HISTOYIE OF THE O R G A N I Z A T I O N OF THE SOUTH. BY A. H. REDFORD, D.D. Nas~birde, Fcnn.' PUBLISHED BY A. IHI. REDFORD, AGENT, FOR THE M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH. 1871. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by A. HI. REDFORD, AGENT, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED AT THE SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. TO THE MEMOR Y OF THE ptallod pohopo of tiat wtttuodtot (plortopX THE LATE VENERABLE JOSHUA SOULE, D.D.; JAMiES OSGOOD ANDREW, D.D.; WILLIAM CAPERS, D.D.; AND HENRY BIDLEMIAN BASCOM, D.D.; THIS VOLUME IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED, BY'Ete autbor. PREFACE, MORE than a quarter of a century has elapsed since the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The men who were prominent in the General Conference of 1844, the extrajudicial legislation of which body resulted in the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States into two separate and distinct ecclesiastical organizations, with but few exceptions, have passed away. The names of Olin, Bangs, Finley, Elliott, Collins, Hamline, and of Bascom, Winans, Longstreet, Capers, Smith, and Fowler, no longer appear on the roll of the Conferences where, for so many years, they were the bulwarks of the Church. Bishop Morris, the senior Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, (North,) alone remains of the men who composed the College of Bishops at that period. No longer able to go in and out before his brethren, he enjoys a serene old age, and is joyful in contemplation of the heavenly inheritance. His colleagues have passed over the river, and entered upon " the rest that remaineth to the people of God." The names of Hedding and Waugh will ever be dear to the memory of Methodism in the North; while those of Soule and Andrew, whose graves are yet damp (5) Vi PREFACE. with the tears of the Church, will always be cherished with a sacred fondness by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Since the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, a new generation has come upon the scene, who are not familiar with the circumstances that led to the separation. The object of this work is to place in a permanent and enduring form the proceedings of the General Conference of 1.844, so far as they bear upon this question, together with all the official documents and papers necessary to a full understanding of the reasons by which the Southern Delegates in that body were governed in the declaration they made that "a continuance of the jurisdiction of that General Conference over the Conferences they represented, was inconsistent with the success of the ministry in the slaveholding States." The success that has attended the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, since it became an independent organization, is cause of thanksgiving to Almighty God. The approving smiles of Heaven have rested upon it, indicating not only the propriety but the necessity of the separation. A. H. REDFORD. NAlHVILLE, TENN., April 4, 1871. CONTENTS, CHAPTER I. The General Conference of 1844-The Compromise-law of 1816-The peaceful relations under this law between the Northern and Southern portions of the Church-The prosperity of the Church-Occasional agitations on the subject of Slavery-Petition s to the General Conference of 1844-Committee on Slavery-The Appeal of Francis A. Harding-Speech of Dr. Wm. A. Smith-Speech of John A. Collins-State of feeling in the South -The decision of the Baltimore Conference in the case of Harding affirmed-Sketch of William A. Smith.............................................. 9 CHAPTER II. The influence of the action of the General Conference in the case of Francis A. Harding-Resolution of Drs. Capers and Olin-Speeches of Drs. Olin and Durbin-Committee of Pacification appointed-Dr. Durbin's resolution, proposing a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer-The committee fail to agree on any plan of compromise-Resolution of Mr. Collins in reference to Bishop Andrew-Report of the Committee on Episcopacy-Bishop Andrew's statement-The report of the committee made the special order of the day for the 22d of tMay-Great interest felt-Alfred Griffith's speech-Benjamin M. Drake's motion to amend the preamble-Bishop Soule addresses the Conference-Speeches of Peter P. Sandford and Dr. William Winans-Speeches of Elias Bowen and Dr. Lovick Pierce-Speeches of Jerome C. Berryman, Seymour Coleman, Dr. Smith, and Thomas Stringfield-Sketch of Thomas StringfieldSpeech of Thomas Crowder-Sketch of Thomas Crowder-Speech of Dr. Nathan Bangs.........14...................................... 148 CHAPTER III. Resolution of James B. Finley-Speech of Dr. Olin-Speech of Benjamin M. Drake-Speech of George F. Pierce-Speech of Jesse T. PeclkSpeech of Bishop Andrew-Bishop Soule addresses the ConferenceSpeech of Dr. Capers-Address from the Bishops-The adoption of Mr. Finley's Resolution........................................................................... 205 CHAPTER IV. The effect of the action of the General Conference on the Church in the South-Notice given by Dr. Pierce that the Southern Delegates would enter their Protest-Resolutions offered by Henry Slicer-Resolutions offered by Dr. Capers-Referred to a Committee-Declaration of the Southern Members-Dr. Elliott proposes its reference-Speech of Peter P. Sandford-Reply of Dr. Longstreet-Dr. Olin's Remarks-Declaration referred —Resolution of Instruction to the Committee-Protest of the (7) Viii CONTENTS. Minority-Communication from Bishops Solle, Hedding, Waugh, and Morris-Reply of the Conference-Report of the Committee of NineThe Report discussed-Its adoption-The Adjournment of the General Conference.............................................................................................. 316 CHAPTER V. The Meeting of the Southern Delegates in New York-Plan of action recommended to the Annual Conferences-Their Address to the members of the Church in the Slaveholding States and Territories-Excitement throughout the Church-Resolutions adopted in Virginia, in Alabama, in North Carolina, in South Carolina, in Georgia, in Louisiana, in Tennessee, in Kentucky-Dr. Elliott advocates Division-The action of the several Annual Conferences-Bishop Andrew's position-Letter fromn Bishop Soule to Bishop Andrew-Letter from Bishop Soule in reply to Dr. Bond -Communication from the College of Bishops....................................... 375 CHAPTER VI. Excitement along the Border-Rev. Joseph S. Tomlinson, D.D.-The Minerva Circuit, Kentucky Conference-Convention meets in Iouisville, Kentucky, on the first day of May, 1845-Of whom composed-Bishops Soule, Andrew, and Morris present-Bishop Soule's address to the Convention-Committee appointed to consider the necessity of a Southern Organization-Resolutions offered by Dr. Winans-B. M. Drake's Resolution-tesolution offered by Drs. Smith and Pierce-Resolution offered by James E. Evans-Withdrawn-Dr. Smith's Resolution adopted —Report of the Committee on Organization-Its adoption-Resolutions requesting Bishops Soule and Andrew to unite with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South-Reply of Bishops Soule and Andrew-Pastoral Address-Adjournment of the Convention-Border Conferences................. 413 CHAPTER VII. The first General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, SouthBishops Soule and Andrew present-Bishop Soule's Communication-Referred to a Committee-Report of Committee-Dr. Pierce appointed Fraternal Messenger to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church-Dr. Dixon from the British Conference, Dr. Richey, and Revs. J. Ryerson and A. Green from the Canada Conference-Fraternal intercourse with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, declined-Dr. Pierce's popularity in Pittsburgh-His Report to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1850-The Property Question-The Lawsuits-Decisions in favor of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South-Position, duty, and prospects of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South..................................................................................... 504 APPENDIX. (A) List of Delegates of the General Conference of 1844............................. 591 (E) Action of the Southern Conferences in regard to the Division of the Church................................................................................................. 594 (C) Correspondence Concerning Union....................................................... 629 (D) Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States............................ 644 HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE lM. E. CHURCH, SOUTH. CHAPTER I. The General Conference of 1844-The Comprollise-law of 1816-The peaceful relations under this law between the Northern and Southern portions of the Church —The prosperity of the Church-Occasional agitations on the subject of Slavery-Petitions to the General Conference of 1844-Committee on Slavery-The Appeal of Francis A. Harding-Speech of Dr. WVm. A. Smith —Speech of John A. Collins —State of feeling in the South-The decision of the Baltimore Conference in the case of Harding affirmed-Sketch of William A. Smith. THE General Conference which assembled in the city of New York in 1844, on the first day of May, will be ever memorable in the annals of American Methodism. The strength and influence of the Church represented by that body-its 1* (9) 10 Organzcation of the territoricl extent spreading over a country lecaching frorn British America on the North to the Gulf of Mexico on the South, and from t.he Atlantic Ocean on the East to the very verge of civiliz(ation on the Western frontier; the importance of the questions which occupied the attention of the Conference, together with the extrajudicial legislation in the cases of Francis A. Harding, an appellant from the Baltimore Conference, and Bishop James 0. Andrew, of the State of Georgia, which resulted in the division of the' "Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States" into two separate and distinct organizations, invested this General Conference with an interest and importance that cannot be claimed for any session that prece(led it. From the time of the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, the question of slavery had occupied the attention of both Annual and General Conferences. In 1816, a law was enacted, known as the Compromise-law of the Church, on this subject, which declared slaveholders ineligible to any official station in the Church, where'"the laws of the State in which they live will admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom." From 1816 to 1844, this compromise-law was recognized by the Church, and, with the exception of a few restless persons who occasionally appeared 11I. E. Chlurch, South. 11 on the tapis, no dissatisfaction was expressed either North or South. While, without this spirit of accommodation, it would have been impossible for Methodism to obtain a foothold in the South, yet, under it, the Church had grown and prospered. Between the two sections the greatest harmony prevailed, each rejoicing in the prosperity of the other. The ecclesiastical history of the North and South was one history, and the achievements of the Church were the common property of the entire Connection. Under this compromise-law the General Conference had met quadrennially for twenty-eight years, enjoying peace, fraternal confidence, and Christian love: under it, the Church, North and South, East and West, enjoyed a prosperity and power for the accomplishment of good, and attained to a position occupied by no other body of Christians on this continent. The light of her countenance and the brightness of her smiles were felt alike in homes of opulence and in the cottages of the poor, and from hearts gladdened by its blessings, from catbin and from palace, praises were conti inally ascending to I-eaven. The General Conference of 1844 was looked to by the Church with feelings of uncommon interest. During the quadrennial term that preceded it, the increase in the membership had been greater than during any four years previous, and the impres 12 Organization of the sion was general, if not universal, that the session would be unusually harmonious. The Southern portion of the Church was willing to submit to the law as it existed and had been executed, and it was not believed that the North desired to introduce any new terms of membership. At no period since the introduction of Methodism into this country, had so great a calm been enjoyed. Scarcely an adverse breeze was stirring. Christian confidence:and fraternal intercourse pervaded the whole Church. It was the calm, however, that precedes the tempest. The question of slavery and abolition had been discussed in the councils of the nation, and political demagogues were courting political pieferment, by appealing to the prejudices and inflaming the passions of the people on this subject; and these discussions occasionally disturbed the tranquillity of the Church. It was not, however, believed in the South that there would be any serious agitation in the General Conference* of this or kindred questions. Just previous to the convening of the General Conference, however, petitions on the subject of slavery were gotten up in several of the Northern Conferences. On the third day of the session, a petition from the Providence Conference was presented, which called at once to the floor several members of the body. It was moved by Mr. 1l. E., Ci/urech, South. 13 Slicer, of the Baltimore Conference, "that it lie on the table until a committee should be appointed to whom to refer it." To this Mr. Crowder, of Virginia, objected, and called for its reading. In this opinion Mr. Drake, of Mississippi, concurred, and the motion was withdrawn, and the memorial was read. Mr. Collins, of Baltimore, then moved "that the memorial be referred to a committee of one fiom each Annual Conference, to be called a Committee on Slavery." Dr. Capers, of South Carolina, objected to raising any such committee, as well as to the reference of the memorial, and "moved that the motion to refer lie on the table." This, however, was lost. On the motion to raise the committee, a spirited debate was elicited, in which lMr. Collins, of Baltimore, Dr. Capers, of South Carolina,' Mr. Dow, of New Hampshire, and Mr. Early, of Virginia, took a part. The motion to lay on the table was lost, and the memorial was referred to a committee to be composed of one from each Annual Conference. The petition from the Providence Conference was not the only one that was presented and referred. New England, Maine, New Hampshire, Black River, Pittsburgh, Rock River, Ohio, and other Conferences, also presented petitions on the same subject, which were referred to the Committee on Slavery. 14 Organizalion of the On the 6th of May,,Dr. W. A. Smith, of Virginia, offered the following resolution: "Resolved, That the committee to whom the memorials on slavery are referred, be, and hereby are, requested to report directly on the points, the alleged facts and arguments, submitted by the mlemorialists, and present their report as soon as practicable." Dr. Smith supported this resolution by a speech remarkable for its clearness and force, eliciting an animated discussion, in which Crandall and Adlams, of New England, Dow and Cass, of New HaIampshire, Slicer, of Baltimore, and Green, of Tennessee, were prominent. On the 7th of May, the subject of slavery came before the General Conference in a more imposing form. The Rev. Francis A. I-lHarding, a member of the Baltimore Conference, had become connected by marriage with slavery, and having failed to manumit these slaves, had been suspended, and had appealed from the decision of the Baltimore Conference. The case had been referred to a coill mittee of the Baltimore Conference, with the following result: "'The committee reported that Mr. H-Iarding had become possessed of five slaves: one named HI-arry, aged fifty-two; one woman, named Maria, aged fifty; one man, named John, aged twentytwo; a girl, namled., zaged thirteen; and a M. E. Uctrekm, South. 15 child, aged two years; and recommended the following preamble and resolution for adoption: "'Whereas, the Baltimlore Conference cannot, and will not, tolerate slavery in any of its members"'Resolved, That Brother Harding be required to execute a deed of manumission, and have the same enrolled in the proper court, and give to this Conference, during this present session, a pledge that this shall be done during the present year.' "Brother HIarding having stated the impossibility, with his views, of his compliance with this resolution, Mr. Collins moved for his suspension until he gave sufficient assurance of his compliance. "The matter was again referred to a committee of five, for farther investigation, who reported that they had entirely failed to induce Brother Harding to comply with the wishes of the Conference. "CBrothers Collins and Emory moved the following resolution, which was adopted:'C esolved, That Brother Harding be suspended until the next Annual Conference, or until he assures the Episcopacy that he has taken the necessary steps to secure the freedom of his slaves."' Although the question of slavery had frequently been brought before the General Conference, yet on no previous occasion had it assumed such a 16 OrganiziaZion of the commanding aspect as now. The Baltimore Conference had previously acted with the South ill resisting the encroachments of abolitionism, and had wielded a potent influence in arresting its tide. The action of that body in the case of Mr. Harding had been extrajudicial, and from their decision he had very properly appealed to the General Conference, where he had the right to expect protection. Bishop Soule was in the chair when the appeal was presented, and remarked that "the question will arise, according to the Discipline, whether the General Conference will admit this appeal." On motion, the appeal was admitted, upon which Bishop Soule called upon the appellant to state the ground of his appeal. The discussion in the case of Mr. Harding was quite protracted. It commenced on the 7th of May, and was concluded on the 11th. Dr. William A. Smith, of Virginia, conducted the appeal on the part of Mr. Harding, while John A. Collins, of Baltimore, had charge of the case on the part of the Baltimore Conference. The speeches delivered on that occasion by these distinguished gentlemen, were equal to their reputation. The speech of Dr. Smith, so masterly in argument, so replete with proof, and so overwhelningly convincing, merits preservation. Dr. Smith said: M. E. CChurch, Soult. 17 I appear before the General Conference, at the instance of the appellant, to state his case to the best of my ability. In entering upon this duty, especially as the case involves the question of slavery, it is proper that I should make some preliminary remarks personal to myself. I am aware, from the use that has been made of my name within the last few years in various journals, in different sections of the country, it is reasonable to suppose that I entertain personally hostile feelings toward those who differ from me. I wish to disavow it. My own opinions on the subject have been meade up for years. But these opinions have never been permitted with me, so far as I am competent to understand myself, to originate unchristian feelings to any honest man who differs with me. I have always held myself to be, and now do, an antislavery man — not, however, an abolitionist in any sense of the word. And in this I differ not from my Methodist brethren in the ministry and out of it. The sense which I attach to antislavery will, in the course of the observations I shall make on the merits of this case, be explained. In the present case I do not know if I am not called upon to represent an abolitionist, though a Southern man myself. I do not symbolize with the brother on the subject of slavery. I differ with him almost as widely as I do from any abolitionist-, North or East. And I do, 18 Organization of the sir, with the more cheerfulness enter upon the defense of this case, being actuated by a sense of justice, because I believe, whatever may have been the design, (and I have not a solitary doubt that the design was a good one,) this brother has been wronged, and deeply wronged, by the decision in his case. I learn from the journals of the Baltimore Conference, and from his own statement, that he entered as a probationer in the ministry in 1839, and in 1843 was ordained, in the regular course, an Elder in the Methodist Episcopal Church. On the 8th of February, in 1.844, he became connected by marriage with Miss Swan, in the State of Maryland. At the session of the Conference in March last he was called up for examination, and from the journal of that body I learn his Presiding Elder stated that, by his late marriage, he had become connected with slavery. The Conference appointed a committee to investigate the subject. That committee reported. Their report you have heard read; it requires him to pledge himself that, during the year, he would execute a deed securing to the slaves their liberty. These slaves belonged to his wife by the demise of her parents. Let that be distinctly remembered. I understand that Brother Harding, for specific reasons, refused to comply with the decision of the Conference. It is due to him to state, that I could have wished the M. E. Church, South. 19 journals of the Conference had been kept as the rule requires they should be kept; that all the questions and all the answers put to the accused had been matter of record. - This, however, is not the case. The proceedings of the Conference alone, so far as regards the resolutions moved and adopted, make up the journals of that Conference, and by consequence we have not the legal, authorized testimony, required by the Book of Discipline. I must, therefore, sir, rely for the facts that are important to a due consideration of this case, upon the correct and honest memory of the representatives of the Baltimore Conference. I therefore say that if, in relating any thing of importance, not on the records of the Conference, I should be found in their judgment in error-for it is not my purpose to misrepresent the history of this case-they will point out the error. I understand from the individual himself, and from some members of that Conference, that when the decision was read, he refused at once to comply with the demand of the Conference on the following grounds:First. That by the nature of the laws of the State of Maryland he did not become the owner of the slaves. They were held by his wife by descent from her parents, and that he had therefore no right to execute the deed required by the Conference. 20 Oryanization of the Secondly. That if it were not so, the laws of the State of Maryland do not permit the liberated slave to enjoy liberty, and that, therefore, under the rule of Discipline, he was not required to comply with the condition. He maintained, therefore, that the pledge was impracticable, and contrary to the rule of Discipline; and, thirdly, that it would be in its practical results inhuman. And why? Because the demand, if carried out by him, without the consent of these slaves, would separate parents from children and other friends, which, without their consent, he, as a conscientious man, could not consent to do. But while he thus refused a compliance with the proposed condition, he nevertheless tendered to the Conference the following pledge, in his own name and that of his wife, that he would have them removed to the colony in Africa, or to any free State in the Union, where they might be permitted to enjoy their freedom, at any time when he could do so with their consent. But pledge himself to fulfill the condition made by the Conference, with or without their consent, and thus sever the dearest ties on earth, he, as a humane and conscientious man, could not consent to do. I am now relating what the journals of the Baltimore Conference should have shown. Let the Conference understand that I am repeating the pledges made by this brother in my own language; ~1-. E. Church, South. 21 but I submit it to the delegation whether I give substantially the pledges he gave. If not, correct me on the spot, and do not leave me to labor in the dark. Mr. Griffith. I understand you to say that he gave a pledge to remove them to any free State. I have no recollection of such a pledge. If tendered, it would have been accepted, as perfectly satisfactory. Mr. Gere. Brother Griffith may not have heard the pledge, but he did, more than once, make that pledge in the presence of the Conference. Mr. Collins. I attended to this case with great particularity, and had something to do with it. If Brother Harding ever made such a pledge, it did not reach my ears. And when he said that, with the consent of his wife and the slaves, he would send them to Liberia, I asked him if that consent could be obtained, and he answered in the negative. Mr. Gere. Brother Collins is correct in saying that consent could not be obtained; but I clearly recollect the point spoken to. He would have preferred sending them to Liberia; but when the Conference desired it, he said he would permit them to go to any free State. Mr. Slicer. I have no recollection of his agreeing to their going to a free State; but I do distinctly recollect that he put the issue of their freedom on their consent to go to Liberia. 22 Organization of the Mr. Collins. On the basis of two zfs. If his wife and if his slaves consented, neither of which could he promise for. Mr. Davis. What is stated by Brother Slicer is correct. I-Ie did say, that if these colored persons were willing to go to Liberia, and if his wife would consent, he should be willing that they should go. Dr. Smith. Brother Gere, do you recollect distinctly whether Brother Harding said as you have stated? Mr. Gere. I think those were the words, to the best of my recollection. Mr. Drake said he thought oral testimony ought not to be taken. Bishop Soule. I have admitted it at Brother Smith's instance. Dr. Smith. What redress would there be without this? The laws require that the Annual Conference shall keep a record of every question and answer, both great and small. Has that been done? Mr. Collins. This small matter may be disposed of at once. Brother Harding admitted the fact. We wanted no testimony, and we took none. Brother Harding was testimony against himself. Bishop Soule. I take it for granted that you have no other proper testimony but what is presented to you in those journals; that there was Z. E. Church, South. 23 not a witness called —no testimony given. You have heard the whole of the matter so far as it is on the records, and it is, I presume, to supply this defectiveness that he calls for those points from the delegates. A member made some observation, and Bishop Soule answered that Dr. Smith would call for any witness he might want. Dr. Smith. I do not know, sir, that I would care to meet every member of this Conference on the subject. I know that it is not admissible, but still I have, myself, no particular objection to it. I feel obliged by the reference made to Discipline. What is the meaning of Discipline? That your journal should contain every thingM3r. Collins. It does. Dr. Smith (emphatically). Stick a peg there. A resolution is passed at the Baltimore Conference, requiring the appellant to submit to certain conditions. He refuses. Does the journal state under what circumstances? And do not the merits of the case rest on the circumstances? Why, sir, the course pursued shows that the matter rests just there. One says, if Mr. Harding had refused with such a declaration, there would have been no dispute about it. In the judgment of all who had taken any interest in the merits of this case, it turned on the manner and circumstances of his refusal. Then why not record it? It proves a 24 Organiawlion of tlze defectiveness in the journal. Upon that journal we rely for the prosecution, and they upon it for the defense. But behold you, sir, on the very point at issue it is silent! Who shall suffer the wrong here? The appellant or the Baltimore Conference? Who are in the wrong that the journal is thus defective? I leave it to this Conference to decide, every man in his own mind. I am, sir, entitled to the oral testimony in the absence of the correct record which it was the duty of that Annual Conference to furnish us with. And that testimony goes to sustain us. What is the testimony? "I clearly remember," says Brother Gere, "as clearly as if I had heard it this morning, that Brother Harding said, over and over again, that with the consent of the servants, he stood pledged, and pledged his wife, to send them to Liberia; or, with their consent, to let them go to any free State in the Union." Mr. Collins. If you understood his wife to be pledged, you are certainly mistaken. Mr. Gere, on being appealed to, said that, as distinctly as he could remember, the words were, "I pledge on my own behalf, and that of my wife, that, if they consent, they shall go to a free State." Mr. Hildt. I think Brother Gere must be mistaken. Conference was deeply interested in this subject, and I think every member would pay E.. Uhzureii, southl. 25 attention; and I do not recollect that Mr. Hiarding at any time said that he was willing, with the consent of his wife, that the slaves should go to a free State. Dr. Smith. Well, if there were twenty present who did not hear it, that is no proof that it did not take place. Brother Collins was involved in the matter, and the other brethren had their feelings warmly enlisted, and it is no wonder that they did not hear all that Brother Harding said on this subject. I think you will find that they were so enlisted to carry out their own purposeshonest as they felt they were-that they urged the brother to comply with their condition, intending to investigate the propriety of it hereafter. You cannot suppose they would take a course of this kind unless their feelings were excited, and so excited that they did not hear what is in the clear and distinct remembrance of the brother himself, and of many more, if we had them all here. Others not recollecting it, is no proof that it did not take place. But I have positive proof that he did make this declaration. Its not appearing on the record is not our fault, but the fault of the Conference, and we are entitled to the positive testimony. I shall, therefore, assume that Brother Harding said, that, with the consent of these servants, they should be sent to any State where they could enjoy their freedom. The Conference, however. 2 26 Oiyqanization of the we learn, adopted the report of the committee, notwithstanding the pledges given by Mr. Harding -a report binding him to make the required pledge of manumission. Near the close of the Conference his case was called up, and he again required to comply with the decision of the Conference. He again refused. At this stage of the proceedings Brother Steele moved a resolution to locate him. This was ruled out. (No, from Mr. Collins.) Mr. Harding. There was a resolution proposed by Brother Steele to have me located, and it was ruled out by the President. Dr. Smith. And ruled out by the President? Mr. Collins. I think it was withdrawn. Mr. Harding. Brother Steele made the motion, and Bishop Waugh ruled it out. Mr. Sargent. I was not the Secretary of the Baltimore Conference at the last session, but I had a seat adjoining Brother Steele when he made the motion to locate him. He did withdraw the motion, and at my suggestion. Dr. Bangs. It must be very unpleasant to the speaker to be interrupted, but I wish to speak to a point of order in reference to oral testimony. Must not the speaker confine himself to the record? If the journal is not complete, the case can be quashed or nonsuited, and sent back. It is competent foi him to make that appeal, but I 2 E. UuE. /rchk, South. 27 insist that it is not in order to travel out of the record. Dr. Smith. I could not show that the record is incomplete without reference to oral testimony. Mr. Early. What brother cannot see that he is opening and amplifying his case? Will not the Baltimore Conference have the right to do the same in reply? Are you constantly to stop him, and confine him to the record? Permit them both to amplify, and let them correct him at the proper time. Bishop Soule. I should- not have permitted one of these queries to be put only at the instance of the speaker, who requested at the outset, that, if he erred, the delegation would set him right on the spot, to save time and labor in the premises. Dr. Smith. Well, sir, by the testimony of the brethren, a resolution was moved to locate, which, by suggestion, was withdrawn. I wish the Conference not to forget that; it may appear that this point has a great deal to do with the final issue. Brother Collins then moved the suspension of the appellant, and Brother Slicer moved for a committee farther to investigate the case. The committee was appointed. They met, and appellant appeared before that committee, and submited the following paper from William D. Merrick, of Maryland, United States Senator from the first Congressional 28 Organizatlion of the District, touching the legal points involved in the case: "At the request of Mr. Harding, I have to state that, under the laws of Maryland, no slave can be emancipated to remain in that State, nor unless provision be made by the person emancipating him for his removal from the State, which removal must take place, unless for good and sufficient reason the competent authorities grant permission to the manumitted slave to remain. "There has lately (winter of 1843) been a statute enacted by the State Legislature, securing to married females the property (slaves of course included) which was theirs at the time of their marriage, and protecting it from the power and liabilities of their husbands. (Signed) I' Wm. D. MERRICcK." This was read before the committee, but they were so occupied in "laboring" with the brother, to bring him to terms of submission, that it seems they entirely overlooked the opinion of this gentleman, and laying aside the legal view which illustrated the whole case, proceeded to make up their.report, saying that they had failed to reduce the brother to terms, though the record shows that they were appointed to investigate the case. Yet they report about bringing him to terms. The Conference, then, on motion of Brothers Collins and Emory, resolved to suspend the appellant AL E. Clturclh, South. 29 from his ministerial standing until the next session of Conference, or such time as he should give satisfaction to the Episcopacy that he had secured the manumission of the slaves. From this decision, sir, Brother Harding gave notice of his intention to appeal, and is now before the General Conference in prosecution of his design. I have thus gone through the statement of the case as I find it in the journals, and from oral testimony, because of the defectiveness of the journal itself. The ground on which I rest this appeal is briefly this: First. The appellant violated no rule of Discipline in refusing to comply with the condition of the Baltimore Conference. Secondly. But on the contrary, the rule of the Church makes provision in his favor. Thirdly. And, therefore, his suspension is unauthorized, and should be reversed. If it be the pleasure of the Conference for me to proceed in the investigation of this subject, I propose to do so; but if they think it would be more in order for the defense to respond, I am ready and willing to give place that they may do so. I do not wish to forestall, and ask no right more than to state the case, and the grounds of our appeal. Mr. Morgan said, in reference to Mr. Gere's statement, that there had been two cases before 30 Organizctolron of the the Baltimore Conference involving the question of slavery —those"of Mr. Harding and Mr. Hansberger. Mr. Harding did consent to send his slaves to Liberia, if their consent and that of his wife could be obtained; but the other was willing to emancipate his, provided certain arrangements could be made. Dr. Smith. The ground we take is, that the appellant violated no rule of Discipline; on the contrary, the rules of the Church make provision in his favor, and, therefore, his suspension by the Baltimore Conference is unauthorized, and should be reversed. Because, under the law of Maryland, in which State he married, he did not come, by his marriage, to be the owner of the property which fell to his wife. As, therefore, he was not the owner of a single slave, he could not manumit one. The Conference required an impossibility. In proof thereof I will read an opinion of Judge Key. I suppose that this Conference would have no hesitation about receiving the opinion of that gentleman. He says: "The Reverend Mr. Harding having married Mliss Swan, who, at the time of her marriage, was entitled to some slaves, I am requested to say, whether he can legally manumit them or not? By an act of Assembly, no person can manumit a slave in Maryland; and by another act of our Assembly, a husband has no other or farther right M. E. Church, Southa. 31 to his wife's slaves than their labor, while he lives. He can neither sell nor liberate them. Neither can he and his wife, either jointly or separately, manumit her slaves, by deed, or otherwise. A reference to the Acts of Assembly of Maryland will show this. EDMUND KEY. "Prince George county, April 25, 1844." I would also refer to the Laws of the State of Maryland, Chap. 293: " Section 1. Be it enacted by the GeneralAssembly of lMaryland, That from and after the passage of this act, any married woman may become seized or possessed of any property, real or of slaves, by direct bequest, demise, gift, purchase, or distribution, in her own name, and as of her own property; prozvided, the same does not come from her husband after coverture." Now, sir, by this late act of Maryland, a woman can become an owner of property in her own name, though married. 4" Sec. 2. And be it enacted, That hereafter, when any woman possessed of a. property in slaves shall marry, her property in such slaves, and their natural increase, shall continue to her, notwithstanding her coverture, and she shall have, hold, and possess the samne as her separate property, exempt from any liability for the debts or contracts of the husband." Now, from this section, we perceive that the 32 Orgacnization of the property of a woman does not pass to the husbandcl as by the original law, and -as is probably the case in other States of the Union. "'Sec. 3. And be it enacted, That when any woman during coverture shall become entitled to, or possessed of slaves, by conveyance, gift, inheritance, distribution, or otherwise, such slaves, together with their natural increase, shall inure and belong to the wife in like manner as is above provided as to slaves which she may possess at the time of marriage.'" Sec. 4. And be it enacted, That the control and management of all such slaves, the direction of their labor, and the receipts of the productions thereof, shall remain to the husband agreeably to the laws heretofore in force. All suits to recover the property or possession of such slaves shall be prosecuted or defended, as the case may be, in the joint names of the husband and wife; in case of the death of the wife, such slaves shall descend and go to her children and their descendants, subject to the use of the husband during life, without liability-to his creditors; and if she die without leaving children living, or descendants of such children living, they shall descend and go to the husband." From these we learn that, were a husband, marrying a woman svith slaves, to manumit those slaves, any person who might inherit property Mi. E. Church, South. 33 from his wife might make him pay for every one so manumitted, because of the injury done to them by such an act of manumission.'"Sec. 5. Be it enacted, That the slaves owned by a fe2ne-covert under the provisions of this act, may.be sold by the joint deed of the husband and wife, executed, proved, and recorded agreeably to the laws now in force in regard to the conveyance of real estate of feme-coverts, and not otherwise. C'Sec. 6. And be it enacted, That a wife shall have a right to make a will and give all her property or any part thereof to her husband, and to other persons with the consent of the husband subscribed to said will; provided always, that the wife shall have been privately examined by the witnesses to her will, apart and out of the presence and hearing of her husband, whether she doth make the same will freely and voluntarily, and without being induced thereto by fear or threats of or ill usage by said husband, and says she does it willingly and freely; providled, that no will under this act shall be valid unless made at least sixty days before the death of the testatrix." It is perfectly manifest that the opinion of Judge Key is correct, and that the appellant in this case did not possess the right of property in any one of these five slaves that his wife held by the demise of her parents. The Baltimore Conferene 2* 34 Organiza'tizon of the said,' Mapunmit your slaves," thus requiring that appellant to dispose of property that did not belong to him; to set at liberty those in whom he had no right, and over whom he had no control whatever. Why, they might with equal propriety tell him to unhorse the first Methodist minister he found on the highway, and turn the horse loose beyond the power of his proper owner, or to mnanumit the slaves of every man in the State as a condition of holding his membership in their body. Mr. Harding had as much right to the horse, bridle, and saddle-bags of his brethren as to the slaves in question, and just as imuch right to every slave in the State as to these, and could with as much propriety execute a deed of manumission on their behalf. I say, then, that without doubt the Baltinmore Conference required of him to do that which it was impossible for him to do. I am at a loss to 1know how that Conference could commit such an error. It really is so marvelous that I am utterly at a loss to account for it. Secondly. If the doctrine I have just laid down could in any sense be held as doubtful, though I cannot see how it can possibly be so held, and it should therefore be said that he had property in the slaves of his wife, then the rule of Discipline, Sec. 10, pages 209, 210, makes provision in his flavor. "We declare that we are as much as ever con Al. -E. C hurchl, 8outldh. 35 vinced of the great evil of slavery: therefore no slaveholder shall be eligible to any olficial station in our Church hereafter, where the laws of the State in which he lives will admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom." Now we maintain that, under this provisional exception to the general rule of our Church, he was not required to manumit these slaves, because he could not legally effect that manumission, even if they belonged to him, in that State. Such also is expressly the meaning of the second answer: "When any traveling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the State in which he lives." This is a different phraseology expressing the same idea, and has been so decided by the General Conference. A legal emancipation! What is the common-sense meaning of this? Such an emancipation as will put the slave in possession of his freedom in that State. Now could the appellant give them such liberty? I hold in my hand an extract from the Laws of Maryland on this subject, from "Dorsey's Laws of Maryland," in 1831. "And be it enacted, That it shall hereafter be the duty of every clerk of a county in this State, 36 Oryganication of Ikthe whenever a deed of manumission shall be left in his office for record, and of every register of wills in every county of this State, whenever a will manumitting a slave or slaves shall be admitted to probate, to send, within five days thereafter, (under a penalty of ten dollars for each and every omission so to do, to be recovered before any justice of the peace, one-half whereof shall go to the informer, and the other half to the State,) an extract from such deed or will, stating the names, number, and ages of the slave or slaves so manumitted, a list whereof, in the case of the will so proved, shall be filed therewith by the executor or administrator, to the Board of Mianagers for Maryland for removing the people of color of said State; and it shall be the duty of said Board, on receiving the same, to notify the American Colonization Society, or the Maryland State Colonization Society, thereof, and to propose to such Society that they shall engage, at the expense of said Society, to remove said slave or slaves so manumitted to Liberia; and if the said Society shall so engage, then it shall be the duty of the said Board of Managers to have the said slave or slaves, delivered to the agent of such Society, at such place as the said Society shall appoint for receiving such slave or slaves, for the purpose of such removal, at such time as the said Society shall appoint; and in case the said Society shall refuse so to receive 31BE.. Curch, r South. 37 and remove the person or persons so manuinitted and offeredcl, or in case the said person or persons shall refuse so to be removed, then it shall be the duty of the said Board of Managers to remove the said person or persons to such other place or places beyond the limits of this State as the said Board shall approve of, and the said person or persons shall be willing to go to, and provide for their reception and support such place or places as the Board may think necessary, until they shall be able to provide for themselves, out of any money that may be earned by their hire, or may be otherwise provided for that purpose; and in case the said person or persons shall refuse to be removed to any place, beyond the limits of this State, and shall persist in remaining therein, then it shall be the duty of said Board to inform the sheriff of the county wherein such person or persons may be, of such refusal, and it shall thereupon be the duty of said sheriff forthwith to arrest, or cause to be arrested, the said person or persons so refusing to emigrate from this State, and transport the said person or persons beyond the limits of this State; and all slaves shall be capable of receiving manumission for the purpose of removal as aforesaid, with their consent, of whatever age, any law to the contrary notwithstanding." (Chap. 281, Sec. 3.) We find a supplement to this law in 1832. 38 Organization of the "Chap. 145, Sec. 1.-Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That whenever the Board of Managers, appointed under the act to which this is a supplement, shall inform the sheriff of any county of the refusal to remove any person or persons therein mentioned, and shall provide a sum sufficient to defray the removal of said person or persons beyond the limits of the State, every sheriff then failing to comply, within the term of one month., with the duties prescribed in the third section of the act aforesaid, shall forfeit fifty dollars for every person he shall neglect so to remove, to be recoverable in the County Court of his county by action of debt on indictment. "Sec. 2. And be it enctted, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to repeal any part of the act to which this is a supplement." The foregoing is a copy, corrected by myself, from the acts referred to, as published in "Dorsey's Laws of Maryland." GEORGE H. MOORE, Ass't Librarian N. Y. Hist. Society. May 6, 1844. Now from these laws it is perfectly manifest that if there be a State to which the provisional exception of the Discipline applies, it is the State of Maryland. The laws of Virginia are not by any means so strict. The brethren from Virginia will agree with me, that they are by no means so strict. And no one can read these laws without 1M. E. Church, SOuth. 39 concluding that it is very difficult to m Rnumit slaves there, so that they can enjoy their liberty there; that it is indeed impossible, so far as the laws of the State are concerned. And if they are free there, it is because the laws of the State are not executed. It will be remembered, that it was in conformity with the law of the State that this brother stated his readiness to make a pledge; and the issue is that he would not pledge himself to do that which the laws forbade him to do, while he was willing to do what the laws of the State allowed, provided the slaves had belonged to him. This, then, is the issue between the appellant and the Baltimore Conference. He stated that he was ready to do that which the law provided for under the circumstances. The question will be, in the mind of every candid hearer, shall the vote of this General Conference side with the Baltimore Conference in demanding from this brother that he should submit to their conditions withzou authoritlj from the rules of the Church, in the face of the very laws of that State that gave him birth, and afforded him protection in his rights and privileges? Or, shall their decision be in favor of the appellant, who stated that he was ready, and did pledge himself to fulfill the only condition in his power, by sending the slaves to Liberia, or to remove them beyond the limits of the State? The third point in the general argument is, this 40 Organizzalion of the construction of the Discipline has already received the sanction of the General Conference. I allude to the case of the Westmoreland local preachers four years ago. The Conference will bear in mind that certain members of our Church in the State of Virginia appealed over and over again to the Baltimore Conference, as licensed local preachers, for ordination. The Baltimore Conference as often responded, "'We will not ordain you, because you hold slaves." The applicants said, as citizens of Virginia, they were not bound to give up their slaves, because the laws of their State would not allow them to enjoy freedom; therefore they could not actually give them freedom, and that this clause of Discipline made provision for their case. The Baltimore Conference maintained a different doctrine, as you very well know. The discussion was painfully protracted. It involved a great deal of feeling within the bounds of the Baltimore Conference. The complainants first went to the General Conference at Cincinnati in 1836, and asked to be united to the Virginia Conference, but the Baltimore friends opposed. They were clever fellows, and could not be spared, though, according to the doctrines held by the Baltimore Conference, they were practically sinners. But now they were very clever fellows! I know, sir, that an unworthy motive could not enter the bosom of the members of the. Baltimore Conference on a subject I..E. CChurch, Soutlh. 41 of the kind; but because of the unfortunate and unfriendly aspect of the case, it was believed in Virginia, much to the discredit of the Baltimore Conference, that it was because of the loaves and fishes. Well, sir, failing in their application to the Cincinnati Conference of 1836, they came up to the General Conference at Baltimore in 1840, and asked them to vindicate their rights by settling this issue. The General Conference referred the memorial to an able committee, of which Dr. Bascom was chairman-a committee fully competent to respond to the memorial. Their report was submitted to the General Conference, and adopted by them. The whole of it has been published. It contains an able and conclusive argument vindicating the construction put upon the clause of the Discipline by the memorialists, and concludes with the following resolution: ";Resolved, by the delegates of the several Annual Conferences, in General Conference assembled, That under the provisional exception of the general rule of the Church on the subject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave property, in -States or Territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the election or ordination of ]ministers to the various grades of office known in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 42 Organization of Ihe and cannot, therefore, be considered as operating any forfeiture of right in view of such election or ordination." This, sir, was adopted by the General Conference. And if language can settle any point on earth, the language of this resolution goes to settle the construction we have put on this rule of Discipline, viz., that the brethren holding slaves in those States that do not permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, are not, under the Discipline of our Church, required to emancipate their slaves. Now, sir, I beg to call the attention of the Conference to this point. This action of the General Conference was intended finally to settle the long-contested issue between the Baltimore Conference and certain members of the Church, and does it not settle it fairly and unequivocally? I appeal to this Conference, if it were to be looked for that an Annual Conference, cherishing due respect for the decisions of the General Conference, should proceed within four years after the passage of this very resolution to trample it under their feet, and act on another construction of the rule of Discipline, defining the terms of membership, and thus throw overboard one of their own body? Was this to be expected? So far as I feel myself entitled to any judgment in this matter, I say it was not! The act was wrong, and we had a right, itf... churhe, 8outlh. 