USA > Florida > The History of Methodism in Georgia and Florida: From 1785 to 1865 > Part 25
USA > Georgia > The History of Methodism in Georgia and Florida: From 1785 to 1865 > Part 25
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35
Years before this a friend of his had bequeathed to his care a negro girl who, after her majority, was to take her choice between remaining as his slave, or going a free woman to Liberia; she preferred to remain in Georgia, and she became nominally his property. Bishop Andrew did not believe that slaveholding in the South was sinful ; but, nevertheless, he had not acquired this property by purchase or regular inheritance. He was now denounced as a slaveholder, and the extremists of the Church were in great distress at having a slave- holding Bishop. Before the conference met trouble was expected, but the hope which the events of years before had justified, still filled the hearts of the South- ern members. The agitation soon commenced, and the debate was opened on the third day of the session ou a memorial from the Providence Conference. Dr. Capers began the discussion by moving that the motion to refer should lie on the table. The memorial seems to have been very offensive to the South in its utter- ances, but yet it was referred to a committee. On the sixth day, Dr. W. A. Smith of Virginia opened the question again by an earnest and somewhat violent speech, a part of which was levelled against the conser-
367
IN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA, 1785-1865.
vatives, of whom he spoke in no gentle terms. He wanted the conference to say plainly what it.meant. If slaveholding was a sin in the eyes of the Church, he wanted the conference to say so, or to let the question alone. The champions of each side were now fairly arrayed, but the grand question was to be discussed in the appeal of Francis A. Harding, of the Baltimore Conference. By marriage this brother had become possessed of a family of negroes, which he was unable to emancipate. He was suspended by a vote of his conference, and he now appealed. Dr. W. A. Smith appeared for him, the Rev. John A. Collins against him. They were both able in debate, and the feeling of each side was most intense. Harding's case was the more important from these facts : First, that the slaves were his wife's, not his own ; Second, he could not emanci- pate them in Maryland ; Third, that he offered if they wished it to send them to Africa. Yet while all this was not denied he had been suspended. The debate of the subject was very full and very able. Dr. Smith was a grand man on the forum, and his opponent had the reputation of being the most eloquent man in his conference. There was, however, no comparison be- tween them in reasoning power. Smith was a giant beside his opponent. Though the speeches of Dr. Smith were of the most conclusive character, and though few who read the account of the trial now will agree that Harding was suspended in accordance with disciplinary rights; yet so intense was the feeling that, by a strict party vote, the appeal was not sus- tained. The true reason for this was behind. Another case involving the same questions was to come before the conference. This case had been prejudged. TI
368
HISTORY OF METHODISM
victim was doomed before his trial, but the whole South through him was the object of attack. Never was there a deeper feeling of anxiety in the General Conference. The Southern members had already a clear indication of the sentiment of the conference. Olin, Durbin, Bangs, and others from the North, who were reluctant to see the Church torn apart, saw plainly what must result when the great question of the conference came up. Bishop Capers moved the ap- pointinent of a committee of pacification. The speeches on this motion were very affecting, Dr. Olin's especially. Each party deprecated division. The North did not want division, it wanted slavery condemned. The South did not want division, it wanted only the old position held. Other questions came up, and were settled, and on the 20th May John A. Collins, of the Baltimore Con- ference, who had been the stern prosecutor of Francis Harding, introduced the following resolution which brought at last the main question before the conference.
" Whereas it is currently reported and generally un- derstood that one of the Bishops of the Methodist Epis- copal Church has become connected with slavery, and whereas it is due to the General Conference to have a proper understanding of the matter ; therefore-
Resolved, that the Committee on the Episcopacy be instructed to ascertain the facts of the case, and report the result of their investigations to this body to-morrow morning."
The subject was now before them.
To many and to most of the conference the whole ques- tion was already seen to be settled ; no man of the South, however sanguine, could for a moment suppose that the rights of Bishop Andrew, or of the South, or the laws
369
IN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA, 1785-1865.
of the Church, could withstand the current which was sweeping upon them. The Church had a slaveholding Bishop. The General Conference was determined that no slaveholder should occupy the episcopal chair ; and before a word was spoken the case was settled. Our purpose is to present the part that Georgia took in this discussion, and not to give a full history of the debate, which may be found in Redford's History, and in the General Conference journals published by the Northern Publishing House.
