey, who directed and controlled its policy. He owned a plantation out from Memphis and a number of slaves. He was a typical Southern, Christian slaveholder. He believed that patriarchal slavery was a great institution for the negro. He felt that the North misunderstood the institution, and was in its agitation doing irreparable damage to the nation and the South. Writing to the Northern clergymen, May 17, 1861, he said:

Back to Index Next