43 under the circumstances, to expect that the Baltimore Conference would not thus have disregarded the decision of the General Conference. I take it upon me to say, that the decision referred to settled that point; and the appellant was not required under the laws of the State of Maryland, and under that decision upon our laws of Discipline, to manumit these slaves, because the act would not secure their freedom. I need not stop to notice, that, though that law was passed, and that report and resolution adopted for the government of the Baltimore Conference, they have never ordained these men. Mr. Collins. That's the fact. It was no law; it was only a resolution. Dr. Smith. We maintain, therefore, that the refusal to comply with the demand of the Baltimore Conference was no violation of the rules of Discipline; and also, that, as a conscientious and humane man, Mr. Harding could do no more than he proposed to do. It is admitted by all the delegation that he was ready to send every one of these slaves, with their consent, to Liberia. What more could he do, as a humane man? Should he send themn there without their consent? Should he separate parents and children, and their friends, without their consent, and compel them to find refuge in the bosom of Africa? Should he have done so? He was willing so to do, wdilk their 44 Organizaton of the consent, and I ask what more could humanity ask or Christianity require? Let me at this point briefly examine the requisitions made upon him. They wanted him to hold two of the slaves in perpetual bondage. Did you mark that? Yes! the decision of that Conference required him to hold two of the slaves in perpetual bondage-one till he was twenty-eight, and two till they were twenty-three! Now, sir, I beg leave to ask what' Eastern man, consistently with his principles, can vote to sustain the Baltimore Conference in this instance? Stick to your principles, abide by them, and you cannot sustain them in their action! On the other hand, Harding, on the principle of the most ultra Eastern member here, pledges himself to let them go to Africa or any free State. What more could he do? What more would the laws permit him to do? And what Eastern man will fail to sustain him in this? He intended this, and does now intend it, so far as he has a right to control his movements on the subject. MIy third general ground is, that the spirit of our Discipline does not, any more than the letter of it, justify the Baltimore Conference in their suspension of this brother. The spirit of the Discipline is a vague term, but I may explain. I mean, then, that the general design and tendency of the rules of our Discipline on the subject of slavery do not justify that Conference in their . 1B. E. lturc, z outh. 45 course. I hold that the rules of our Discipline on this subject are exclusively conservative. The whole Discipline is conservative, and I claim to be a conservative myself. I stand by Methodist Discipline; and if any man claims to be conservative, and will not stand on the same broad platform, I deny that he is one, and will contest it every inch. I repeat, our Discipline is conservative. Hear it: "What shall be done for the extirpation of the evil of slavery? Ans. 1. We declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery." I believe it-with all my heart I subscribe to it. And I can repeat that language with a feeling that none, except those from the South, like circumstanced, can possibly do. I say it is an evil, because I feel it to be an evil. And who cannot say the same that has trod the soil of the South? It is an evil. The Discipline declares the truth, the whole truth, and, so far as it relates to the case, nothing but the truth; and a truth which, from our connection with the subject, we are not ashamed to own, nor afraid to proclaim on the house-tops, here or elsewhere. Is not this enough? What more can the brethren ask? What more would they ask from the South as a sacrifice on the altar of union than this broad, unqualified declaration? This, sir, is unquestionably conservatism. But, sir, it is not such conservatism as is represented by the cabs of your 46 Organization of the city, always, when the horse is taken out, letting down on one side. No, sir, that is not the principle of conservatism, for conservatism always involves principles appropriate to two sides. On the other hand, I should say that while the Discipline deprecates the evil of slavery, it requires the members of the Church within those States to conform their action to the rules or laws of those States in which they live. This is assuming the doctrine that though slaverv is an evil, and a great evil, it is not necessarily a sin. There's the other side of the question. And is it not clearly so? Now, we of the South take both sides of the question-it is a great evil, it is not necessarily a sin; and we ask no more of you. But we maintain that it is not a sin, and we delmand this concession on your part. They are conservatives who take both sides, and not those who are onesided in their doctrine, practice, and votes. To recur to the principles or position we have just laid down: we say that slavery is an evil, and that Southern people know and feel it' to be an evil. Who knows how much the shoe pinches but he who wears it? And who more than we who have been compelled to submit to it, from our cradle to the present moment; and on whom the wrong has been inflicted by these very brethren of the North —-the North, who refuse to help us in this our calamity? Who know it so well to Z. E. Church, South. 47 be an evil as they who, but a few years ago, were ready to take legislative action on the subject? In 1831, so rife was the popular feeling and the popular sentiment on this subject, that there is not a doubt —so sorely did we in Virginia feel the evil-that long before this day some act of gradual manumission would have passed but for that \vhich, after all, may prove to have been the hcappy interference of Northern abolitionists. I know this is strange ground for you to hear me take, but which I think I shall make as clear as the light of heaven to the mind of every candid hearer in this Conference. We felt the evils and groaned under them so deeply, and so heartily did we long to get rid of them, that from the debates in 1831, in the Virginia Legislature, and the popular sentiment expressed in the pulpit and through the press, no doubts were entertained that the State was about to adopt immediate measures for its gradual extirpation. Eighteen thousand dollars per annum were appropriated to advance the colonization interest only as an intimation that any reasonable claim for colonization upon the treasury of Virginia should be honored. Why was it not carried out? Why, just at this juncture, when the bow of promise was beginning to span the heavens, and the long-prayed-for hour was about to come upon us in all its glory, behold this dark cloud rises in the North and East, and though but 48 Organization of the the size of a man's hand in the beginning, it increased and passed over the whole North! It flung the dark shadows of its coming events over the moral hemisphere of the South, and mantled all in sackcloth and mourning! The tide of colonization was arrested-it rolled back, and the friends of the cause were left to mourn over their disappointments. And yet, in the face of all this, results have shown that while God never can direct any thing that is wrong, yet his hand was in this matter, in permitting the error, or the wickedness-I will not say which-to bring about a good result. At that very time your agents in Liberia, resident colored men, wrote back: " Stay your hand. If you are not more select in the choice of those you send here, we shall be reduced to a heathen state. Send us colonists, but send us select men. Do n't send us corn-field hands-they are not fit for freedom." This, sir, was a wise and a sage remark; not the result of profound philosophical investigation, it is true, but the spontaneous promptings of practical observation. And what is the principle on which it operates? Why, that in forming a colony, you can pour into it a heterogeneous mass, only so far as it can be received into the body politic, and impart strength and vigor to the body. But if, instead of imparting strength, they give their own character to the body, the consequences will be M.E. hur'Gct, Stulk. 49 certain ruin and destruction. I will give you an illustration. I hesitate not to say, and many will sustain me in declaring, that if the amount of vice and ignorance from Catholic Europe, and particularly Ireland, now poured like a flood into the bosom of this vast republic, had swept into the infant colonies of Jamnestown or Plymouth Rock, never would you have seen this fair republic spring up, striking its roots deep in the soil, and spreadinfg its branches from Miaine to Mississippi, and from the Atlantic almost to the Pacific Ocean. But now, since this country has grown up to maturity, and taken the elevation and power of a great State, we can take in these vast crowds, and yet our political and moral character remains unharmed. The firmn bases of our civil institutions are unmoved; the deep foundations of social and civil life have not been reached; and we are privileged to cherish the hope that time, in its rapid roll, will but strengthen and perpetuate our civil and religious liberty, while we continue to be an asylum for the ignorance, vrice, infidelity, and what is worse than all combined, the Popery of Europe. Now, had Liberl been so colonized, it would have been ruined. Such a mass as Virginia was rapidly pouring into it would have reduced it to its original heathen condition. What prevented such a result? The abolition excitement, and nothing else. Thanks to them, then, that we have a colony 3o 50 Oryanzizalion of the on the coast of Africa to spread itself out, and yet become an asylum for every freed slave if he pleases to go there; and I pray God that he may speed the happy day. I am aware that our abolition brethren never intended this, and therefore they may be compared to an enemy who plunges a dagger into your side, but which only opens some dangerous abscess. And you are mistaken if you think I have any animosity against abolition brethren. I believe God w.ill use them as instruments, bad or good as they may be. Now, sir, I have enlarged for a purpose which cannot fail to have been perceived. I ask, again, who are the conservatives? Those who maintain one side of the Discipline, that slavery is a great evil, but will not concede the principle that it is not necessarily a sin? or, are they the conservatives who take both sides of the book? Such is a conservative, and all who symbolize with him. I have heard a different doctrine from a very unexpected quarter. The case has been put with the abolitionists proper standing at one extreme, the Southern portion of the Church standing at the other extreme, distinguished by holding this doctrine, that slavery is a great political and social blessing. Sir, did you ever hear that doctrine advocated by a Southern minister of the Methodist Church in your life? I declare to you I never heard such a'doctrine before. Forty-one years AL F.. Curcul, South. 51 have passed over my head, twenty of which have been devoted to the service of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as a Southern minister, preaching to the master and the slave; and never in my life did I hear that doctrine until I heard it imputed to Southern brethren on the floor of this Conference, from a man, too, who claimed to be a conservative-a middle man, standing between the two extremes, like a mediator, putting his hands on both, and bidding them be reconciled. If I understand it rightly, the Discipline is conservative, because it occupies the middle ground between the two; and so stand the Southern men. The difference between us and either extreme, is just the difference between plain right and plain wrong. There is a clear, bold, vigorous line of demarkation. The partition wall betwixt right and wrong is as high as heaven, and it must be scaled before an entrance can be made from the right to the wrong. If you belong to us, take the ground of the Discipline and law. You make an imaginary extremity, and then assume to yourselves to be middle men. Now on this broad platform the Southern Church stands: Slavery is a great evil, but beyond our control; yet not necessarily a sin. We must then quietly submit to a necessity which we cannot control or remedy, endeavoring to carry the gospel of salvation to both masters and slaves. 52 Organization of tIhe Ultra antislavery men deny the great principles assumed, and maintain the doctrine that slavery is necessarily a sin under all circumstances. And now for the application of the whole subject to the case in hand. I regret to declare that it is my honest conviction, that all the action of the Baltimore Conference in this case symbolizes with the principles of ultra abolitionism. The Discipline of the Church, I have shown, clearly recognizes this brother in the relation in which he stands to slavery. The Laws of Maryland do not make him the possessor of slaves. And yet the action of the Baltimore Conference requires him to manumit them-the slaves that he never owned. A legal opinion was given in and confirmed, and yet they persisted in their demand! How could they do that on the principle of the conservative character of our Discipline? They could not, yet they did it, clearly on the doctrine that slavery is a sin under all circumstances. The first argument brought by the advocates of this position is, that slavery is wrong in the abstract. What is slavery? Why, in its very nature it is a concrete act. What is it when taken abstractly? Why, it is the act taken away from all its circumstances. Take away from slavery all its circumstances, and how will any man predicate right or wrong of such a thing? It is neither right nor is it wrong, abstracted from its circum M. E. Church, Southl. 53 stances. But perhaps, in common parlance, slavery in the abstract is the simple overt act of slavTery, which is inseparable fromn circumstances. Yet we will take it so, though it is a sort of hair-splitting business. It is then the government of man by physical force. Is it any thing more? Can it possibly be any thing less? And will you undertake to say that the government of man by physical force is wrong? Government by physical force! Why, the inhabitants of Sing Sing Prison are detained there by physical force, and without their consent. And will you undertake to say that such control of man by physical force is wrong? I imagine, sir, that no one will say that. What is true of an abstraction in this sense? Why, that it is right or wrong, according to its circumstances, as with murder. Murder itself is wrong. Murder in the abstract is neither right nor wrong. Taking life is right or wrong, according to its circumstances. And if the abstract or overt act of taking life be done according to the established laws of the country, or in self-defense, it is taking life on a correct principle. If done contrary to law or with malice aforethought, it is murder, and therefore wrong. And so with slavery. It is right or wrong, to be justified or condemned, according to its circumstances. A second argument on the abstract question is, that what is wrong in the beginning can never be 54 Organization of the come right by continuance. Applied to slavery, it is this. It was wrong to bring these slaves from Africa., and it can never be'right to detain them here. This is false in principle and in practice; for if there be no prescription in politics by which things once wrong become right, then all the claims and possessions of the present generation are wrong, and to this day founded in injustice and oppression. And wherefore? Because there is scarcely a government now on the earth that has not had its origin in robbery, oppression, and wrong, more or less; and if these can never change, why the possessions of man all over the world remain held in crime to this day! Take, for example, the Norml-an conquest of Englandas lawless a sweep of robbery as any that ever darkened the pages of history-and if this doctrine be correct, there is not a legal claim in existence in England to onle foot of her soil. Take, sir, the conquest of your own country-save my own native State, and I am proud to make an exception in her favor-the Indian is the original owner of the soil from which he was driven; of the soil that gave him birth; and at this very day, the land where sleep his fathers, back to unknown generations, this land is his, not yours; and if the principle laid down is just, give him back the rights he once enjoyed, and the land that was his dear and soceial homie, .M. E. Clurch,, South. 55 But, we say, that it is indispensable to the wellbeing of human society, that there be principles of prescriptive right acknowledged and acted, upon, and that the original wrong should ultimately become right, when the redress of that wrong would inflict a greater evil than the original wrong. So slaviery may have had its origin in wrong, cruelty, oppression, and robbery; yet if the redress of that wrong would be a greater evil than the wrong itself, then it is to be assumed as right. And it remains with the opposition to show that the wrongs can be redressed without interfering more prejudicially with the institutions of society. Does any one doubt that the patriarch Abraham was a slaveholder, or that slavery existed among the Jews, and that, too, under the Divine sanction, and by Divine appointment? Of that we are assured on the authority of God's word. But, then, we are sure that the Divine Being could neither appoint nor sanction any thing that was in itself independently and absolutely wrong. It must, therefore, have been right, under the peculiar circumstances of Abraham and of the Jewish nation. And what was right in one instance may be right in another. What were the circumstances under which slavery was in these cases we know not-no man knows -but we are bound to allow the fact. What was true on the subject of slavery in the 4ays of the apostles? In Greece, at that time, 56 Ogyanzizalion of the there were about ninety slaves to every four hundred freemen; that is, about one-fifth of the whole population were slayes; andL Rome was at that time the greatest slave-market in the world, where millions were bought and sold under the reign of the Cesars. Now the system of slavery in those days was the most unhallowed that is recorded on the pages of history; and they must know little indeed of American slavery who put it on a footing with that of Greece and Rome. Now, if in the days of Christ it passed unreproved, though' existing in a bold and palpable form —if there were no warning epistles written to the Churches on the subject at the instance of the apostles, surely it is fair to conclude that it is not "necessarily a sin." They could not but be cognizant of its existence, since St. Paul himself recognizes the relation of master and servant, or slave, on the same principles that he did the civil government. This was an absolute monarchy. The lives of his subjects were at the disposal of the sovereign; St. Paul was in the hands of the civil power, and do n't you suppose that he saw and felt the evils of so despotic a government? And so with slavery. The particular authority of the master over the slave was a great evil, yet Paul acknowledged both the civil government and the system of slavery. He required all Christians to submit to the civil authority, offensive as it was; and he l E. Chtreh, r] outth. 57 required all masters to treat their slaves as became masters, and slaves to be obedient to their masters. What did he intend by all this? Why, that it was his duty as a minister to preach, and watch, and labor, and thus bring about that state of things in society that would best indicate the necessity for a different form of government, and a different state of society. As a private citizen, he might have fallen out with the government, as a matter concerning his own personal and private feelings; but as a minister of the Church, he felt it his duty to pursue that course which would make a different form. of government as practicable as it is at all times desirable. So we of the South see in slavery an evil; but in the circumstances we feel justified in our course, and, indeed, cannot avoid it. And we feel that we should be doing an infinitely greater wrong by altering the condition of the slaves, under present and existing circumstances. Our duty as a Church and as ministers is to labor by preaching to bless both master and servant-go preach amzong them —get master and servant both converted-and thus bring about a different state of things, and then a different state of society will be practicable as well as desirable; and thus, and thus only, can we occupy the broad, conservative platform of our Discipline. They affirm of slavery in the South, that its origin was wicked-that the slaves were first 3* 58 Organization of the acquired at the expense of our brother's blood. Admit it all. Yet the hand of God is above, and it is his to overrule every thing for good. Go with me to the Southern plantation, where our missionaries have been preaching for years. Come with me through the length and breadth of this land! Converse with the slaves on the subject of religion, and you will find thousands "clothed and in their right minds" —happy in the love of God. Their condition is better, a thousand times better, than if they had remained in Africa. They would there have sunk lower and lower, without any knowledge of a Saviour, for there can be little doubt that had not their bondage and slavery awakened the sympathies of mankind in their behalf, there would not have been such mighty efforts to evangelize Africa and other portions of the world. They were in darkness-gross darkness; but who will not say that "the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light," and that the state of the slaves is now better than it was before their bondage? I feel a deep interest in this matter. I am emphatically a negro preacher. I watch over them, attend their revivals, lead their classes, and labor among them from year to year; and have a heart as full of sympathy and love for them as any man s. What is the duty of the Methodist Episcopal Church on the subject of slavery? There is dan A11. E. ChUr4h, SOUtbh. 59 ger of her stepping out of the track of duty, and engaging herself in political relations, and thus becoming a politico-ecclesiastical establishment. The Christian Advocate,and Journal has correctly told us that we have no right to make laws. The very day you begin to make laws, you err, and the laymen will then have a right to representation; and have it they must, and have it they shall, if it can possibly be secured to them. Your government can be defended only on the ground that you make no laws. What, then, are you to do? Just tell the people what are the plain laws of God's word. Do that, and the people will not find fault with you; partisans may, but the intelligent of other denominations, and the whole body of your own Church, will not complain of you for that. The ministers are set apart to explain religion, to enforce God's laws, and teach the doctrines of the Bible, and should let all political subjects alone. I have now had the right to vote for more than twenty years, but I. have never yet exercised it. It is no part of my business to meddle with politics. I do not, however, consider my omission to vote as an example for imitation. But, in regard to the principle that governs me, I shall never reconcile it to myself to interfere with politics farther than as a private citizen. I have a terrible warfare against this thing. I do n't believe in this doctrine of Methodist ministers' havy 60 Oelranzaclion of t1e ing to do with politics. Thle genius of our government is against it. I think that we should confine ourselves to our proper ministerial duties. I suppose we ministers' can never interfere with any legislation on political matters. And our laymnen can come-[Some remarks were here lost by the reporter.] The genius of our Church government requires that we confine ourselves exclusively to spiritual matters.'C My kingdom," says the Saviour, "is not of this world"-it is spiritual. Any interference by this General Conference, -directly or indirectly, as an ecclesiastical council, with any political questions or relations whatever, is inappropriate to our duties, and extremely dangerous in its results. We are destined to become a great people. No human causes, that are likely to be brought to bear, can prevent our becoming the most numerous and popular branch of the American Church. God grant that when we come to be this great people, the glory may not have departed from us! But when this state of things shall come, what will be the condition of the country and.the Church, if our ministers should not confine themselves, as ministers, exclusively to their appropriate spiritual duties, and leave the political questions and relations of the country to be managed by the laymen of the Church and other citizens? Why, sir, it is perfectly manifest, that if in that day it shall be found 1. E. Crch, South. 61 that the same men, whether claynmen or preachlers, who are making rules for the government of the Church, are also at the same time members of the different State Legislatures, or of the General Government, they will be making laws for the government of the State. With the reins of civil government in one hand, and the reins of ecclesiastical government in the other, what will be more easy than to unite both reins in one hand? or, in other words, unite Church and State? This, sir, is the unhappy result to be deprecated. It is this that makes any action of this body upon a subject purely political a just cause of suspicion by any discriminating niind. Do not, then, complain of the South, when she admonishes you to let the subject of slavery alone, because more appropriate to the civil legislature. The Scriptures furnish you with no example of ecclesiastical legislation on the subject of slavery, although it existed, in the days of Christ and the apostles, in a far more objectionable form than in the present day. The duty of the Church is plain. If you would bring around that state of things in the South, in which a different social condition will be as practicable as it is at all times confessedly desirable, let the General Conference, let all the ministers in the Church, confine themselves to their appropriate calling-let them preach the grace of Christ-and they will accomplish their object. 62 Orgqaniczation of the John A. Collins, an eloquent and gifted member of the Baltimore Conference, replied to Dr. Smith. IHe said: I take the management of this case not without diffidence. To appear in defense of one of the oldest Annual Conferences in the Methodist Episcopal Church; one that has always stood by the Discipline of the Church, "in weal and woe;" that has done the utmost in her power to maintain the purity of our institutions entirely untarnished, might be considered a matter of some surprise to any man. I am fortified, however, in the conviction that the Baltimore Conference, in this matter, as in all others of her official action, is not only pure, but above suspicion; and she has her best defense when her own acts speak in their own proper language. I am aware that the delicacy of the subject has invested it with considerable interest. Slavery and abolitionism, have agitated the civil and ecclesiastical tribunals of our land, and for a long time convulsed the country; and, of course, every thing that has reference to slavery, or is connected with it, is a matter of peculiar interest. It is supposed, and I believe it to be the fact, that this appeal will bring up the connection of Methodism and Methodist preachers with slavery more distinctly and clearly than any other question ever M. EE. churchl, outh. 63 brought before this Conference; and I am fully aware that we shall need all the prudence, and caution, and care, and freedom from excitement, that we can possibly bring to the management of this case; and I pray God to grant us wisdom, and prudence, and discretion, that we may fall upon the best means to promote the glory of God and the welfare of his Church. I certainly was delighted to hear many of the expressions that fell from my friend from Virginia. I must congratulate him upon his conversion, for until yesterday morning I knew not that he, or those that think with him, were to be regarded as conservative-on this question. I am delighted to hear that they are so. I listened with pleasure to the warm and ardent manner in which he admitted the doctrines of the Discipline, in regard to the great evil of slavery. I was particularly delighted at it, as well as with his declaration, that he never had heard in the South that slavery was to be regarded as a social good, and the confirmatory response of the Southern delegations. I was gratified with all that was said, but could not help thinking, for the life of me, of a certain resolution passed at the Georgia Annual Conference, that "slavery is not a moral evil!" Not a moral evil! I should like to know what kind of an evil the prosecutor considers slavery. On the floor of the General Conference of 1836 and 1840, slavery was 64 Organization of /ie defended by a member of his own delegation, as in accordance with the word of God. I was pleased at the remarks of Brother Smith yesterday morning. I have seen a pamphlet, written by Mr. Sims, a Methodist preacher,* in which a very different view is presented to that which I was glad to hear advanced by Dr. Smith; and though he says that every man with sense enough to go to mill, would refuse to acknowledge such a sentiment, yet I know one of the most eminent of our clergy who has done so, and who had more than sense enough " to go to mill." Still I am gratified at the change of sentiment, and at the change of tone still more so. There is, nevertheless, a drawback to all this; for my worthy friend, in carrying out some of his abstractions, which are always doubtful in character and dangerous in issue, has involved himself in an apparent contradiction. Hie believes slavery to be an evil in fact, and a great evil; he says that the Southerners are groaning under it, and that it is their affliction and sorrow; and yet contends that circumstances can make that thing good which in its commencement was evil. He deprecates the African slave-trade as abominable, and the means * This is an error: the pamphlet referred to, though often attributed to Prof. E. D. Sims, who is a Methodist preacher, was written by A. D. Sims, Esq., a lawyer in Darlington, S. C. 1IL E. Church, 1outth. 65 employed to secure slaves as vile and treacherous; but that circumstances have taken away all that was offensive in its character, until slavery, as existing now, is RIGHT. If so, I contend, upon his own showing, it cannot be a great evil. There is also another drawback. With all his strong expressions with respect to the great evil of slavery, before he got through with the "'abstraction," he placed human beings on the same ground as the lands of New England and Pennsylvania, as goods and chattels. These things detract from the warm and strong declarations of my friend on this subject. Still I will give him credit for being a conservative as far as he goes. I shall not follow the prosecutor in all his remarks, for though I listened with much interest to his able and powerful speech-a speech that did credit to his head and heart-there was a great deal that had nothing whatever to do with the question; and if our case had had the small-pox, two-thirds of his remarks would never have caught it. They had no relation to the case at all, and do not operate except to break down the fair issue which we wish to make before this Conference. I shall try to meet the case on its merits, and place the question on its true basis. The prosecutor first complained of our journal, and strove hard to make the impression-and may have succeeded, to some extent-that there was 66 Organizat1ion of the informality in that journal. There is none whatever, not a particle of it, and he failed so clearly to make it out, that he dropped it suddenly. There was no real trial here, and there is every thing in the journal that ought to be recorded in its pages. Let us look at it fairly. On the calling of the name of Mr. Harding at the Conference in 1844, his Presiding Elder stated that by marriage he had become connected with slavery. Mr. Harding assented to the statement made by the Presiding Elder; whereupon the case was referred to a committee. They reported that the appellant be required to manumit his slaves at specified ages, and give a pledge to the Conference to that effect. He refused to abide by their decision, or to give the pledge required. He was "'labored? with, (as our friends, the Quakers, say,) during the whole Conference. Finally, a committee was appointed to induce him to accede to the requisition of his brethren, and they reported that after all he had refused to comply. Mr. Harding. Was that committee a committee to labor? They were appointed to inquire whether there was any legal difficulty in the case. Mr. Slicer. The case is as the representative states it. Mr. Collins. The great matter is this-Mr. Harding refused to abide by the decision of the Conference. He would not move a step on the M E.. Church, South. 6 issue. The question then became, whether the Baltimore Conference was to bow to HIarding, or he to the Conference —whether we were to give up the ground always occupied by us' on this delicate subject, or whether he should yield to uswhether he should be permitted to beard the Conference, or we should bring him up to the mark, and make the rule bear upon him. When we found that all attempts at reasoning with him were disregarded, and that all the means that..brotherly affection could suggest and employ were ineffectual, we suspended him, as the only resource we had in the premises. All this is stated in the journal; clearly, fully, fairly, distinctly stated. What else do you want? What more was necessary? There were no witnesses examined on the occasion, for we wanted none. Brother Harding admitted the fact, which indeed was notorious. He admitted it by his non-denial of it before the committee, and by his response and pleadings in the premises; and all that we had to do was, to bring him to the bar. of the Conference to answer for that which he acknowledged when the Presiding Elder made the statement of the fact. There was not a question raised for a moment as to whether he was innocent or guilty of what the Presiding Elder had charged him with. He pleaded guilty to it. There were no witnesses, and therefore the journal states all that it could state: the 68 Organ'tiatcon of the " questions"9 were never asked, the C answers to them"n never received, and therefore no " entry" or record made of them on the journal. The prosecution next relied upon the testimony of Brother Gere, whose recollections of the case were different from those of any other member of his delegation. If that brother were to state undeniably, positively, and distinctly, that he remembered the pledge in the words he states, then of course the negative testimony could not be sustained; for I am not of the opinion of the Irishman, who complained of being found guilty of the charge of theft, on the testimony of one witness, on the ground that he could bring a hundred persons who could testify that they never had seen him steal. If, therefore, Brother Gere does give positive and distinct testimony to the fact he states, I admit at once its weight and authority, and I now call upon him to answer me a question: I"Are your impressions distinct and positive that Harding said that he and his wife would consent that these persons should go to a free State?" Dr. Smith. That is not the subject; but that Brother Harding pledged himself, for his wife and for himself that he would send them to Africa if they wished, or that they might go to a free State. Mr. Collins. Very well, I put it in that form. Mr. Gere. I will state, as nearly as I can, what I said yesterday morning. I did not say that my i31. E. Chzrch, &zth. 69 recollection was distinct, but that the impression on my mind was as distinct and clear as if it had been told me yesterday morning. But I said that I might be mistaken, and I was aroused to this from what Brother Griffith said, otherwise I had no idea that any one would have doubted it. Brother Morgan referred to the case of Brother Hansberger, and said that he had pledged himself as I had said Brother Harding had done. I think that I may have identified them. I have been trying to conform to my brethren, but I still say that the impression remains, though I may have confounded the two cases. Mr. Collins. I will show you. now, in confirmation of Brother Morgan's account, that Brother Gere must be mistaken. If Brother Harding had ever given the pledge which he says he didpledging himself and his wife-such was the disposition of the Baltimore Conference, that there would have been no such action as that which brings this business here. I know that he never did. But let that pass. Mr. HIarding. I did pledge myself as Brother Gere says. Mr. Collins. Why, Mr. President, it is all we asked for. How could the case have got here if he had pledged himself to do the very thing we asked him to do? We would have given him the whole year. It is all Iasked. 70 Organization of the Mr. Iarding. You never did ask it, sir. It never was asked. Mr. Collins. Why, sir, we should then have acted very strangely, for that is all we asked in the resolution. Hear it: "Resolved, That Brother Harding be required to execute, and cause to be recorded, a deed securing the manumission of the slaves hereinafter mentioned, etc., etc., and that Brother Harding be required to give to this Conference a pledge that the said manumission shall be effected during the ensuing Conference-year." I shall proceed now to reply to the material parts of the argument for the prosecution in this matter. First. That the laws of Maryland do not admit of manunlission. Now, sir, this is not according to the fact in the case. The opinion of Judge Key has been read to the effect that slaves cannot be manumitted in Maryland; but the first law they read directly contradicts the opinion. The law of 1831 specifies the course that shall be taken with regard to manumitted slaves. It provides three modes of disposing of them. First, they may go, to Africa; or second, to the non-slaveholding States; and thirdly, if they fail to do so, the sheriff is required, not to take them up and sell them again into slavery, but to convey them, against their will if need be, beyond the bounds of the State. The slave once free in Maryland is 3M1.. ChtZurteh, SouIkh. 71 forever free. The question does not lie on that ground. By the Laws of Virginia, if a manumitted slave remains one year in the State after his. manumission, he can be reenslaved; but in Maryland, when once free, he can never be reenslaved. That is the law referred to by the prosecution, and it contradicts Judge Key, and is directly against the ground taken. The law of 1832 simply concurs in this provision of the former law, and increases the fine upon the sheriff, if he refuses or fails to comply with the requisitions of the statute. But all its enactments clearly and distinctly recognize manumission. The law of 1843 is a strange and singular law. Its fundamental feature is against the law of God, for that makes man the head of his wife, and this law takes man from the position assigned to him by the Supreme Being. And I am satisfied that this law will work such evil that, as a matter of necessity, it will have to be repealed. I hope, therefore, that you will not judge us by this law. We cannot answer for the tergiversation of the Laws of Maryland, and cannot conform to all their changes. As they have gone so far as to pass a law deposing man from his rightful place in the domestic economy-a place assigned to him from the beginning of time by positive Divine injunction-they may pass a law requiring him to obey his wife. What may have been the intention of the Legislature in passing 72 Organ;zation of the this law, I know not. They may have intended, in a sinister way, to nail slavery faster than ever, and to rivet its chains more firmly. They had attempted to pass a law which outraged public sentiment on this subject. It raised the indignation of the people to such a pitch, that they were compelled to retract it, after getting it into the Senate. Foiled in that, they may have intended to do that by stealth which they could not accomplish openly, and, binding the fetters still more strongly, render slavery more permanent, and manumnission more difficult. But the eyes of the people of Maryland will be opened to the iniquity and oppression of this law also, and the Legislature will be driven to repeal it. Or the intention may have been benevolent, as the law heretofore provided that if a man uarried a wife with slaves, they became his property by such marriage, and could be seized by his creditors; hence this is entitled a law to regulate conjugal rights as they regard property. I say it may be benevolent in its design, and be intended to secure to the female protection, if so unfortunate as to be married to one whose extravagance or crime may reduce him to insolvency, and she be turned out to penury and want. Nothing at all is said in this law about manumission. It repeals no law. There is no repealing clause in it; and it might be safely and well if. E. Chkurch, South. 73 argued whether such a law were worth one cent. It does not destroy the power to manumit. In one of its sections it provides, that if the husband and wife unite, the slaves can be disposed of. Its only operation. in this particular is to render manumission more difficult, by requiring the coiperation of the wife. Nor does it increase the difficulty much, if any. No pious and intelligent woman, (such as Mrs. Harding doubtless is,) who has a husband in whose judgment and discretion she confides, will jeopard his standing-especially if he be a Christian minister-for the consideration of a few slaves. A member called Mr. C. to order, on the ground of making remarks prejudicial to the character of the ladies. Dr. Smith hoped the speaker would not be interrupted, but allowed to go on without restraint, and say whatever he thought important to his case. Besides, he (Dr. S.) had the right of reply. Mr. Collins. It is a fair argument. I do not impeach the ladies at all. I deny the allegation that I made any renmark that could be construed into any such meaning. I say that the ladies love their husbands so tenderly, and with such affectionate devotion to their interests and happiness, that if the husband wished it, they would yield such a point at once, and not jeopardize his standing for the sake of a few negroes. What I meant, 4 74 Orcanizatlion of thie was, that the effort had not been made; that if half the pains were taken in order to obtain her consent, if such were necessary, to the manumission of these negroes, that were used in wooing the lady, the application would have been successful. I, therefore, always suspect the man to be a slaveholder at heart who rests his defense on such a plea. When God arrested man in Paradise, and questioned him concerning his transgression, he said, The woman had deceived him. I always thought that a dastardly act on the part of Adam. We are very easily tempted to do what we want to do, and then rest the blame on others; and my sex has kept up the dastardly conduct to the present time. We lay our wrongs and evils upon our awives, when they cannot be heard in self-vindication. Sir, I would not set up such a defense as this. I would scorn to do it; and I know full well, I am perfectly convinced in my judgment, that if the appellant wanted to manumit these slaves, his wife would not stand in the way one moment. He need not to have brought that plea here. The difficulty is with Mlr. Harding himself, who is at heart a slaveholder, and this plea is only put in for effect. In my judgment, if he had desired it, his wife would have consented to their manumission. After all that has been said about the Laws of the State of Maryland making it difficult to IV E. Chulch, Soutlh. 75 manumit slaves, it has been repeatedly done. Mr. Cornelius HIoward, one of the most respectable citizens of that State, and brother of Colonel Howard, who led so gallantly the Maryland line at the battle of the Cowpens, and whose name stands out in proud distinction before his country, a citizen who understood law as well as any man, left his slaves free by will, and that deed is on record in the proper county court of Maryland. And how did he do it? Why, because he wanted to do it, and had, therefore, the power. The will is the great matter. The wish is "Cfather to the thought." This man had slaves; he liberated every one of them, and had the deed of manumission recorded. And this during the last year, at the close of 1843; and this law, on which the prosecution lays so much stress as prohibiting such manurmission, was passed in' February, 1843. Brother Blake, one of the cases before the Annual Conference, against whom action was taken on precisely similar grounds as in this case, came up last Conference and told us he had manumitted his boy, and had the deed recorded in Baltimore County Court; and he did it last year. Now, with these facts on record, how shall it be plead here-how can it-that there is no power to manumit? There is such power. The facts that have transpired are an incontestable proof that the thing can be donel; so that, as far as the law of Mary 76 Organizcoioizn o' ole land is concerned, there is nothing that renders it impossible. The Baltimore Conference, then, in view of the law, acted rightly toward Mr. HIIading. They did right; he could have manumitted these slaves, and they suspended him because he would not. The second point urged by the prosecution is, that if the doctrine respecting the Laws of Mlaryland be doubtful, and if it be plead that Harding has the right of property in the slaves, yet the rule of Discipline is in his favor. He could not do it legally. Why not? The prosecution give me no answer to that question. So far as the Discipline of the Church is concerned, on this point we will take our stand. I say Mr. Harding did violate the Discipline. The rule does positively bear upon him, and the Baltimore Conference deserve thanks instead of the sneers that have been directed against them, that they have had the firmness, in the face of a slaveholding community, to enforce the Discipline. If we have not got the rule of Discipline on our side, we have a hard case to make out. But that we have it I will satisfy you. I wish the mind and the intelligence of the Conference to be directed to this point, that the Discipline of the M. E. Church contemplates the relation of its members with slavery in a threefold point of view. First, as it regards private members; secondly, as it respects local preachers; .iL E. churc h, Soutlih. 77 and thirdly, as it concerns traveling preachers. It is essential to maintain this distinction in coining to ttn opinion on this case. First. As to private members. The only rule for this class is found in the General Rules, and only prohibits the buying and selling of men, women, and children, with an intention to enslave them. A man,. by this rule, may inherit slaves, or they may comle to him by natural increase, and he may will them to his posterity, and there is nothing in this Discipline that can take hold of him, this being the only law that reaches private members. It is sufficiently latitudinarian. Second. Official members. The rule on this, point takes a stronger tie, and is different in that respect to the rule affecting private members: " We declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery; therefore no slaveholder shall be eligible to any offi-cial station in our Church hereafter, where the laws of the State in which he lives will admit of emancipation, and perwmi the iberatced slave to enboy fireedo7n,." Official members are required to emancipate. The private member is not. The official member must manumit, but still the rule comes down with comparatively less strictness, applying only in such States as will pertnit the slave to "' enjoy his freedom." 78 Organizalion of the Third. Traveling preachers. HIere the Discipline is still more stringent: " When any traveling preacher becomes' an owner of a slave, or slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emlancipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the State in which he lives." Here nothing is said about the liberated slave being permitted to enjoy freedom. The simple act of manumission is treated of, and made compulsory on the traveling preacher. "; If practicable," he is to manumit. There is no other condition; the exception is narrowed down, and then the law is binding, and compels him to manumit. And it is very right and proper, in the nature of the case, that the Discipline on this subject should be more strict upon the traveling preacher than upon the local preacher, for the same reason that it is drawn more tightly in the case of the local preacher than the private member. There is wisdom, great wisdom, in this regulation. Our private members are actual residents and citizens of given States. Necessity rules them, and therefore it might not do to make the law so tight in their case as in others. Our local ministers are residents of States; but, in the proper sense of the term, our traveling preachers are citizens of the world; not of Virginia, or Maryland, or South li~. E. Churchl South. 79 Carolina; for the Bishop has power to take up a brother from South Carolina, and send him into Massachusetts. And this is especially the case in the'territory embraced by the Baltimore Conference, which includes part of Pennsylvania. And because we are birds of passage, and can be removed at pleasure, by the authorities of the Church, out of the way of the local difficulties in the way of manumlission, the law is, very properly, made more binding upon us. And remember, we have not brought a local preacher here, but a traveling preacher, and we try him under the rule that applies to traveling preachers. The next point that the prosecution urges is, that their construction of the Discipline was confirmed by a resolution of the General Conference, in 1840. I deny it altogether in its application to a traveling preacher; and I could not help remarking, that though my friend brought forward the rule applying to traveling preachers, yet, after reading, he very quietly dismissed it, and kept the rule applying to a local preacher constantly before our eyes. I am not sure, sir, that he did not thereby mislead us a little. That I do not misstate him at all is plain, for he made a reference to the action of the last General Conference on a menlorial from Westmoreland, respecting the ordination of some local preachers. What have we to do with that? Has it any thing to do in the 80 Orcganzi2ation of the premises? We have now to do with the Discipline that operates upon traveling preachers, and with that alone. The Baltimore Conference could not ordain those brethren, and they came up here to induce the General Conference to compel us to do it. There the action was upon the case of local preachers, and my friend brings up a stray resolution on their case! But let him show me where it says a word about traveling preachers. Their memorial was on their own behalf, as local preachers; and if they said one word about traveling preachers, they exceeded their power altogether. The action of the General Conference on that application has no bearing whatever on the present case, unless they had said that the samle rule was binding upon traveling preachers also, which they were careful not to do, so that the prosecution has altogether failed in making out their construction of the Discipline. Le gave us, to be sure, a very strange definition of what was meant by legal emancipation; it deserved the credit of originality; it was this, that a slave must be permitted to enjoy his freedom. Now, legal' emancipation simply means, emancipation according to lawthe law of the State —whether the man shall be allowed to remain in the State or not. And you cannot show me any action of the General Conference by which a traveling preacher cannot ef L. E. (i tlutrek, SoUt11. 