On the 22d of May, Alfred Griffith, an old member of the Baltimore Conference, introduced a resolution requesting Bishop Andrew to resign, This he sup- ported by an earnest speech. He was followed by P. P. Sanford ; neither claimed that Bishop Andrew had violated any law of the Church, but the Northern member held that by his own act he had rendered him- self unacceptable to a part of the Church and there- fore he should retire. Dr. Winans followed in an exceedingly able and impressive speech, vindicating Bishop Andrew, showing that the North and West had determined when Bishop Andrew was elected, in 1832, to elect a slaveholder as Bishop, and attacking the doc- trine of expediency, as it was then presented. Dr. Lovick Pierce followed a Mr. Bowen, who made a short reply to Dr. Winans.
Dr. P. spoke of his long service in the General Con- ference, of his unwillingness to make speeches gene- rally, and said that he would remain silent now, but for fear lest the conference should think he was less de- cided than his younger and more ardent brethren. This was not the case. The conference had no right to make the request they proposed to make of Bishop Andre 16*
370
HISTORY OF METHODISM
For him to yield to this request was to yield a principle vital to the unity of the Church. The doctrine of ex- pediency had been appealed to ; the Doctor said upon it : "Do that which is inexpedient for us, because it is expedient for you ? never, while the heavens are above the earth, let that be recorded on the journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Do you ask how the matter is to be met ? It is to be met by the conservation of principle and regard to the compromise laws of the Book of Discipline. Show your people that Bishop Andrew has violated any one of the established rules, and regulations of this church, and that he refused to conform himself to those estab- lished laws, and usages, and you put yourselves in the right, and us in the wrong."
Dr. Pierce then told thein that he was the oldest active minister in his conference, and that no subject had ever done so much harm to the Church as this meddling with slavery, with which as a church we had nothing to do; and eloquently and earnestly warned the conference against the fearful results which would follow to the Church if they adopted this proposal.
The debate took a wide range and was very exciting, Dr. Bangs distinctly stating, that Dr. Capers had been offered the nomination by the Baltimore delegation if he would emancipate his slaves, and Dr. Capers deny- ing positively the fact. Explanatione followed from John Davis, the author of the statement, and Dr. Capers that cleared the point up.
Mr. Finley now introduced the famous substitute, which read thus:
371
IN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA, 1785-1865.
Whereas the discipline of our church forbids the doing anything calculated to destroy our itinerant general superintendency, and whereas Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery by marriage, and otherwise ; and this act having drawn after it circum- stances which in the estimation of the General Conference will greatly embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant general superintendent if not in some places entirely prevent it, therefore :
Resolved : That in the sense of this General Conference that he desist from the exercise of his office, so long as this impediment remains.
J. B. FINLEY. JNO. TRIMBLE.
After a short speech from the author of the substi- tute, the first advocate of the substitute arose. This was Stephen Olin.
His Southern friends knew what he intended to do. He had told Bishop Andrew the course he should take, and his reasons for it, and told Dr. Pierce, weeping as he did, the absolute necessity for the salvation of the Northern Church that they should take this course. He knew what would be the consequence of the mildest course the temper of the conference would allow it to take. He knew Bishop Andrew was a doorned Bishop, before a delegate had gone to New York. That, law or no law, he was to be sacrificed, but should he take part in the slaughter? Against this the noble soul of Stephen Olin revolted from its deepest depths ; but was it not necessary to save the northern wing of the Church from disintegration ? He thought so.
He said that his health was so feeble, he felt he must speak early, or not at all, he spoke of the tender rela- tionships which hemmed him in. He preferred the substitute to the original. He did not believe the disci- pline of the Church forbade a slaveholding Bishop.