81 feet a legal emancipation. How would this apply in Mr. Harding's case? Why, according to the law- of Maryland, he mnumst emancipate with the consent of his wife. Then he does it legally. The Discipline, sir, is against Mr. Harding, or it never was, against any man in the world. It meets himl right in the fiace, and he cannot get round it. The Baltimore Conference did right in suspending him; and though that Conference has been held up here to contempt andcl scorn, we are not ashamed of ourselves; for we have shown, with reard to the whole matter, that we have lain our interests upon the altar of principle and old Methodism, and from our present position we do not mean to be driven by Mr. Harding, or any other man. The prosecutor has been pleased to refer to the conscience of the appellant in this matter. IHe had better let that alone for the present. This conscience is a strange affair. Where was his client's conscience when he entered into this business? Where his respect for the Discipline, to which he had solemnly vowed to submit himself? or for the oft-repeated wishes of the Baltimore Conference? He knew well that the step he was taking would meet with the disapprobation of almost every member on the floor of that Conference; and yet he had no smitings of conscience then! I have heard of a highwayman in Italy, 4* 82 Organzizalion of Ihe who could rob a man and cut his throat without any compunction; but he happened to eat meat one d.ay in Lent, and his conscience smote -him tremendously. O yes; this conscience is at times a very facile thing! A man's interest will stretch his conscience tremendously. I won't press this point any farther. The prosecutor rejoiced as one who had found great spoil; but really, I must dash his joy. I am for the Baltimore Conference against the whole world; and therefore, though my friend was very much pleased with what he supposed he had found, I must take some of his pleasure from him. He referred with an air of great triumph, and called the attention of Eastern and Northern men to some few words found in the report of this case. ";The old ones having passed the age," etc., were to be retained. This is the clause my friend chuckled over so. He thought he had caught us tripping, and appealed to his Eastern brethren to see if we carried water on both shoulders. But, sir, we are straight; we stand erect and upright, unhurt and unharmed; and here let me say, that we are one kind of men-North, South, East and West, and Middle States-all stand on the same broad basis. He forgot to tell this General Conference that those very words were afterward stricken out. They never passed the Baltimore Conference. But suppose they had not been taken ll E. CIhturch, SooItIth. 83 out of the report. My friend knows very well that it is the case almost everywhere, that when a slave arrives at a certain age, he cannot be manumitted without security'be given by his owner that he shall not come upon the parish. This is the case in Maryland. In Virginia the law is still stronger. They cannot be got rid of, because they cannot take care of themselves. The prosecutor did not state this. If our journal had stated the case as he represented it, we would have been perfectly justified in the eye of the law. But we struck it out because we would not commit ourselves at all on the subject. The fourth argument employed by the prosecutor was, that the spirit of the Discipline, as well as the letter, was in favor of Mr. Harding, and against the Baltimore Conference. It is a very hard matter to define what spirit is, and he did not favor us with any definition on the subject. He simply took it for granted that the Methodist Discipline was conservative. I hold that it is opposed to slavery, and that there is nothing in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church that sanctions slavery. What we mean by,onservatism is this: A party in the South contend for slavery as proper and right, and essential even to the existence of the republic and social institutions, and that it ought never to be abolished. A party in the North say it is an evil and a sin, and ought 84 O 1rgyaacnttion of the to be abolished at once without regard to circuinstances. Now between these two is conservatism. The views of the Discipline on the evil of slavery are absolute and positive. It pronounces it an evil, and a great evil. And in fact it asks the question, " Whlat shall be done for the extirpation of the great evil of slavery?" and then specifies measures by which its purpose shall be effected. But it does not regard it as sin under all circunis stances. My friend referred very strangely and singularly to the happy interference of Northern abolitionism as destructive of colonization. I confess I do not understand him, sir. Hear him': " Slavery is an evil, a great evil"-it was severely felt as such. And yet he hails the action of abolitionists, because, in his judgment, it has resulted in riveting the chains of slavery-this admitted evil-more durably. How is this? Dr. Smith interrupted for explanation. He insisted that Mr. C. was in error, and wished to correct him.!M[r. Collins. I do n't stand here as a gladiator, merely to gain a victory over Dr. Smith. If I am in error, put me right. Dr. Smith. I stated awhile ago that I should be able to put the brother right in every thing; and if the brethren will let me take my notes, I will try and put him right in the premises. X B. E. C1hurcZ, Souzi. 85 Mr. Collins. I was going on to say, sir, that I do not come here to win ally laurels from Dr. Smith, even if I had the power to do it. I came here in defense of the Baltimore Conference. If I have committed an error, it is unintentional; but I am satisfied I have committed no fundamental error this morning. All I want is to meet the question on Discipline, as set forth in the able argument of my friend, and all the desire I have on the subject is to put the matter in its right light, and then I am sure this appeal will be dismissed. I would just remark, in conclusion, here, that we were not ignorant of the Laws of Maryland. The note of Mr. Merrick, which was read here yesterday, was before us, but as a Conference we were acting.on simple order. It was referred to a committee, and is therefore to be considered as having had our action upon it, We come now, in the next place, to state the grounds on which we rest the defense of the Baltimore Conference in this matter. First. Because the Discipline of our Church has been violated by Mr. Harding. We hold that he violated the Discipline in refusing to manumit his slaves, in a case where he could do it, and would not. This is one ground. I need here but refer to my former remarks to show that the law will admit of manumission. Such was the course pursued, that he seemed to court martyrdom, and 86 Orccyanization of the in a rude manner denounced that venerable body as ultra abolitionists. I would not have brought in this irrelative matter had not such been brought in yesterday. Secondly. Because Mr. Harding entered into this difficulty voluntarily. It was his own act, under circumstances of great and high aggravation. There are some cases in which necessity can be fairly plead, where the parties are residents in slaveholding States-in such instances the parties may claim something in mitigation. But for a man who was once free from slavery, and knowing all the consequences that would result from such action, volntlarily to involve himself in it, makes it a very different case. I hope the Conference will bear this distinctly in mind. He was no slaveholder when the Baltimore Conference received him on trial. They ordained him a deacon and elder; and well he knew that he could never bhave gone into orders had he been a slaveholder. And I hold it to be the highest breach of trust, for a minister of Jesus Christ, after being put in possession of all ministerial power, to forfeit his solemn oath of allegiance, and do an act which he well knows will be an insult to his brethren, and a contravention of the Discipline he has vowed to preserve. I say, sir, I hold it to be a high offense and breach of trust for a minister of Jesus Christ thus to act. Where was the compulsion? Why ifL E7. CUmnhurch, S'OutL. 87 did he, comparatively a young man, thus violate the pledge solemnly given to his fathers in the gospel? Why run counter to the will of the whole Conference, and throw the apple of discord into that body, and seek to foment disunion among its members? There was no reason-no necessity for it. Ile might have been removed the next year to another station. It was, I repeat, a breach of trust of no ordinary character thus to fly in the face of the Church and his brethren. And this he did voluntarily and of his own accord. Sir, I hold that no Methodist preacher has a right to do just as he pleases. Even in the choice of a wife he is under obligations to make a prudent choice, and take counsel of his aged brethren. No, sir, not even in the delicate matter of marriage has a Methodist preacher a right to do as he pleases. The character and standing of the Conference are in some measure in his keeping, and he cannot at will shake off the obligation, and trifle with the trust that he himself has solicited, and which has been placed in his charge in perfect confidence and good faith. Thirdly. Because he did it with his eyes open. He can plead no ignorance here. He knew the law of the State of Maryland, which he has pleaded in his defense here. And he also knew what ought to have been with him of preeminent importance, the law of the Baltimore Conference. 88 Oiyanatizton of ithe All this he knew, and that I may not appear to overstate my points, I beg permission to have read from our journal a case in point. It was that of Brother Hansberger. [Action of the Baltimore Conference in that case read,-as recorded in the journals, by the Secretary. It was a similar case, in which the Conference had made a like requisition, and the member had submitted.] Mr. Collins continued. The appellant had this case before his eyes when he entered upon the engagement and married these slaves. Such resolutions, passed by the Baltimore Conference, ought to have deterred him from taking this step. One of them goes to say, that if any brother do thus act in disregard of the wishes of the Conference in this matter, he shall be deemed guilty of contumacy. Yet, with this resolution before him, exposing himself to the charge of contumacy, he involved himself and the Conference in this difficulty. Fourthly. Because, by becoming a slaveholder, he rendered himself unavailable to us as a traveling preacher. The Baltimore Conference is composed of slaveholding and non-slaveholding territory, in nearly equal proportions. As a slaveholder, in the nonslaveholding portion of the Conference, they would not hear him preach. He would have to be confined entirely to the slaveholding section. And I. E. Churt'ch, Soutl. 89 if this course were sanctioned, there would be increased difficulty entailed upon the appointing power of the Church in keeping one set of men perpetually in each section of the Conference. Nor is this all. It would have a direct tendency to locality, and would thus strike at the very root of our itinerant system; and no man has a right to involve himself so as to confine, necessarily, his labors to anly one portion of the work, thus virtually giving up his relation as an itinerant minister, and rendering himself unavailable. We could then have nothing to do with him, but to get rid of him as easily as we could, and pray God to fill his place with some one who will not bring this discordance among us. I beg the Conference to look well to this single point connected with slavery. HIe would have been to us a semi-local preacher. Ought this to be sustained? Ai'e there not tendencies enough already to locality in our system without increasing them? And ought such an obstruction as that in which Hlarding has involved himself to be forced upon a Conference which has always repudiated it? We want no such restraints; and because we do not, we have placed this brother in the situation he occupies. Our fifth, and last reason, is this: Because of the position the Baltimore Conference has ever occupied on the subject of slavery. And I wish to define this position, that it may be clearly and 90 Oryanication of the correctly understood. The Baltimore Conference never has sanctioned the connection of any of its members with slavery. It has been tried by marriage contracts, but that plan failed. It has been tried also by other means, but they also failed; and never, remotely or directly, and in no sense, have they affected our integrity. The Baltimore Conference has maintained her independence at all timnes, and means to maintain it. And in taking this position she is fortified by the Discipline-call it conservative or what you will. She is on the old Methodist basis, where she was first put-on the ground on which she was first planted. We had a definition yesterday of conservatism, and I thought it the strangest I ever heard in mylife. If the prosecutor be a conservative, convinced of the great evil of slavery, why, I beg of him, will he force this thing upon us when we do not want it? We have taken no new ground on this subject. We are just where we always were-standing as a breakwater to pro-slavery in the South, and the waves of abolitionism from the North. I know that this has been sneered at, and much sarcasm has been spent upon it, but it is nevertheless true. We have not been propelled to our present position either by the North or the South. We are just where the venerable and venerated Asbury and our fathers were. Brother Smith has been largely professing conservatism! But what sort Ai i. ~. Czutch, South. 91 of conservatism is it? He admits that slavery is a great evil, and yet is favorable to perpetuating it, and forcing it upon a body that always repudiated it.'T is a strange conservatism! We know it not. It never had an existence in the Baltimore Conference. We cannot comprehend it, and we would not if we could. I am not for any violent measure on the subject of slavery. I firmly believe that if this matter had been left alone and untouched, such is the influence of Methodism and other means, that, ere this day, the States of Maryland anid Virginia would have made considerable advance in gradual emancipation. It is by the preraching of the gospel-the diffusion of the benevolent spirit of Christianity, that the rigors of slavery have been abated; and by the continuation of such means shall the broad, expansive principles of Christian liberty be promulgated until the spirit of freedom find a shrine in every cabin, and a home in every heart. I love the negro. My first recollections-those infantile associations that perish not amid the rougher conflicts of life-are of a negro who nursed me. I was raised among them, and I know how to love them. But let such love be shown, not by violent measures for their deliverance from bondage, but by carrying, in the true spirit of Methodist itinerancy and conservatism, the gospel to their cabins -by going to the poor African, and praying for 92 Organizalion ojf'he him and with him-by visiting the poor and needy among them, the widow and the fatherless, the sick and in prison! Yes, sir, that is the man for me, who will thus " show me his faith by his works." We had the vessel of colonization and gradual emancipation, fair and beautiful, and in fine trim, gliding swiftly and gracefully across the limpid waters, bounding from wave-"to wave before the propitious breeze. Joyously and gracefully she speeds along her trackless path; and the crested wave, kissing transiently her graceful bow, falls back into the tranquil sea —all, all is fair, and bright, and prosperous! But see! the heavens are darkening-the storm is howling-the sea heaves beneath the sudden tempest, and the waves thereof roar and toss themselves-the gale has struck bler! What then? Shall wTe desert her? No, sir; the Baltimore Conference will not do so! They will not forsake the ship because the gale has struck-her, and she bends beneath the storm! They will not rush below in terror and fright, or jump overboard with phrensied despair. Sir, they know us not who think we are the men to quail in the hour of danger. We will not strike our flag. We will not combine with the enemies of the African, either North or South. We will work the ship, hoping and believing that, by the blessing of Gold, we shall come off successfully at last! Abolitionism shall never make us pro M9. C. Church, Soouth. 93 slavery. Why, sir, we saw the cloud to which my friend refers, in its deepening, spreading darkness-we heard the pealing thunder as it was borne up to us on the. wings of the tempest-wind, and beheld the lurid glare of the lightning's flash; but we were not dismayed. The gallant shipour good old Methodism-has outridden many a perilous storm, and will many another, and despite these passing dangers we mean to voyage in the old ship "' o'er life's tempestuous ocean," and will never leave her nor forsake her, for ours is the right kind of conservatism. WVe acknowledge, as true conservatives, moral excellence and worth on both sides. Some of the best men and women we have known have been slaveholders, and we are well aware that some of these are slaveholders of necessity. It is a remarkable fact that the members of the Baltimore Conference, who have sustained this measure, were mostly raised in slaveholding States. The speaker then paid a just tribute to certain members of the Baltimore Conference who had manurmitted their slaves for Christianity's sake, and maintained that instead of being held up to reproach, that Conference was justly entitled to the thanks of Methodism in all its connections. lHe then proceeded to recapitulate the points which he had endeavored to establish. tie thought he had proved that the journal of the Conference was 94 OranizaCtion of 1he correct-that the laws of the State of Maryland admit of malnumission-that the Discipline of the Church did bear upon Mr. Harding's case-that that Discipline had been violated by him-that he was righteously liable to the consequences of that violation-that he had acted in the matter voluntarily and contumaciously, and that he had rendered himself unavailable, as a traveling preacher, to his brethren of the Baltimore Conference. And now, having shown the reasons why the Baltimore Conference suspended Mr. Harding, he (Mr. C.) asked, Would the General Conference send him back again to them? He begged them to consider well, and with great calmness, before they did so. Did they wish to make another slaveholding Conference? Admit one slaveholder, and the Baltimore Conference has no longer the independent position they could now irreproachably assume! Once break down the barrier, and they must admit others! Would they thus humble their fathers in Christ, and thus trample on old Methodism? He trusted they would not, but would assist them still to occupy the ground they had, by much sacrifice, and with much difficulty, been able to tiake. If -they did change their ground, it was hard to say where they would stop. Their young men would by marriage become slaveholders, and the principles which the Baltimore Conference so long- had held would be sacrificed 1A B. CE. /urch, &outhz. 95 entirely. The question was a momentous one, not so much between Mr. Harding and the Baltimore Conference, but between the Baltimore Conference and all future candidates for the ministry in their Conference. He was aware that appeals would be made to their sympathies. In this the prosecution would have the advantage. But they must also remember that the appellant by his conduct had proved that he did not place much value upon his relation to his fathers and brethren, and therefore on that score he could clalim really nothing. He did not wish to wound the feelings of the Southern brethren. Among them were many venerable for their talents, and piety, and usefulness in the Church of God; but while he would not be the willing instrument of wounding their feelings, he was compelled to say what he had said, that he might put the act of the Conference he represented in its right and proper view before them. He prayed the blessing of God upon his Southern as well as his Northern brethren, and trusted they should live and labor on in love and friendship, and that time would mellow down all asperities on the painful subject which was agitating the Connection, so that they might dwell together as one family on earth, and then each, from North and South, and East and West, should enter triumphantly into the heaven they were seeking, where all minor distinctions would be swal 96 Organizaiion of tlle lowed up and lost in the beatific contemplation of Him who had washed them from sin in his own blood, and made them kings and priests unto God forever. Mr. President, the ground of the Baltimore Conference is unquestionably the true one. She is truly conservative. She never has proclaimed -never will-anywhere, or at any time, or under any circumstances, that "slavery is a sin under all circumstalnces;" while at the same time she wishes to preserve the members of her body disconnected with slavery, that the influence of their example may tell silently and surely against its perpetuation. The head and front of our offending -that for which we are arraigned at the bar of this General Conference-is simply this: We wish to keep slavery from our traveling ministry. This is no new thing with us. The effort made now is to effect a change in the position of the Baltimore Annual Conference by making it at slav eholding body. This, I trust, will not be done. We cannot sacrifice our ground to accommodate Mr. Harding, or any other man who may choose to become a slaveholder. The issue of the case before us involves momentous consequences, affecting the whole Church; and in full confidence in the wisdom and integrity of the General Conference, we sublmit it to their decision. The President said that any of the Baltimore M. B. E. hurchl, South. 97 Conference delegation were now at liberty to speak on the subject, and Mr. Slicer rose to address the Conference. He said he had been in doubt whether any other of the delegation besides the brother who had been specially intrusted with the case, ought to address them on this subject. HIle would, however, occupy their attention briefly. The memorial of certain local preachers had been frequently referred to. The brethren menlorialized the several Conferences either to right them, or set them off. But the people were not willing to be set off, and when the General Conference sat in Philadelphia in 1832, the people south of the Rappahannock IRiver memorialized the Conference not to let the Virginia people have them. ARnd if the people there desired the ministration of the preachers of the Baltimore Conference, and not the Virginia Conference, was it not likely that the friends north of that riv er would have still stronger sentiments on the subject? Something had been said about "loaves and fishes." Now the people referred to were a clever, intelligent people, but their territory was by no means the most desirable portion under the care of the Baltimore Conference. The reverend gentleman then gave a geographical description of the country, and said that the Baltimore Conference was in nowise disposed to part with them, unless they (the people) wished it. 5 98 Orgacnizatiom of the They did not intend that any number of local preachers should separate them, but when a majority of the people wished it, it should be done. The people there were an admirable people, and a conservative people, too, having been supplied with antislavery preachers-so true was it that the people received their complexion from the ministry. At Whitemarsh, where the Roman Catholic priests own slaves almost without number, and sell them ad libitium, and pay the money into the "Lord's treasury," in that whole country slavery exists under the worst forms. The reverend gentleman gave a farther analysis of the country and the state of feeling in the various districts, illustrating his position, that the character of the people depended on the character of the ministry, and showed that the progress of emancipation had been from North to South. He then proceeded to notice the position of the Baltimore Conference to the appellant before them. He (the appellant)'was well aware that his becoming a slaveholder would be a disqualification for his usefulness among the people. He (Mr. Slicer) had known Mr. Harding from his youth up, had preached in his father's house, and was willing to make any sacrifice but of principle to meet his case, and to bring him into compliance with the wishes of the Conference. He must say, however, that all the labor and anxiety of a com 31... Curch/, South. 99 mittee appointed for that purpose was met by the appellant, not only with no sympathy, but with utter contempt and disregard. If, h'owever, he thought it more important to maintain his position than yield to the wishes of his brethren, the election was with him. The Conference could do without him quite as well as he could do without the Conference. If he were sent back twenty times, the Baltimore Conference would not change its ground; and he (Mr. S.) looked confidently, as he prayed earnestly, for the day when this dark spot should be wiped away from this free country. Mr. Griffith had no intention to make a speech on the subject, but he wished to call the attention of the Conference to a few facts connected with the matter under their notice. It had been said that the Baltimore Conference occupied a territory nearly equally divided between slaveholding and non-slaveholding States, and embracing part of Virginia; yet the Baltimore Conference had always contrived to avoid any agitation of the question among the people of Virginia, and had never violated any of the laws of that State; and from this he thought a lesson might be learned. Yesterday, the brother, in advocating the cause of the appellant, had said, "only slavery where we must," as if he intended to make the impression that this young man was of necessity connected 100 Organzizaion of lhe with slavery-tied hand and foot. Now this was far from being the fact-there was not a word of truth in it. He could disentangle himself in an hour if he liked, the Laws of Maryland notwithstanding. In point of fact, the law against manumission is inoperative. It would be indeed strange if a freeman had not the right to make that disposal of his property which he might choose to make. Maryland never had said that a slave might be taken up and sold-she never had declared that slaves were property; and then in the same breath, that men should not do what they thought fit with their own property, and that she assumed the right to do that which she forbade the owner doing. No, sir, they know that a man has a right to set his slaves free-they know the illegality and imperfection of any act to the contrary-and yet they try to control it, and ward off the consequences of this kind of he hardly knew how to designate such kind of legislation. One word farther. That young brother was perfectly at liberty to emancipate his slaves at any time he liked. No man in the State of Maryland doubted his right. Slaves were set free all over the State. And if the Virginia Conference had been as careful to preserve the integrity of her own original position as the Baltimore Conference, she would now have been as free from the 3 B. Ci urchi, Soutl. 101 great evil as the Baltimore Conference was. And why not? The Baltimore Conference keeps territory side by side with the Virginia Conference. Nothing but the Rappahannock River divides them. And the Baltimore Conference had occupied this territory with preachers free from slavery; and you will, on examining the statistics, find that we have had, at least, equal success with our Virginia brethren. At the conclusion of Mr. Griffith's remarks, the President inquired whether the delegation of the Baltimore Conference had concluded, when Dr. Smith said he hoped not, for they had not yet attempted to show that the appellant was the owner of a single slave. Mr. Collins. This is not the place. He has already acknowledged that he was so involved in slaveholding that he could not get rid of it. Mr. IH-arding. I do not admit it-I deny it. Mr. Collins. What did the Presiding Elder and the record on the journal say? Why, that Mr. Harding has "come into the possession of several slaves." There were a variety of ways in which a man could become connected with slavery-one of which was by a marriage contract, of all other courses the most dishonorable and hateful. This shifting it upon the woman was adding meanness to injury, antd was nothing but a mere special plea 102 Orgazniaction of Ihe -a disingenuous and disreputable quibble. He (the appellant) gets the benefit, and has the control of the property, and is therefore in fact a slaveholder. Let them not hang their defense on such a mere technicality. Mr. Sargent. The whole action proceeded on the admitted fact that he was a slaveholder; and the fact was never denied, and this plea is entirely an after-thought. Mr. Collins said that an honorable man would hate to get off by any such quibble. The man never denied that he was a slaveholder. And this was also in direct opposition to the plea set up yesterday, namely, that he offered to send these slaves to Liberia or any free State. If he had no slaves, either jointly or otherwise, why make that plea, and try to get off by saying that he had consented to remove them? And why pledge his consent if he had no ownership? Let them meet the case honestly and fairly. They were not arguing the matter before a set of quibbling lawyers. This -was a mere ruse. But it would not do. The very law they had appealed to was against them. By Section 2, it made him joint owner with his wife to all intents and purposes, and the appellant knew it. Very sorry was he (Mr. C.) that the prosecutor: should think it necessary to resort to such a quibble. After Mr. Collins closed his speech, some con M. B. Churc~h, South. 103 versation arose respecting the time at which the rejoinder should be heard, but the Conference adjourned without coming to any conclusion. On the following day, Friday, May 10, by consent of the appellant's advocate, Mr. Collins again took the floor. He acknowledged the courtesy and Christian temper manifested by Dr. Smith. Hie wished to touch one or two points before he was ruled out by the discipline regulating the Conference. A rumor prevailed, he had learned, among the members of the Conference, that there were at present three or four slaveholders in the Baltimore Conference. He (Mr. C.) denied, distinctly and fully, that such was the case-they had not, nor would they have, a slaveholder among them. Ile then glanced at the various cases that had come before them, as an Annual Conference, and showed that in every case they had treated theni exactly as they had dealt with Mr. Harding. Messrs. Davis, Griffith, and Slicer emphatically denied the truth of such a rumor, and indorsed all Mr. C. had said upon the subject. Mr. McMahon rose to order. He objected to this answering all the gossip they might hear out of door. If they were all to do so, he knew not where it might stop. Bishop Waugh thought, as it was connected in some degree witl the appeal before the Conference, in which the Conference had allowed some latitude 104 Oryanizaztion of the to both sides, it was not necessary to interrupt the speaker. There was hardly any departure yet that could call for interference. Mr. Collins resumed. He wished also to correct another wrong impression. It was partially believed that the Baltimore Conference, in suspending Mr. HIarding, had acted in ignorance of the law of 1843. Ile begged to correct this misconception. They had before them the opinion of Justice Merrick with regard to this very law. But he would say boldly, that if the law had been tenfold what it is, if it had actually, outright and downright, without any possibility of avoiding it, taken these slaves firom Harding's control, the Conference would still have acted just as they did; because they did not intend to change their ground, and could not pretend to alter their views with every shifting of the Legislature. Besides, the Legislature did not compel Mr. Harding to become a slaveholder. Since the discussion, he had spoken with several preachers who were over here from the Baltimore Conference, and they all agreed that Mr. Harding never gave the pledge he said he did; so he (Mr. C.) thought that point was disposed of. As to the question of ownership, it was plainly laid down in the laws of the State that the husband had joint ownership. The law was designed simply to give the wife such control over her property .i. E. ClurchI, South. 105 that it should not be taken from her for any debts or contracts of her husband; and if the lady is a slaveholder, the husband is one too. The gentleman went through the different sections of the law with great ability, dissecting and analyzing them with much skill and minuteness, and then touched upon the Discipline of the Church, to show that it was more positive in requiring a traveling preacher to manumit his slaves than it was with local preachers and other officers of the Church. He then proceeded to show that public opinion at Baltimore, and throughout most of the territory under the charge of that Conference, was in their favor; and that there was no pracetcal difficulty in the way of manumitting slaves in Maryland, for it was constantly done, and fourfifths of the colored people in Baltimore were free. And now, he inquired, were the Baltimore Conference to be made to lick the dust at the feet of the appellant, or were they to be supported in their action, as they ought to be? Would the'General Conference say to the Baltimore Conference, after all her prayers, and efforts, and sacrifices, and reproach, that she was to take into her bosom a slaveholding minister? If so, the consequences would be calamitous in-the extreme. The issue was fairly before them, and, whatever were the consequences, it must be fairly met. He then made a most earnest and affectionate 5* 106 Organization of the appeal to his Southern brethren, calling upon them, by their avowal of the evil of slavery, not to force the "evil" upon a Conference that had hitherto kept clear of it; and addressing the other two sections of the Church, he implored them by their love of order, and their regard for discipline, to sustain the Baltimore Conference in this appeal. Dr. Smith then rose to reply. He said, Sir, I wish most particularly to disclaim the obligations the speakers have felt themselves free to express for the indulgence extended thefl. It was no tax to my feelings to entert~ain the request to make an explanation this morning, and no risk to my cause to grant it. Although the "explanation" amounted to a second speech on the merits of the case, and occupied some two hours or more, yet I may safely commit the whole of it to our faithful reporter. If I understand myself, few things would have afforded me more pleasure than for the counsel, Mr. Collins, both on his own account and the reputation of his Conference, to have recovered his position before this body and the whole Church. No one, I am sure, will doubt his ability. He has exhausted his resources both of argument and eloquence. He has been indulged, both by myself and the Conference, in every advantage he asked. Still, sir, I feel satisfied, from the manifest weakness of his positions, that if he will suffer the reporter to do him justice, he will find reason L. E. Churchp, South. 107 to be ashamed of his cause. From various indications on this floor, there may be good reason to fear that the cause of the appellant finds but little sympathy with many. The American Methodist Church, however, may give a different verdict. The counsel may find as much cause ultimately to cower under this decision as he now finds to triumph under the strange sympathy which his offensive doctrines have met with in this body. Before I enter upon the true issues before the Conference, I must notice several points which the counsel and those who have come to his aid have dwelt upon as important to their cause. I shall treat them as preliminary to this discussion. 1. The speaker, Brother Collins, has complimented me-in very flattering terms to be sure —on what he considers my conversion from pro-slavery to antislavery principles. Sir, this was intended for effect. The impression may be made that I did not give my actual opinions on the subject of slavery. This is a short way of avoiding my argument. Why did not the speaker invalidate my position, by showing that slavery in its circumstances is necessarily sinful, and, therefore, the course of the Baltimore Annual Conference should be sustained? Why, sir? Because there was a much sounder discretion in declining to meet my arguments, and cover his retreat by the intimation that I did not myself believe the doc 108 Oryanization of the trines on which the vindication of Mr. Harding rests. But, sir, I cannot yield this advantage. My arguments, showing that slavery is not necessarily sinful, are unanswered-indeed, untouched. And until this be done, the action of the Baltimore Conference is wholly indefensible. If mZoral t1rmyitlzce, more or less, does not necessarily attach to slavery, the decision of this court of ministers, depriving a member of their body of holy orders, simply because of his union by marriage with a lady who held property in slaves, is an outrage upon the feelings of the appellant, an indignity to a very large portion of the Church, and a reflection on the judgment of the Baltimore Conference. Sir, I should appreciate much more highly the position of the speaker had he met my argument fairly. But I am converted, it is said! When? Where? or at what altar? I honestly confess I know nothing about it. It is a change I never felt. I never, on any former occasion, attempted an extended expression of opinion before this body on the subject of slavery. On the subject of abolition I remember to have made a remark on the floor of the General Conference of 1832. I will quote it here: "Abolition is now in its egg state-now you can put your foot upon it, and crush it; but if, instead of this, you breathe upon it the warm breath of your approbation, it shall hatch a scorpion that shall sting you to the heart." Zi. E. COurrch, Soult. 109 And now, sir, I ask whether my prediction is in a way to be verified or not? Twelve years only have passed away, and a purely abolition movement on the part of the Baltimore Annual Conference finds favor in this body. Yes, sir, such are the indications that it may be well if we be not on the eve of division. Your decision in this case may be the knell of our long-cherished union. I affirmed, in my opening speech, that the South was not pro-slavery, but antislavery. The Georgia and South Carolina Conference delegation, with every other member from the South on this floor, united in a most hearty response to the appeal I made to them on this point. This, too, is seized upon, and these Conferences are also congratulated upon their conversion. This is based chiefly I suppose upon the resolutions adopted by these Conferences in 1831, declaring that slavery "is not a moral evil." But, sir, this argues no change. They still adhere to their position in the sense-and a good one, too —in which they used the phrase "moral evil." The popular sense of their resolutions, as understood everywhere, was simply this, thcl slavery wzas not necessarily sinful. They still believe so. Sir, no other meaning was ever attached to "moral evil," as a popular expression, until the editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal thought proper to call up a meaning unknown to the popular mind. To raise a plat 110 Organiz2ation of the form on which the abolitionists of the North might stand, without identifying themselves with 0. Scott, in his extreme measures of reforming the government of the Church, he called up the distinction between "moral evil" and sin. Thus he rallied the scattered forces of the North, dubbing Scott & Co. as'"radico-4abolitionists," and the Simon Pures as'"abolitionists" me'rely. How far this consolidation of Northern forces was done with a view to consequences which now threaten the Church with division, I cannot say. No, si~r, we are not converted. We stand on the same ground we have occupied from the foundation of the Church -the grand conservative ground laid by our fathers in the Book of Discipline. Slavery, as it exists among us, is s" a great evil;" and I will add, to none so great an "evil" as to the master.;"It is not, however, necessarily a sin." I will add, it is only a sin to those individuals who abuse the institution. No, sir, we have not changed our ground. We have no hecatomb of slaughtered principles to offer upon the altar of abolition devotions. And if they would bind our principles, we would point them to the prophetic "he-goat" in Daniel's vision, as more symbolical of the desolating effect of their fanatical measures, and say to them, Take him for the sacrifice! 2. I made a strong point of the informality of i. E. Church, South. 111 the Baltimore Conference journals, claiming on this ground that the case be at least returned for a new trial. The jealous concern of the counsel for the reputation of his Conference is peculiarly awaked at the indignity of such an imputation. Well, let us see. The Discipline of our Church requires that in the trial of a minister, "regular minutes of the trial shall be kept, including all the questions proposed to the witnesses, with their answers." According to the statement of the counsel, there was no witness in the case but Harding himself. Now, sir, according to the discussion the other day, and the argument of counsel, the merit of this case turns chiefly upon this point -Did Mr. Harding -pledge himself and his wife, before the Conference, to send these slaves to Africa or to a free State, if they woulcl consent to go? One of the delegation distinctly remembers that he did so pledge himself and his wife:'the others do not remember to have heard the pledge. All, however, agree that the witness made many statements before the Conference; some of these you have heard plead against him by the counsel. Why, sir-seeing he was most unjustly made to witness against himself-why, I ask, do not the journals record his- testimony, that he may now have the benefit of it? Are not the journals defective in this respect? And as a proof of the bearing of this fact upon the issue, I appeal to 11.2 Organitzation of the Brother Tippett, a member of the delegation, had hIarding been thus understood, if it is likely he would have been suspended. Brother Tippett, I see, is silent, sir. I understand his silence; he knows it to be so. Mr. Tippett-from his seat-I deem it unnecessary to answer now, (the time for receiving testimony having passed.) It is not important you should, sir. It might involve you in serious responsibilities. Your silence is sufficient. Now, sir, can any thing be more plain than this, that these journals are defective, and that in a point most material to the issue before us? Is it not the least we can do, in justice to the appellant, to send him back for a new trial? But, sir, the journals record material facts, which show the illegality and injustice of the whole proceeding so clearly, that he is entitled to be wholly released from the suspension. This I will show in the proper place. 3. The next point on which I should mnake some remarks is the reply of the General Conference of 1840 to the memorial fronm Westmoreland, Virginia. The origin of this memorial I have explained. I read the resolution adopted by the Conference. The counsel finds himself much embarrassed by this resolution, and contents himself with a flat denial that it admits of any application to the case of the appellant. He affirms A_ E.. Church, Soulth. 113 that it applied exclusively to local preachers. That it originated in the case of local preachers is adcmitted. But the report of the committee is an elaborate and most conclusive argument in support of a principle which applies to all preachers. The argument is not as to the meaning of Discipline in relation to local preachers merely, as he supposes. The report concludes with a resolution, which I have before read, and from which I will quote one clause: "'The ownership of slave property in States or Territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the election or ordination of mrinisters to the various grades of office known in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church." 1" Various gracles of ofte." Can language be more explicit? On what authority, therefore, can it be pleaded that this applies to local preachers only? That constitutes but one of the grades of office. Sir, the assertion is a gross absurdity. I maintain, therefore, that the meaning of Discipline, by this decision of the General Conference of 1840, is settled in Mr. Harding's favor. Language cannot more clearly warrant a conclusion. And for this General Conference to sustain the Baltimore Conference in Harding's case, is to do it in the teeth of the Discipline as interpreted by themnselves in 1840. It is to add to the afflictions of 114 Oryanizctdion of the the outraged brethren of Westmoreland, who are the more grievously wronged in this, that to the present time, the Balinmore Conference have continued to deny them their rights. Surely, sir, this Conference should be held to a rigid accountability for this act of injustice to the local brethren of Westmorelandcl, and of contumacy to the General Conference. But, instead of this, will you embolden them in a systematic course of wrong-doing, by refusing to sustain the appeal? I hope not. In this connection I propose to notice several particulars of a kindred character, introduced by the counsel. It is affirmed that Mr. Harding's relation to slavery rendered him L'unavailable" as a Methodist preacher. On this ground it is argued, that it was expedient to "suspend him," because the Conference is authorized (and accustomed so to do) to locate men who are unavailable. That is, sir-to throw the language into a more logical form-because the Conference has an authority, which they are accustomed to exercise, to locate one who is unavailable as a traveling preacher, (which, be it observed, leaves him in possession of his mninisterial orders,) therefore it was both legal and expedient to susjpend the appellant, and thus deprive him of his ministerial orders! Fine logic this! But, sir, on what ground was Mr. Harding unavailable? Why, because a part of the Conference appointments are within a non-slaveholding H1.. eC. ureczI, South. 115 State. Well, sir, are all the members of this body considered "unavailable" whom it would not be prudent to send to any part of the work? How absurd! This Conference abounds with appointmerients to which the appellant could be sent with the greatest propriety. The plea is a mere pretext. The counsel affirmed that "slavery had ceased ere this in Maryland if it'had been let alone." True, sir. Why, then, will not the Baltimore Conference let it alone? Do they let it alone by a systematic plan of proscription? No, sir, no. I charged the Baltimore Conference with great and manifest inconsistency in suspending Mr. Harding, because he would not manumit the slaves of his wife, when at the same time they required him to retain a part of the servants in perpetual slavery. This, I said, was an abandonment of principle; and I now add that it shows that Mr. Harding was seized as a victim, whose sacrifice was the only way of reaching other and more influential members of the Conference. The counsel triumphed greatly in the assurance he gave you, that this feature of the report of the committee in Harding's case "was not adopted by Conference, but was struck out." But, sir, I cannot let the Conference escape in this way. I will hold them to their responsibility by the firm grasp of documentary truth. The vote of the Conference 116 Organizzaion of the on the report of the committee in Harding's case, did not stri/ce out the clause leaving him in possession of certain slaves, (specified by name,) but only struck out the clause assigning the reason for requiring him to keep them in slavery. Such is the facts sir, according to the document, and the shame of the transaction will attach to the Baltimore Conference until they reform their ways. But the counsel is particularly liberal to us on this point, and equally fatal to his cause. HIe is free to tell us a part of his argument, what this reason was, namely, that the laws of the State did not admit of emancipation after a certain age. This he says to vindicate his Conference from the charge I urged, of inconsistency in holding the appellant to so pious an accountability to free himself, at the peril of his membership, from slavery, and at the same time require him to hold certain of them in perpetual bondage. Really, sir, it seems that the same evil genius which unquestionably presided over the deliberations of this body of grave divines, still holds uncontrolled dominion over the mind of the counsel. For, let me remind you, in a word, of the late law of Maryland, of 1843, which I read the other day. In this it is specifically provided that the old law, to which the counsel refers, be and is hereby rescinded, and hereafter all, without respect to age, shall be eligible to emancipation on thb same conditions. Z. E. Czrch, South:. 117 4. But, sir, the counsel sought to involve me in absurdity. I argued that slavery was not necessarily a sin, and that its circumstances are such that it is right to tolerate it, although it be connected with many evils. Now, if this position involves an absurdity, the converse of it, I suppose, must be true. That is, it is wrong to tolerate slavery (being connected with so many evils) because it is sinful under all circumstances. And whatever may be the speculative opinion of members of the Baltimore Conference on this point, I can see no reasonable ground on which they can stand respected in their own eyes for the decision in Harding's case but this, that his relctzon to slcavery wacs sinful. Observe, sir, he was not located. This would have left him in possession of orders. He was not reproved omerely. No, sir, he was suspended -that is, (in view of the declaration that he could not make the required pledge,) expelled the ministry-deposed from orders. And for what, sir? For no heterodoxy in doctrine, nor viciousness of lifethat is, for no sin. Will they say this? Unless they do, it Jbllows that they looked upon his relation to slavery as constituting him a sinner. And on what other hypothesis canwe account for the paternity of a series of most offensive remarks which have grated so harshly upon our ears, especially from Messrs. Collins and Griffith? If Mr. Harding's connection with sla;very (just such a connection as is 118 Oryanzizaction of the held by Southern men generally) be -not in a high degree sinful, many remarks from these brethren are without any apology that I can conceive of. Why, sir, in the select phraseology of these speakers, slavery is always " a dark subject!" The appellant is charged with having involved himself in all the difficulties that embarrass and afflict him, "by marrying tlke Woman he did "-and why? Because she had slaves. And, sir, for this crime he is personally charged on this floor by word, accompanied with a most emphatic gesticulation, with having violated his plighted faith to the Conference, and discarding "the godly admonitions of his brethren." Nay, he was asked where was his " conscience" when he formed this matrimonial connection? Yes, sir, so full of turpitude is the crime of marrying a lady with this property, that it must be hunted down, even at the expense of Mrs. Harding's feelings. It is affirmed, in allusion to her, that "no pious and intelligent woman" would jeopardize the standing (in the Baltimore Conferience) "of a husband in whose judgment and discretion she confides, for the consideration of a few slaves." I really had thought that if the opinions of the speaker did not, that his gallantry, in view of these galleries, would save him from so far outraging the feelings of a lady. (Mr. Collins explained, and cdislcaiamed all intenltion to impuvn the piety or intelligence of Mlrs. Harding- he did not M _E. Chzurch, South. 119 doubt either.) I believe you, sir; and it was my purpose to offer, in your behalf, the best apology I could for the freedom of expression you employed in this delicate connection. Yes, sir, there is no doubt that it was the appellant who was to suffer by this reference to his lady. If the slaves were not manumitted, we were to understand it to be wholly his fault. This is the gist of the matter. But, sir, I am not right sure, after all, that he should be held to accountability in this way, for the disposition which his lady would make of property made hers-to be held in her own right -by a special law of the State. Indeed, I am not certain, if what I have learned of the counsel be true, but that his own success in wooing the consent of the ladies has long since satisfied him of the practical truth contained in the couplet: If she will, she will, you may depend on't; If she won't, she won't, so there's an end on't. There is still another remark by which the speakers betray their affinities. More than one has invoked this body not to'" drive them to take rank with a slaveholding Conference!" Take rank with a slaveholding Conference!! My dear sir, who are you, and what is your Conference, that you should deprecate a footing with your brethren of other Conferences? What elevation is this you have reached, that vou must needs sloop to be on 120 Organizalion of the a footing with Virginia, and the Conferences south of you? You " take rank" with Virginia! Sir, I was not an indifferent observer of the kindred emotions which this pure abolition appeal awaked in certain quarters of this house. And however agreeable the response elicited by these remarks may be to the cherished affinities of the speakers, they may know that they aroused feelings of the deepest regret and mortification in other quarters. Sir, they cut harshly across the sensibilities of * many a heart here, and must continue to jar in harsh discord amid the. sweetest music of our longcherished relations. It was not without cause, sir, that the counsel closed his remarks by asking forgiveness. True, we have much cause to complain. Yet I will venture to pledge him the forgiveness of every Southern man on this floor. I will cherish the hope that stress of circumlstances, in defending a hopeless cause, has betrayed him to the use of so many offensive remarks. But you (addressing Mr. C.) must allow me to remind you, and those whose views you represent, that you are no "cconservatives." You wisely choose a more expressive figure when you represent your body as the "breakwater" of the Conferences. And verily the " breakwater" ye are! for in your branchr of the common stream it seems has accumulated the drift-wood and stawyers, so to speak, which have floated upon the bosomn of MAfethodism, M. E. Chlurclh, South. 121 from the upper and nether sources of abolition, until the dam of error has stretched itself across your tide, and backed up your waters, until they have drowned, instead of fertilized, your lands. 5. I proceed to notice the remarks of Brothher Slicer. As he did not design to enter into the merits of the subject, I felt indifferent. I was, however, soon roused by the announcement that he would disclose a transaction disreputable to the Virginia Conference. (He replied, Not so-I said discreditable.) Well, "discreditable." (NoI said a transaction not so creditable to Virginia.) Well,' not so creditable to Virginia," in the Westmoreland case. Sir, the announcement, I say, aroused me. I listened! heard the explosionwatched the slow progress of the spent ball-the sluggish missile fell far below its mark! He says he is not such a conservative as I am. Right glad am I of it. I may safely turn him over to our faithful reporter. He will do him justice, I have no doubt. 6. In concluding these preliminary remarks, I will notice one statement of Brother Griffith. He reminds us that a large part of the territory of the Baltimore Conference is in Virginia, west of the mountains. But few slaves; comparatively, are in this section of the State. This he attributes to the steady opposition of his Conference to slavery. This might be argued, sir, if they had found in 6 122 Oryanization of the that section of the work a large slave population which had been gradually diminishing. But the reverse of this is precisely true. They found originally but few slaves, and the number of these has increased greatly since that time. If Brother Griffith had not been indebted to his imagination for this important fact, I might give him the credit of a good argument-bating always, however, his earnest deprecation of the dishonor which he supposes will attach to his being " driven to take rank," with brethren at least his equals! Having disposed of these several points which appeared to me as preliminary merely, I now ask your indulgence, sir, for a short time, while I set before you the merits of this case as I find it in the journals of the Baltimore Conference. To present it more clearly, I will read the record from the journal: "Whereas, F. A. Harding, a member of the Baltimore Annual Conference, by his late marriage with Miss Swan, of St. Mary's county, Md., has come in possession of several slaves, viz., one named Harry, aged 52; one woman, named Maria, aged 56; one man, named John, aged 22; a girl, aged 13, named Hannah; and a child, named Margaret, aged 2 years; and whereas, the Baltimore Conference, according to its well-knownz usage, CANNOT, and WILL NOT, tolerate slavery in any of its mnembers; therefore, -l-. E. Church, Sozatl. 123 "Reso7led, That Brother F. A. Harding is hereby required to execute, and cause to be recorded, a deed securing the manumission of the slaves hereinafter mentioned: the man named John, at the age of 28 years; the two female children, at the age of 23; the issue of the females, if any, to be free at the same time with their mothers. And that Brother Harding be farther required to give to this Conference, during its present session, a PLEDGE that the said manumission shall be efected during the present Conference-year." This is the report as adopted by the Conference. It should be noted that it does provide for the manumission of only a, part of the slaves. The original report of the committee contained a clause assigning the reason simply for not requiring the manumission of all. This clause was struck' out by a vote of the Conference. The final decision in this case, after adopting the above report, was, on motion of Messrs. Collins and Emory, in the following language: "-Resolved, That Brother Harding be suspended until the next Annual Conference, or until he assures the Episcopacy that he has taken the necessary steps to secure the freedom of his slaves." The informality of this whole proceeding must be obvious to every one on the reading of the record. I will throw it into something like a legal form, such as it should have assumed before the Conference. 124 Organization of the 1. THE INDICTMENT. F. A. Harding is charged with having violated the well-known usage and determined purpose of the Baltimore Annual Conference, not to tolerate slavery in any of its members. 2. S1pecqfication. He married Miss Swan, who was the owner of five slaves. 3. Thie verdict. That he execute, and cause to be recorded, a deed, securing the manumission of three out of five of the slaves, and that he give a pledge that this shall be effected during the present Conference-year. 4. Penalty. That he be suspended until the above conditions are submitted to-that is, deposed from the order of the ministry. Now, sir, I deny the legality of the indictment -the justice of the verdict-and ask that the appellant be released from the operation of the penalty. The indictment, I say, is illegal. He is charged with having violated the Ad well-known usage and determined purpose of the Baltimore Conference." Under what rule of our Discipline, sir, I would inquire, could an Annual Conference arraign and try a member for violating a usage or purpose of its body? The Discipline of the Church is the common charter under which any and every Methodist preacher holds his membership in an Annual Conference. It never before entered my mind, sir, l E. E. Churc, South. 125 that two opinions could exist among sane and sober-minded men on this point. The duties of an Annual Conference are so clearly defined in a series of plain questions at page 23 of the Discipline, and a few other separate rules in different parts of the book, that its powers cannot be a matter of doubt. They are executive only. The. power to make "rules and regulations" for the government of the Church is ceded in the constitution of the Church to the General Conference only. This body has defined in the rules of Discipline the conditions of membership in an Annual Conference; and under this charter, and this alone, membership is held in these bodies. What rule of Methodist Discipline is he charged with violating? None, sir, none. The committee who brought in the indictment charges him in plain terms with having acted contrary to the "usage and determined purpose" of the Conference. For this, and this alone, he was tried-convicted upon his own testimony-condemned and dishonored! The indictment does not even specify the enactment of the Conference to which it makes direct reference. Did ever a more lawless procedure come to the knowledge of this body? The counsel, sir, seems to have entirely overlooked this fact, by which his cause is most fatally embarrassedunless the paternity of abolition feeling pervading this body should shield it fi:om the condemnation 126 Oryanization of the it deserves. He is bold to set forth in his argument, as the charge against Mr. Harding, "that Ihe knew, wlhat ought to have been with him of preeminent importalnce, TIHE LAW OF THE BALTIMORE CONFERENCE." What law, sir? The imperfect and informal indictment does not tell us. But the counsel is free to supply the deficiency. He tells us, a law to which the case of a Brother Hansberger gave rise; by which they forbid any of their members to hold slaves under any circumstances, anid declared that any who might disregard the decision, "Cshould- be deemed guilty of contumacy." Here, then, is the law of the Baltimore Conference under which he was informally indicted. Is this a legal indictment? This question involves another. Had this Conference a right to make a term of membership on the subject of slavery? Did Mr. Harding, or any other member, hold his membership under this legislation, or under the rules of Discipline? There surely can be no room for difference of opinion here. The Conference had no such legislative powers, and all attempts to suspend the membership of Mr. Harding upon conditions defined by their legislation, is wholly illegal. So confident am I of the correctness of this position, that at a proper time I may safely appeal to the bench of Bishops — some one or more of whom presided in this Conference-for the authority by which this was done. The matter involves higher responsibilities than MB. E, Church., South. 127 that of the mere Conference. Why was it that an accredited member of this Conference was put upon his trial under an indictment framed upon the legislation of the Baltimore Conference? (Bishop Morris replied it was not so-he was tried for a breach of the Methodist Discipline.) Sir, you must stand corrected on this point. The document-the written indictment —is proof to the contrary. The argument of counsel on this floor makes him directly responsible for a breach of the "law of' the Baltimore Conference," on the ground that he was not ignorant of, but knew the law, its purpose, and design. The reply of the Bishop (for which I thank him) is a full concession that to try him for his membership, under any law of the Conference, was a wholly illegal proceeding. The indictment itself is the proof that he was so tried, and its illegality all must admit. Our Bishops are sent to preside in the Annual Conferences, for the specific purpose of preserving a unity in the administration by keeping them within the limits defined in the charter. I repeat, therefore, that at the proper time I may request the reason of this oversight. If, then, the indictment be illegal, the verdict and penalty which arose upon it are each illegal; the whole transaction is illegal, and a reproach to the Conference, and should be set aside as null and void. The verdict, I say, is unjzust, as well as illegal. 128 Organization of the He was convicted, the Bishop tells us, and so the counsel argued also, for a breach of the Methodist Discipline. Allow, for the sake of argument, that this was so; it is still true that he was not indcicted —he was not charged with this offense. And can it be just to indict a man for one offense, and try him for another? Or what amounts to the same, render a verdict against him for being, guilty of another! And will this body sanction a proceeding so contrary to all the forms of law, and so utterly subversive of all the principles of justice? I trust not. I can hardly persuade myself that the most rabid and fanatical feeling on the subject of slavery which can be supposed to exist in any part of this house, could betray you into a decision so violative of all the principles of right reason. But it is assumed in the argument of the counsel that the legislation of the Baltimore Conference in the case is in conformity with the rules of Discipline on the subject of slavery. Allow this to be so, it does not help the cause of the Conference; for it would only be a conviction of a breach of Methodistic rules by induction merely. No one, I presume, should contend for the legality or justice of an act depriving him of his ministerial office, held under the rules of Discipline, when he was only convicted of a violation of these rules by induction. And, sir, we deny all right to an Annual Conference to pass resolutions l1. E. Czurch, AStouth. 129 interpreting the rules of the Discipline, and then trying their members under such resolutions, as the statutes of the Church. Such powers in an Annual Conference would entirely supersede the General Conference. Again, we do not allow that the "law of the Baltimore Conference," in this case, is in accordance with the Discipline of the Church on the subject of slavery. We do not, therefore, allow that the appellant was justly convicted of a breach of Methodist rule by induction even. I need not go over the ground occupied on this point in my first speech. I will only meet the issues raised by the argument of counsel. First, he maintains, on behalf of the Conference, that the rule in relation to traveling preachers holding slaves requires an unconditional manumission, without regard to the fact whether or not the slave be permitted to enjoy his freedom under the laws of the State. He argues a distinction in the rules as to apply to members or to local preachers, and to traveling preachers. Sir, I propose to meet his argument fairly and squarely. He maintains that the rule, standing as the second answer to the questions on slavery, page 196, requires the traveling preacher to manumit his slaves, whether the laws permit them to enjoy freedom within the State or not, (If I do not state him correctly, let him put me right.) Now, sir, let it be regarded that the first 6* 130 Organization of thze answer in this section of Discipline, in which there is no ambiguity of language, settles the entire question of eligibility to office in the Church, so far as slavery is concerned-eligibility to any order in the ministry, to any office in the Church. The rule in regard to traveling preachers was passed in 1800. This, which covers the whole ground of eligibility, was adopted in 1816. It may, therefore, be taken as a fair exponent of the point in the former, which is supposed to be doubtful. Again, sir, the counsel overlooks the fact, in criticising this point, that the traveling preacher is only required to execute a "deed of emancipation" in this specified condition, "if it be practicable." Now surely, sir, it was not the design to require the mere execution of a deed! This, at all times, is practicable. The meaning of the rule is plainly this: it requires a traveling preacher to secure the actual freedom of his slaves,' conformably to the laws of the State in which he lives," "if it be practicable" —that is, if the laws will permit them to enjoy liberty. But it is farther argued, that Harding's case is not covered by the rule of Discipline, because the laws of Maryland do permit the liberated slave to enjoy his freedom. I will not go over this point, which has been set before the Conference in the most satisf.ctory manner by reading the lawvs of the State, accompanied by the opinions of two Ji1. E. Church, South. 131 gentlemen of great legal distinction in the State of Maryland, showing beyond doubt that this position of the counsel in the case is incorrect. Again, sir, if this were a doubtful point in itself, we have shown in opening this case, from the express statute of the State of Maryland, and the highest legal opinion upon it, Judge Key and the Hon. W. D. Merrick, both of Maryland, that Mr. Har(ding had no interest in the slaves of his wife, farther than what related to the proceeds of their labor. He could not, without the consent of his wife, execute a legal deed of emancipation, as he was required by the Conference to do. I do not know that a similar law exists in any State in this Union. So that if the laws of any State in the Confederacy cover the case of any member in the Church who has become possessed of slaves by marriage, the case of Mr. Harding is protected by the laws of the State in which he lives. Indeed, sir, it appeared to me that the counsel after all yielded this question —if my ear correctly caught his meaning. He argued vehemently against the laws of Maryland as most iniquitous in their tendency-such as no man ought to submit to. In this, sir, he yielded the point, and I claim the decision on behalf of the appellant. Surely this body will not give a decision in the teeth of State legislation, and also of an article of our religious faith, acknowledging the authority of the civil legislature,, 132 Orgyanization of the and an express statute in the Book of Discipline. One other point, sir. Brother Collins allows what was implied by the silence of Brother Tippett, that if the appellant had been understood to c" pledge himself and his wife, if the slaves should consent, to send them to Liberia, or to a free State, this case had never come here." The record itself, which has been read before this Conference, shows that he refused to give the required c" pledge" on the ground that he could not do it consistently with the laws of the State. (I quote front memory, the journal not being before me.) This fully warrants the inference that he stood pledged to free his slatves on the terms provided by law-nay, the record committed him to do this. The law allows of emancipation, provided they will leave the State. The journal, therefore, is against the position of the counsel; for it is a fair inference from the record, that he was ready to free his slaves, with their consent to leave the State. This pledge necessarily involved the consent of his wife, who held the legal title. The recollection of Brother Gere is therefore correct, and that of the other members of the delegation is at fault. The counsel is still farther at fault. He affirmed, over and over again, that the argument urged by me, from the late law of Maryland, fixing the legal title to the slaves of Mrs. Harding, was an after-thought 3f. E.. GC/Irch, SoIuth. 133 -that he never heard of it before. This is particularly unfortunate, for he allows that the legal opinion of the Hon. W. D. Merrick was before the Conference; and in this he specifically alludes to the fact that the legal title to the slaves was in Mrs. Harding, and not in him. And yet, in the face of this clearly-implied pledge, and the proof of utter inability to effect the legal emancipation of the slaves without their consent, so rabid were they to effect an abolition purpose, that they expelled him the body. Then, sir, I maintain the appellant violated no rule of Discipline. He only violated a law of the Baltimore Conference —a law which they had no right to make; and which, being niade, is a plain and palpable contravention of the existing rule of Discipline on the subject. The indictment, then, is illegal; the verdict is equally unjust; and the penalty, by consequence, unwarranted and oppressive. The 23d Article of our faith acknowledges the supreme authority of the State in all civil matters. The Conference act specifically subjects our rules on slavery to be controlled by State legislation. This, be it observed, is in special conformity with the article of religion just alluded to. It has been shown, from the statutes of Maryland, that the legal title to these slaves zwas not in Mr. Harding, but in his wife. It is farther shown, that if the 134 Organizction of tle title was in Harding, that he could not secure the freedom of the slaves without compelling them to go to Liberia, or to a free State. Now, if the decision of this Conference sustain the Baltimore Conference, you will require Harding to execute a legal deed, manumitting slave property which does not belong to him. You also require him to secure their freedom, contrary to the provisions of the laws of the State, (provided they were his,) which allows of their freedom only when they consent to leave the State. In all this will you not place yourselves in the most ridiculous attitude before the world? Will you not perpetrate a most wanton act of injustice toward the appellant? Will you not adopt a measure the most reckless of the claims of humanity that can be imagined? For, if Mr. Harding obeys your mandate, and manumnits the slaves, without their consent to leave the State, they will be forced, under the operation of the civil authority, to dissolve the ties which now bind parents to children and other near relatives. In addition to this, you set up your authority in the premises as supreme, in plain and palpable violation of the 23d Article of religion, and the rule of Discipline in conformity thereto, which binds you, in the most solemn manner, to be subject to the civil legislature on the subject of slavery. Are you prepared for all this? Again, Mr. HaI-Irding was tried according to the -..E. CUhurch, SoutI. 135 indictment brought in by the committee, not for a breach of your Discipline, but for a violation of a law of the Baltimore Conference. If you sustain the Conference, you acknowledge the authority of an Annual Conference to legislate laws or conditions of membership in the body, in palpable violation of the constitution and Discipline of the Church, which assigns this authority to the General Conference alone. Are you prepared for this? And still farther. The law of the Baltimore Conference, under which the appellant was bound, is not only unauthorized by the Discipline, but in flat violation of the compromise act of Discipline. If you sustain the Conference, you render null and void the plain construction of the Discipline under which hundreds of traveling and local ministers now hold office and *orders in the Church. Are you prepared for all this? Surely you are not, unless you are prepared to dissolve the bonds which bind us together as a confederated body. I ask, then, that you sustain the appeal, and release Francis A. Harding from the act of the Baltimore Conference, by which he stands suspended from the ministry, which he has held with acceptability and usefulness for several years. But if, after all, you should feel yourselves still in difficulty on any one point of argument or testimony out of which the foregoing conclusions are made to arise, then let it be remembered that 136 Organization of t1le the reading of the journal shows a manifest informality, while the face of the indictment itself is without all due form of law or usage, and well calculated to embarrass the decision. In view of this fact, the least the appellant has a right to expect is, that you should return him for a new trial. With these remarks, sir, I submit the case. On the following day Dr. Smith asked permission to make some farther observations, of a personal character, in reference to Mr. Harding. Considerable opposition was made to this, on the ground that both parties had been allowed a most extended and patient hearing, and that it was time the debate was closed. The motion was put, and carried. Dr. Smith said it would be remembered that a motion to locate Mr. I-Iarding.had been made at the Baltimore Conference; that either, on suggestion, it was withdrawn, or, being ruled out, the motion fell to the ground. He believed the reason of that movement was, that the only proper ground for location is unacceptability, which could not be alleged in this case. An impression, however, in consequence of that motion, having gone abroad prejudicial to the character of the appellant, either as to his prudence, or talent, or general acceptability,.he (Dr. S.) begged the Conference to bear in mind that even were such impressions correct, the question before them was, the legality iM. ZE. U ch, Southi. 137 or the illegality of his suspension on the ground alleged in the record, and that alone was the question for their decision. At the same time he took that opportunity of saying, that the impression, however it might have been circulated, was altogether false. Mir. Collins said that Dr. Smith had mistaken the reason of the withdrawal of the motion for location. The true reason was, that it was thought that rule was not the proper one to be applied to him, and the rule under which he had been tried was the proper one. At the close of these observations the call for the vote became general, and Mr. Early moved that the decision of the Baltimore Conference be reversed. The same being seconded, was put, and a call made for the ayes and noes. The Secretary proceeded to read the names. Dr. Olin desired to be excused, on the ground that he had not heard the journals read, and had only heard a portion of the debates. Sometimes it was a pleasant thing to avoid a responsibility; but in this case he had no disposition to shrink from responsibility, and would much rather have voted, but he could not do it conscientiously. The Conference excused him. The Secretary announced the votes to be, noes 117, ayes 56; being a majority against the reversal of 61. 138 Organization of tlhe The President announced that this vote affirmed the decision of the Baltimore Conference. The decision of the chair was appealed against, but was sustained by a vote of 111 to 53. Dr. Smith. I must and do ask the privilege of spreading my protest on the pages of the Conference journal, and I do so because, to my own personal knowledge, there are men on the floor of this house who voted against the resolution of Mr. Early because they deliberately and solemnly thought that the matter ought to go back to the Baltimore Conference. But by a majority we have been ruled out, and a fair decision of this Conference has not been given. And I wish my protest to go forth to the American Church, and American people, to serve as a beacon-light to wvarn the Church against the movements of a majority who can obliterate justice, and trample on the rights of a minority. A long conversation arose as to whether the vote refusing to reverse the decision of the Baltimore Conference confirmed that decision. A multiplicity of motions and amendments were made, but eventually the discussion turned upon Dr. Smith's request to enter his protest. It was moved that he have liberty to enter the sfame, when Mr. Wiley said they had better wait and see what it was first, and then they could decide whether it should be entered upon the journal or not. M. CE. hulrch, South. 139 Dr. Smith said he trusted he knew too well what was due to himself as a gentleman, to those that acted with him, and to the Conference generally, to address them in any other than respectful terms; but if they thought the paper would be what they would like, they would find themselves mistaken. No! they would not like that paper, for it would contain truths that would burn in their cheeks. (Cries of "order," etc.) I am perfectly calm. I have got the floor, and you have got the votes; and you can, having the votes, put me down. Time was when such an excitement would have unarmed me, and thrown me off my defense; but no storm of excitement can now disarm me of my self-possession. You cannot drive me from my position; and you might as well attempt to chain the lightnings, or confine the winds in the caves of Eolus, as to put me down when I have a right to be heard. I shall prepare such a memorial as will fearlessly and thoughtfully express the sentiments of myself and those that think with me; and no consideration shall induce me to speak with timidity or fear at such a crisis. Mr. Early said he hoped they would remember that large majorities were apt to be tyxannical-he trusted they would keep calm. He was quite so-as much as the affliction in which that vote had involved him, and those around him, 140 Organization of thle would allow. After some farther conversation, the order of the day was resumed. The intelligence of the action of the General Conference in the case of Mr. Harding was received throughout the South with feelings of sadness. It was regarded by the Church as an infringement upon the Constitution under which the two sections had lived and labored together so long in harmony. The name of Dr. William A. Smith had been familiar to the Church for several years previous to 1844. His commanding talents, his sterling integrity, his fervent piety, his uncompromising devotion to principle, and his ardent love for Methodism, had earned for him a wide-spread reputation in the Church; but in his able defense of constitutional Church-government, as set forth in his speeches in the case of Mr. Htarding, he attracted, as he had never before done, the attention of both the Church and the nation. In the gigantic strength of his mighty intellect he had scarcely a peer. Standing from this period in the front ranks of the American ministry, he seemed to live far in advance of all his contemporaries. In the family and social circle he possessed the simple-heartedness of a child —everywhere else a giant. After a long and useful life, he entered into h31. E. Ch1iurch, South. 141 rest. His last illness found him in the family of his friend, the Rev. John C. Granbery, D.D., in the city of Richmond, Virginia, where, on the first day of March, 1870, he breathed his last. We copy the following tribute to his memory from the Minutes of the Virginia Conference: The committee appointed to prepare a paper which shall express the sentiments of this Conference in regard to the death of Rev. Win. A. Smith, D.D., report a sketch of his life, and the following resolutions in honor of his memory: On the list of our dead for the year now closing, with grief and veneration we place the name of William Andrew Smith. We know that his work and fame are not- the exclusive property of this Conference, but belong to the whole M. E. Church, South, of which he was so eminent a minister, if we should not rather say to American Methodism. It is also true that his name has appeared the three past years on the minutes not of the Virginia, but of the St. Louis Conference. Yet living, he was ours; and now that he is dead, we claim him, in a special sense. His large heart embraced the entire Church, his wise counsels guarded and fostered her general interests, his great abilities shed luster upon her name; and it is meet that IBishops and Conferences should do him honor, 142 Oryanization of thl Let the West cherish his memory on account of his two years of faithful pastoral labor in the city of St. Louis, and of' that great and lasting work to which he devoted his extraordinary powers during the last year of his life-the establishment of Central University on a deep and broad foundation, not less by the awakening of a profounder interest on the subject of education, hballowed by religion, among the ministry and people, than by the collection of funds for an endowment. But in the bounds of our Conference he was born, brought up, converted; of this body he was a member more than forty years; of our history he is a large, essential, illustrious part; to us he gave his love and service from youth to old age, and we are glad to acknowledge the debt of gratitude and affection we owe him; among us he died, and in the beautiful cemetery of Hollywood in Richmond his dust reposes, awaiting the resurrection-morn. To some of us he was a brother dearly beloved, to more of us an honored father: if others loved him, we yet more. Wm. A. Smith was born in Fredericksburg, Va., Nov. 29, 1802. His mother was a consistent member of the Methodist Church, and in death prayed that her son might live to preach the glorious gospel. His father was a man of honorable character and position. Both died when he was of a tender age. For a time the orphan boy had M. E. Ch urch, Southl. 143 rough usage; but he was afterward adopted and brought up by Mr. Russell Hill, a friend of his father, and a worthy merchant of Petersburg. When seventeen years old, he was converted, and joined the M. E. Church. He had received a good English education, and had commenced the study of the classics; but feeling that he was called of God to the ministry, and not being able to attend college as he desired, he studied privately one year at the house of his uncle, Mr. Porter, in Orange county, and taught school two or three years in Madison. In 1824 he traveled the Gloucester Circuit under the Presiding Elder; in February, 1825, he was admitted on trial into the Virginia Conference. In 1833, while agent for Randolph Macon College, then in its infancy, he met with a fearful accident: the carriage which he was driving upset and fell on him, breaking his right thigh and dislocating his left hip, and badly laming him for life. IHe was a delegate to the General Conference of the M. E. Church every session from 1832 to 1844, and occupied a high position in that great council as an adviser and debater. In the memorable appeal case of Ilarding, and in the yet more important extrajudicial trial of Bishop Andrew, which led to the division of the Church, he won a reputation wide as the United States, and inferior to that of no minister of any denomination, for the highest deliberative and forensic eloquence. 144 Orgaizaition of the He was a member of the Louisville Convention which organized the M. E. Church, South, and of all the General Conferences of this Church to the date of his death. He commanded universal respect and confidence among his brethren by the sincerity of his zeal, the wisdom of his counsels, and the power of his reasoning. His impress will long remain on the legislation and institutions of Southern Methodism. In 1846 he was called from the regular pastorate, by the urgency of the trustees of Randolph Macon College, sanctioned by the Virginia Conference, to the presidency of this institution. He was selected for that place because his courage, energy, and strength of intellect, seemed indispensable, not only to the prosperity, but even to the saving, of this noble institution. Twenty years of his life were consecrated to this cause-years of self-sacrifice, of unremitting toil, of courageous battling with difficulties and victory over them; of hope where others desponded, of faith where others doubted, of resolution where others wavered. He was diligent in his study, diligent in his lecture-room, diligent in travel through Virginia and North Carolina to collect money and to arouse interest in behalf of the College. The number of students steadily increased, the standard of scholarship was elevated, and through the joint efforts of Dr. Smith and the agents of the College, an endowment-fund of $100, AL E. CE. hurch, South. 145 000 was raised. Then came the terrible war which emptied those classic halls, and swept away the funds which had been gathered with so much toil. Yet not in vain had he labored. Scores of ministers, hundreds of pious young men, educated under his care, molded by his influence, are this day in their several spheres carrying on the same grand work to which he was devoted, and have learned, from his teachings and example, never to surrender, never to despair of Randolph Macon. We have not spoken of Dr. Smith as a preacher and pastor. He soon rose to eminence in the ministry, and stood with the foremost in the pulpit and pastorate for faithfulness, ability, and success. He had a deep, distinct, happy, constant experience of the saving grace of God in Christ Jesus. His zeal for the cause of religion was pure, steady, consuming. He was fully consecrated to the work of the ministry. The doctrines and polity of our Church had no stronger, nobler expounder and champion than he. His sermons were "logic on fire"-grand and solid discussions of the leading truths of the gospel, animated with deep emotion. Thousands were converted under his ministry; many of them became preachers of the word, in our own and in other denominations; the Churches he served were ever edified and trained, not less by his pastoral fidelity than by his luminous' discourses. 7 146 Organization of tlhe As a man, he was of marked character. Who, that ever saw him, could forget that bold, frank, noble face and forehead, which revealed at a glance the lofty attributes of his intellect, the loftier attributes of his heart? Cunning and deceit he knew not; to fear he was a stranger; his convictions he was ever ready to avow and maintain. Yet, with all his courage and indomitable energy of will, he had a tender, sympathetic heart, and much of a, child-like spirit, simple, unselfish, trustful, easy to be entreated. In the fall of 1866 he was transferred to the St. Louis Conference. In the summer of 1869 he visited Virginia to build up his shattered constitution. He suffered severely with chronic dysentery, complicated with other disorders, and grew worse each succeeding month, until he breathed his last March 1, 1870, in the city of Richmond. He retained the clearness of his faculties, and delighted to speak of the great themes of Christianity, especially that saying of John, "God is love." He told us that from the day he gave his heart to God in youth, that self-surrender had never been recalled, and his trust in Christ had never wavered. He compared his state of mind to a lake embosomed in a deep forest, whose peaceful surface the rough winds could not reach. We offer for adoption by the Conference the following resolutions: l... zurch, Soutth. 147 1. Resolved, That in the death of Rev. Wm. A. Smith, D.D., not only has the Church lost a bright and shining light, but this Conference is called to mourn the loss of an honored father, who for many years was to us a strong tower of defense and an able leader in every good enterprise. 2. Resolved, That we glorify God in the exalted character, the abundant labors, the enduring fruits of usefulness, and the happy death of Dr. Smith; and that we will cherish his memory, and teach our children to hold him in honor. 3. Resolved, That we convey to his widow and children the assurance of our deep sympathy in their bereavement, and of our prayers that the blessing of Providence and the comfort of the Holy Spirit may be richly vouchsafed to them in their hour of need. 4. Resolved, That Rev. J. E. Edwards and Asa Snyder be appointed a committee to procure a suitable monument and have it placed over the grave of Dr. Smith, and that they be authorized to receive contributions to defray the expenses of the same. LEROY M. LEE, J. C. GRANBERY, D'ARCY PAUL. 148 Oryanizaltion of the CHAPTER II. The influence of the action of the General Conference in the case of Francis A. Harding —Resolution of Drs. Capers and Olin-Speeches of Drs. Olin and Durbin-Committee of Pacification appointed- Dr. Durbin's resolution, proposing a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer-The committee fail to agree on any plan of compromiseResolution of Mr. Collins in reference to Bishop Andrew -Report of the Committee on Episcopacy-Bishop Andrew's statement-The report of the committee made the special order of the day for the 22d of May -Great interest felt —Alfred Griffith's speech-Benjamin M. Drake's motion to amend the preamble —Bishop Soule addresses the Conference-Speeches of Peter P. Sandford and Dr. William Winans - Speeches of Elias Bowen and Dr. Lovick Pierce-Speeches of Jerome C. Berryman, Seymour Coleman, Dr. Smith, and Thomas Stringfield —Sketch of Thomas Stringfield-Speech of Thomas Crowder -Sketch of Thomas Crowder —Speech of Dr. Nathan Bangs. THE influence of the action of the General Conference in the case of Francis A. Harding was felt throughout the Church. It was not difficult for any one of ordinary discernment to foresee that it must result in the alienation of one section from the other. M. BE. Cfhurch, South. 149 The South in this case had only demanded what was pledged by the constitutional enactments and provisions of the Church. With less than this, they could not and ought not to have been satisfied. But this now being denied them by a dominant majority, they could no longer feel secure in the rights and privileges which had been guaranteed them by the Discipline. The North at the same time, inflated with victory, were unwilling to yield any advantage they had achieved in a contest in which some of them had been struggling for the mastery for years. The General Conference, however,'was not without conservative men who resided in the North, and who were anxious to avert the catastrophe which threatened not only the peace, but the continued unity, of the Church. Among these, Dr. Stephen Olin, of the New York Conference, and IDr. John P. Durbin, of the Philadelphia Conference, were prominent. Dr. )lin had spent several years of his ministry in the South Carolina Conference, and Dr. Durbin was born and reared in Kentucky; and they were fully aware that the recent action of the General Conference must imperil, if not destroy, Methodism in the South, unless some pacific measures should be adopted. In connection with Dr. William Capers, of the South. Carolina Conference, Dr. Olin signed the following resolution, which was presented: 150 Organization of the'In view of the distracting agitation which has so long prevailed on the subject of slavery and abolition, and especially the difficulties under which we labor in the present General Conference, on account of the relative position of our brethren North and South on this perplexing question; therefore, ".Resolved, That a committee of three from the North and three from the South be appointed to confer with the Bishops, and report within two days as to the possibility of adopting some plan, and what, for the permanent pacification of the Church." A member moved as an amendment that three delegates from the Middle States be added to the committee. Dr. Capers said: There are only two points named in the resolution-slavery and abolition. I presume there must have been such an interpretation put upon the resolution as the writer did not mean. I did not intend to say that this General Conference was made up of either proslavery men or abolitionists, and that there is a third party, who are neither. The question has only two sides-slaveholders and non-slaveholders. These two positions present, perhaps, in the different aspects; the general state of the Church. Two interests only are generally recognized; and in providing for the committee, I am far from in M E. E. hurch,,South. 151 tending to say that all the brethren in the nonslaveholding States are abolitionists, any more than that the others are all slaveholders. If in this view I am mistaken, I anm unfortunate. A motion to lay the amendment on the table was made, and Dr. Durbin, and almost at the same moment Dr. Olin also, rose. Dr. Durbin offered to give way, but the chair said that Dr. Olin could not speak to the original motion, and Dr. Durbin proceeded. lie hoped the amendment would not prevail. He understood Dr. Capers to mean by the North, non-slaveholding States, (Dr. Capers assented,) so that the chair could appoint either from the North, East, or West. The motion to lay the amendment on the table was carried. Dr. Olin spoke to the original motion. He spoke under the most powerful emotion, and in a strain of tenderness that moved every member of the Conference. He said he felt, from his relation to the Conference as a member for the first time, it became him to explain why his name was attached to the resolution. It had been shown to him within five minutes, and he had asked upon it the advice of one whose opinion was entitled to great weight. He could not refuse to second it, believing it was offered in a spirit of conciliation. He had feared for these two or three days that, though possibly they might escape the disasters 152 Oryanizcation of the that threatened them, it was not probable. He had seen the cloud gathering, so dark that it seemed to him there was no hope left for them unless God should give them hope. It might be from his relation to both extremities, that, inferior as might be his means of forming conclusions on other topics, he had some advantages on this; and from an intimate acquaintance with the feelings of his brethren in the work, he saw little ground of encouragement to hope. It appears to me (he continued) that we stand committed on this question by our principles and views of policy, and neither of us dare move a step from our position. Let us keep away from the controversy until brethren from opposite sides have come together. I confess I turn away from it with sorrow, and a deep feeling of apprehension that the difficulties that are upon us now threaten to be unmanageable. I feel it in my heart, and never felt on any subject as I do on this. I may take it for granted that we speak as opponents here. I have had no part in this controversy. It has pleased God that I should be far away, or laid upon a bed of sickness. I have my opinions and attachments, but I am committed by no act of mine to either side; and I will take it on me to say freely that I do not see how Northern men can yield their ground, or Southern men give up theirs. I do indeed believe, that if our affairs I. E. Church, South. 153 remain in their present position, and this General Conference do not speak out clearly and distinctly on the subject, however unpalatable it may be, we cannot go home under this distracting question without a certainty of breaking up our Conferences. I have been to eight or ten of the Northern Conferences, and spoken freely with men of every class, and firmly believe that, with the fewest exceptions, they are influenced by the most ardent and the strongest desire to maintain the Discipline of our Church. Will the Southern men believe me in this-when I say I am sincere, and well informed on this subject? The men who stand here as abolitionists are as ardently attached to Methodist Episcopacy as you all. I believe it in my heart. Your Northern brethren, who seem to you to be arrayed in a hostile attitude, have suffered a great deal before they have taken their position, and they come up here distressed beyond measure, and disposed, if they believed they could, without destruction and ruin to the Church, to make concession. It may be that both parties will consent to come together and talk over the matter fairly, and unbosom themselves, and speak all that is in their hearts; and as lovers of Christ keep out passion and prejudice, and with much prayer call down the Holy Spirit upon their deliberations, and feeling the dire necessity that oppresses both parties, they will at least endeavor 7* 154 Oryanization of the to adopt some plan of pacification, that if they may go away it may not be without hope of' mneeting again as brethren. I look to this measure with desire rather than with hope. With regard to our Southern brethren-and I hold that on this question, at least, I may speak with some confidence-if they concede what the Northern brethren wish-if they concede that holding slaves is incompatible with holding their ministry-they may as well go to the Rocky Mountains as to their own sunny plains. The people would not bear it. They feel shut up to their principles on this point. They love the cause, and would serve God in their work. I believe there is not a man among them that would not make every sacrifice, and even die, if thereby he could heal the division. But if our difficulties are unmanageable, let our spirit be right. If we must part, let us meet and pour out our tears together; and let us not give up until we have tried. I came into this Conference yesterday morning to offer another resolution. It was that we should suspend, now that the Sabbath had intervened, and shed its calmness and quiet over our agitated spirits, that we should suspend our duties for one day, and devote it to fasting and prayer that God may help us, so that, if we have not union, we may have peace. This resolution partakes of the same spirit. I cannotspeak on this subject without deep emotion. If M. E. Church, South. 155 we push our principles so far as to break up the Connection, this may be the last time we meet. I fear it! I fear it! I see no way of escape. If we find any, it will be in mutual moderation, in calling for help from the God of our fathers, and in looking upon each other as we were wont to do. These are the general objects I had in view in seconding the resolution, as they are of him who moved it. The reverend gentleman sat down amid the most deep and hallowed excitement, and the responsive prayers of the whole Conference. At the close of Dr. Olin's speech, Dr. Durbin addressed the Conference. He had but a word to say. He could never forget the scene before him that morning. Dr. Olin had said that he scarcely indulged the hope, though he felt a strong desire, that the measure proposed would be- successful. For himself, he thought he could discern light, notwithstanding the darkness that hung around the question; and he felt not only a desire, but a strong hope, that they should yet be delivered from the dangers which impended over their heads. Yes, he clung to the hope of the continued unity of the Church. Abraham, in great difficulties, believed in hope against hope, and yet most gloriously realized his hope, and became the'father of many nations. He said he saw ground for this hope in the tenderness of spirit which hada 156 Organizalion of tile been manifested so generally since the introduction of the resolution; and he felt now, as he had felt since his arrival in the city, the most confident assurance that brethren of all parties would sacrifice every thing but their ulterior principles, for the continued unity of the Church. Dr. Olin had told them very justly, that if they said slavery, under all circumnstances, is incompatible with the functions of the gospel ministry, they put their brethren in the South in a position which must destroy all hopes of usefulness on their part in the Church. Sir, (continued Dr. D.,) we have not said this; we cannot say it; the committee will not say it. I do not believe our gallant vessel is yet to be unloosed from her moorings. She was exposed to a dangerous rock in the South, and an equally dangerous one in the North. There is an open sea between them. The brethren of the North will not drive us upon the rock in the South, if the brethren in the South will not drive us upon the rock in the North. If the committee address themselves to the difficulties in the spirit which now pervades the Conference, we shall yet see brighter and better days. The two days, during which the committee will have this subject under consideration, will be an era in the history of Methodism, and I think that one of them at least should be observed as a day of fasting and prayer. The Wesleyan Conference in.England, after the death AM E. Clturch, South. 157 of Mr. Wesley, was on the brink, apptarently, of dissolution, and yet the wise counsel of a few )brethren, and the compromising spirit of the general body, devised a plan of permanent pacification. I would say, then, let every heart and tongue be quiet during these momentous two days. It is almost in my heart to say, Cursed be he that shall speak a word to inflnme or exasperate any one, while this subject is in the hands of the committee. In the discussion of this resolution, in addition to the gentlemen already named, Mr. Drake, of the Mississippi, Mr. Crandall, of the New England, Mr. Early and Dr. Smith, of the Virginia, and Mr. Dow, of the New York Conference, took part. On motion of Mr. Collins, the resolution was unanimously adopted, after changing the verbiage, substituting the words "a committee of six," for "a committee of three from the South and three from the North." Dr. Capers, of South Carolina, Dr. Winans, of Mississippi, and Mr. Early, of Virginia, represented the South in the committee; while the North was represented by Dr. Olin, of New York, Mr. Crandall, of New England, and Mr. Hamline, of Ohio. On the same day Dr. Durbin offered the following resolution, which was adopted: "Resolved, That to-morrow be observed by this Conference as a day of fasting and humiliation be 158 Oryanization of the fore God, and prayer for his blessing upon the committee of six, in conjunction with the Bishops, on the present difficulties; and that the hour from twelve to one o'clock be devoted to religious services in the Conference." In the discussion of the resolution offered by Drs. Capers and Olin, the possibility of the divission of the Church was referred to by speakers on both sides of the line. It was very evident, even to a casual observer, that the continued unity of the Church was scarcely to be hoped for. On the 15th of May, "a few minutes before twelve o'clock, Bishop Soule was invited into the chair by Bishop Andrew, to conduct the prayermeeting which the Conference" had appointed the day "before under the resolution offered by Dr. Durbin." c "Bishop Soule gave out two hymns, and at his request, Brothers Richey and Early, and Brothers Crandall and Winans, led the devotions of the Conference. After these exercises, Bishop iedding was called into the chair, gave out another hymn, and invited Brothers Capers and Fillmore to lead in prayer." The committee of six were expected to report on the 16th of May. Instead of presenting their report, Bishop Soule asked, in their behalf, for longer time for consideration. Unable to agree on any plan of compromise, by which the two sections could be reconciled, on the 18th they HA F.. lurch, South. 