372
HISTORY OF METHODISM
He did not believe usage forbade it. He did not wish to insinuate that Bishop Andrew was not a most desir- able man for the episcopacy. He looked upon this question as not a legal, but a great practical one. He had hoped the session would be a harmonious one, and it was not till he reached the conference that he became aware of the real and sad state of the case. The cala- mity had come without warning, we must do the best we could. He was not willing to trench upon any rights of his Southern brethren. He was once a slave- holder. He did not believe in abolition. He did not wish to be so considered.
He believed that James O. Andrew was pre-emi- nently fitted to be a Bishop. He said, "I know him well ; he was the friend of my youth, and although by his experience and his position fitted to be a father, yet he made me his brother, and no man has more fully shared my sympathies, nor more intimately known my heart for these twenty years than he has. His house has been my home. On his bed have I lain in sickness, and he with his sainted wife now in heaven, have been my comforter and nurse. No question under heaven could have presented itself so painfully oppressive to iny feel- ings as the one now before us. If I had a hundred votes, and Bishop Andrew were not pressed by the diffi- culties which now rest upon him, he is the man to whom I would give them all." IIe paid a high tribute to the devotion of Bishop Andrew to the negro race. Ile spoke of the difficulties in the way of passing the resolution, and yet inflicting no censure, and expressing his opinion that a Bishop was the officer of the General Conference who might be removed without censure. He knew the difficulties in the South, but if the worst came to the
373
IN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA, 1785-1865.
worst, and they went off, they would go in a compact body; not so in the North; there would be distraction and divisions, ruinous to sonls, and fatal to the permanent interests of the Church. He would deplore the separa- tion of his Southern brethren from the Church, but if they should go, he should yet regard them with the feelings of a warm, kind Christian heart. He depre- cated abolition and the agitation of the subject, but protested against allying the anti-slavery conferences with the abolitionists, and declared that it was no fault of theirs that they were thus pressed.
This speech excited much surprise in the South, and among Dr. Olin's Southern friends there were mingled feelings of amazement, grief, and indignation. From many there was only bitter scorn for the man whom they believed had so temporized, but from those who knew him best there was only a deep sympathy at the difficul- ties surrounding him. Georgia has never been able to give Olin up. He was not like some others, mere so- journers for a night in the State, brought here by acci- dent, and remaining for convenience, but one of her, an inmate of her homes, the husband of one of her fairest daughters, one who had won in Georgia his first fame, and in her borders done his noblest work.
We need not follow the debate. It was able and courteous in the main, but a Mr. Cass, of New Eng- land, made a speech which was an insult to all decency, and to him young Dr. George F. Pierce replied.
He was young, ardent, fearless. He had seen the temper of the body; he had just heard slaveholders denounced as villains and men-stealers. He began by boldly stating that he did not expect to change the con- victions of any man before him, nor did he feel much
374
HISTORY OF METHODISM
solicitude about the question. The question of unity was already settled.
He said there was slowly developing, but surely, a plan to deprive Southern ministers of all their rights in the Church. The action of the conference in the Har- ding case had brought the Church into antagonism to the laws of the land, the Church discipline, and the Bible. He did not believe any harm would result to the Church, outside of New England, by sustaining Bishop Andrew. He said : "They are making all the difficulty, and may be described in the language of Paul, as intermeddlers with other men's matters. I will allow, as it has been affirmed again and again, that there may be secession; societies may be broken up, conferences split, and immense damage of this sort be done within the New England conferences ; but what then ? I speak soberly, advisedly, when I say that I prefer that all New England should secede, or be set off, and have her share of Church property, than that this substitute should pass. I say, let New England go, with all my heart ; she has been for twenty years & thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet us; let her go, and joy go with her, for peace will stay be- hind." He said if the South wanted only serenity, she would pray for and demand disunion. The passage of the resolution would not diminish, but increase divi- sions. IIe predicted that prominent men would aban- don the Church, that in less than ten years there would not be one shred of the distinctive peculiarities of Methodism left in the conferences that depart from 18. The presiding eldership would be given up, the itinerancy would come to an end, and Congregationalism would be the order of the day. The people would
375
IN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA, 1785-1865.
choose their own pastors, and preachers would stand idle in the market-places, because no man had hired them.