159 communicated this intelligence to the Conference. All efforts at compromise thus far had failed. Neither the resolution offered by Drs. Capers and Olin, asking for the committee of six, nor yet the one offered by Dr. Durbin, had effected any settlement of the points in controversy. When Dr. Smith said, "' The South does not desire disunion-come when it may, it shall be forced upon us," he expressed the sentiment of not only the delegates in the General Conference from the Southern States, but also of the entire laity whom they represented. The South did not desire division-yet to avert it seemed impossible. Nor do we think that the North wished the division of the Church, abstractly considered; but, feeling an opposition to slavery, they resolved to carry their point, though in violation of a solemn compact which had been entered into, and under which the Church had flourished, even if in so doing they would drive the last vestige of Methodism from the South. Frequent efforts have been made to impress the public mind with the conviction that the connection with slavery, by marriage, of the Rev. James 0. Andrew, D.D., one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, had led to the division of the Church, and no pains have been spared to devolve on this distinguished min 160 Oryanization of the ister of the gospel the responsibility of the separation. It will be seen, however, that up to this period the name of Bishop Andrew, as connected with slavery, had not been referred to in the official proceedings of the General Conference. The subject had been brought before the Conference in the shape of memorials and petitions, and in the appeal of Mr. IIarding. The excitement, too, was already intense. The clouds of disunion were rolling up from the horizon of the Church in every direction, previous to the arrest of the official character of Bishop Andrew. Unwilling as the Southern delegates were to entertain the idea of the division of the Church, they were, nevertheless, forced to apprehend such a result. Bishop Andrew, however, had become connected with slavery several years previous to this General Conference, without his consent. A lady of Augusta, Georgia, had bequeathed to- him a mulatto girl, in trust until she should be nineteen years of age; the will provided that he should then send her to Liberia, if she was willing to go. If, however, she would not consent, then he should retain her and make her as free as the laws of Georgia would admit. When the time arrived, she refused to go to Liberia, and was consequently legally the slave of Bishop Andrew. She continued to reside in her own house, on a lot owned by M1. B. Church, Soutk. 161 the Bishop-he deriving no pecuniary benefit from her services-and having the privilege of going to Liberia at any time. She, however, steadily refused to leave the State of Georgia, and as the laws of that State would not permit her emancipation, nor admit to record any deed of emancipation, Bishop Andrew was legally her master. Bishop Andrew had also inherited, by the death of his former wife, a colored boy, whom he could not liberate in the State of Georgia, but whom he proposed to set free as soon as he was prepared to earn his own living, provided he would leave the State. He had also married a lady in January, 1844, who held certain slaves, inherited from her former husband, and belonging solely to her. Unwilling to become their owner, and the law not permitting their emancipation, he secured them to his wife by a deed of trust. It will be seen by the above statements, that Bishop Andrew's connection with slavery was accidental, and not in violation of any law of the Church. The compromise-law, adopted by the General Conference of 1816, that " no slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in our Church hereafter, where the laws of the State in which he lives will admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom," was still in full 162 Organization of the force. This law evidently conveys the meaning not only that where the laws of the State "will admit of emancipation, and permit the libera.ted slave to enjoy freedom," no slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in the Church until he manumits his slaves, but also that in those States where the laws will not " admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom," the owning of slaves should constitute no barrier to any ofice. In the State of Kentucky, and in other States where the laws admitted of emancipation, and permitted the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, preachers were not elected to orders; while in Tennessee, and the Southern States, it was very common for our preachers to own slaves. As late as the autumn of 1844, after the action of the General Conference in the cases of Harding and Bishop Andrew, Bishop Janes, who presided over the Kentucky Conference, refused to ordain preachers elected to orders who were slaveholders, but at the same time, in reply to an inquiry made by the Rev. J. B. McFerrin, of the Tennessee Conference, who was present, declared his willingness to ordain any preachers in Tennessee who might be elected to orders, without any reference whatever to their connection with slavery. Bishop Andrew resided in the State of Georgia, and although a slaveholder, was not involved in slavery in any . E. Chrcih, South. 163 offensive sense. Moreover, the laws of that State would not admit of emancipation, nor could any slave emancipated in Georgia enjoy fieedom. And hence, in the eye of the law, he was as fully protected as any other minister in the Church. The spirit of fanaticism was rife. The doctrines of a Chigher law" were threatening to overflow the mound of recognized authority. Emboldened by their success in the case of Mr. Harding, on the 20th day of May, Mr. Collins offered the following preamble and resolution: "Whereas, it is currently reported, and generally understood, that one of the Bishops of the M. E. 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 in the case, and report the result of their investigation to this body to-morrow morning." On the 21st of the month the committee presented the following report: The Committee on Episcopacy, to whom was referred a resolution, submitted yesterday, instructing them to inquire whether any one of the superintendents is connected with slavery, pre. sented their report on the subject. 164 Organization of the The committee had ascertained, previous to the reference of the resolution, that Bishop Andrew was connected with slavery, and had obtained an interview with him on the subject; and having requested him to state the whole facts in the premises, they presented a written communication from him in relation to this matter, and asked leave to offer it as his statement and explanation of the case: "To the Committee on Episcopacy: "Dear Brethren: —In reply to your inquiry, I submit the following statement of all the facts bearing on my connection with slavery. Several years since an old lady, of Augusta, Georgia, bequeathed to me a mulatto girl, in trust that I should take care of her until she should be nineteen years of age; that with her consent I should then send her to Liberia; and that in case of her refusal, I should keep her, and make her as free as the laws of the State of Georgia would permit. When the time arrived, she refused to go to Liberia, and of her own choice remains legally my slave, although I derive no pecuniary advantage from her, she continuing to live in her own house on my lot, and has been and still is at perfect liberty to go to a free State at her pleasure; but the laws of the State will not permit her emancipation, nor admit such deed of emancipation to iM E. Churclh, South. 165 record,. and she refuses to leave the State. In her case, therefore, I have been made a slaveholder legally, bult not with my own consent. "2d. About five years since. the mother of my former wife left to her daughter, not to me, a negro boy; and as my wife died without a will more than two years since, by the laws of the State he becomes legally my property. In this case, as in the former, emancipation is impracticable in the State; but he shall be at liberty to leave the State whenever I shall be satisfied that he is prepared to provide for himself, or I can have sufficient security that he will be protected and provided for in the place to which he may go. " 3d. In the month of January last I married my present wife, she being at the time possessed of slaves, inherited from her former husband's estate, and belonging to her. Shortly after my marriage, being unwilling to become their owner, regarding them as strictly hers, and the law not permitting their emancipation, I secured them to her by a deed of trust.'C It will be obvious to you, from the above statement of facts, that I have neither bought nor sold a slave; that in the only circumstances in which I am legally a slaveholder, emancipation is impracticable. As to the servants owned by my wife, I have no legal responsibility in the premises, nor could my wife emancipate them did she desire to 166 Organizalion of' the do so. I have thus plainly stated all the facts in the case, and submit the statement for the consideration of the General Conference. " Yours respectfully, (Signed) " JAMES O. ANDREW." All which is respectfully submitted. (Signed) ROBERT PAINE, Chairman of Committee on Episcopacy. Upon the presentation of the report of the cominittee, accompanied by the statement of Bishop Andrew, Mr. Collins moved that the report be laid on the table, to be taken up to-morrow as the special order of the day. His reason for so moving was that a meeting of the Northern delegates was to be held at four o'clock this afternoon. He wished any of the Southern brethren to attend who might choose to do so. The 22d of May, the time fixed upon for the commencement of the prosecution of Bishop Andrew, on motion, the case was proceeded with. Mr. Griffith, of the Baltimore Conference, rose and said, I beg leave to present a resolution and suitable preamble in reference to the subject now pending before the Conference, and made the order of the day. The Secretary then read the following preamble and resolution: M. E. Church, South. 167 "Whereas, the Rev. James 0. Andrew, one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, has become a slaveholder; and, whereas, it has been, from the origin of said Church, a settled policy and the invariable usage to elect no person to the office of Bishop who was embarrassed with this'great evil,' as under such circumstances it would be impossible for a Bishop to exercise the functions and perform the duties assigned to a general superintendent with acceptance in that large portion of his charge in which slavery does not exist; and, whereas, Bishop Andrew was himself nominated by our brethren of the slaveholding States, and elected by the General Conference of 1832, as a candidate who, though living in the midst of a slaveholding population, was nevertheless free from all personal connection with slavery; and, whereas, this is, of all periods in our history as a Church, the one least favorable to such an innovation upon the practice and usage of Methodism as confiding a part of the itinerant general superintendency to a slaveholder; therefore,'"Resolved, That the Rev. James 0. Andrew be, and he is hereby affectionately requested to resign his office as one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church. ALFRED GRIFFITH, JOHN DAVIS." If the trial of Francis A. Harding awakened a 168 Organization of the general interest throughout the Church and the nation, that interest was greatly augmented in the case before us. The Conference was held in the Green Street Methodist Episcopal Church, the galleries of which were crowded to overflowing, while the intelligence of the arrest of the official character of Bishop Andrew sent a thrill of sadness to every Southern heart. As has been already stated, Bishop Andrew had violated no law of the Church. He had exercised the functions of a Bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church since 1832, at which time he was elevated to the Episcopal office. For the office which had been confided to his trust, he was eminently fitted. Ihis executive abilities were of a high order, his pulpit qualifications commanding, and as a platform speaker he had scarcely a peer among his brethren. His moral and religious character, too, was above reproach. For twelve years he had presided over Conferences in the North as well as in the South, with the greatest acceptability. But he was connected with slavery, it matters not how, and the fell spirit of religious frenzy must strike himn down. The resolution requesting Bishop Andrew to resign his office, having been offered by Mr. Griffith, he addressed the Conference in its support at considerable length. He took the position that "a Bishop is only an officer of the General Confer. M. E. Clurch, Soulh. 169 ence, created for specific purposes, and for no other than the purposes specified;" that originally it was not C intended to constitute the Bishop an officer for life under all circumstances, but they reserved to themselves, as Annual Conferences, power even to change every feature of the system of government-to change every thing pertaining to the character of the Church, save the doctrines." These views had been held for more than twenty years by Mr. Griffith, and in the radical war against the powers of the Episcopacy, as exercised according to the Discipline in the appointment of Presiding Elders, had been freely expressed by him. They had never, however, been avowed in any previous General Conference. At the close of the speech of MVRr. Griffith, Dr. Longstreet proposed an amendment to the preamble and resolution, to which Mr. Griffith objected. Mr. Drake, of M iississippi, then suggested that the preamble be altered so as to read, "Whereas, Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery as stated in his communication," to which no objection being offered, the chair announced it incorporated with the preamble and resolution. Bishop Soule then addressed the Conference, and said, I rise, sir, seeing no other speaker on the floor, and I assure you and the Conference, strange as it may seem, with as perfect calmness of spirit as I ever remember to have possessed at 8 170 Organization of the any period of my life. I cannot, and I need not, conceal from you, sir, or from this General Conference, that, since the commencement of this session, I have been the subject of deep mental distress and agony. But in this respect the season of my bitterness has passed away. Conscious that I have pursued, with close thought and prayer, such a course as was within my power to harmonize the brethren, and to strengthen, if possible, the peace and unity of this body and of the whole Church, I have calmly submitted the whole matter to the overruling and superintending providence of Almighty God. I stand connected with this subject individually, and in connection with my colleagues, in a peculiar point of view, but I have at this period no personal interest whatever in the matter. I am, I assure you, willing, entirely willing, so far as I am myself concerned, to be immolated; but I can be immolated only on one altar, and that is the altar of the UNION of the lethodist Episcopal Church. You cannot, all the powers of earth cannot, immolate me upon a Northern altar, or a Southern altar. Here I take my stand, my position. But I did not rise, with the indulgence of this body, this morning, even to touch the merits of the question now before this body. It would ill become me in the relation I sustain to this body and to the Methodist Episcopal Church to do it. But I have risen to suggest to the Conference M. E. Church, Soutlh. 171 some considerations which I hope may have their influence upon the mode of conducting this weighty concern. I speak to men of God-to men of experience-to men who have analyzed the elements of human nature, and of ecclesiastical and civil polity-to men of thought, who have been accustomed to trace causes and their effects through all the diversified forms of human society. I speak to Christian men and Christian ministers-I speak to young men, who have not had the same time as the aged, nor the same opportunities from experience and observation, to grasp fully these great and interesting subjects. I trust I shall hear on the floor of this Conference the voice of age and of experience; and I beseech. you, brethren, by the deepest interests that can affect our beloved Zion —I beseech you by a voice frowm the tomb of a Wesley and a beloved Asbury, and from the sleeping-places of' our venerated fathers, to let your spirits on this occasion be perfectly calm and self-possessed, and perfectly deliberate. I advise, in the place in which I stand, that the younger men hear the voice of age. I beg you, brethren, to remember that you stand at this moment before several tribunals. You are before (I speak to the General Conference) a tribunal in the galleries; and whatever view you may take of this subject, if they cannot judge of the merits of the case before you, such are their enlightened ideas of what 172 Orgcan-izatior. of the belongs to the spirit of Christianity, and the office of Christian ministers, that they will sit in judgment on you. I would also observe here that, as a great branch of the Protestant Christian community, our position in regard to this subject is unique and distinguished from all other branches of that community. So far as I know, there is not a single sister (Protestant) Church in these United States, or in the world, having any legislation on the, subject of slavery. I say, in this we are unique, we are alone. We therefore stand in our action on this subject before the tribunal of all the Christian Churches of our own land, and our actions will certainly be judged of by that tribunal. We act here also in the capacity of a General Conference, and every thing we do here is to go out before the whole body of ministers and people whom we here represent-it is to go out in the face of the whole Church, and they will judge with respect to our action in the premises. We are, too, before the tribunal of public opinion, and statesmen, civilians, and jurists, have an interest in this matters and they will judge us on other grounds, and in reference to our standards, and rules of action, and not as we shall be judged by the great mass. They will judge by the rules of the "book," according as our action is founded on facts, and is in accordance with the rules of that book which contains the constitution and laws of the Church. This M. E. Czhurch, South. 173 consideration will certainly occupy your minds on this question. I have only to add, and with this remark I shall take my seat, waiting results not without solicitude and anxiety, not without the deepest concern for the perpetual union, and undivided interests of this great body; but calm, and perfectly undisturbed, waiting the issue, and committing all to God. A word about decorum, and the mode of conducting your debates. I myself love to hear hard arguments, but I love to hear them in soft words; and I believe that any man who has carefully weighed this matter will concede that arguments are proportionably stronger as they are conveyed in soft words. The effect of argument in debate certainly does not depend on the loudness with which we speak. It is not necessary to raise your voices so that you may be heard in the remotest parts of this house, and even in the street. Let me admonish brethren who may take part in this discussion, that it is far from being important to their case that they should use great strength of voice, and where this is done an almost universal opinion is awakened that there is undue excitement of passion in the case. Avoid all reflection on each other. Meet brethren's arguments if you can. Confute those arguments if you can, but do it in a Christian spirit, and with a calm and undisturbed mind. Then whatever shall be the report concerning the General Conference, 174 Organization of the it shall at least be said that we have conducted ourselves with that calmness, and with that Christian and ministerial sobriety, which becomes so grave an assembly, and so grave a question. I thank the Conference for their indulgence while I have spoken. The Conference was then addressed by Mr. Sandford, of the New York Conference, who supported the resolution exclusively on the ground of expediency, and basing that expediency on the convulsions that would follow, and the loss of very large numbers of their members if they failed to remove Bishop Andrew. Mr. Sandford was followed by Dr. Winans, of the Mississippi Conference, who made the first speech on the Southern side. "Dr. Winans was an impetuous speaker, after the Greek model, very plain in attire and appearance, wearing no cravat, making no flourishes. But if any adversary supposed that this unpretending exterior indicated a mind of ordinary caliber, he very soon changed his opinion. Massive strength, put in motion by a glowing spirit, furnished a mighty momentum which struck like the swell of the sea when stormy winds rule the waters." He said: I appreciate the remarks of our venerable superintendent, especially in regard to the manner in M. E. churcl, South. 175 which this discussion should be conducted. There is one point, however, on which I must put in a disclaimer against the inference which the Bishop's remarrks would warrant. I cannot speak on any subject without speaking loud; and I beg to advertise this Conference, and the spectators, that in speaking loud I give no indication of exasperated feeling. It is the misfortune of my constitution, and depends on no particular excitement on the question, and I approach this subject with as much calmness as I do any other. It may be, sir, that it is the calmness of despair, yet result it firom what it may, I am calm, and perfectly so. That the Conference has a right, an abstract right, with or without cause, to request any member of that body to retire from the Episcopacy, I am not prepared to deny. I will readily admit, Mr. President, that if you, or any one of your venerable body, should be subject to that fearful misfortune, alienation of mind, it would be proper to obtain your consent to retire from your very important station, if indeed you might be competent to give your consent in such a case. I do not, then, dispute the abstract right of this Conference to memorialize Bishop Andrew on the subject of his retiring from the office he sustains; nor do I conceive it to be out of the limits of that proper right for each member to assign the reasons for adopting a course so unusual. Conceding this 176 Organizzcation of the right, I claim, on the other hand, a full and perfect right for every member to assign the reasons why he should not join in this request. It is farther the privilege of every member closely to scrutinize, and rigidly to criticise, the reasons assigned for this remarkable act, by those who move it. It will be my purpose to use hard arguments, but not hard terms, though I confess I find it difficult to avoid them. If, however, I do use hard terms, they shall not proceed from hard feelings. I do not know, sir, whether I am to consider it at all necessary to notice the arguments that have been already presented in support of the request which is attempted to be made to the Bishop. But I shall call your attention, and the attention of the Conference, to the arguments in the preamble of the resolution inviting the Bishop to retire. I say, then, that the first statement, the very first statement or proposition in the preamble is not true. I do not mean to say that those who placed it there intended to state an untruth. I believe they thought it was true when they made the statement; but according to my views of the matter, it is not true that the settled and invariable usage of the M. E. Church has been not to elect a person having slaves to the office of a Bishop. The mere fact that a thing has not been done, does not constitute usage. I admit that it is a fact that no slaveholder has been elected, and it would be true MAl. E. urch, South. 177 to affirm that it has been the invariable custom of the M. E. Church to choose for Bishops those who were not slaveholders. It may be, sir, that slaveholders have never possessed an individual among them suitable for the office; or sectional matters may have influenced the vote. How are we to arrive at the fact that the mere election of a man not a slaveholder proves the settled usage of not electing slaveholders? The term is improperly employed, and I could prove beyond question that this has not been the usage of the Church. I could take you back to the General Conference at Philadelphia, and show that it was in the purpose of the Western and Middle men to choose for the office of Bishop a slaveholder, and in all probability he would have been elected to the office, had there not been management and interference on the part of the Baltimore Conference to defeat the design. The usage of the Church is not against the election of a slaveholder to the office of Bishop. I will correct myself-I should say, such a Bishop would have been elected, had it not been for the management and trickery, not of the Baltimore Conference, but of certain members of that Conference. The next point is more palpably untrue than that I have just dismissed. It is not true in point of fact, though it has the show of truth. It goes on the principle that Bishop Andrew was elected 8* 178 Oryanizationz of the to the office on Southern nomination. That solle Southern brethren were concerned in his noinination is true, and we do not deny it. But that the Southern party, the great Southern sectional divis. ion of the M. E. Church, elected him, is not true, and it is well known not to be the fact. There was a report prevailing that some Southern brethren were drawn into a conspiracy by which the rights of the South would have been invaded. Brother Pickering nominated a man to the office who was known to be a slaveholder, and who would have been elected had not Bishop Andrew — Mr. Pickering. I would correct the brother. I never nominated any such man. Dr. Winans. I am glad to be corrected, sir; but there are on the floor of this house those who are enlisted in the enterprise of degrading Bishop Andrew from his office who did propose such a measure. When we stated on this question, that we were prepared to vote for a slaveholder for the office of Bishop, we were met by the introduction of James 0. Andrew; and but for this, a slaveholder would, in all probability, have been elected in 1832, and selected by Northern and Western men. I do not believe that I shall be contradicted on this subject, and in contradiction to the state. ment in the preamble of this resolution I may say, that we only just missed the election of a slave. holding Bishop. 1i. E. Chzutrclh, South. 179 Well, now, sir, what are the facts of the case? Let us look them in the face. Suppose it had been inconsistent with the genius of Methodismthough it is not, and you know it is not, you dare not assert it, for the Discipline stares you in the face if you do-but suppose it was contrary to the Discipline to elect a man to this office who held slaves; suppose all this, what are the facts of the case? Why, that Bishop Andrew had no part in constituting himself a slaveholder, inasmuch as he gave no consent thereto, and had no opportunity of expressing his dissent. This, I presume, will not be denied, inasmuch as the Bishop's statement, having been incorporated in the preamble, was presumed to be true. Well, then, what does he say in the first instance? Why, that without his consent, and indeed against it-for he labored to free the girl who was left to him, but was overruled by the strange fiacet that the girl, at years of dis-.cretion and intelligence, preferred to be a slave, and refused to be set free. This would appear strange to the North, but we in the South know all about it. Well, by the girl's own free and unrestrained determination to continue his slave, lie was prevented from emancipating her, and her will bound him up to the destiny of being a slaveholder, in spite of all his desire to the contrary. The other case is of a similar character: the providential devolvement upon him of a slave whom 180 Organizcdtionl of the he now declares free to go when and wherever he will, provided there be assurance that he will be provided for, or will be able to provide for himself. Bishop Andrew did not wish to be a slaveholder, but became one in spite of his efforts to the contrary. Well, he was a slaveholder in 1840, exposed to the malediction of the Northli, and just as unfit for the general superintendency of the Union in December, 1843, as in January, 1844, for he was then a slaveholder. And what harm was there in marrying a woman who had been pronounced by one of the most venerated of our ministers to be as fit a lady for a Bishop's wife as he ever saw? WVhat evil had he done by becoming a slaveholder farther by that marriage, when he was already a slaveholder beyond control? What had he done, by that marriage, to prejudice his case? Just nothing at all, for he was already a slaveholder by immutable necessity. In forming a matrinionial alliance, in seeking one who was to become the mother of his children and the companion of his declining years, he had married a pious Rand estimable lady, and that is the whole matter; and yet he is advised to leave the superintendency on this ground. It seems to me that this is the only ground maintained by the advocates of the resolution. What has he- done by executing the deed of i1L P. church, 8tO UCth, 1it trust? What did he do to alter the position of the slaves? Did he bring upon them any consequences prejudicial to them? Or did he incur any obligation to deprive that lady of her property because she had given him her hand? Why, the position will be this, that James O. Andrew must cease to be a Bishop because he has married a lady; for he has done these negroes no harm by his momentary possession of them. Was it his duty to marry this lady in order that he might set these slaves free? If not, did such duty arise out of the fact that he had married the lady? The proposition condemns itself, inasmuch as a change of relation has taken place by marrying that lady, and he is now no longer a slaveholder except against his consent. By the providence of God at first, and by the unsolicited operations of fellowbeings, he is constituted a slaveholder, from which relation the laws of Georgia will not permit him to disengage himself. Being in this situation, and being exposed to the resentment of the North, he marries an interesting woman, and places her property back in her hands, under the precise circumstances in which it was before the marriage. And in spite of all this, this General Conference gravely meditates the act of removing him from that office he has filled with such entire satisfaction to the Church. But, sir, the main point relied upon in this mat 182 Oryanization of the ter, is the expediency of the course contemplated. Expediency! Or, in other words, such a state of things has been gotten up in the North and in the West as renders it necessary for Bishop Andrew to retire from the office of the superintendency, if we would preserve the union of the Church. Sir, I will meet this by another argument on expediency. By the vote contemplated by this body, and solicited by this resolution, you will render it expedient-nay, more, you render it indispensable-nay, more, you render it unconIrollably necessary, that as large a portion of the Church-and, permit me to add, a portion always conformed in their views and practices to the Discipline of the Church-I say that by this vote you render it indispensably, ay, uncontrollably, necessary that that portion of the Church should -I dread to pronounce the word, but you understand me. Yes, sir, you create an uncontrollable necessity that there should be a disconnection of that large portion of the Church from your body. It is not because there are prejudices waked up by unceasing agitation year after year, in opposition to the spirit and language of the Discipline, but it arises out of the established laws of society — from a state of things that is under the control of political and civil government, which no minister of the gospel can control or influence in the, smallest degree. If you pass this action in the f11. E. Church, SloutZh. 183 mildest form in which you can approach the Bishop, you will throw every minister in the South hzors de comnbat; you will cut us off from all connection with masters and servants, and will leave us no option-God is my witness that I speak with all sincerity of purpose toward you-but to be disconnected with your body. If such necessity exists on your part to drive this man from his office, we reassert that this must be the result of your action in this matter. We have no will, no choice in this thing. It comes upon us as destiny; it comes with overwhelming force, and all we can do is to submit to it. Let us, then, pass before you, and then give such weight as you think fitting to the argument for expediency embraced in the preamble to this resolution, and let that determine your vote in this matter..... There may come a time when your hearts will bleed at the recollection of having cut off from your body-for we will never go voluntarily-as firm and good friends, and as honest in our attachment to Discipline, as any other portion of the Church.! Yes, the time may come in your after-lives when you will lament an act that has been done so hurriedly. I say hurriedly, because it has been scarcely three weeks under consideration-hurriedly, because you have had no intercourse with your societies on the subject-hurriedly, because the question has not even been mooted in those regions where you appre 184 Oryanizalion of tle hend your difficulty-and hurriedly, because you are cutting off thirteen hundred preachers and four hundred and fifty thousand members, against whom lies no allegation of having departed from the principles and laws of your Book of Discipline. Sir, I protest against the vote that is sought on this question; and I conjure you by the love of' God, by your regard for the Discipline of the Church, and by the interests of the South, to pause ere you take this step. I throw out of the consideration the interests of the masters of slaves, those hated, and abhorred, and despised beings-I leave out of the question the spiritual welfare of thousands of those poor oppressed people for whose interests and welfare you profess so much solicitation —the bleeding slave himself, cut off, by your action, from our approach, ministry, and counsels-I leave these things out of the question, and conjure you to let the union of our beloved Church plead effectually to prevent you from giving the vote which is sought by this resolution. Already, (and perhaps this may be the last time I shall have the opportunity to speak on the floor of this General Conference,) I say, already the evil effects of the abolition excitement are becoming apparent, for to that is to be traced the dire necessity you plead in the case. It has hedged in the poor negro, and shut him up from access to his minister, and it has shut the mouth of the M. E. Church, South. 185 minister, and will you throw the blackness and darkness of death over him by your vote? Will you drive us fromn the Connection, or will you hold back your hands and prevent the pernicious effects of such action as is at present sought at your hands? I leave the matter with you, and you conscience, and your God. Bishop Wightman, in his Life of Bishop Capers, in reference to Dr. Winans's speech, says it was delivered with "true Demnosthenean force. The irrepressible emotion, the'erect countenance,' the flashing eye, and ringing voice, the unfaltering prediction of consequences that were to follow, and resound through all Methodist history, made the speech memorable." Mr. Bowen, of the Oneida Conference, spoke in favor of the resolution, but in his speech no new argument was presented, advocating simply the plea of expediency. At the close of 5Mr. Bowen's speech, Dr. Lovick Pierce, of Georgia, addressed the Conference. In his speech he said: Can anybody, therefore, expect that this man, blameless before heaven and before this congregation of ministers, even if he were asked to do this thing by two-thirds of this Conference, could do it, would do it, dare do it, with 186 Orgctanizcalion of the the effects that would grow out of the movement written, with the finger of God, upon his heart? Is it the doctrine of expediency, sir? I believe that this is the only plea that can be put in that has one single vestige either of truth, justice, or propriety; and allow me to safy, that unless I am greatly mistaken, the adoption of the resolution now before the General Conference, on the ground of expediency, is an act done by Methoclist ministers by which, in the very nature of the case, they invert the established order of the New Testsament. In the difficulties which arose in the Church in the dclays of the great apostle to the Gentiles, he said, in reference to this point, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient." Shall we ask Bishop Andrew to pay this tribute to expediency? Why, if it were lawful to demand it, and the yielding of it would produce such disastrous results as must be produced, it would be inexpedient fbr this body of Godfearing ministers to make any such demand. To the law and to the testimony I feel myself bound closely to adhere. I would not say any thing that has been said by any predecessor in' this case; yet I beg leave to add, in farther confirmation of the remarks made by my worthy Brother Winans, that of all notions that were ever defended before a body of Christian ministers, the notion of asking an act of this sort on the ground of expediency, M. E. Church, South. 187 when it is as inexpedient for one portion of a united body of Christians to this as it is expedient for the other that it should be done, is, to me, the most fearful mockery of all sound logic. Do that which is inexpedient for us, because for you it is expedient! Never, while the heavens are above the earth, let that be recorded on the journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco. pal Church! What is the evidence that it is expedient that this thing should be done in any portions of these growing States? The opinion and testimony of the brethren? Take our brethren on their own ground in other portions of the United States equally linked together by that golden chain which, if it be possible to avert it, I pray God may never be broken. Do you ask us how this matter is to be met? It is to be met by the conservative principle and the compromise laws of this Book of Discipline. Show your people that Bishop Andrew has violated any one of the established rules and regulations of the Church, and that he refuses to conform himself to those established laws and usages, and you put yourselves in the right, and us in the wrong. My beloved brethren, there is but one man older than myself in the land that I live in who is now in the ministry, and he is at present an inefficient man. I am the oldest efficient minister belonging to the Georgia Conference. I never 188 Orgazizalion of tihe wedded my heart to my family with less desires that this wedlock should be ruptured, than I did to the Church which found me a sinner, and I hope, through God's grace, will land me in heaven. And since the day that I made myself acquainted with the Methodist Church- and will the recording angel write it this moment in the book of eternity?-I affirm, that, so far as religion has been concerned in the South, no question has ever done so much harm to saving godliness as the intermeddling of the Methodist Church with the question of slavery; and could the cap of hell be lifted today, I fear that the groans of many damned would be heard coming up, and dating the ground of their fall from the merciless act of the Church against a free constitution and the laws of the land. The Methodist Church may have had much to do with slavery in the concrete, as it is called, but has no more business with slavery in the abstract than with the tariff; and, what is a great misfortune, you may put what construction you please on your actions and doings in this case, but you have "passed the Rubicon." In the year 1836 I desired that a protest should be entered on the journal of the Conference against what was then believed to be the doctrine, that any man who, by any circumstance, was connected with domestic slavery, should be deemed as living under an act of outlawry with this Church. M. E Cklurch, Soutlz. 189 Finally, I say, pass this resolution, and the whole of the Southern States are hurled into confusion at once; and the brother that would lie down to be trampled upon by such an act of this body, would be regarded as unworthy the office he held, and unworthy to preach the gospel of Jesus. I am against the resolution, and am glad to make it known that I am against it on principles pure as those that kindle the glory of high heaven-not because I ani a pro-slavery man, but because God did not call me to legislate on these matters. Jerome C. Berryman, of the Missouri Conference, next spoke in opposition to the resolution. I-le was followed by Seymour Coleman, of the Troy Conference, who was in favor of the resolution. Give them a slaveholding Bishop, he said, and you blow up the fortress from its foundations. He had expected a most peaceful Conference, supposing, as he did, that the firebrands had left their ranks last year, and he thought that now they should have peace in their borders. The Southern brethren knew little of-the labors of the Northern men to secure their comfort and safety. Give them a slaveholding Bishop, and they make the whole of the North a magazine of gunpowder, and the Bishop a firebrand in the midst. The position Bishop Andrew sustained in the Church 190 Organization of the had made this matter to cause more trouble than any thing he had ever known to take place in the Church. The step was wonderfully unfortunate. To the brief speech of Mr. Coleman, Dr. Smith, of Virginia, made the following reply: He wished to correct the brother in his statement of a fact, and one on which the whole merit of his argument was based. It was that he, in deep sympathy with the South, had successfully warred against abolitionism. They had not so understood it, and if he would make his point good by argument he would have accomplished a great thing. They had viewed it differently, and believed it to be different. The arguments of the abolitionists had been as harmless as the lispings of helpless infancy in their influence on the South. They gained some bad eminence, and were the means of doing harm to the poor blacks. That the North opposed the abolitionists out of sympathy for the South, would demand proof. In 1836 the Northern brethren complained that it was among them that abolitionism was doing all the mischief; that there its desolating footsteps were to be marked and mourned over, and groaned under, as a burden intolerable to be borne. And such was the truth of the case. In 1836 we were asked to leave this matter alone, and were told that the Northern brethren hoad more at stake than we had. And they succeeded in shutting the mouths of M.. Cakurch, South. 191 some of the brethren, but not with my consent. They now would have it understood that it was for the South they then labored. Messrs. Thomas Stringfield, of the IHolston Conference, Thomas Crowder, of Virginia, John Spencer, of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nathan Bangs, of New York, were the next speakers-the two former in opposition to the resolution, and the two latter in favor of it. Messrs. Stringfield and Crowder, in their remarks, were courteous, dignified, convincing. The argument, based upon expecdiency, that had been urged by Northern men, was triumphantly met by Mr. Stringfield. It is inex2edienl, said he, that Bishop Andrew should resign. If the Bishop be shuffled out of office, some one must be elected to fill his place; and such a one, whoever he may be, will meet with as little favor in the South as Bishop Andrew would, with all his disabilities, in the North. Who, sir, will elbow Bishop Andrew out of the pulpit, and fill his place in our Southern congregations? Will any one do so that lifts his hand in favor of this resolution? It is not likely, sir, that another Southern man will be elected; and, sir, a licne is to be drawn by this vote. It will be a test votea party vote; and, sir, I know not what sort of heart a man must have that could go to the South, as Bishop Andrew's successor, under these circumstances. I aln sure he would be unfit for a Bishop. 192 Organizat1io of the I know this is a delicate subject-and some may think it should not be mentioned here-but it will be thought of by the people, and, in spite of us, it will have its bearings. There are two sides to this question. Inexpediency is set over against inexpediency-one evil against another evil; and as a lesser evil is a relative good, it is to my mind clearly inexpedient for Bishop Andrew to resign. Thomas Stringfield was a Kentuckian by birth, his parents having removed to that State previous to 1796, in which year he was born. Blessed with religious instruction from early childhood, at eight years of age he openly professed faith in Christ. In 1806 his parents removed to Alabama, where he resided until at the age of sixteen years, when, in obedience to his country's call, he entered the American army under General Jackson. In the army he was no less distinguished for his faithful adherence to the religion he professed, than for his intrepid courage in the field of battle. During his connection with the army, while on guard, he received a shot, from an Indian's gun, in the forehead, which left a scar for life. At the Tennessee Conference in 1816, he offered himself as an itinerant, and was accepted. From the time he entered the ranks as an itinerant preacher until God called him home, he performed the duties of an evangelist with commendable zeal. A careful examination of the appointments filled 3l. E. CUzhurch, South. 193 by Mr. Stringfield, and an acquaintance with the territory which they embraced, impresses us at once, not only with the vastness of his labors, but with the privations he endured, and the sacrifices he made for the cause of Christ. At the General Conference of 1836 he was elected to the editorship of the South-western Christian Advocate, located in Nashville, Tennessee, in which position he remained until 1840. Retiring from the duties of an editor, he travels for five years as Agent for the American Bible Society, and then returns to the pastoral work, where, with unabated zeal, he prosecutes his high and holy calling. At one time we find him the valiant leader of the hosts on an extensive and laborious District, and then we see him performing the duties of an evangelist in a more circumscribed sphere; and anon as Agent for Strawberry Plains College. The immense labors he had performed through a period of thirty-seven years, told fearfully upon his constitution, and in 1853 he was placed on the superannuated roll. Rallying again, in 1854 he travels the Dandridge Circuit, and in 1855 is appointed to Loudon Station. Unable longer to go in and out before his brethren in the active duties of an itinerant preacher, he returns to the superannuated list, where he remains until called from labor to reward. At half-past two o'clock, on 9 194 Olrqanization of the the 12th of June, 1858, he sweetly fell asleep in Jesus. Mr. Crowder said: Our Discipline demands of a minister of Jesus Christ the same purity of heart and rectitude of life which are inculcated in the Bible; and if these remain as fair as those of any other elder in the Methodist Episcopal Church, then he has violated no rule of our Disciplinebecause he could not have a fair moral and mninisterial character if he were a transgressor of either the precepts of religion or the rules of Discipline. On what, then, I ask again, does this expediency stand as its foundation? Its foundation, sir, is a combination of circumstances; and this combination of circumstances has been brought about c4ie/l by a spirit which I may call "Legion." But where did this spirit start up? In the South? No, sir; the South has not been troubled at all. Its course has been quiet, obedient, and kind, leaving myself out of the question. The South, sir, has never made your table groan with petitions and memorials for changes in our Discipline. The South has never made any aggressive complaints against the North. Sir, this spirit came up in the North and East; I mean the spirit of "abolition." This spirit.has put the causes in operation which have brought about the combination of circumstances that is the basis of this expediency. Now, sir, I 3I. E. Clhurch, Soutlh. 195 ask these fathers and these brethren if this basis of expediency is not too dark in origin, and ruinous in results, on which to depose our beloved Bishop Andrew? Can you do this, brethren? It is well known how seriously the abolition movement affected the South, bringing about strife and division between them and the North. Now, sir, let it go abroad that this General Conference requested Bishop Andrew to resign on the ground of an expediency so doubtful as this, because he may not be cordially received in some portions of the North, and the division of our Church may follow-a civil division of this great confederacy may follow that, and then hearts will be torn apart, master and slave arrayed against each other, brother in the Church against brother, and the North against the South-and when thus arrayed, with the fiercest passions and energies of our natures brought into action against each other, civil war and far-reaching desolation must be the final results. My dear brethren, are you prepared for this? No, I am sure you are not. Then refuse to pass the resolution now pending before the Conference, and permit our beloved Bishop still to go on his way of usefulness, and I am persuaded that the fears which many brethren honestly entertain will never be realized. Brethren, we have, as instruments in the hands of God, been doing a great work in the North and South; let us still 196 Oryanization of the work together for the honor of our common Saviour and the salvation of the souls of the peo)le, white and colored-let us bring the hearts of the community generally under the influence of religion, and the work of emancipation will come on as a natural result. It is with pleasure that we contemplate the character of such a man as Thomas Crowder. IHe was born in Wake county, North Carolina, September 22, 1797. His parents were members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were deeply pious, and endeavored to bring up their children C"in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." It had been the intention of Mr. Crowder to prepare for the bar. No profession opened up before a young man of promise at that period a more attractive field than that of the law, and none more readily invited to fortune or to fame. To prepare for this profession, he had labored of nights during his minority, and to attain this object he was prosecuting his collegiate course. But God had destined him for a higher and' nobler work. He entered the Virginia Conference in 1821, and soon took high rank among his brethren, and filled many of the most important appointments in that Conference. The reply of Mr. Spencer was unworthy the M3 E. Ui. Clch, Soulh. 197 occasion and the Conference of which he was a representative. IHe said: Well, sir, it is alleged that our present action is a novel procedure. Admitted; but whose fault is it? We never, till now, had occasion to complain of any of our Superintendents. We now have, and therefore our proceedings must be new. This is plain. The inquiry is raised, By what rule can we touch Bishop Andrew? What specific rule has he violated? We ought to remember that the mere silence of the Discipline in regard to a particular case is no evidence that action in that case would be contrary to our rules. An illustration will place this in its true light. Suppose that instead of marrying a respectable lady owning slaves, Bishop Andrew had married a colored woman. Would Southern or Northern brethren say, either that he had broken an express rule of Discipline, or that he would nevertheless be well qualified for a Bishop in our Church? Neither the one nor the other. They doubtless would depose him at once, though there is no rule to be found declaring, in so many words, that no white man shall marry a colored woman on pain of degradation. It is thought by some that before the case can be reached a new rule must be made; and if so, it would be an ex post facto law. So says some driveler in the Tribune Extra found yesterday in 198 Organization of thze the Conference-room. He was ashamed to give his name, and well he might, as he knew he was meddling with other people's business, and at the same time dealing in slanderous allegations. Let us look at this. An ex postfctfo law is always retrospective. But if we made a rule to rid ourselves of our present difficulty, it would not be to punish a past offense, but to remove from our ecclesiastical car a present incumbrance, and one that must be removed or crush us into ruin. We hear much concerning the Constitution. The word constitutional is repeated again and again. Here I am at a loss. I cannot tell what brethren mean. I suppose the Constitution of our Church to be embodied in our Articles of Religion, our Restrictive Rules, and our General Rules. But where is it said, in these, that a slaveholding Bishop must remain in office despite of the General Conference? or that no rule can be made to touch such a case? Nowhere. Then is it not plain that these are high-sounding words used without meaning? But, sir, much is said of expediency. Well, let us look at expediency. It is alleged that it would be a dreadfiul thing to pass the resolution before us, as a matter of expediency. This is a grave subject. But is not expediency at the foundation of many grave and important subjects? Mr. President, how did you and your M. E. (Ilurch, Soutlh. 199 colleagues get into the Episcopal office? Expediency put you there, expediency keeps you there, and when expediency requires it, you shall be removed from your seats-yes, every one of you. Expediency is the foundation of our Episcopacy. Nay more, it is the very basis of Methodism. We are conjured by a brother, in a solemn manner, to refrain, lest we ruin souls. He doubts not that, if we could open the doors of perdition, and look down into the world of woe, we should find thait souls were lost by being driven from the Methodist Church through her action against slavery in the days of our fiithers! I meet this by remarking, some think in that event we would be likely to hear wailings arising from those doomed to hell by reason of our connivance at slavery. Fearful things are said about division. Our feelings have been roused up. We have wept and prayed. The clouds have gathered in the distance. We have seen the lightning. We have heard the muttering thunders. Our destruction is threatened. But if it comes, how can we help it? We have made no change, and we ask none. Who has brough[t this evil upon us? If we are ruined, on whose head will rest the blood of a murdered Church'? The Lord have mercy on us! We now come to this point: Shall we stand by our principles? Will we maintain true Methodism? Or 200 Organization of t1ze shall we suffer the most daring innovation upon our usages? Must our foundations be uprooted, and our fair edifice be tumbled into destruction, by retaining a slaveholder in the Episcopacy? The speech of Dr. Bangs was moderate in temper. He congratulated the Conference on the kind and Christian spirit they had hitherto maintained, which he hoped would be preserved through the whole of this important debate. He would make a few remarks on what fell from Dr. Winans. That gentleman had said that the preamble contained in the proposition was not true, because it affirmed that the having a slaveholding Bishop was contrary to usage. Must they adopt a practice to make it contrary to usage? When a practice has always been adopted, it certainly is according to usage. Now (said Dr. Bangs) I think that any thing that has not been introduced into the practice of the Church is contrary to the usage of the Church. This appears to me to be self-evident. But the brother affirmed, if I understood him right, that Northern men were ready to vote for a slaveholding Bishop, and consequently it had like to have become the usage of the Church to have such in the Episcopacy. Now, I never understood from any Northern man that he was willing to vote for a slavehbolding Bishop. It was farther affirmed that it was only defeated by trick IJ. E. Ch/urcl, South. 201 and management. I do not know any thing about such a trick. I never was in a caucus at all about the nomination of a Bishop. But I have heard fiom the mover of this resolution, that in 1832, the Baltimore delegation sent a committee to wait on a slaveholder from the South, and ask him if he was willing to emancipate his slaves, if they would nominate him for the office of Bishop. He very courteously, and in a Christian spirit, took time to deliberate, and eventually told them he could not do it, and that was the reason why they declined to nominate him. Did that look like nominating a slaveholder to the Episcopacy? And they nominated James O. Andrew because he was not a slaveholder; but at that time he was not generally known to the General Conference, and I am given to understand that only about a dozen votes were given him from the South, or slaveholding States. At any rate, he had not a majority of the Southern States, and he could not have been elected without the votes of the Northern Conferences. So much, then, as to the allegation that the appointment of a slaveholder to the office of Bishop was not contrary to the usage of the Church and to its principles. We have been uniform on that subject. Now, sir, I wish to correct an error the brother from Virginia made yesterday. He said that this originated in abolitionism. This is a mistake. It is the old Methodistic anti9* 202 Oryganization of' the slavery feeling, and I would make no allusion either to abolitionists or slatveholders. I love them both, God knows I do. Now, with respect to the propriety of the resolution before the Conference. I think there are many things that would disqualify a man for holding the office of Bishop that do not amount to immorality. Suppose Bishop Hedding should come out and declare that it was a sin to hold slaves under any circumstances. This would identify him with the ultra party, and I would vote for his retiring, because it would disqualify him for his work as Superintendent over the whole Church. I will suppose another case. Let one of our Bishops be unmarried, and go into the work, and marry a free colored woman, would it not, in the sense of the whole community, disqualify him for his office? And yet it would not be an act of immorality. And it is on this principle that I say Bishop Andrew has disqualified himself by connecting himlself with slavery, because he cannot acceptably exercise his duties as a general officer of the Church. Now the doctrine of expediency has been referred to. Let me give you one item of expediency that the Apostle Paul practiced: "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend;" and if Bishop Andrew had practiced h.. cU. zrch,,S~outh. 203 that kind of expediency we should not have had the present difficulty. But his connection with slavery was'"against his will!" I will acknowledlge that, in the first case, he had no agency; but will any one avow that he was not a free agent when he connected himself with this lady? No one will avow that. He therefore acted imprudently. As was shown by the brother who opened this case, there is a marked difference between an Elder, a Deacon, and a Bishop. The office and work of a Bishop are of a general character, not confined to any particular place; and when he disqualifies himself fromn exercising his office for the good of the whole Church, he disqualifies himself from holding that office. With regard to our Southern brethren, I hold them to be entitled to all the offices of the ministry, and never will I perform any act that will go to deprive them of their rights, and never will I perform an act that will go to abridge the privileges of the abolitionists. I never did believe, nor do I now believe, that holding slaves under all circumstances is a sin. Others believe that, and sincerely, and every one knows how we boldly contended against such a conclusion in the New York Conference. - We acted then in the integrity of our hearts, and as we believed would be for the good of the Church, and the preservation of its union. I wish, sir, to concentrate all my remarks on this one point, that 204 Organization of the any thing that would disqualify a man for the office of Bishop is fit ground for the action of this General Conference; and I say, to declare that every man who holds a slave sins in so doing, would be a disqualification; and so also, that to enter upon the possession of slaves under the peculiar circumstances would unfit a man for the high office of a General Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church. We do not touch the moral character of Bishop Andrew at all. We do not wish to do it. We say that he has acted imprudently, and that we think it necessary in view thereof that he should resign his office as a Bishop. But while we thus press this matter, we no less fervently pray that the great Head of the Church may overrule all our deliberations and decisions for the promotion of his glory and the good of a lost world. At the close of the speech delivered by Dr. Bangs, explanations of a personal character, in reference to the proposed nomination of Dr. Capers for the Episcopal office in 1832, were made, in which Drs. Capers, Durbin, and Winans, and Messrs. Finley and Davis took part. i.21 f. C. urch, South. 205 CHAPTER III. Resolution of James B. Finley —Speech of Dr. OlinSpeech of Benjamin M. Drake-Speech of George F. Pierce-Speech of Jesse T. Peck-Speech of Bishop Andrew-Bishop Soule addresses the Conference-Speech of Dr. Capers-Address from the Bishops-The adoption of Mr. Finley's Resolution. IN the previous chapter we have seen the official character of Bishop Andrew arrested by the General Conference, and have noticed the efforts made to remove him from the Episcopal office, on the mere plea of expediency. The resolution offered by lM[r. Collins, instructing the Committee on Episcopacy to inquire into the facts of Bishop Andrew's connection with slavery, and report to the Conference, was submitted on the 20th of May. On the 21st the committee presented their report, and, immediately upon its reading, Mr. Collins'"moved that the report be laid on the table, to be taken up tomorrow as the special order of the day." On the following day, the 22d of the month, Mr. Griffith 206 Organization of zle offered a resolution "c1 qectionate&l" requesting Bishop Andrew to resign the Episcopnal office. On the preamble and resolution of Mr. Griffith, speeches were delivered by several of the most eminent nmen in the North; to which, however, Southern delegates replied in no unmistakable terms. The speeches of Drs. Winans and Pierce, to say nothing of those delivered by Stringfield and Crowder, had, for a time, arrested the tide that threatened to sweep every thing before it, and impressed upon the minds of the General Conference the conviction that even fanaticism could invent no plausible excuse for the adoption of the preamble and resolution offered by Mr. Griffith..Dr. Bangs was one of the most popular and influential men in the body from the North, and his speech, the last delivered on the resolution, failed to make any impression in its favor. Under these circumstances it was the policy of the Northern members to apparently change their base of operations. They abandoned the preamble and resolution that had been discussed for nearly t:vo days, and substituted it by the following, offered by James B. Finley, from Ohio: "Whereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids the doing any thing calculated to destroy our itinerant general superintendency; and, whereas, Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery by JIf. E. ChurhclA Soutl. 207 marriage and otherwise, and this act having drawn after it circumstances 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 it is the sense of this General Conference that he desist from the exercise of this office so long as this impediment remains. (Signed) J. B. FINLEY, J. M. TRIMBLE." While the phraseology of the original preamble and resolution and that of the substitute materially differ, yet in their legitimate result they were the samle. Neither of themi charged the Bishop with the violation of any law of the Church, yet each proposed his virtual deposition from the Episcopal office. Mr. Finley accompanied his resolution with a few general remarks, after which Dr. Olin said: I give to the substitute offered by the venerable brother from Ohio a decided preference over the original resolution. {I feel strong objections to that resolution, and no less to the preamble. I am not prepared to say that the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church contains, or is meant to contain, any provision against the election 208 )Organization of the of a slaveholding Bishop, nor do I believe that any such inference is fairly deducible from it. I must hesitate, therefore, to avow such a doctrine. I may not affirm directly, or by any implication, that the Discipline is averse to the election of a slaveholder to that office. Now, it seems to me that this idea is conveyed when it is said that such an election, or that the holding of slaves by a Bishop, is contrary to the " settled policy and usage" of the Church. Since the organization of the federal government on its present basis, the office of President has been occupied during thirtyfive years by citizens of Virginia, and forty-three by slaveholders, while that high honor has been enjoyed only twelve years by Northern statesmen. Would it be a proper use of language to say that it is the " settled policy and usage" of our country, that the office of President should be, for the most part, confined to Southern men? C"Usage" carries, to some extent, at least, the idea of common law and acknowledged right or privilege. In this sense it is obviously inapplicable to the case in hand. We have hitherto had, no slaveholder for Bishop, not that we have a law against it, but because the non-slaveholding candidates have always received a majority of the votes. The majority will always be able to judge of what the interests or sentiments of the whole Church fiom time to time may demand, and such a declaration as that M. U. Czzurcl, Soutll. 209 in the preamble is uncalled for, as well as not strictly true. The facts alleged as the ground of the resolution, if true, are at least disputable, as we have the best possible proof in the discussions and explanations to which we have just listened. They are not matters of record, or history, or general notoriety, and they are not adapted to be the basis of our solemn decision in a case of such grave importance. I do not like the issue to which that resolution sought to lead us. I do not wish, by any act or vote of mine, to say or insinuate that Bishop Andrew is not a most desirable man for the Episcopacy. Undoubtedly, under the pressure of our difficulties, had he voluntarily come forward and done what the Conference, by that resolution, ask him to do, it might have been the best way to relieve us from the embarrassment. At least some may think so. But I doubt the propriety of asking him to do, under the constraining influence of our vote, what, if done at all oughlt to be done voluntarily; for it might thus be understood that even if he wvere free fiom this embarrassment, we still should not prefer to have him for a Bishop. I look upon this question after all, not as a legal, but as a great practical question; and my views are quite disembarrassed from constitutional scruples or difficulties. We camne to this General Conference from the North, South, East, and West, 210 Organiz'ation of the with the best dispositions in all parties to harmonize as well as we might, and to make the least of our differences. There were few symptoms of discontent or disaffection, and it was generally thought that we skhould now make a satisfactory settlement of our difficulties, and go home more harmonious than ever in feeling' and action. I had good reason for coming to this conclusion. I knew, or thouglht I knew, the feelings of my brethren in the North and East, andl I had enjoyed a pretty free correspondence and intercourse with brethren of the South; and I am sure we all came up to this Conference with the best purposes and the best hopes. I was ill, and did not reach the Conference at the commencement, and it was not until I had taken my seat on this floor, and heard of the difficulties which surrounded us, that my mind was robbed of these hopes. I was stunned and overwhelmed with the tidings, and in ten minutes made up nly mind that our embarrassments were stupendous, if not insuperable. I have since made diligent inquiries fiom brethren as to the actual condition and sentiments of the Northern Churches, and what would be the results there, if things remain (as they are. I have, for the most part, refrained from going to the men who have taken part in the controvTersies that have agitated us thitherto, because I thought their testimony, in a case of this sort, might not perhaps be so much Lit E. Chztr/c, South. 211 relied upon; but I have addressed my inquiries to men whom I know to be opponents of the abolition movement; and they concur in believing that this is precisely the state of things in which they most fear to return home to their flocks-and they declare, with one consent, that the difficulty is unmanageable and overwhelming. I hope it will turn out in the end that their fears outrun the reality. But, I confess, I know not where to look for testimony in this matter, but to the accredited, and venerable, and discreet representatives of the various Conferences; and I repeat, that, forming my conclusions on this ground, our most prudent men do regard our present condition as pregnant with danger, and as threatening manifold disasters and disaffections throughout the Methodist Episcopal Church; and, after making what allowance we can for any local or partial view, I am still compelled to regard the evil as a great and portentous one. It addresses itself to us as the only tribunal having the legitimate authority to act in the premises. The calamity has come without warning. The intelligence has fallen down upon us like a thunder-bolt from a serene sky; but we must grapple with the difficulties. It is for this General Conference alone to dispose of them in some way. It must be remembered, however, that this Conference is limited in its action by constitutional re 212 Organizaltion of the strictions, which it may not transcend for the removal of the most ruinous evil. I can conceive of questions coming up here, so beset with legal and constitutional embarrassments, that this General Conference could only weep over them, and give such counsel as it might judge proper. If there ever was a question beset with great practical difficulties, surely it is that under which we now groan; it is so hedged about and filled with evils, which this Conference cannot hope to prevent or cure. Yet our powers are so great as to allow us to make some provision against them, and to some extent, at least, meet the wants of the Church in this great emergency. We may do much, and we may make many arrangements in regard to the Episcopacy; but our powers are still limited and restricted in two things. We cannot do away with the Episcopacy; we cannot infringe upon its character as a general superintendency. Within these limits, it seems to me, that we have large powers-plenary powers for carrying out through the Episcopacy the general purposes of the Conference and the Church. We may almost do what we will, avoiding to come in conflict with the General Rules, and the rights of individuals. Unquestionably the Conference cannot touch the ministerial rights of any one of its members or officers. I believe we are all prepared to recognize the right of Southern brethren to hold slaves il. E. Church, South. 213 under the provisions of the Discipline. We shall acknowledge and guarantee the entire of the privileges and immunities of all parties in the Church. I here declare, that if a remedy should be proposed that would trench on the constitutional claims of Southern ministers, I would not, to save the Church from any possible calamity, violate this great charter of our rights. I am glad of the opportunity of saying that no man, who is a Methodist, and deserves a place among us, can call in question here any rights secured by our charter. I do not say that he may not be a very honest, or a very pious man, who doubts the compatibility of slaveholding, on the conditions of the Discipline, with the ministerial office; but in this he is not a Methodist. Hle may be a very good izan, but a very bad felhodisl; and if such a man doubts if the Church will reform, or is too impatient of delay, let him, as I would in his place, do as our friends in New England did last year, go to some other Church, or set up one for himself.,,Not only is holding slaves, on the conditions and under the restrictions of the Discipline, no disqualification for the ministerial office; but I will go a little farther, and say that slaveholding is not constitutionally a forfeiture of a man's right, if he may be said to have one, to the office of a Bishop. The Church, spread out through all the 214 Organizcaion of the land, will alwaTys determine for itself what are disqualifications and wthat are not, and it has a perfect right to determine whether slaveholding, or abolitionism, or any other fact, shall be taken into consideration in its elections. These are my principles. I have never doubted with regard to them. I will add, that I can never give a vote which does violence to my sentiments in regard to the religious aspect of the subject. I here declare that, if I ever saw the graces of the Christian ministry displayed, or its virtues developed, it has been among slaveholders. I wish here to divest myself of what, to some, may seem an advantage that does not belong to me. I will not conceal —I avow that I was a slaveholder, and a minister at the South, and I never dreamed that my right to the ministry was questionable, or that in the sight of God I was less fitted to preach the gospel on that account. And if the state of my health had not driven me away from that region, I should probably have been a slaveholder to this day. In this day of reform, and manifold suggestions, I go farther, and say, that if by a vote of this General Conference, you might call in question the right of our Southern brethren to the ministry, and make their claim to the sacred office dependent on their giving immediate freedom to their slaves, I do not think that that would be a blessing to the slaves, or to the Church. I do El. E. Church, South. 215 not believe the slave fares worse for having a Christian master, and I think the preachers ma(y have more of public confidence on our present plan. I know these opinions may, by some, be regarded as unsound, and I make them not because they have any special value or novelty, but because I profess to speak my sentiments freely. With regard to the particular case before us, I feel constrained to make one or two remarks. If ever there was a man worthy to fill the Episcopal office by his disinterestedness, his love of the Church, his ardent, melting sympathy for all the interests of humanity, but, above all, for his uncompromising and unreserved advocacy of the interest of the slave-if these are qualifications for the office of a Bishop, then James 0. Andrew is preeminently fitted to hold that office. 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 a brother, and no man has more fully shared my sympathies, or more intimately known my heart, for these twenty years. His house has been my home; on his bed have I lain in sickness, and he, with his sainted wife now in heaven, has been my comforter and nurse. No question under heaven could have presented itself so painfully oppressive to my feelings as the one now before us. If I had a hundred votes, and Bishop Andrew were not pressed by the difficul 216 Organizatlion of the ties which now rest upon him, without any wrong intention on his part I am sure, he is the man to whom I would give them all. I know no man who has been so bold an advocate for the interests of the slaves; and when I have been constrained to refrain from saying what perhaps I should have said, I have heard him at camp-meetings, and on other public occasions, call fearlessly on masters to see to the spiritual and temporal interests of their slaves, as a high Christian duty. Excepting one honored brother, whose name will hereafter be recorded as one of the greatest benefactors of the African race, I know of no man who has done so much for the slave as Bishop Andrew. I knov, sir, I am not speaking to the question, but I am stating facts —facts which I am sure will lead brethren to act with caution and tenderness in this business. It will be readily inferred, from what I have said, that if we cannot act without calling in question the rights of the Southern brethren, we had better, in my opinion, not act all, for I believe it would be better to submit to the greatest calamities than infringe upon our own constitution. Yet it seems to me that we are not shut up to such a disastrous course, and that we may so dispose of this case as to escape both these difficulties. We cannot punish. I would not vote for any resolution that would even censure; and yet, with the powers 1. -E. Cihurchl, South. 217 thllt confessedly belong, to the General Conference, I trust some measure may be adopted that may greratly palliate and diminish, if it cannot wholly avert, the dcangers that threaten us. The substitute now proposed I regard as such a meaLsure. In it this General Conference expresses its wish and will that, under existing circumstances-Imeaning, by that word, not merely the fact that Bishop Andrew has become a slaveholder, but the state of the Church,. the sentiments that prevail-the excitemlent, and the deep feeling of the people on the subject-feeling, it may be, which disqualifies them for calm, dispassionate views in the premises -that, under these circumstances, it is the wvish and will of the brethren of this Conference that Bishop Andrew, against whlon we bring no charge, on whose fair character we fix no reproach, should, for the present, refrain from the exercise of his Episcopal functions. This resolution proposes no punishment. It does not censure. It expresses no opinion of the Bishop's conduct. It only seeks to-avert disastrous results by the exercise of the conservative, of the self-preserving, powers of this Conference. If the brethren who occupy the extreme positions in this question seek rather to allay than excite the fever of feeling, we will yet hope —even allow me to believe-that these difficulties may be removed. I had even thought, if we could so 10 218 Orgaizaction of tize manage this question as to avoid casting any reflections upon the South; if we could hold Bishop Andrew without an impeachment; if we are careful to save that point as far as possible, I have confidence that, whenever he believes he can do it without compromising a principle which I know, in the present situation, he feels himself called upon to represent and maintain-if we could save that point, and hold up a shield over the interests dearer to him and others than his own life evenI do not allow myself to despair that, as soon as circumstances will allow, and difficulties, now insuperable, shall be removed, he will be ready to make great sacrifices for the general good of the Church. I have no right to say so. I only give it as my conviction, that if he can possibly relieve us of our embarrassment he will. My confidence in the man is such, that I have no hesitation in asserting this. I look at this proposition not as a punishment of any grade or sort. It is as if you were to say to Dr. Peck, your editor, who, for some cause, might have become unpopular, " You are our agent. Circumstances, at present, are unfavorable to your exercising your functions; and in the exertion of our just discretion in the case, and because your want of favor with the public interferes with the success of that department over which you are placed, we withdraw you, for the present, from this particular field of duty. We AL E. eiklcreh, S'outzh. 219 do not censure you, and we cordially retain you in the ranks of our ministry." I am not learned in constitutional law. It is, perhaps, for want of larger experience that this is the only view I am able to take of this subject; at which, however, I think I have arrived by a course, I will not say of sound argument, but by natural and easy approaches. With my constitutional views, I am allowed to inquire in this case which course will do the least harm? And I believe that which is proposed by this substitute to be a constitutional measure, dishonorable to none, unjust to none. As such I should wish it to go forth, with the solemn declaration of this General Conference that we do not design it as a punishment, or a censure; that it is, in our apprehension, only a prudential and expedient measure, calculated to avert the great evils that threaten us. I know the difficulties of the South. I know the excitement that is likely to prevail among the people there. Yet, allowing our worst fears all to be realized, the South will have this advantage over us-the Southern Conferences are likely, in any event, to harmonize among themselves-they will form a compact body. In our Northern Conferences this will be impossible in the present state of things. They cannot bring their whole people to act together on one common ground; stations and circuits will be so weakened and broken ais 220 Organiation of the in many instances to be unable to sustain their ministry. I speak on this point in accordance with the conviction of my own judgment, after having traveled three thousand miles through the New England and New York Conferences, that if some action is not had on this subject calculated to hold out hope —to impart a measure of satisfaction to the people-there will be distractions and divisions ruinous to souls, and fatal to the permanent interests of the Church. I feel, sir, that if this great difficulty shall result in separation from our Southern brethren, we lose not our right hand merely, but our very heart's blood. Over such an event I should not cease to pour out my prayers and tears as over a grievous and unmitigated calamity. It was in that part of our Zion that God, for Christ's sake, converted my soul. There I first entered on the Christian mlinistry. From thence come the beloved, honored brethren who now surround me, with whom and among whom I have labored, and suffered, and rejoiced, and seen the doings of the right hand of the Son of God. If the day shall come when we must be separated by lines of demnarkation, I shall yet think often of those beyond with the kindest, warmest feelings of an honest Christian heart. But, sir, I will yet trust that we may put far off this evil day. If we can pass such a measure as will shield our principles from all infringement l. E. Chlzurch, South. 221 if we can send forth such a measure as will neither injure nor justly offend the South-as shall neither censure nor dishonor Bishop Andrew, and yet shall meet the pressing wants of the Church; and, above all, if Almighty God shall be pleased to help by pouring out his Spirit upon us, we may yet avoid the rock on which we now seem but too likely to split. I will add one word in reference to what has been so often repeated about the abolition excitement in New England and the North. I have never thought it a good thing to introduce agitation into the Church. I have thought it better, so far as practicable, to keep clear from all controversies, and, for myself, have felt bound to do so. I have been kept from taking any part in the great abolition controversy by the arrangements of Providence; but I must declare that the interests, the purposes, the measures, which seem at this time to unite the North in syrmpathy, have not originated with abolitionists, usually so called. The concern felt on the subject now before us is much more general. The New York Conference, of which I was made a member when abroad, and without my knowledge, was never an abolition Conference. Some of my friends, members of that Conference, and themselves decided abolitionists, have complained to me of the action of that body in suspending some young preachers for their ac 222 Oryanizalion of tIe tivity in the abolition cause, as flagrantly tyrannical and unjust. The Troy Conference is not an abolition Conference, and never was. These, and other Northern Conferences, have firmly opposed the abolition movement. They have been as a wall of brass to turn back the strong tide, and protect the Southern rights and interests. Ministers and laymen, in some portions of our work, have agitated this question in their Conferences and Churches, but generally Northern Methodists have been opposed to such action. They commonly regard slavery a great evil, though not necessarily a sin; but it would be a great mistake to conclude that the antislavery sentiments of Methodists have been wholly, or mostly, the fruits of Church-action or agitation. Brethren -fall into a great error in imagining that all the abolition influences abroad in the Northern Churches originated in them. On the contrary, our common newspapers, the contests and canvassings connected with our elections, our periodical literature, are rife with abolitionism on other and broader grounds. It is, perhaps, to be regretted that this embarrassing subject is so much discussed at the North; but it is certainly true that Methodists here derive their sentiments chiefly from such sources as I have intimated-from their reading, and from intercourse with their fellow-citizens. They are abolitionists naturally and inevitably, LM. C. Church, South. 223 because they breathe the atmosphere of this country-because the sea is open to free adventure, and their freightled ships bring home periodicals and books from all the countries of Europe, tinged, or, if any prefer, infected with these views. The difficulties of this question, then, do not arise chiefly from its relation to abolitionism in the Church, but from the general tone of feeling among the people of the non-slaveholding States. I trust, sir, that in pronouncing our sentiments on the subject under consideration, we shall not regard ourselves as acting for distinct and antagonist interests- that we shall not inquire whether we may inflict an injury upon one portion of the Church regarded by itself, and no doubt justly, as ever mindful of its constitutional obligations, to save another portion from evils engendered in the hot-beds of abolitionism-a part of the Church ever ready to trample down constitutional barriers, and remove old landmarks and securities.J That is not the true issue; for in four-fifths of the antislavery Conferences, to say nothing of the rest, there have been no agitations, no seeds of abolition sown, but the people have formed their opinions as citizens of the country; and notwithstanding these convictions on the subject, they have as tender a regard for the interests of the Church as any of their brethren. As a member of the New York ConCerence, I do most earnestly 2'24 Orcangczation of tlze protest against any declalration which shall go forth before the world, affirming or intimating that the New York Conference, as such, has at all meddled in this matter, except to prevent apprehended evil, and to perform what it regarded as a pressing, though painful, duty to the whole Church. I will only say farther, that in our action in the case of a venerable and beloved Bishop, we haTve trouble and sorrow enough heaped upon us-Pelion on Ossaa-afflictions on affliction. Let not, then, this drop of bitterness be wrung into the cup which we are compelled to drink. Let it not be said that we are groaning under the pressure of difficulties arising from an agitltion which we have got up and cannot now allay. Let it not be said that we are now suffering the consequences of our unconstitutional meddling with the subject of slavery-that the seed sown by us has sprung up, and we are now reaping the harvest. As a delegate from the New York Conference, I sympathize with its honor; and I declare, before hea.ven and earth, that it is no fault of that body of ministers that we are now pressed down with such a burden of difficulties. Sir, there are men in this Conference who have suffered much in vindicating what they regarded the rights of the South. Mly v7enerable fiiend on the right has, on this account, received great and unmerited obloquy. Another excellent minister on my left, and m(Lanyr more not M1..E. Clurch, Sourl/. 225 now in my eye, have been reproached as proslavery men and men-stealers for the part they thought it their duty to take against the ultra views and measures that threatened to prevail a few years ago. They have deserved well-I think they hav e merited the thanks-of Southern brethren for their earnest efforts to shield them and their rights against encroachments on the constitution of the Church. Sir, I have done. I do not pretend to have succeeded in making a constitutional argument. My object was to do my duty in stating, as well as I was able, the just and proper grounds of the proposed resolution. In this remarkable speech, Dr. Olin conceded every thing demanded by the South, with the exception that violent hands should not be laid on Bishop Andrew. He admitted "that the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church contains" no "c provision against the election of a slaveholding Bishop;" "that Bishop Andrew was a most desirable man for the Episcopacy;" "1 that the General Conference was limited in its action by constitutional restrictions which it may not transcend;" c" that if a remedy should be proposed that would trench on the constitutional claims of Southern ministers," he "would not, to save the Church from any possible calamity, violate this great charter of our rights." He farther says, c"Not only 10* 226 Oryani&zalion of the is holding slaves, on the conditions and under the restrictions of the Discipline, no disqualification for the ministerial office," and adds, "but I will go a little farther, and say that slaveholding is not constitutionally a forfeiture of a man'rs right, if he may be said to have one, to the office of a Bishop." His speech abounds in expressions and sentiments similar to these. With the expression of these views, however, Dr. Olin avowed his purpose to support the resolution of Mr. Finley, and offers as his reason for so doing that, Itin it this General Conference expresses its wish and will that under existing circumstances-meaning by that word, not merely the fact that Bishop Andrew has become a slaveholder, but the state of the Church, the sentiments that prevail, the excitement and the deep feeling on the subject-feeling, it may be, which disqu.alifies them for calm, dispassionate views in the premises —that under these circumstances it is the wish and will of the brethren of this Conference that Bishop Andrew, against whom we bring no charge, on whose fair character we fix no reproach, should, for the present, refrain from the exercise of his Episcopal functions.') We are unable to reconcile the two opposite positions taken by Dr. Olin in this speech, unless it be that he entertained the belief that the division of the Church was an absolute necessity for AI. E. Chzurcl, SoutIh. 227 the success of Methodism in the North as well as the South. Dr. Olin was followed by Benjamin M. Drake, from Mississippi. He thought that in no vital principle did the substitute differ from the original resolution, though in the preamble he thought it preferable. But he could not see the difference between the Bishop's resigning his office, and refraining from the exercise of its functions, especially as his circumstances are such as he has no control over, and therefore the request contemplated would be equivalent to a request to resign, to all intents and purposes. To say that we can deprive a Bishop of his office, and yet not censure him-to say that we can depose, and yet leave his Episcopal robe unstained-is, to my mind, absurd in the extreme. Sir, we cannot pass this resolution without hangin g up Bishop Andrew before the whole Church as having committed a sin either against Methodism or against Christ! And against which has he sinned? Now, according to the exposition of the last speaker, he has not sinned against Methodism, and I have yet to hear that he has sinned against Christianity; so that, according to their own showing, they cannot punish him without committing an extrajudicial act. Nor can this course be pursued, and the union of the Church be preserved. 228 Organzization of the Bishop Andrew must be continued in the Episcopal office, or you certainly divide the Church. Henry Slicer, of the Baltimore, Phineas Crandall, of the New England, and William D. Cass, of the New tHampshire Conference, were the next speakers, all of them supporting the substitute. The speech of Mr. Cass was distinguished for nothing, except its extreme ultraismu and bitterness.'On Friday morning, May the 24th, Bishop Waugh was in the chair, and the religious services were conducted by Samuel Dunwody, of South Carolina. The preliminary business being finished, the order of the day (Finley's substitute) was resumed. Mr. Cass had not finished his speech the day previous, when the hour of adjournment arrived, and his right to the floor was consequently recognized by the chair. HIe, however, waived his privilege, remarking that'" he had been interrupted in his speech the day before, and his rights had been trampled upon, and he had no farther speech to make." George F. Pierce, of Georgia, followed Mr. Cass. Mir. Pierce was a young man, being only thirty-three years of age. This was the second General Conference of which he had been a member. Before Mr. Pierce was born his father was a Methodist preacher. Brought up in the lap of Methodism, in the sixteenth year of his age he 2X. huE. rc/h, Solth. 229 was soundly converted to God. lie loved its doctrines and was devoted to its usages. Divinely called to the work of the Christian ministry, before he was twenty years old he entered the itinerant ranks, and pledged to the prosecution of his high and holy calling his youth, his manhood, and his declining years. His first field of labor was the Alcovie Circuit, with Jeremiah Freeman in charge. His second appointment was to the city of Augusta, as the colleague of James 0. Andrew.* Having in the early part of his ministry been associated with Mr. Andrew, he had formed an attachment for him that had increased with each successive year. His popularity in the Georgia Conference had placed him in the front ranks of his delegation, while his brilliant talents, his burning eloquence, his spotless character, his uncompromising devotion to the Church, and his fervent zeal, which knew no bounds save his wasting strength, rendered him a universal favorite in the South. As a preacher, if he had a peer, he had no superior, in the Church. His appearance on the floor of the General Conference, in opposition to the substitute of Mr. Finley, was expected. He said: I speak from convictions of duty, and not because I expect to change the opinion of any man * It was during this year that Mr. Andrew was elected to the Episcopal office. 230 Oryanization of the before us; nor would I presume, as some have done, that there will be in the course of my remarks the evolutions of any new light. I do not, sir, feel a great deal of solicitude about the issue of the case, and my solicitude is diminished, because I regard the great question of unity as settled by the previous action of the Conference in another case; but I desire to animadlvert very briefly on one or two points, -as connected with the manner in which the question has been considered. The brethren who have spoken on the other side of the question, many of them, have adopted a trick of oratory-a sort of legerdemain in debate, which is this: they state abstract propositions of right, which no man will pretend to deny, and then deduce elaborate argumentations, and make them to bear on conclusions with which these conclusions have no more to do than the law of the tides has with the polar star. But the design is very obvious. The idea is more readily adopted — the conviction more readily embraced-because it falls in with preconceived opinions and long-established prejudices. There is no logical connection between the premises and the arguments which have been advanced here. Things are put in apposition which have no relation to each other. Sir, there has been, in every speech which has been made on the other side of the .. E. C/urclt, South. 231 question, a false issue attempted. Whatever may be affirmed of expediency, and the disqualification of Bishop Andrew for the office of General Superintendent, in view of circumstances over which it is declared brethren have no control, it is not to be forgotten or disguised that this is not an abstract, but a practical question, that it involves the constitutional rights and equality of privileges belonging to Southern ministers. It is a practical question, too, which cannot be set off from its connection with the past, and its bearings on the future. It is part and parcel of a system, slowly developed, it may he, yet obvious in its designs and unwearied in its operation, to deprive Southern ministers of their rights, and to disfranchise the whole Southern Church. You cannot take the question out of its relations. It cannot be made to stand as brethren have tried to make it stand, isolated and alone. If there had been no memorials on your table, praying for the establishment of a law of proscription- if there had not been declared, over and over agcain, a settled purpose, if not in unequivocal terms, yet in unequivocal acts, to work out the destruction of this evil, and free the Episcopacy and the Church itself from this evil, the question before us would be different in its aspects, and the action of the South in regard to it might be modified accordingly. I beg this Conference to consider this question in the 232 Oryaniz'alion of t1~e light of its connection with the previous action in the case of the appeal from the Baltimore Conference. Sir, the preposterous doctrine was asserted in that Conference, that its purposes and usages are paramount to the law of the land, and the doctrine of that Conference has been affirmed here. Sir, the action of this Conference on the subject has brought the whole Methodist Episcopal Church into a position of antagonism to the laws of the land. I consider such action not only an outrage on the common justice of the case, but decidedly revolutionary in its movements, and destined to affect, unless repealed, the character of the Conference and all the ramifications of the Church. What is the position? The ground was taken there and here-the Church, the Bible, the Discipline, and the laws of the land to the contrary notwithst-anding-that we have a right to make a man's membership depend upon the condition of his doing a thing which, as a citizen of the State, he has no power or right to do. The act which is proposed in the resolution is part and parcel with the same affair. When Bishop Andrew has been invited to resign or desist from the exercise of his official functions, or is impeached, or deposed, it ought to be, and can be, considered as neither more nor less than collateral in its designs and effects with the action of the Conference in the case to which I have referred. This is a 11. PE. Chu-rch, South. 233 practical question, make what disclaimers you please, or any amount of theml. The common sense of the country will consider it as an infraction of the constitutional, or, if you please, the disciplinary rights of the Southern brethren, however it may be considered by those in the so-styled more favored and less-incumbered portions of the Union. The argument for expediency I am compelled to believe has not half the force assigned to it. I think I speak advisedly when I say, that whatever effect the passing of Bishop Andrew's character without censure, or laying the whole business on the table, might have with the New England Conferences, I am not prepared to believe that any considerable damage would be done in the middle Conferences. I do not believe the people of New York would decline to receive Bishop Andrew for their Bishop. I do not believe that he would be objected to either in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or Maryland, or in any of the Conferences of the Western States. The difficulties are with the New Englanders. They are nmaking all this 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 maiy be secession, Societies broken up, Conferences split, and immense damage of this sort be done within the New England Conferences; but 234 Oryanizalion of the what then? I speak soberly, advisedly, when I say, I prefer that all New England should secede, or be set off, and have her share of the Church property. I infinitely prefer that they should go, rather than that this General Conference should proceed to make this ruthless invasion upon the Connectional union, and the integrity of the Church. Let New England go, with all my heart. She has been for the last twenty years a thorn in the flesh-a messenger of Satan to buffet us! let her go, and joy go with her, for peace will stay behind. The Southern Church has nothing to fear, and she has nothing to ask on this subject. As far as we are concerned, sir, the greatest blessing that could befall us would be a division of this union. There, sir, at the South, we dwell in peace, and the good Shepherd watches the flock and guards us from all harm. There are no jarring strings, no discordant sounds, no incarnate emissaries of the evil one going about seeking whom they may devour, but there we "lie down in green pastures, beside the still waters." If we had not the spirit of the Master, if we were selfish enough to enjoy the bounty of our heritage, we would court division, pray for it, demand it. But, sir, I will present one view of this question that has not been touched upon. Set off the South, and what is the consequence? Do you get rid of embarrassment, discord, division, strifeb? l'. E. Chzurch, 8oulk. 235 No, sir; you multiply divisions. There'will be secessions in the Northern Conferences, even if Bishop Andrew is deposed or resigns. Prominent men will abandon your Church. I venture to predict that when the day of division comes-and come I believe it will, from the present aspect of the case-that in ten years from this day, and perhaps less, there will not be one shred of the distinctive peculiarities of Methodism left within the Conferences that depart from us. The venerable man who now presides over the Northern Conferences may live out his timle as a Bishop, but he will never have a successor. Episcopacy will be given up, Presiding-eldership will be given up, the itinerancy will come to an end, and Congregationalism will be the order of the day. The people will choose their own pastors, and preachers will be standing about the ecclesiastical market-places, and when men shall ask, "Why stand ye here all the day idle?" the answer will be, "Because no man hath hired us." We have unity and peace, and seek it because of its effects on the Connection, and I believe, to-day, that if the New England Conferences were to secede, the rest of us would have peace. There would be religion enough left aimong us to live together as a band of Christian brothers. Sir, I object to the substitute for another reason. I would have preferred the original1 resolu 236 Orgyaniaction of the tion. The substitute presents a most anomalous view of the whole subject. Suppose that view is adopted; what is it? What do you do with the Bishop? You cannot put him on a circuit or station: he is a Bishop in duress- a Bishop in prison-bounds-an anonmaly-a fifth wheel in the machine of Methodism-doomed to live on the Book Concern, while no provision is made for his rendering the Church any service-if this resolution is adopted. I promise not to detain you long, for others are wishing to speak; but I felt that I could not go home satisfied unless I took this occasion to make a few remarks. If I did not know there were others better qualified to defend this subject, I would trespass on the patience of the Conference by the hour. I tell you that unless Bishop Andrew is passed free of censure of any kind, the days of Methodist unity are numbered. What do brethren mean when they come and eulogize him as they have done? It has been avowed that he is a blLameless man, pure and spotless-that he has high executive talents-that he is one of the most efficient administrators of law-that he is as well qualified for this as any of the worthy men who occupy the Episcopal bench. Yet in the face of this, is the Conference to come out and say, that on the question of expediency he shall resign, refrain from the exercise of his office, or AL P. c. hreh, Soutlh. 237 be deposed? What mean these eulogies? Are brethren in earnest? Is the Conference heaping garlands on the victim they destine for slaughter? Hias it come to this, that a large body of sober and reverend men, in the face of their own aclnowledgment of blamelessness, are going to inflict one of the severest penalties on an innocent, unoffending man? Why 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 its pestilential breath to blast and destroy the Church? You have unchained the lion, and now that he is raging and roaring for his prey, you select a- venerable Bishop-one of the ablest and best of the whole college-to immolate z1m on the altar of this Juggernaut of perdition! Think you Awe will sit here and see this go on without lifting a voice or making a protest against it? Are we to see this noble man sacrificed for the sake of New England? God forbid it! God forbid, I say, and speak it from the depths of my heart. Brethren may say what they please, disclaim what they please, eulogize as they will, they cannot make any thing of this but the deprivation of a constitutional right. In the case of the appeal from the Baltimore Conference many voted, not because they believed the Conference had done right, but for extraneous reasons; but in this 238 Oryanization of the question the vote goes out upon its naked merits, irrespective of any disclaimer or acknowledgments that may be made in reference to the Bishop's rights, character, or capacity. But to come to the point-Has he a right to hold slaves under the Discipline of the Church? If he has, I adjure you not to lay violent hands upon him. If he has, I ask brethren to pause and say, if in the prospect of facing a scrutinizing world, they can go out with the stinging recollection in their hearts that they have sacrificed a man worthy to preside over them, to the restless demands of an arrogant and insatiable spirit of abolition? I do hope brethren will pause before they drive us to the fearful catastrophe now earnestly to be deprecated, but inevitable if they proceed. Dr. Longstreet, of Mississippi, followed Mr. ]Pierce on the same side, with a speech remarkable for its force and clearness. Jesse T. Peck, of the Troy Conference, spoke in reply to Mr. Pierce: The only occasion upon w'hich I have thought it consistent for me to appear in this discussion, is in reply to the distinguished member from the Georgia Conference, Rev. G. F. Pierce. The near agreement in our ages is my apology. The reverend gentleman commenced his remarks by ME. Ec. zhurch, South. 