These predictions were bold. They have been often- time referred to as rash and not verified, but any man who can see the difference between a name and a thing will see that the ardent young Georgian saw with a prophet's eye. In alluding to Bishop Andrew, he said : "What mean these eulogies are brethren in earnest ? Is this conference heaping garlands on the victim they destine for slaughter ? Will you blight with a breath the bliss of this worthy man? Will you offer him up to appease that foul spirit of the pit, which has sent up its pestilential breath to blast and destroy the Church ? You select the venerable Bishop, one of the ablest and best of the whole college, to immolate him on the altar of this juggernaut of perdition. Think you that we will sit here, and see this go on without lifting a voice, or making a protest against it ? God forbid ; God forbid, I say, and speak it from the bottom of my heart." He finished his speech by saying : "I do hope, brethren will pause before they drive us to the fearful catastrophe, now earnestly to be deprecated, but inevita- ble, if they proceed."
This speech had a thrilling effect, and made a pro- found impression. But what availed eloquence or argument ?
Dr. Longstreet then addressed the conference with that calinness and clearness which always marked his addresses.
He first alluded to the fact that the Christian religion always lost power, when she departed from her appro- priate sphere, but that as churches had grown strong,
376
HISTORY OF METHODISM
the temptation to do this had been yielded to. Meth dism was the pure gospel religion. All rules which di not refer to the fitness of man for Heaven, ought to b stricken out ; in the course Methodism had taken i legislating about slavery, she has gone beyond the Bibl Yet the South submitted, and endeavored to shield tl Church from censure ; now the conference proposed 1 go further. He placed the course of the conferen most clearly, and the absurd light in which it stcod. U stating it thus :
" Whereas Bishop Andrew is a man of most unin peachable moral character, ardently beloved by ever member of this conference, and in the discharge of hi official duties, active, zealous and self-sacrificing, an in his labors of love for the slave especially, peculiarl efficient and successful, and whereas, we admit tha there is no sin in the simple fact of holding slaves, an nothing in slavery inconsistent with the ministeria character, and that nothing ought to be done by the conference to throw distrust upon the presiding elder or any other preacher of the gospel, merely on th ground of his being a slaveholder, nevertheless, inai much, as the Bishop has married a lady owning slaves which slaves he has settled upon her, which circum stances render him obnoxious to several Northern con ferences, therefore, to preserve peace and upon ground of policy,
"Resolved, that he be suspended from his officia duties, until he emancipate his slaves."
With that withering sarcasm that he was so perfec a master of, Judge Longstreet exposed the absurd incon sistency of the course they designed to take, and begger the conference to pause. IIe went into a labored argu
377
IN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA, 1785-1865.
ment, say the reports, to show the legal status of Bishop Andrew, as a slaveholder, that he was involuntarily and irremediably involved as one.
Mr. Jesse T. Peck, now Bishop Peck, then arose to take young Dr. Pierce in hand, and administer to him a fatherly rebuke. This he might safely venture to do according to the rule, since no man could speak twice, until all had spoken. As it is not the purpose of this history to do more than give an account of the part the Georgia delegation took in these debates, we refer our readers to other sources for a verbatim report of this labored speech. As Mr. Peck was about the same age as Dr. G. F. Pierce, and as he was not quite thirty-five, the fatherly tone of the speaker was as amusing as it was offensive, and there was no place for reply. But the Chair allowed Dr. Pierce to explain.
The Journal says :
"Mr. Pierce rose to explain.
" Mr. Peck has made much ado about his remarks concerning New England. He said, perhaps some apology might be due. He intended to say for New England to secede, or to be set off with a pro rata divi- sion of the property, would be a light evil compared with the immolation of Bishop Andrew on the altar of a pseudo expediency. He intended no disrespect to New England. He paid touching tributes to Bishop Soule and Dr. Olin, and then turning to Mr. Peck said :
"' And, sir, I recognize you as a man with a soul in your body, warm, generous, glowing. I admire your spirit, your genius. The beauty of the bud gives promise of a luscious blossom, the early beams foretell a glorious noon. And now, sir, though my speech
378
HISTORY OF METHODISM
shocked your nerves so badly, I trust my explanation will not ruffle a hair on the crown of your head.'"