239 stating that this controversy, as it appeared to him, had been conducted upon the part of the North by attempted feats of legerdemain. I understood him to say that we had done this by stating self-evident propositions, and then forthwith deducing conclusions from them that had no more connection with them than the law of the tides had with the polar star. If he had taken the trouble to point out a few instances of this kind of defect, I could have given it the attention due to reasoning; but as he was not pleased to do so, and as he is an educated man, he will doubtless be satisfied by my giving him credit for a piece of beauzflcul declamanztion. He says we have made a false issue in this discussion. And what is it? Why, that we have discussed it as an individual matter, confined in its application to Bishop Andrew himself; whereas it was in truth a great practical question, bearing upon the whole South. We admit it, Mr. President; it is a great practical question, bearing not upon the South merely, but upon the whole Church. We utterly disclaim the limitation of the question to any man. We take up the issue exactly as he has laid it down. It is upon the assertion and action of a great principle of immense practical becarin/ that we predicate our arguments. It is, verily, the brother may be well assured, a matter of great practical im7portance to us, and to the Church, whether we have a slave 240 Organization of the holding Bishop or not. Hiere, then, I have no contention with him. But, Mr. President, the brother alarmed me! He made a declarattion which was to me utterly surprising! Hie says the great question of unity is decided! (Mr. P. explained. "Prospectively decided! ") Prospectively decided? to be sure! Diid any one suppose it had been decided retrospective/y? Division, then, in his mind is really inevitable! Surely, sir, 1 had not thought so. And I am happy to say I know many brethren, North and South, much more distinguished for age and experience than either of us, who do not think so. The division of our excellent Church decided! The unity of our common Methodism destroyed! May Heaven forbid it! I do not believe it, sir. The strong bonds that hold us together, I trust, are not sundered! But, he says, the Baltimore appeal case virtually decided it. I do not so understand it. There were, it is true, several points of analogy between the case of Mr. Harding and that of Bishop Andrew. But the action contenplated in the case of the Bishop is widely different from that had in the case of MIr. HIarding. In that case we did nothing more than to cfirn the decision of the Baltimore Conference; and in that act say, tha.t we would not allow slavery to be crowded on her, after she had nobly declared sihe woukl not ihave it. The appellant stood suspended M. CE. Chrch, South. 241 from his ministerial functions. But was any such thing intended in the case of Bishop Andrew? Did the resolution affirm any such thing? Certainly not. It merely proposed that he should desist from the exercise of the Episcopal office until he should free himself from the embarrassment of slavery. The cases then were widely different. Brethren were undoubtedly premature in asserting that the decision of the Conference in the Baltimore appeal case had prospectively determined the division of the Church! Indeed, the gentleman himself seemed to have doubts about it, when he came to consider a little; for after he had progressed in his argument so far as to consider the influence of the proposed action in the case of the Bishop, he declared, "Pass that resolution, and the great question of Methodistic unity is decided forever." Indeed! Then it remains to be decided, the Baltimore appeal case to the contrary notwithstanding! I thank the brother for that. My judgment in the case cannot be altogether groundless, since it derives support from his own declarations. Be assured, sir, I greatly rejoice in this. But the respected brother from Georgia insists that tlhe ultimate design is the disfranchisement of all Southern ministers! The ulltimate design! Really, sir, this is extraordinary sagacity! If he had been content to show us what was the legiti-ii 242 Organization of the mate result of our action, we must have corrected him, or submitted. But since he has thought proper to declare our design, we must demur. We have serious doubts as to the competency of any man to tell our designs, unl6ss we avow them. Disfranchise all Southern preachers! I disclaim it, sir. In the name of the Troy Conference, which I have the honor in part to represent, and in the name of the whole North, I disclaim it. I appeal to you, brethren, every man of you, to know whether you have ever known of any such idea at the North. I am fully sustained; no such thought can be in existence. But the argument by which my respected friend sustained this extraordinary proposition was not fully developed. If he will have the goodness to give his attention to see whether I do it correctly, I will state it for him. The North are not willing that a slaveholder should be a Bishop; ergo, they are determined that no slavebolder shall be a minister! If the brethren of the South have any argument to support this doctrine of universal proscription, this certainly must be it. But is it legitimate? Is there any connection between the antecedent and the consequent-the premises and the conclusion? I cannot see it. The Discipline prescribes the circumstances under which a traveling preacher may hold slaves. But does it say any thing of circumstances under which a 5Bishop may hold L -E. C. zhurch, South. 243 slaves? Certainly not; for the condition of a Bishop is widely different from that of any ordinary traveling preacher. Ie is really and truly the pastor of the whole Church, and slavery will not allow him to be so. Brethren talk of the infringement of their constitutional rights. But what do they mean by it? That any Aman has a constitutional right to be a Bishop! Such a right as he had to graduation from a probationer to Elder's orders! Has any man living such -a constitutional right to be elected to the Episcopal office, or remain in it after he is elected? I never heard of such a thing. Sir, there is no constitution in the case. Neither the Discipline nor the General Conference has ever said what special qualifications would, or would not, be required in a Bishop. It is true, sir, that the Discipline nowhere says that a slaveholder shall not be a Bishop, and I should be sorry if it did. It has nowhere said that a ruyn-drinker shall not be a Bishop; and yet, surely, no man would say that this was any the less an utter disqualification for the office, because it was not so decla.red in the Discipline. (I beg, Mr. President, you will not understand me to compare slavery with rum-drinking. I mean no such thing. I introduce it only for purposes of illustration.) No, sir, there are no constitutional rights invaded. As to whether a man will do for a Bishop, or not, the 244 Organization of the General Conference is the sole judge, either as to his election, or retention; and their judgment will have its true expression in the ballot-box. A constitutional right to be a Bishop! You might as well talk of a constitutional right to be an Editor, or a Book Agent, or any other General Conference officer. But the brother from Georgia says this measure will not save us from secessions. We shall have secessions in New England! We shall have them everywhere! What can be done to satisfy New England? Sir, as the name of Vezv Enylland struck my ear, I felt,a thrill of the most intense interest. But, the reverend gentleman proceeded, "they are busy-bodies in other men's matters! A thorn in the flesh! A messenger of Satan to buffet us!" And, alluding (as I understood him to do) to a certain movement in New England, and certain principles upon which that movement was based, he called it "the foul spirit of the pit! The Juggernaut of perdition!" etc. Upon this language, Mr. President, I may not remark! I must, of necessity, leave it without animadversion! But with the utmost respect, this dear brother will excuse me for saying I much prefer the terms used by some of his hitghly-respected associates. I like the chaste and beautiful language of the sweet-spirited and eloquent Mr. Crowder, and the dignified and forcible style of the rever M. E. Clzurch, Soutdh. 245 end gentleman who last preceded me. I must say, Mr. President, I deprecate the use of-such language in a controversy of such solemn importance -a controversy invested with more elements of moral grandeur than any which has engaged the attention of the American people for half a century! I hope the brother will not use it again, and certainly not on the floor of this General Conference. But my friend from the Georgia Conference s:ays, "Let New England go! I wish in my heart she would secede! And joy go with her, for I am sure she will leave peace behind her!" Let New England go? I cannot forget this exclamation. It vibrates in lly soul in tones of grating discord. Why, sir, what is New England that we should part with her with so little reluctance? New England! The land of the Pilgrims —the land of many of our venerated fathers in Israel_-the land of Broadhead, of Merritt, of the revered man [pointing to George Pickering] who sits by my side, and a host of worthies whom we have delighted to honor as the bulwarks of Methodism in its early days of primitive purity and peril. Let New England go? No, sir, we cannot part so easily with the pioneer land of the devoted and sainted Jesse Lee! But, Mr. President, our brethren of the South utterly mistake the truth in this matter! Why, sir, they can't get half way to New England in 246 Orycanization of the this war! They must wade through numbers and forces of which they never dreamed! They must encounter us in the center, whose opposition to slavery is uncompromising. And Baltimore (honor to her self-sacrificing devotion to the cause of humanity!) will be a formidable obstacle in the way of their advance. But if they ever should subdue us, and reach the land of the Pilgrims, rest assured, sir, they would find there a wall of brass which would remain forever impregnable to the assaults of the slave-power! We are happy that New England is with us to a man in this fearful conflict-that the united West, and North, and East, form an insuperable barrier to the advance of slavery! 0 sir, I fear me much our brethren at the South are deceiving themselves in this matter. This has never been a question ofprinciple between us and New England. We have always been agreed in fundamental antislavery sentiments, and I am the more careful to allude to this, because, so far as I remember, it is a distinction that has not been made in this discussion. It has been purely a question of measures between us. In this, it is true, we have differed, but in opposition of principle to slavery, North, East, and West, we always have been, and I trust shall ever remain, inseparably united. We resist as one mnan the advancement of slavery, which, not content to be confined within its own geographical limits, threatens to ML E. Chkurch, South. 247 roll its dark waves over the North. It claims the rqhlt to give us a slcweholdlnq pastor! a slaveho a sla ldizn Bishop! Do not then be surprised that we are so perfectly united in asking to be set back exactly where we were a few mlonths ago. 0, sir, that our brethren could roll the wheels of' time back to where they were last November, when we had, comparatively, no difficulties to encounter! But this they cannot do. What less, however, can they expect us to ask, than that they should do what is equivalent to it-give us our Bishop without the slaves? My brother, sir, judges about as poorly of the principles and condition of the North as I should of the South; for I have never been to the South. I am sorry I have not. I should like to strike the hands of these dear, very dear brethren, whomn I have learned to love upon this Conference floor, as I never should have supposed possible, at their own dear homes. I should like to go there, sir, if I might, my antislavery principles to the contrary notwithstanding! [Cries of several voices, "'Come on-come on-we shall be glad to see you."] Let New Engoland go! No, sir, never. And here I beg to say, that our Southern brethren can't induce us to use such language in reference to them. They can't provoke us to it, sir. Let the South go! No, sir, we love them too well. We love them for their goodness, and respect them for their talents. We love them for their stern, 248 Oryanczation of the unbending regard to principle and adherence to Discipline. We love themi for their conservatism, ultra sometimes though it may be, we love them for it. Let the South go! No, sir, we cannot part with our brethren, whom wve love so well. True, we cannot compromise principle, to save them-nor to save the East. But we need not. They are too magnanimous to demand it. We shall live and die with them- zue will not let them go unless they tear themselves from our arms bedewed with the tears of affection. Never/! no, never! On the next day, May 25, Mr. Peck, resuming the discussion, said: Mr. President: It would have been agreeable to me if I might have concluded my remarks yesterday, without interruption; but the arrival of the hour for adjournment compelled me to leave the argument in an unfinished state. Much as I regretted this, however, I should have preferred, if my friends would have allowed me to do it, to have left it there. To this, it is due to myself to state, I could not get -their consent. In obedience, therefore, to a judgment to which I always feel bound to defer, I resume the floor to-day. "Ten years from now, and our glorious General Superintendency, and our time-honored itinerancy will have expired!" So says the prophecy of yesterday! Only ten years will suffice to pull down VIM. E. CGzurch, South. 249 this beautiful edifice, and annihilate the very materials of which it is constructed! The strong confidence it has inspired in its votaries-the ardent attachment of those whom it has saved-the profound admiration which its almost supernatural wisdom and adaptation have gathered around it, from all classes of people —all these cannot save it. It is doomed, and fall it must! Only ten years, and the last flickerings of this once brilliant and glorious light will have died away in the socket! But, Mr. President, as I am but a child in these matters, and so have seen but little of the secret workings of small, but mighty agencies, upon the basis of this noble fabric, I am curious to inquire into the cause of this prophetic fate. What is it that is to work such devastation and ruin to the fair heritage of God? Let this reason stand out in bold relief, stripped of all its drapery, where we can see it just as it is. This is certainly no time for rhetorical ornament. At a time when interests so vast and solemn are pending upon the action of a single principle, let that principle be exhibited naked and unadorned, that we may not mistake it. What, then, is the cause that is destined to effect the overthrow of institutions venerable with age, and potent for the amelioration of the condition of man? Why, sir, if I have not mistaken it, it is simply this: Thlis General Conference is likely to say that a slaveholder cannot be a Bishop. 11* 250 Organization of the Look at it, undisguised, and alone, as it is. Examine it carefully, in all its dimensions and bearings, and see if you can discover any adequacy in the cause to produce the predicted effect. Can it be that the Almighty arm will be withdrawn from beneath us for this? That we shall be abandoned to destruction for the want of a union between slavery and the Episcopate? What element of our purity and primitive simplicity will it destroy? What adaptation of our noble system will it annihilate, to have no slaveholding Bishop? Will God, indeed, be angry with us, and leave us to ourselves for this? Is this the foundation-stone of our spiritual edifice, that it must inevitably crumble to ruins when it is removed? If God should forsake us, we are ruined-irrecoverably ruined! But, sir, I cannot believe he will. lIe has not in former times, and we have been without a slaveholding Bishop for sixty years! The grand itinerant plan of publishing salvattion to the perishing world has gone on gloriously, dispensing its invat-luable blessings to almost every land, notwithlstanding. Now, I know, sir, if I were reasoning of a man, and were to say, IHe has not forsaken us, therefore he will not, that I should be justly chargeable with the legerdemain in debate which my friend from the South so gracefully ascribed to us yesterday. But, sir, when I say it of the unchangeable God, he did not, therefore, in ME. E. ChuZrch, South. 251 the same circumstances, he will not, I feel myself fully sustained. No, Mr. President, I cannot adopt this dismal prophecy. It has too much of the air of romance about it. If nothing more is justly laid to our charge than the simple refusal to depart from our former state in this matter, I verily believe the everlasting arms will be underneath us still. The wheels of the itinerancy will continue to roll on, and the ages of the future will yet exhibit the now undeveloped power of this wonderful plan. I will now, sir, ask attention to what appears to me to be a very singular, and yet very frequent, exclamation from Southern brethren, and I do it not in the spirit of casuistry. They, almost to a man, call upon us to pause! "Pause! " say they, "we beseech you; pause before you advance another step!" Indeed, sir; this is a very extraordinary prayer under the circumstances. My neighbor moves his fence, and barn, and house on my farm! and when I begin to insist upon his taking them off, he cries out, Pause! "Pause, sir, I beseech you! Your measures will be productive of immense injury to yourself and me!" What, sir, should I say to him in this case? Why, sir, can any one doubt that I should instantly reply, This is the wrong time to call for a pause? The time to pause was when you began to make your arrangements to move your buildings on my 252 Orgcanization of the land! Then, if some kind friend had called out to gou, in the language you address to me, it would have been exceedingly relevant. But now, fiom the nature of the case, there can be no pause, until you retrace your steps, and relieve my premises of your effects. Need I m1lake the application of this homely illustration? I am sure I need not. It is obvious and necessary. But I shall not fail to look well to the only hince upon which this argument turns. The great question is, Who has been the aggressor in this case? (I use the term in no bad sense.) Upon whom rests the responsibility of the present fearful issue? Does it rest upon us of the North? Does it rest upon this General Conference? I verily believe it does not, sir. When, or where, may I be allowed to ask, have we infringed the rights of our brethren at the South? It is true, we have laid our petitions at your feet. But in this have we done any thing more than to exercise the natural rights of freemen? The citizens of this free republic must be allowed to petition, and we must receive their petitions respectfully expressed, and give them the consideration which their nature and importance demand. Petitions have been presented to you, sir; petitions, to be sure, which, from the state of the public mind in which they originated, have required careful analysis; but many of which have deserved a most patient hearing. But, sir, what S E. Church, South. 253 have we done? What single decision of this body, since this excitement commenced, has not been adapted with singular care to the interests of the South? Nay, sir, we have cautiously guarded the South, in every official act that looked toward this exciting subject. We are aware that it is a perfect system of sensitiveness-a complete bundle of nerves! And we have always acted with this fact fully in view. Indeed, sir, I am honestly in doubt-and I know my brethren of the South will allow me to express it-whether we have not more reason to ask the pardon of the East than of the South in this matter. This I will not, however, attempt to decide, because it is unnecessary. But, sir, the question returns, Whence is the origin of our present difficulty? Does it come from the North? Certainly not. Have we originated this innovation? I need not answer. I ask, then, most respectfully, When was the proper tinle to pause? This question brings us no relief. It is too late, and I will not repeat it. But surely the call to pause will be suspended by our brethren of the South, until they have put themselves right in regard to the question at issue. If it be inquired where the blame is loc-ated, since we will not allow it to rest upon the North, I answer I locate it nowhere. Indeed, I will not talk of blame. It can do no good. The question is one of reanedy. We cannot fear that we shall be blamed:for press 254 Organization of the ing the question of renzedy. It ought not to be asked of us, that we should be satisfied to have the Bishop of the whole territory trammeled by peculiar and local institutions. It is not necessary for the good of that part of the work where slavery exists, and it must, from the very nature of the case, be ruinous to that large part of it where it does not exist. But, Mr. President, I am exceedingly thankful that there is one common ground to the South and North. Not, perhaps, to the whole South, but to many of its most distinguished men-I refer to the magnanimous concessions which have been freely made upon the election. of a slaveholding Bishop. It has been conceded, with a frankness and Christian candor which deserve, and shall receive, our highest praise-not, indeed, that no slatveholder should be eligible to the Episcopal office-for our Southern brethren talk with precision on this difficult question-but that it was inexpedient to attempt an election on any such ground. In the very style of considerate Northern men, it has been urged in the South that the Bishop is the officer of the whole Church, and it is not advisable to trammel him with a locfal difficulty. It must not be a question of North and South, but simply who is the best man for the office. Where is the man of God upon whom it will be safe to devolve such a fearful responsi Al. E. Chiurch, South. 255 bility? This is noble. But will our Southern brethren abide by this principle? I am aware that I have no right to charge the necessary correlate of an acknowledged sentiment upon an opponent, unless he avow it. But it is my right to show what is implied in that sentiment, and what results necessarily follow it. And I will ask brethren, What objection have we to the election of a slaveholding Bishop? None, surely, but what is based upon the idea of having one. Why do we of the North object to electing a man in such circumstances to the Episcopacy? For no other reason in the world than that we have no use for him when he is elected. -Ie cannot be a true Methodist itinerating Superintendent. No, sir, it is not to electing, but to havzing one, that insuperable objections arise in the minds of Northern men. Need I apply these remarks? Can brethren fail to see that nothing more is needed to relieve us from our present difficulties than the legitimate action of the principle universally claimed by the North, and so extensively conceded by the South? No, sir, let it be distinctly borne in mind that the vote upon the present resolution must depend upon precisely the same principles as the vote for an election. We grant, it is a much more delicate matter; so much so, indeed, as to almost appall the stoutest heart; but thle principle is the same, and thze action mnust be the same. 256 Oryanization of the But, Mr. President, there is, I must say, one attitude taken by my brethren fromn the South to which I find it difficult to reconcile my feelings. It is, I confess, a matter of extreme delicacy for me to allude to it; and yet I know I shall have the indulgence of Southern brethren. If I had ever had any doubts in regard to Southern magnanimity, they would have been removed by what has taken place on the floor of this Conference during this discussion. They do not condemn a man for speaking his sentiments out fully. No, sir. I doubt not, that, if I were to appeal to my reverend friend on my right, (Dr. Smith, of Virginia,) to whose eloquent remarks we have so frequently listened with the most intense interest, he would say, "It is cowardcly and mean for a man to shrink from an honest and frank avowal of his opinions and feelings upon a question of such magnitude as this for fear of difference with those who had other opinions and other feelings." I will therefore mention that subject, with which my mind has been burdened and afflicted for several days. Connected with the arguments of our Southern brethren, there is constantly held up before us the idea (I will not call it a menace) of a division of the Church, if we persist in our course! Do not brethren know that, by this course, they throw a fearful difficulty in the way of a free and safe discussion of this subject? an impediment L. E Churchl, South. 257 almost sufficient to drive us from the discussion altogether? I know our dear brethren cannot fail, upon the mere mention of this matter, to t/icnk of the results which may follow to the interests of their flocks and charges in the South. I know very well that they do not feel themselves at the disposal of good men and Methodists in this thing -that it is in the power of wicked men to break up their missions and destroy their usefulnessand they are not at liberty to be reckless of results. But can they not waive their discussion, at least for the present? It is enough, sir, to chill the blood of any man to look these difficulties in the face as they are presented by Southern brethren. It is almost enough (but I thank God not quite enough) to make us forego a great principle to relieve ourselves from the responsibility of deciding the case. I will therefore ask it as a favor to Methodism, that this great and intimidating question of DIVISION may be allowed to sleep a few days, till we can talk over the great principle at issue. I dread, I confess to you, sir, to approach the question with such a fearful contingency suspended, in tcrrore2n, over my head. Division of the Methodist Episcopal Church! It frightens me to think of it. I am compelled, however reluctantly, to admit in my own mind, that there is fearful truth in the hazard to our nation, to which brethren refer, in such a result. Divide the Church 258 Organization of the just as we are rallying our energies to prosecute with united power our missionary labors! just as we are about to combine our strength for the purpose of efficient action in the great cause of Christian education! Divide the Church at a time when most of all the great principle of Methodistic unity is indispensable to form an insuperable barrier to the advance of RIoman Catholicism, which threatens to throw its withering blight over all that is fair and lovely in this glorious republic, and menaces the very frame-work of our political freedomrn! 0 no, sir; it is here that I would call upon brethren to pause. Again, I entreat, hush this frightful dream to sleep, that we may calmly study, undisturbed, the merits of the question between us. I must, Mr. President, notice one thing more in the remarks of my honored friend from Georgia, and then I must leave him; for then I think he will admlit that I have given him at least a respectful degree of attention. He anxiously inquires what we are to do with Bishop Andrew, if he should resign his Episcopal office. He would be a fifth wheel in Methodism, an anomaly, and an inoperative member! This, Mr. President, is really strange. An Elder inl the Church of God-a man of unbounded popularity-a man of ardent piety and gushing sympathies —with the whole South before him, in every part of which he would be 31. E. Church, Soutth. 259 hailed with acclamations of joy-and where more work will crowd upon him than any two men can have strength to perform-notkinzg to do! ~ A fifth wheel in the ministry! it must be impossible, sir, for a man to be serious, in such an attempt to create a difficulty. But, sir, we have been asked, what do we mean by our eulogies of Bishop Andrew! The tributes paid to his character have been described in the beautiful rhetoric of my friend from Georgia, as garlands decking a victim for the sacrifice. Really, sir, this is very extraordinary language. Is it strange, that as we feel ourselves compelled to lay our hands upon his official relation, we should think it proper to disclaim any attack upon his Christian and ministerial character? Is it not due to him, and due to us, to disavow any want of respect or affection for the man? Indeed, sir, our brethren have mistaken the bearing of our allusions to Bishop Andrew's worth altogether. This is one of the most trying aspects of the case.'T is for this very reason that we deserve the respect and sympathy of both friends and foes. How, I ask, could we more clearly exhibit our regard for a great principle than to refuse to allow even the exalted virtues and worthy character of Bishop Andrew to divert our attention from it? Sir, this is what in every thing else the world calls moral heroism, and we deserve respect, and not reproaches for it. It is 260 Oryanizaiion of the the worth of the man, as well as the exalted character of his office, that overwhelms us with grief, at every step of our progress. It is a mournful task, and if at any time during this discussion there has been manifested, anywhere, a disposition to levity, I regret it, sir; it pains me beyond measure to see it, when our business is characterized by the deep-toned sorrow of funeral solemnities! I cannot here avoid an allusion to a remark of yesterday, from the Rev. Mr. Longstreet, though I adhere to my purpose not to reply to his speech. He found the community of NewYork charged with sympathy for Bishop Andrew. It is undoubtedly true, sir, and I should be grieved if it were otherwise. The generous sympathies of noble hearts in our crowded gallery, and rear, and throughout this community, find a most sincere and hearty response upon this Conference-floor. I would not for the world dry up this crystal fountain or divert it from its legitimate channels. The reverend gentleman is correct in regard to the facts, but he has misinterpreted them. He has imagined that these genuine pulsations of nature rise up in rebellion to us, and yield to the demands for a slaveholding Bishop. No, sir, he is greatly mistaken. I beg to assure him that a greater error could scarcely have been committed. These are the sympathies upon which we cast ourselves 31. E. Clurch, South. 261 for support, in this trying crisis. It is this that secures to us, as well as to our afflicted Bishop, the prayers and the tears of the noblest men and.women of which human nature can boast. Perhaps I ought to apologize, sir, for the warmth and emotion with which I defended New England yesterday. It was the land of my sire. There repose the ashes of my fathers back to the earliest generations of this land. It is the birthplace of at least two of our venerable Bishops, who, thanks to Providence, are with us to-day-of our honored Olin, and venerated Bangs. It was the land of the sainted Fisk. And never, while our moral heavens are radiant with the glories of this luminary of the Church, shall the fair fame of the land that gave him birth be aspersed. Peace to his ashes, and honor to lhis nemory! He was a good and a great man —one of New England's proudest sons. Let me here only say, sir, that from this same land are rising up now a host of strong men, who already stand forth as champions in the fearful conflict with sin. How can I speak otherwise than varmzly when reproach has been heaped upon a land that has furnished so many of the brightest luminaries of the Church? Sir, I have done. I thank you, and I thank the Conference, for the indulgence I have received. Sure I aml that I have not deserved it, and I feel my obligations of gratitude the more. I embarked 262 Oryanizalion of the in this noble "ship" when I was but a boy, and I cannot be persuaded to leave her. I like her form, her structure, and her machinery well. I like her passengers, her officers, and her crew. I like the sea on which she sails, and the port to which she is bound. True, she is exposed to storms, and may sometimes stagger beneath the beating tempest, and reel amid the engulfing floods. And at such a time be not surprised if the signals of distress be heard-the life-boat launched, and numbers, forsaking her in fright, commit themselves to the merciless waves. Other craft, of sprightly form and splendid sails, may heave alongside, and invite us aboard. But, sir, do not be in haste to go. Look well to her ballast and build, for I fear she is too crank and loose to survive the perils of this frightful sea. No, sir, let us stay on board the "old ship." Sunshine or storm, darkness or light, I see her riding safely on the waves-triumphing over every danger-anmd gallantly bearing her precious burden toward the haven of rest. In every gale that shall strike her, as she is proudly careering amid the raging elements, my voice shall be heard above the noise of wind and wave, in the words of the dying Lawrence, "'DoN'T GIVE UP TIIE SHIP " Mr. Pierce rose to explain, and said he should be very glad to reply at length; but as he spoke 31. E. Clhurcl, South. 263 by courtesy and not by right, he would confine himself to explanation. He observed he was exceedingly startled at the proposition of Brother Peck, that a Bishop had no constitutional right to be a Bishop. He had always understood that when a man is legitimately appointed to office, he has a constitutional right to that office for the whole term-that he cannot be ejected unless he has been in fault. As to the perhaps unfortunate expression which he. yesterday made use of toward New England, some apology might be due; but, on the whole, he would not regret it, as it had afforded his honored brother such a theater for displaying his peculiar talents. He intended to say that for New England to secede, or to be set off with a pro rata division of the property, would be a light evil compared with the immolation of Bishop Andrew on the altar of a pseudo expediency. He meant that the loss of New England was as the dust of the balance compared with such a gross, palpable, unjust, outrageous violation of law. He intended to convey the idea that the great Head of the Church did not require the sacrifice of an innocent and unoffending man for the sake of maintaining peace and order in the Church. The Church required no such sacrifice for her unity or her character. As to the unkind epithets to which the brother had referred, he wished to be understood, not as having applied them to New 264 Organization of the England, but to abolition and its misguided abettors. If all New England was engaged in this unhallowed war on the South and on Southern institutions, then he meant New England; if not, he would be understood otherwise. He intended no disrespect or injustice to New England. He would cheerfully acknowledge, because he honestly believed, in accordance with the views so eloquently expressed by the brother who had preceded him, that there were many noble sons from New England. As the last speaker had referred to Bishop Soule, he (Mr. Pierce) hoped he should be permitted to say that, from his father's representations, he had learned to admire him before he saw him, and acquaintance had ripened admiration into reverence. There was an honored representative of the New York Conference, (Dr. Olin,) who favored the Conference with his opinions a few days ago, whom he had loved from his early boyhood, and never more than now; and he took this occasion to assure him, that whatever might be his vote on this trying question, he would still remnain enshrined in the fervid affections of a heart too warm to speak prudently on an occasion like this. And, sir, I recognize you (addressing Mr. Peck) 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 a1 glorious noon. M. E. CGUurch, South. 265 And now, sir, though my speech shocked your nerves, so badly, I trust my explanation will not ruffle at hair upon the crown of your head. [A burst of laughter, Mr. Peck being very bald.] The discussion was continued until the 30th of May, during which time, in addition to the speeches already referred to, Messrs. Hamline, of Ohio, Conmfort, of Oneida, Collins, of Baltimore, Finley, of Ohio, Cartwright, of Illinois, and Dr. Durbin, of Philadelphia, addressed the Conference in favor of the substitute, and Messrs. Green, of Tennessee, Smith, of Virginia, Stamper, of Illinois, Sehon, of Ohio, Dunwody and Dr. Capers, of South Carolina, a.gainst it. The speeches delivered on this occasion have seldom been equaled, and never surpassed, in the Senate-chaimber of the United States. A leading journal published in New York said: "It is but simple justice to say that the Conference was worthy of eminent distinction on the score of talent. Its members were all clergymen, and there-fore public speakers by profession, and many of them were gifted with the highest order of eloquence. Perhaps no body of men in the country ever contained in a higher degree those peculiar talents which give strength and force to oral discussion." HIowever pleasant it might be to record the 19, 266 Organization of the speeches delivered on the occasion, to do so would swell this volume far. beyond our design. During the discussion, on the 28th day of May, and immediately following the speech of Mr. Collins, Bishop Andrew addressed the Conference. He said: IMr. President:-I have been on trial now for a week, and feel desirous that it should come to a close. For a week I have been compelled to listen to discussions of which I have been the subject, and I must have been more than man, or less than man, not to have felt. Sir, I have felt, and felt deeply. I am not offended with any man. The most of those who have spoken against me, have treated me respectfully, and have been as mild as I had any right to expect. I cherish no unkind feelings toward any. I do not quarrel with my abolition brethren, though I believe their opinions to be erroneous and mischievous. Yet, so long as they conduct themselves courteously toward me, I have no quarrel with them. It is due that some remarks should be made by me, before the Conference come to a conclusion upon the question, which I hope will be speedily done, for I think a week is long enough for a man to be shot at, and it is time the discussion should terminate. As there has been frequent reference to the circumstances of my election to the Episcopal office, 3M. E. Clu7rch, South. 267 it is perhaps proper that I give a brief history of that nmatter. A friend of mine, (Brother Hodges,) now with God, asked me to permit myself to be put in nomination for that office. I objected-the office had no charms for me. I was with a Conference that I loved, and that loved me. What was I to gain to be separatel from a happy home -from a wife and children whom I loved more than I did my own life? But my friend urged me; he said my election would, he believed, tend to promote the peace of the Church, and that he believed it would be especially important to the prosperity of Methodism at the South. Finally I consented, with the hope of failure; but I was nominated and elected. I was never asked if I was a slaveholder-no man asked me what were my principles on the subject —no one dared to ask of me a pledge in this matter, or it would have been met as it deserved. Only one man, Brother Winans, spoke to me on the subject: he said he could not vote for me because he believed I was nominated under the impression that I was not a slaveholder. I told him I had not sought the nomination, nor did I desire the office,:and that my opinions on the propriety of making non-slaveholding a test of qualification for the office of Bishop were entirely in unison with his own. Sir, I do not believe in this matter of secret will as a rule of action, either in the revelations of the 268 Orygaization of tze Bible, or in the prescriptions of the Book of Discipline. I believe in the revealed xwill of God, and in the written law of the Church as contained in the Book of Discipline. I took office upon the broad platform of that book, and I belie~ve my case is covered by it. It was known that I was to reside at the South; I was elected in vTiew of that very thinr as it was judged important to the best interests of the Church that one of the Bishops should reside in that section of the work, and it was judged I could be more useful there than elsewhere. Well, what was I to do then? I was located in a country where free persons could not be obtained for hire, and I could not do the work of the family —ly wife could not do it-what was I to do? I was compelled to hire slaves, and pay their masters for their hire; but I had to change them every year -they were bad servants, for they had no interest in me or mine — and I believe it would have been less sin before God to have bought a servant *who would have taken an interest in me and I in him; but I did not do so. At length, however, I came into the possession of slaves; and I am a slaveholder, (as I have already explained to the Conference,) and I cannot help myself. It is known that I have waded through deep sorrows at the South during the last four years; I have buried the'wife of my youth and the mother of my children, who left me with a family of mother Mf.. Churce, South. 269 less children, who needed a friend and a mother. I sought another; (and with this the Conference has nothing to do;) I found one who, I believed, would make me a good wife, and a good mother for my children. I had known her long-my children knew and loved her. I sought to make my home a happy one, and I have done so. Sir, I have no apology to make. It has been said I did this thing voluntarily, and with my eyes open. I did so deliberately and in the fear of God-and God has blessed our union. I might have avoided this difficulty by resorting to a trick-by making over these slaves to my wife before marriage, or by doing as a friend who has taken ground in favor of the resolution before you sugg'ested: "'Why," said he, " did you not let your wife make over these negroes to her children, securing to herself an annuity from them?" Sir, my conscience would not allow me to do this thing. If I had done so, and those negroes had passed into the hands of those who would have treated thc;n unkindly, I should have been unhappy. Strange as it may seenm to brethren, I am- a slaveholder for conscience' sake. I have no doubt that mly wife would, without a moment's hesitation, con3ent to the manumission of those slaves, if I Ihought proper to do it. I know she would unhesii aingly consent to any arrangement I might deem it proper to make on the subject. But how am I to freeo 270 Organization of tce them? Some of them are old, too old to work to support themselves, and are only an expense to me; and some of them are little children; where shall I send these? and who will provide for them? But, perhaps, I shall be permitted to keep these; but, then, if the others go, how shall I provide for these helpless ones? and as to the others, to what free State shall I send themn? and what would be their condition? Besides, many of them would not go-they love their mistress, and could not be induced, under any circumstances; to leave her. Sir, an aged and respectable minister said to me, several years ago, when I had stated just such a case to him, and asked him what he would do, C" I would set them free," said he, "I'd wash my hands of them, and if they went to the devil, I'd be clear of them." Sir, into such views of religion or philanthropy my soul cannot enter. I believe the providence of God has thrown these creatures into my hands, and holds me responsible for their proper treatment. I have secured them to my wife by deed of trust since our marriage. The arrangement was only in accordance with an understanding existing previous to marriage. These servants were hers-she had inherited them from her former husband's estate-they had been her only source of support during her widowhood, and would still be her only dependence if it should please God to remove me from her. I have noth ill ff. E. Clzrcih, Souzh. 271 ing to leave her. I have given my life to the Church from the days of my youth, (and I am now fifty,) and although, as I have previously remarked, she would consent to any arrangement I might make, yet I cannot consent to take advantage of her affection for me to induce her to do what would injure her without at all benefitingo the slaves. Sir, I did not, for a moment, believe that this body of grave and reverend ministers would make this a subject of serious discussion. I thought it likely that there night be some watrm ultra brethren here who would take some exception to my course, and on that account I did not make the deed of trust before marriage, lest some should suppose I designed to dodge the responsibility of the case. Those who know me must know that I could not be governed by the mere matter of dollars and cents. What can I do? I have no confession to mlake-I.intend to make none. I stand upon the broad ground of the Discipline on which I took office, and if I have done wrong, put me out. The editor of the Christian Advocate has prejudged this case. He makes me the scapegoat of all the difficulties which abolition excitement ha,s gotten up at the North. I am the only one to blame, in his opinion, should misclhief grow out of this case. But I repeat, if I hare sinned against the Discipline, I refuse not to die. I have 272 Orglanziation of the spent my life for the benefit of the slaves. When I was but a boy, I taught a Sunday-school for slaves, in which I taught a number of them to read; and from that period till this day I have devoted my energies to the promotion of their happiness and salvation; with all my influence in private, in public, with my tongue, with my pen, I have assiduously endeavored to promote their present and eternal happiness. And am I to be sacrificed by those who have done little or nothing for them? It is said I have rendered myself unacceptable to our people. I doubt this. I have just returned from Philadelphia, where they knew me to be a slaveholder; yet they flocked to hear me, and the presence of God was with us; We had a good, warm, old-fashioned meeting. I may be unacceptable in New York, yet from the experience I have had, I doubt even that. To whom am I unacceptable? Not to the people of the South-neither masters nor slaves. Has my connection with slaves rendered me less acceptable to the colored people of the Souththe very people for whom all this professed sympathy is felt? Does the fact that I am a slaveholder make me less acceptable among them? Let those who have labored long among them answer the question. Sir, I venture to say that in Carolina or Georgia I could to-day get more votes for the office of Bishop from the colored people, than Ml. E. Church, South. 273 any supporter of this resolution, let him avow himself an emancipator as openly as he pleases. To the colored people of the South there, and to their owners-to the entire membership of the slaveholding Conferences I would not:be unacceptable; but, perhaps, they are no part- of "'our people;" in short, sir, I believe that I should not be unacceptable to one-half of the Connection; but on this question I have nothing to say. Should the Conference think proper to pass me, there is plenty of ground where I can labor acceptably and usefully. The slaveholding Conferences will present a field sufficiently large for me, should I live to the Lge of Methuselah; and the Bishops, in arranging'the work, will certainly have discretion enough not to send me where I would not be received; nor would I obtrude myself upon any Conference, or lay my hands upon the head of any brother, who would feel himself contaminated by the touch. However, on this subject I have nothing to say. The Conference can take its course; but I protest against the proposed action as a-violation of the laws of the Discipline, and an invasion of the rights secured to me by that Book. Yet let the Conference take the steps they contemplate; I enter no plea for mercy-I make no appeal for sympathy; indeed, I love those who sympathize with me, but I do not want it now. I wish you to act coolly and deliberately, and in 12* 274 Organiz'ation of the the fear of God; but I would rather that the Conference would change the issue, and make the resolution to depose the Bishop, and take the question at once, for I am tired of it. The country is becoming agitated upon the subject, and I hope the Conference will act forthwith on the resolution. On the 29th of May, Bishop Soule addressed the Conference in a very impressive manner, urging upon the body the importance of calmness. He said: I do not know but this may be a favorable moment for me to offer to the Conference the few remarks I desire to make before final action shall be had on the subject which is now pending before the Conference. I have had no solicitude with regard to the period of time when I should offer these remarks, only that it might be a time of calmness and reflection. I will indulge the hope that this is such a time, and therefore avail myself of the opportunity. I rise, sir, at this moment, as I once said before, with all the calmness which the occasion, I think, requires. But this is not the calm that precedes the tempest and the storm; it is not the calmness of indifference; it cannot be. It is, sir, the calmness of conviction. It is the calmness of principle. If indeed I could l31. E. Church, South. 275 be persuaded that my very respectable brother from the Pittsburgh Conference was entirely correct in his opinion, that all the light which could be furnished on this subject had been furnished, I should not rise here. There is a possibility that the brother may be mistaken. I cannot say that I should have forborne to rise, though I had been convinced of the correctness of the judgment of the respected brother firom New England, that though we should sit here till January next, no brother would be changed in his vote on this question. I say, I do not know that I should have forborne my observations, though I might have been convinced of the correctness of this opinion; but if no more lh}ht could be produced, any thing that I could say would be unavailing. There are periods, sin, in the history of the life of every man who sustains any important station in society, who holds any important relations to it, wvhen his individual character cannot, must not, be neutralized by the laws of association. Under this view, in what I shall say to this Conference, I involve no man in responsibility. My venerable colleagues are in no way concerned in what I shall say to this Conference; so that however I may be involved, they are not involved. The South, on my right, is not involved. The North, on my left, is not involved. I stand in this regard alone. I hope not, indeed, alone in the sentiments that I 276 Organization of tMe. shall express to the Conference. Brethren have manifested a solicitude to bring this question to an issue-to close the debate and come to the vote. I ask brethren if it is not possible, nowithstanding the time which has been employed in this discussion, notwithstanding the enlarged views which brethren. have expressed on the question before them —I ask if it is not possible that action on the resolution may not yet be premature? Society, sir, whether civil or religious, has much more to fear from the passions of its members, than it has to fear from calm investigation and sober inquiry. I am not afraid to meet the calmness of deliberation anywhere. I am not afraid to meet it here; I am not afraid to meet it in the Annual Conference; I am not af'raid to meet it before the great religious community of which we are members and ministers. I am not; but I feal the rage of the passions of men. I fear excitements-ardent excitements, prematurely produced in society; and I apprehend that if we trace the history of associations, whether civil or ecclesiastical, we shall find that these premature excite. ments, waking up the rage of passion, have produced greater calamities than ever were produced by the calmness of deliberation and the sobriety of inquiry, however extensive those investigations may have been. The sound of the trumpet of \a~m may go fovtht fromn within these consecrated M. E. Cuitrch, Souith. 