Mr. Peck was very portly and very bald. As the speaker turned to him, he put his fan up to his face, covering it from sight, and leaving exposed only the bare crown of his head. The good nature of the fling brought down the house, and any bad temper which had been felt was at once driven away.
It is not our purpose, and we have not space to give even an outline of the various points presented as this discussion continued. Any one who reads the debates carefully cannot fail to see that slavery as a system had nothing to do with the matter at all, save as it was the occasion for the difficulty. The great question really was : "Has the General Conference the right, without trial, to deprive a Bishop of his office, if in its opinion, without moral delinquency or mental deficiency, he has become unacceptable to any part of the connection ?"
The discussion was continued by Dr. Green, who brought out forcibly the main point relied upon by the South, that the Bishop was not an officer of the General Conference to be removed at its will; that the General Conference was restricted in its action by the Constitu- tion of the Church; that Bishop Andrew had violated no law of the Church, and that the General Conference could not legally deprive him of his office. The great speech on the other side was made on Monday, by Dr. Hamline. For the first time an argument was pre- sented. It was as strong as it could be made on the position that the General Conference was supreme, and could remove any officer of the Church if, in its opinion, he had from any cause become unacceptable to any portion of the Church. Dr. W. A. Smith, who was
379
IN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA, 1785-1865.
almost without a peer in debate, followed Dr. Hamline, and in an able speech answered his argument, and vin- dicated the legal rights of Bishop Andrew. The Bishop, in response to a question whether he had expressed a willingness to resign, said (see page 147, Gen. Con. Jour.) that when he arrived in Baltimore he heard a rumor of the intention of the conference to insist that he must resign or be deposed. If he had violated any law of the Discipline, he was willing to resign. If he could secure the peace of the Church by resigning, he would gladly do so. He had no fondness for the epis- copacy, and if his resignation would secure the peace of the Church, he would gladly present it, and return to labor among the slaves, and try to save those upon whom their pretended friends were inflicting only suffering and ruin. John A. Collins then introduced a preamble and resolution intended as a compromise, which of course came to naught Bishop Andrew then rose, and said, with deep emotion, "that he had been on trial for a week, and he thought it was time for the dis- cussion to close." He then gave an account of the man- ner in which he came to be a Bishop. He had been ap- proached by S. K. Hodges with a request that he should be put in nomination for the office. He ob- jected, was urged by his friends, and, for the sake of securing peace, consented to be a candidate. No one asked him what were his principles on slave-holding; no man, save Wm. Winans, spoke to him on the subject. He was elected. He became possessed of a slave in the way mentioned before. He lost his wife. He desired to marry again. The lady owned slaves. With his eyes open he married her. He could not free them. They themselves would not go; many of them would
380
HISTORY OF METHODISM
necessarily suffer if they did. What could he do? He had no confession to make. He intended to make none. He had all his lifetime labored for the slaves. He did not think he was unacceptable out of New England. He could find plenty of ground where he could labor acceptably and usefully. Yet the conference might take its course. He protested against the one proposed as a violation of his disciplinary rights. (Gen. Con. Jour., p. 148.) The other speeches which followed were unimportant, each going over almost the same ground. The venerable Saml. Den- nody made a speech remarkable for its logic and for its Biblical learning on the general question of slavery as a moral evil. The speech of Bishop Soule was clear in its presentation of the legal aspect of the question as well as forcible and eloquent. Dr. Capers followed with a speech clear, conclusive, and eloquent.
It was evident that the Church had reached a crisis in her history such as she had never known; and that if the vote was then taken a division was inevitable. The Bishop knew it, the Southern delegates knew it, such men as Dr. Olin knew it; but the majority of the conference did not, and would not know it. The lead- ing men of the north believed that the south would sub. mit without a murmur to the degradation of her much- loved Bishop, and the overthrow of all the safeguards the laws of the Church gave them. They scoffed at the idea of division. The extreme men of tlie North openly threatened secession, schism and disintegration, if the Bishop was not deposed, for this resolution did, in fact, deprive him of his episcopal powers. The Bishops came to the rescue and presented a peace measure, begging the postponement of action for four years. Once
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.