277 walls —the sound may spread itself on the wings of the wind, or of the whirlwind, over the length and breadth of these lafnds; but, sir, when this sound shall have died away, when the elements which may have been awakened to boisterous and tumultuous action, shall subside into the calmness of inquiry and reason, a voice may return to this hall, wafted on a counter-breeze; and though the voice be not heard in the thunder, the earthquake, or the storm, it may pierce through the veil of our speculations, and of our theories, and the first sound will be heard in the inquiry, " Whtat is thze cause?" Well, sir, it will be the province of reason and sobriety to answer. Here it is, sir, spread out before me, spread out before you, in a plain, unsophisticated statement of facts by Bishop Andrew. I have not heard a brother from the North -I have not heard a brother from the South(and I have listened to hear)-allege that there were any other facts, that there were any other circumstances, having any bearing whatever on the merits of the case now before you. I take it for granted, then, that we have the entire facts of the case before us; and these facts are the cause of whatever alarm, whatever excitement, may have spread through our beloved Zion, and over this continent. Now, sir, I will beg the indulgence of the Conference while I read an extract from the address 278 OrganizcaioZ of thle of your general superintendents at your last session. You will indulge me in this. c The experience of more than half a century, since the organization of our ecclesiastical body, will afford us many important lights and landmarks, pointing out what is the safest and most prudent policy to be pursued in our onward course as regards African slavery in these States, and especially in our own religious community. This very interesting period of our history is distinguished by several characteristic features, having a special claim to our consideration at the present time, particularly in view of the unusual excitement which now prevails on the subject, not only in the different Christian Churches, but also in the civil body. And, first, our general rule on slavery, which forms a part of the constitution of the Church, has stood from the beginning unchanged, as testamentary of our sentiments on the principle of slavery and the slave-trade. And in this we differ in no respect from the sentiments of our venerable founder, or from those of the wisest and most distinguished statesmen and civilians of our own and other enlightened and Christian countries. Secondly, in all the enactments of the Church relating to slavery, a due and respectful regard has been had to the la~ws of the States, never requiring emancipation in contravention of the civil authority, or where the laws of the State.s iL. EC. cllurch1 Soutlt. 279 would not allow the liberated slave to enjoy freedom. Thirdly, the simply holding or owning slaves, without regard to circumstances, has at no period of the existence of the Church subjected the master to excommunication. Fourthly, rules have been made, from time to time, regulating the sale, and purchase, and holding of slaves, with reference to the different laws of the States where slavery is tolerated; which, upon the experience of the great difficulties of administering them, and the unhappy consequences both to masters and servants, have been as often changed and repealed. L" These important facts, which form prominent parts of our past history as a Church, may very properly lead us to inquire for that course of action in future which may be best calculated to preserve the peace and unity of the whole body, promote the greatest happiness of the slave population, and advance generally, in the slaveholding community of our country, the humane and hallowing influence of our holy religion. We cannot withhold from you, at this eventful period, the solemn conviction of our minds, that no new ecclesiastical legislation on the subject of slavery at this time will have a tendency to accomplish these most desirable objects. And we are fully persuaded that, as a body of Christian ministers, we shall accomplish the greatest good by directing our individual and united efforts, in the spirit of 280 Organizalzion of Itze the first teachers of Christianity, to bring both master and servant under the sanctifying influence of the principles of that gospel which teaches the duties of every relation, and enforces the faithful discharge of them by the strongest conceivable motives. Do we aim. at the amelioration of the condition of the slave? How can we so effectually. accomplish this, in our calling as ministers of the gospel of Christ, as by employing our whole influence to bring both him and his master to a, saving knowledge of the grace of God, and to a practical observance of those. relative duties so clearly prescribed in the writings of the inspired apostles? Permit us to add, that although we enter not into the political contentions of the day, neither interfere with civil legislation nor with the administration of the laws, we cannot but feel a deep interest in whatever affects the peace, prosperity, and happiness of our beloved country. The union of these States, the perpetuity of the bonds of our national confederation, the reciprocal confidence of the different members of the great civil compact in a word, the well-being of the community of which we are members, should never cease to lie near our hearts, and for which we should offer up our sincere and most ardent prayers to -the Almighty Ruler of the universe. "But can we, as ministers of the gospel, and servants of a Master'whose kingdom is not of J1. F.. Chlurch, Soutl. 281 this world,' promote these important objects in any way so truly and permanently as by pursuing the course just pointed out? Can we, at this eventful crisis, render a better service to our country than by laying aside all interference with relations authorized and established by the civil laws, and applying ourselves wholly and faithfully to what specially appertains to our shigh and holy calling;' to teach and enforce the moral obligations of the gospel, in application to all the duties growing out of the different relations in society? By a diligent devotion to this evangelical employment, with an humble and steadfast reliance upon the aid of divine influence, the number of'believing masters' and servants may be constantly increased, the kindest sentiments and affections cultivated, domestic burdens lightened, mutual confidence cherished, and the peace and happiness of society be promoted. While, on the other hand, if past history affords us any correct rules of judgment, there is much cause: to fear that the influence of our sacred office, if employed in interference with the relation itself, and consequently with the civil institutions of the country, will rather tend to prevent, than to accomplish, these desirable ends." Sir, I have read this extract that the members of this General Conference who were not present at the last session, and this listening assembly, who may not have heard it before, may understand 282 Organization of Ike distinctly the ground on which I, with my colleagues, stand in regard to these questions. I desire that this document may stand recorded, with my name to it, till I sleep in the dust of the earth. (Amen.) I desire to leave it as a legacy to nmy children and my children's children; and, if I might be permitted to say so, I would leave it as a legacy to the Church when I am no more. I want no man to write my epitaph. I will write it myself. I want no man to write and publish my Life. I will do that myself as far as I think it may be necessary for the interests of posterity, or for the benefit of the Church of God. I regret, in reading the Life of my venerable colleague, who has gone from earth to heaven since your last session, that this document, as it stood connected with his name, has not appeared in that memoir. I thank the author of "C The History of the Methodist Episcopal Church "-I mean Dr. Bcings —for having presented this document in that History. I met it in Europe, and I am glad it is there. I never wished my name detached fromn it; no, never, never. When this was written, your superintendents believed that they were (acting in perfect accordance with the Pastoral Address of the General Conference at its session in Cincinnati. We think so now. Well, sir, I have only one farther renimark to make before I proceed to the chief object for which I address the Conference this morning. M. E. Chulrch, Sou1th. 283 It is this: I desire that no undue influence may be produced from the peculiar relation in which I stand to the Church. Sympathy may exert too great an influence when it is brought to bear on great principles. The only subject which has awakened my sympathies during this whole discussion, is the condition of my suffering brethren of the colored race, and this never fails to do it. No matter where I meet the man of color, whether in the South, or in the North with the amount of liberty he enjoys, the sympathies of my nature are all awakened for him. Could I restore bleeding Africa to freedom, to independence, to the rights-to all the rights-of man, I would most gladly do it. But this I cannot do-you cannot do. And if I cannot burst the bonds of the colored man, I will not strengthen them. If I cannot extend to him all the good I would, I will never shut him out from the benefits which I have it in my power to bestow. But, sir, I cannot withhold this sentiment from the Conference, that with the mental and physical labors of this relation I could never have been sustained-I could never have supported myself-I could never hazve ministered to the Church unless I had been settled down on some principles equally as changeless as the throne of God, in my estimation-never, never. It is a constant recurrence to these great principles that has sustained me in the discharge of what I con 284 Organization of the ceive to be my duties-duties which grow out of my relation to the Church, and not simply to this Conference. These principles have sustained me in the city, and in the desert waste; they halve sustained me in the North, and they have sustained me in the South; they have sustained me in the quarters of the black man, and in the huts of the red man. Shake me from these principles, and I am done I have done, I say. But what is this? Why, sir, is the Methodist Episcopal Church dependent upon me? Far from it; her interest hangs not upon my shoulders at all. She can do a great deal better without me than I can without her; much better. Well, sir, laying aside this point —endeavoring to disengage myself as far as possible, consider me as expressing my own opinions, without reference to my colleagues. I wish to.say, explicitly, that if the superintendents are only to be regarded as the officers of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and consequently, as officers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, liable to be deposed at will by a simple majority of this body, without a form of trial, no obligation existing growing out of the constitution and laws of the Church, even to assign cause wherefore-I say, it' this doctrine be a correct one, every thing I have to say hereafter is powerless, and falls to the ground. But brethren will permit me to say, strange as it may seem, 31. E. Church, Soutl. 285 although I have had the honor and the privilege to be a member of the General Conference of the Mlethodist Episcopal Church ever since its present organization, though I was honored with a seat in the convention of ministers which organized it, in this respect I have heard for the first time, either on the floor of this Conference, in an Annual Conference, or through the whole of the private menmbership of the Church, this doctrine advanced; this is the first time I ever heard it. Of course it struck me as a novelty. I am not going to enter the arena of controversy with this Conference. I desire that my position may be defined. I desire to understand my landmarks as a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church —not the Bishop of the General Conference, not the Bishop of any Annual Conference. I thought that the constitution of the Church-I thought that its laws and regulations-I thought that the many solemn vows of ordination, the parchment which I hold under the signatures of the departed dead - I thought that these had defined my landmarks-I thought that these had prescribed my duties-I thought that these had marked out my course. In my operations I have acted under the conviction that these were my directions and landmarks, and it affords me great consolation this day to stand, at least in the juclgment of this body, to which I hold myself responsible, and before which I will 286 Organization of the always be ready to appear to answer to any charge they shall prefer against me-I say it affords me some gratification to hlave stood acquitted for twenty yealrs in the discharge of the high trust committed to my hands; and I here desire to offer my grateful ackno wle(igments to the Episcopal Committee for the report they have brought to this body, and to the Conference for their cordial acceptance of that report. I sacy I do it with sentiments of sincerity; and it is the more cordial to me in view of what may yet be to come. In this regard, although I have trembled beneath the weight of responsibility, and shrunk before the consciousness of my inability, and especially as I have felt my physical infirmities coming upon me, and knowing that I must be in the neighborhood of mental infirmity, I stand this day acquitted in my own conscience-(O that I may be acquitted at the bar of my eternal Juclge!) —that I have, to the.best of my ability, with sincerity of heart, and with the ardent desire to promote the great interests of the Church, and the cause of God, in the dischbarge of the duties which you have intrusted to me-I have never, in the discharge of this trust —God is my witness-I have never given an appointment to any preacher with a desire or design to afflict him. Indeed, if I could do it, I should abhor myself. Now, sir, whether this Conference is to sustalin the position on which I have 31. E.. Churell, Southf. 287 acted, or not, they are very soon to settle in the vote which is before them; I mean, they are to settle this question, whether it is the right of this body, and whether they have the power to depose a Bishop of the MIethoclist Episcopal Church; whether they have a right to depose my colleague -to depose me, without a formr of trial; see ye to that. Without specification of wrong, and by almost universal acclamation over this whole house, that Bishop Andrew has been unblamable in his Christian character; without blame in his ministerial vocation; that he has discharged the duties of his sacred office to the Church of God with integrity, with usefulness, and with almost universal acceptability, and in good fitith; with this declaration before the community, before the world, will this Conference occupy this position, that they have power, authority, to depose Bishop Andrew, without a form of trial, without charge, and without being once called on to answer for himself in the premises-what he did say was voluntary. Well, brethren, I had conceived, I had understood, from the beginning, that special provision was provided for the trial of a Bishop. The constitution has provided that no preacher, no person, was to be deprived of the right of trial, according to the forms of Discipline, and of the right of appeal; but, sir, if I understand the doctrine advanced and vindicated, it is that you man.-y depose 288 Oryganization of thze a Bishop without the form of trial; you may depose him without any obligation to sho-w cause, and therefore he is the only minister in your Church who has no appeal. It seems to me that the Church has made special provision for the trial of the Bishop, for the special reason that tihe Bishop has no appeal. Well, now, sir, I only make these observations, as I said, to the. ear of reason. You will remember that this whole thing is going' out before the world, as well as the Church. I wish to know my landmarks, to find out where I stand; for indeed I do not hesitate to say to you, that if my standing, and the relation in which I have been placed to the Methodist Episcopal Church, under my solemn Vows of ordination-if my relation is to stand on the voice of a simple majority of this body, without a form of trial, and without an obligation even to show me cause why I am deposed, I have some doubt whether there is the man on this floor that would be willing to stand in my place. Now, brethren will at once perceive the peculiar situation in which I am placed. Here are my brethren from the Ohio and other Conferences. We have been together in great harmony and peace. There has been great union of spirit everywhere; but I said at the beginning, there were periods in the history of every man occupying any important relation or sta.tion in society, when his individual character and influence could M. -. E. Uurch, South. 289 not be neutralized by the laws of association. You must unmoor me from my anchorage on the basis of this book; you must unsettle me from my principles-my settled and fixed principles. From these I cannot be shaken by any influences on my right hand or on my left hand; neither the zeal of youth nor the experience of hoary age shall move me from my principles. Convince me that I am wrong, and I yield. And here it may be necessary that I should make an observation in regard to what I have said before: it seems to have been misunderstood. I said, You may immolate me, but you cannot immolate me on a Southern altar; you cannot immolate me on a Northern altar; I can only be immolated on the altar of the union of the Methodist Episcopal Church. What do I mean by this? I mean-call it a compact-call it compromise, constitutional Discipline, what you will-I mean on the doctrines and provisions of this book, and I consider this as the bond of union of the M. E. Church. Here, then, I plant my feet, and here I stand. Let brethren, sir, not misunderstand me in another point; a point in which they may misunderstand me, in which I have been misunderstood; and you join me on this point. I hold that the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church has an indisputable right-constitutional, sacred — to arraign at her tribunal every Bishop; to try us there; to find us guilty 13 290 Oryanization of the of any offense with which we are charged on evidence, and to excommunicate-expel us. I am always ready to appear before that body in this regard. I recognize fully their right. But not for myself —not for these men on my right hand, and on my left hand; but for your sakes, and for the Church of God, of which you are members and ministers, let me ask you, let me entreat you, not to rush upon the resolution which is now before you. Posterity, sir, will review your actionshistory will record them; and whatever we may do here will be spread out before the face of the world; the eyes of men will be fixed upon it. In this view I was not surprised at all to hear brethren say, " Pause, brethren, I beseech you, pause," and I was not surprised to see men of mind and of thought approach the thing with fear and trembling. But brethren apprehend that there are great difficulties involved in this subject; they apprehend that fearful consequences are to take place, on whichever side of the question they shall move. Pass it, and the South suppose themselves involved in irretrievable ruin. Refuse to pass it, and the North consider the consequences perilous to them. Permit me to say, sir, that I have had some acquaintance, personal acquaintance, both with the North and the South; I think I have been able to cast an impartial eye over these great departments of the Church. I may err in judg M. E. Cz/utrcl, Soulth. 291 ment, but I apprehend that the difficulties may not be as insurmountable as brethren have apprehended them to be. I know that some of my brethren of the North are involved in such a manner that I cannot apprehend-I perceive no way in which they can compromise this question. Why? For the obvious reason that it involves a principle. I will compromise with no man when a principle is involved in the compromise. What is that principle? The men that avow it are as honest as any men on this floor. I know them; in the men there is no guile. What is the principle? It was advanced by my worthy Brother Cass the other day. Can he compromise the principle? You must convince him of the error of his principle before he will compromise it. - What is it? It is that slavery, under all circumstances, is a sin against God. Mr. Cass interposed. May I correct the Bishop? I believe I did not say so; I said it was a moral evil. Bishop Soule proceeded. Well, I am glad to be corrected. That is not Brother Cass's principle. A moral evil-a moral evil, and not a sin, under all circumstances. It affords me a great deal of pleasure to hear my worthy brother's statement, for it greatly increases my hope that we shall have a compromise. Nolw, sir, notwithstanding brethren have thought, 292 Oryanizalion of the and with perfect sincerity, that they were ready to act on the resolution; although undoubtedly a large majority of this body have been prepared for it for sonme time, I cannot but believe that it might be premature in the Conference taking action on it even now. I will offer one or two reasons why I think the Conference is not prepared for action on the resolution. We have been informed here, from documents —to a great extent petitions and memorials-on the subject of slavery in its various aspects and interests. These documents, these petitions and memorials, have been received with the respect.due to the right of petition. They have been committed to a large and judicious committee to examine and report. That committee has not reported to this body; it will report; I need not say to you that it will report. The respect due to some thousand petitioners to this body will lay themi under solemn obligation to report; and is it not possible that this report —on the subject immediately connected with the resolution before you-may afford you some light? You will have in the report of that committee several important items of information clearly developed before you. You will know the number of the petitioners, of the memorialists, in each of the Annual Conferences. You will know the relative proportion of these petitioners to the whole number of the Methodist Church within these .M. E Church, South. 293 Conferences. You will know the aggregate number of all these memorialists and petitioners, and you will consequently know the relative number in regard to the whole community of the M. E. Church. It will not be disputed, I think, on the floor of this General Conference, that the subjects, so far as they have been presented when the memorials were up, that the subjects on which you are memorialized in these documents are not local. They are not subjects appertaining specially and exclusively to the memori.alists. So far as I heard, every subject was of a general character, in which every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, East, West, North, and South, has an equal interest and concern. The report of your committee may throw much light on this great subject. But this is not all. I beg to suggest to the brethren that the views of the great body of the Methodist Church, and the great body of her ministers, are not, and cannot be represented here', in regard to the special point before you; and if this be a subject in which all the ministers of the M. E. Church, and all the members of the M. E. Church, have an equal interest and concern, is it safe for this body to proceed to such an important action in regard to the whole interests of the Church, without having a more full development of the subject, both from ministers and Church, than the memorials as yet presented afford? I ask it. Now 294 Organizction of the will the delegation from New York tell us what are the views of the great body of the Methodists within the New York Conference on this subject? We have been sitting here, Mr. President, on this case almost from the time we commenced it. It has been, however, before this community. It has been out before the whole Church, and from the views the brethren have taken, I have been almost surprised that we have not had memorials from the city where we sit; I have been almost surprised that we have not had memorials from the people in Philadelphia, from the people in Baltimore, and from the people in Boston. We have had no memorials. There has been no expression on their part, as I have heard; and yet, in the midst of this enlightened body of Methodists, are we prepared thus to say what is the view of the people around us on this question? and, under such circumstances, do you hesitate to stay the question in the resolution before you? I beg the brethren to go a little farther on this subject. I will go with my brethren to Ohio. Now I do not know-I am a resident in Ohio, I have some acquaintance in Ohio; both with preachers and with our very excellent and worthy membership in Ohio, my brethren from them, these delegates, have more, and, doubtless, can say more-I should not dare, on the floor of this Conference, to say that the act would meet the approbation of the iL.P. E Clurc1, South. 295 great body of preachers and members in Ohio; I dare not say it. It is sufficient for me, however, in the present position I occupy, to say that the Church has not known the subject, and has expressed no opinion on the subject whatsoever. I settle it down, then, as the basis on which I shall proceed, that -we have not, and cannot have, the views of our ministers and people generally on this subject, so fully expressed to us as to others. The adoption of that resolution deposes Bishop Andrew without form or trial; such is my deliberate opinion. I do not believe it is safe for our community; I do not believe it is safe for you; and I am out of this question. What shall be done? The question, I know, wakes up the attention of every brother. Can it be possible that the Methodist Episcopal Church is in such a state of excitement —in such a state, I had almost said, of revolution-as to be unprepared to send out the plain, simple facts in the case to the Churches, to the Annual Conferences, everywhere through our community, and waive all action on this subject till another General Conference? I said, almost at the commencement of these remarks, sir, that I was not afraid of the deliberation of men, of our Annual Conferences, of the General Conferences-I am afraid of the passions 296 Organization of thie of men, and I could present before you some considerations to illustrate the views that I have given you; and if I give you these views in error of judgment, be assured that they are not views which originate on the spur of the moment; they are the result of sober and deliberate investigation. Can it be possible that the simple circumstance of Bishop Andrew's holding an office as a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church four years longer, with this statement of facts in the case-simple facts in the case-spread out before the enlightened body of this great Methodist community-is there to be an earthquake? I am not prepared to believe it; I soberly am not prepared to believe it. Well, sir, this is the view that I take of the subject. Permit me to make one other suggestion. The providence of God directs the whirlwind and the storm; clouds and darkness indeed may be round about us, but righteousness and justice are the habitation of his throne. Let us be careful that we never suffer a human arm to impede the operations of Providence. My beloved colleague, Bishop Andrew, and myself, and all my colleagues, may have passed away from these scenes of trouble and the passions which now agitate the Church of Godl-may go to sleep, in God's providence, long before four years go by. How easy it is for God to direct the elements of society! Don't be surprised, then, brethren, M. E. Church, outlh. 297 when I say to you, Pause. Brethren may possibly have a little more light; there may be some ray from heaven or earth yet to shine upon this subject. Now it is the solemn conviction of my mind that the safest course you can pursue in the premises is to pass this subject without any implication of Bishop Andrew's character at all, and to send out officially the plain and simple facts in the case to all your societies-to all your Conferences. Let it be read everywhere, and then we may have a farther expression of opinion, without any kind of agitation. I am about to take my leave of you, brethren. You must know-you cannot but know, that with the principles I have stated to you-with the avowal of my sentiments in regard to this subject-it will not be Bishop Andrew alone that your word will affect! No,.sir, I implicate neither my colleagues on my right hand nor on my left; but I say the decision of the question cannot affect Bishop Andrew alone. I wish it to be distinctly understood, it cannot afect lzim alone. I mean specially in this pointI say that the resolution on which we are just about to act goes to sustain the doctrine that the General Conference have power and right to depose one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church without the form of trial-that you are under no obligation from the constitution or laws of the Church to show cause even. Now 13* 298 Organizcation of tlze every man must see, and every man must know, that Bishop Andrew cannot be involved alone in the vote. It is the principle which is involved. It goes to say that when this Conference shall vote on the subject-a simple majority of this Conference-without form of trial, can depose a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Do you understand it so? If I am mistaken, I shall stand corrected and I need not say to this Conference that such a decision will involve others beside. It involves the office; it involves the charge; it involves the relation itself. And now, in taking leave, I offer devout prayer to Almighty God that you may be directed wisely in the decision you are about to make. I have given to you what, in my sober and deliberate judgment, is the best and safest course which you can pursue-safest for all concerned. I want that opinion to have no more influence upon you than it justly deserves in the Conferences-all the Conferences. I thank the Conference for the attention they have been pleased to give me. I thank the audience for their attention. I very well know -I am not at all unapprised that the position I occupy-in which I stand on the principles of that resolution-on the principles involved in it-may seal my fate. I say I am not at all unapprised of that. Let me go; but I pray you hold to principles-to principles; and with these remarks, I M. E. CE. urch, South. 299 submit the whole to your and God's direction. (Amen!) Dr. Capers was the last speaker on the Southern side who addressed the Conference. "The first point Dr. Capers made was in respect to the unity of the Church. His argument was in substance this: Bishop Andrew is under arrest as a slaveholder, because thereby he has made it impossible for himself to exercise in the non-slavreholding States his Episcopal functions. Very well. You maintain that a General Conference is the supreme power in the Church, to which the Bishops are subordinate and responsible. How absurd is the clamor against a slaveholding Bishop, as a contamination upon a part of the Church, when the General Conference itself includes slaveholders, who thus, by the very unity of the Church, connect these immaculate Conferences inextricably with'the great evil.''Yes, sir,' he said,'they and I are brethren, whether they will or no. The same holy hands have been laid upon their heads and upon my head. The same vows which they have taken, I have taken. At the same altar where they minister, do I minister; and with the same words mutually on our tongues. We are the same ministry, of the same Church; not like, but identical. Are they Elders? So am. I. Spell the word. There is not a letter in it which they dare deny ,300 Organization of the,me. Take their measure. I am just as high as they are, and they are as low as I am. We are not one ministry for the North, and another ministry for the South; but one, and one only, for the whole Church.' C'It could not have made his argument more conclusive or irresistible, had he added, that by virtue of this same unity and connectionalism of the Church, he, a slaveholder, had himself been called on by Northern as well as Southern votes to represent the entire American Methodist Church, a few years previously, before the British Wesleyan Conference. Had the lapse of these few years altered the immutable law of Christian morals, and made that to be wrong to-day which was perfectly right then? "After a brief examination of the new doctrine which had been improvised to cover the approaching action, that, namely, which held Bishops to be merely officers of the General Conference, liable to be set aside as class-leaders, at the mere pleasure of a majority, and showing what a solemn farce the consecration service would become on such a supposition, Dr. Capers went on to exhibit the unconstitutionalify of the contemplated proceeding. He maintained that whatever else the Constitution of the Church might be, it must first be Christian, and secondly, Protestant, and thirdly, consistent with the great object for which the Methodist Church was raised up, to spread scriptural holiness . P. E. Church, South. 301 over these lands. In elaborating this last point, he showed how the proceedings against the Bishop must impede the course of the ministry in many of the States, and debar access altogether to large portions of the colored population. He was now approaching a point of view where, from the very office he had held under the General Conference for the last four years-that of Missionary Secretary for the South —he was entitled to speak with the highest authority. If any man in America could be supposed to be wyell informed on this subject, Dr. Capers was that man. And what was his testimony?'Never, never,' said he,'have I suffered, as in view of the evil which this measure threatens against the South. The agitation has begun there; and I tell you that though our hearts were to be torn from our bodies, it could avail nothing when once you have awakened the feeling that we cannot be trusted among the slaves. Once you have done this, you Ihave e fectually destroyed us. I could wish to die sooner than live to see such a day. As sure as you live, there are tens of thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands, whose destiny may be periled by your decision on this case. When we tell you that we preach to a hundred thousand slaves in our missionary field, we only announce the beginning of our work —the beginning openings of the door of access to the most numerous masses of slaves in the South. When 302 Orgcanization of the we add that there are two hundred thousand now within our reach who have no gospel unless we give it them, it is still but the same announcement of the beginnings of the opening of that wide and effectual door, which was so lonog closed, and so lately has begun to be opened, for the preaching of the gospel by our ministry, to a numerous and destitute portion of the people. 0 close not this door! Shut us not out from this great work, to which we have been so signally called of God.' "In this strain he went on to the conclusion of his speech. Had it been within the possibility of human agency to close or bridge the gulf of separation which yawned between the Northern and Southern sections of the Church, this fervid, telling, and powerful appeal to the Christian principles and emotions of the majority, must have done it. Were they not the very men by eminence, who were clamoring about the civil and social condition of the negro population of the Southern States? But were they not, also, the very preachers whose business it was to ask the question,'What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?' Was it possible that these men cared nothing for the souls of the negroes? Swallowed up, as some of them no doubt were, in the abstractions of a fanaticism which was blind to all spiritual and eternal interests, and hardened as some of them possibly were M. Ch. Uurch, South. 303 by the hypocritical cant of abolitionism, there was yet enough of sound Christianity among the majority of that General Conference to feel the force of those considerations-irresistible to a good manwhich in so touching a style this speech had set before them. Why, then, did they carry out the measure objected to on such weighty considerations? The answer is, that all considerate men among them saw that the time had come for a separation. They meant to meet the emergency with a steady determination to do justice to the claims of that portion of the Church represented by the minority. Subsequent acts show that they are entitled to the justification found alone in such a determination. "Dr. Few, of Georgia, whose want of health had deprived the South of his important services as a delegate, upon reading Dr. Capers's speech, made the following remark:'I would be willing to risk the whole cause upon that speech alone, with every sound-minded, unprejudiced man, although he should be required to read all that was said on the opposite side."' The able speech of Dr. Capers was delivered on the 30th of May, immediately after which Dr. Peck suggested the propriety of bringing the debate to a close. Bishop Andrew also asked that the question might be taken. The motion for the * Wightman's Life of Capers, pp. 403-408. 304 Organization of the previous question having failed, Bishop Hedding then requested that the Conference might not sit this afternoon, in order that the superintendents might have an opportunity to consult together with a view to fixing upon a compromise; and he requested the Conference to revive the committee of Northern and Southern brethren, discharged some days since, that they might meet the Bishops in council on this important question. Dr. Durbin hailed the proposition with delight, but he suggested that it would be better in the circumstances not to revive the committee. Let the Bishops meet together-Bishop Andrew as well as the rest-and let them invite any brethren to meet with them whom they pleased. Ile would give them plenipotentiary powers in the case. This suggestion was agreed to. Dr. Olin then moved that the case of Bishop Andrew be deferred till to-morrow morning. On the 31st of May, the following address of the Bishops was read by Bishop Waugh: To the General Conference of the M. E. Church: Rev. and Dear Brethren:-The undersigned respectfully and affectionately offer to your calm consideration the result of their consultation this afternoon in regard to the unpleasant and very delicate question which has been so long and so earnestly debated before your body. They have, with the M. E. ChurCch, Soulh. 305 liveliest interest, watched the progress of the discussion, and have awaited its termination with the deepest solicitude. As they have poured over this subject with anxious thought, by day and by night, they have been more and more impressed with the difficulties connected therewith, and the disastrous results which, in their apprehension, are the almost inevitable consequences of present action on the question now pending before you. To the undersigned it is fully apparent that a decision thereon, whether affirmatively or negatively, will most extensively disturb the peace and harmony of that widely extended brotherhood which has so effectively operated for good in the United States of America and elsewhere during the last sixty years, in the development of a system of active energy, of which union has always been a, main element. They have, with deep emotion, inquired, Can any thing be done to avoid an evil so much deprecated by every friend of our common Methodism? Long and anxiously have they waited for a satisfactory answer to this inquiry, but they have paused in vain. At this painful crisis they have unanimously concurred in the propriety of recommending the postponement of farther action in the case of Bishop Andrew until the ensuing General Conference. It does not enter into the design of the undersigned to argue the propriety of their recommendation, otherwise strong 306 Organization of the and valid reasons might be adduced in its support. They cannot but think that if the embarrassment of Bishop Andrew should not cease before that time, the next General Conference, representing the pastors, ministers, and people of the several Annual Conferences, after all the facts in the case shall have passed in review before them, will be better qualified than the present General Conference can be to adjudicate the care wisely and discreetly. Until the cessation of the embarrassment, or the expiration of the interval between the present and the ensuing General Conference, the undersigned believe that such a division of the work of the general superintendency might be made, without any infraction of a constitutional principle, as would fully employ Bishop Andrew in those sections of the Church in which his presence and services would be welcome and cordial. If the course pursued on this occasion by the undersigned be deemed a novel one, they persuade themselves that their justification, in the view of all candid and peace-loving persons, will be found in their strong desire to prevent disunion, and to promote harmony in the Church. Very respectfully and affectionately submitted, JOSHUA SOULE, ELIJAH ITEDDING, B. WAUGH, T. A. MORRIS. L. E. CIuzrch, South. 307 This address was followed by remarks from several members, among whom was Dr. Bangs, who proposed that it be referred " to a committee of nine," which was finally agreed to. On the 1st of June, Bishop Hedding expressed a wish to withdraw his name from the communication presented by the Bishops on the previous day, offering the following reasons for this desire: That he signed the address " as a peace measure," and that "he believed it would be generally acceptable to the Conference," but that'in both these expectations he was disappointed." Bishops Waugh and Morris wished their names to remain, the former until c" he saw other reasons than had yet appeared" for an abandonment of the position he had taken, and the latter c" as a testimony that he had done what he could to preserve the unity of the body." Bishop Soule said he "put his signature to the document with the same views and under the same convictions as his worthy colleagues did, and neither his views nor his convictions were changed in any way. And he wished that document to go forth through a thousand channels to the world. It is already before the American people, and he might not, and would not, withdraw it." On motion of Dr. Bangs, the communication was laid on the table by a vote of 95 to 83. After this vote, Dr. Bangs said it was well 308 OrganiZation of the known that he had used every effort in his power to ha.ve this matter brought to a compromise, and he had indulged a hope that this would be the result. It was with that view that he labored to have this document referred to a committee. But from what had been told him by members from the North and South, not,a vestige of this hope remained, and he would now urge immediate action upon the substitute, if it was before the house. He believed wisdom, and prudence, and Christianity, and brotherly love, dictated that course, and that farther discussion would not change one mind. Dr. Winans said the last speaker had referred to the South, and his remarks in their connection went to say that the South were opposed to the proposition from the superintendents. He begged to say that the Southern delegates were of one mind to entertain the proposition of the superintendents. Dr. Bangs explained that he did not mean to say that the South objected to the proposal of the Bishops, but that the Conference could not come to any general compromise on the subject. He should not, himself, move the previous question. Mr. Collins opposed the motion for taking up the order of the day. He had not given up all hopes of peace; and if they would wait a few minutes and listen to a proposal from Dr. Durbin, K. F. Ch. urch, South. 309 he thought a compromise might yet be effected. They were bound to make a settlement of the question, he knew, but in their proposed action the Bishops were against them; and if they would withdraw their names fromn the communication they had made, and allow Dr. Durbin to use it as his owl he (Mr. Collins) believed a plan of pacification Light still be concocted. The proposition was, as a last effort to bring peace and save the Church from division, to add to the suggestion of the Episcopacy some resolutions expressive of the regret of that General Conference that Bishop Andrew had become connected with slavery, and request him to rid himself of the embarrassment as soon as possible; and, in addition, a resolution to take off the journals all that related to the colored testimony question. He thought such a measure would answer their purpose, and heal the wound of the Church. Mr. Blake was pursuing his labors as a minister among the colored people, and little thought that the question of slavery would be brought up. HIe had no anticipation of a storm, but he found that the foundations of the great deep were broken up, and the ark of their Church was floating on the waves. But he thanked God that in the distance he saw a blessed Ararat. Ie went on describing the various forms under which slavery had been discussed in the present Conference, alluded to the 310 Orgyanicztialon of the definitions of the Episcopal office during the de. bate, and thought that Dr. Durbin's substitute would not reconcile the difficulties. Mr. Longstreet said, as long as there was any hope of reconciliation, he would desire that this question be postponed. As yet, the South had not made one proposition to adjust the matter amicably. He trusted, therefore, that the door would not be closed. Time was a matter of very little consequence compared with the importance of the questions at issue. He wished to wait, and see what time would bring forth. Dr. Paine said he was a man of peace. He deeply regretted to hear unkind words from both sides. He never dealt in wholesale denunciation. The South felt calm as they could feel when the importance of the question was considered. He considered the substitute to be mandatory. It acted -as a mandamus; it had been so described. This placed the South in an awkward position. He hoped some ground would be proposed by the North that both could occupy. If there was no such common ground, the South was prepared for the result. Mr. Porter recalled the attention of the Conference to the discussion of the last fortnight as evidence of the peace-loving character of the Northern members. They wanted to be one body. He did not believe they could live as one body M.1. c. lhtreh, Soultl. 311 with any thing less than the substitute. lie asked what was the prospect of peace-Bishop Andrew had declared that he could not recede from his position, and the South had taken the same ground. It was no use to discuss the question farther, therefore, but they had better come up square to the question, and decide the point at once, that the people might be satisfied. Mr. Mitchell proposed an amendment, to be appended to the resolution, to the effect that the Bishop should so resign until a majority of the Annual Conferences desired him to resume his office. Mr. M. did not think it necessary to enter into a discussion whether the resolution respecting Bishop Andrew was advisory or mandatory. He wished the substitute to come before the Conference this morning. On. motion, the order of the day was taken up. Bishop Soule said he had good reason to believe that brethren had entertained erroneous views with respect to the position he occupied at the time he addressed the Conference on this subject; and he now wished to correct those views, that there might be a proper understanding in the matter before they had action on the substitute. It must have occurred to the brethren that his remarks at that time were entirely irrelevant, except on the understanding that the resolution was mandatory. He looked upon it as suspending Bishop 312 Organization of the Andrew. There was a great difference between suspension and'advice. If this action was not intended to be judicial, he should withdraw many of his remarks. If it was a mandatory act, it was judicial. One member said it was merely a request to Bishop Andrew to resign; but several had declared it to be judicial, and were not contradicted. Again: the argument was, that slavery could not exist in the Episcopacy of the Methodist Church. One brother had satid, that if the resolution passed, Bishop Andrew was still a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. If this was the case, his remnarks, he must repeat, were irrelevant. He considered the proceeding as a judicial one, suspending Brother Andrew from his duties as Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Mr. J. T. Peck moved the previous (that is, the main) question, which was carried. The resolution was then read, and the ayes and noes were taken; Bishop Soule observing, that definite action must necessarily be hereafter taken to decide whether the resolution was mandatory or advisory. The votes were given amid the most profound stillness. The resolution (Mr. Finley's substitute) read as follows: "Whereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids the doing any thing calculated to destroy our itiner l E. ~. CZurh, Southz. 313 ant general superintendency; and, whereas, Bishop Andrew has becomle connected with slavery, by marrialge and otherwise, and this act having drawn after it circumstances 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, "4Resolvecd, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he desist from the exercise of this office so long as this impediment remains." The yeas and nays being called by delegations, were as follows: YEA S. New York Conference: Nathan Bangs, Stephen Olin, Phinelas Itice, George Peck, John B. Stratten, Peter P. Sandford, Fitch Iteed, Samuel D. Ferguson, Stephen Martindale, Ml(arvin Richardson. T roy: Truman Seymour, John M. Wever, James Covel, jr., Tobias Spicer, Seymour Coleman, James B. Houghtaling, Jesse T. Peck. Proviclnce: J. Lovejoy, F. Upham, S. Benton, Paul Townsend. NTezw HIampshire: Elihu Scott, J. Perkins, Samuel Kelly, S. Chamnlberlain, John G. Dow, J. Spaulding, C. D. Cahoon, William D. Cass. NXew England: J. Porter, D. S. King, P. Crandall, C. Adans, G. Pickering. Pittslburgdh:'William Hunter, H. J. Clark, J. Spencer, S. El 314 Oryanizatlion of t/ec liott, R. Boyd, S. WVakefield, J. Drummond. Mzaine: M. iill, E. Robinson, D. B. Randall, C. W. Morse, J. Hobart, Heinan Nickerson, G. Webber. Black River: A. D. Peck, A. Adams, G. Baker, W. W. Ninde. Erie: J. J. Steadman, John Bain, G. W. Clark, J. Robinson, T. Goodwin. Oneidla: J. M. Snyder, S. Comfort, N. Rounds, D. A. Shepherd, II. F. Row, E. Bowen, D. Holmes, jr. Michigan: E. Crane, A. Billings, J. A. Baughman. Rock River: B. Weed, II. W. Reed, J. T. Mitchell. Genesee: G. Fillmore, S. Luckey, A. Steele, F. G. Hibbard, S. Seager, A. Abell, W. Hosmer, J. B. Alverson. North Ohio: E. Thompson, J. H. Power, A. Poe, E. Yocum, XV. Runnells. Illinois: P. Akers, P. Cartwright. Ohio: C. Elliott, William H. Raper, J. M. Trimble, J. B. Finley, L. L. Hamline, Z. Connell, J. Ferree. Inclziana: M. Simpson, A. Wiley, E. R. Ames, J. Miller, C. W. Ruter, A. Wood, A. Eddy, J. Havens. Texas: J. Clark. Baltimore: J. A. Collins, A. Gritffth, J. Bear, N. J. B. Morgan, J. Dcavis. Philadelplzcia: J. P. Durbin, L. Scott. New Jersey: I. Winner, J. S. Porter, J. K. Shaw. 111. NAYS. New York Conference: C. W. Carpenter. Miczigan: G. Smith. Rock River: J. Sinclair. Illinois: J. Stamper, J. Van Cleve, N. G. Berryman. Kentucky: It. B. Bascomn, W. Gunn, H.. IKavanaugbh, 31I. E. Church, SoIzEl/. 315 E. Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush. Ozio: E. W. Sehon. fHolston: E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, T. Stringfield. Tennessee: R. Paine, J. B. McFerrin, A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin. Mlisso uri: W. W. Redman, W. Patton, J. C. Berryman, J. M. Jameson. Nortk Carolina: J. Jameson, Peter Doub, X1. G. Leigh. Mfemplhiis: G. W. D. IIHarris, S. S. MIoody, William McMahon, T. Joyner. Arkcansas: J. C. Parker, W. P. Ratcliffe, A. HIunter. Virginice: J. Early, T. Crowder, W. A. Smith, L. M. Lee. Miississip.i: William Winans, B. M. Drake, J. Lane, G. M. Rogers. Texas: L. Fowler. Alabamazc J. Boring, J. Hamilton, William Murrah, G. Garrett. Georgia: G. F. Pierce, W. J. Parks, L. Pierce, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Longstreet. South C(crolnac: William Capers, W. M. Wightman, C. Betts, S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker. Baltimlore: H. Slicer, J. A. Gere, T. B. Sargent, C. B. Tippett, G. Hildt. Phziladelphcia: T. J. Thompson, H. White, W. Cooper, I. T. Cooper. New Jersey: Thomas Neal, Thomas Sovereign. 69. So the resolution was adopted by a vote of 111 against 69. 316 Ovyaiizaction of the CHAPTER IV. The effect of the action of the General Conference on the Church in the South-Notice given by Dr. Pierce that the Southern Delegates would enter their Protest-Resolutions offered by Henry Slicer —Resolutions offered by Dr. Capers-Referred to a Committee —Declaration of the Southern Members-Dr. Elliott proposes its reference -Speech of Peter P. Sandford —Reply of Dr. Longstreet -Dr. Olin's Remarks-Declaration referred-Resolution of Instruction to the Committee-Protest of the Minority -Communication from Bishops Soule, Hedding, Waugh, and Morris —Reply of the Conference-Report of the Committee of Nine-The Report discussed-Its adoption — The Adjournment of the General Conference. THE adoption of the substitute offered by Mr. Finley, virtually deposing Bishop Andrew from the Episcopal office, was not unexpected to the Southern delegates. Indeed, from the moment when his official character was arrested, they apprehended such a result. Knowing the effect that these extrajudicial proceedings would have in the South, they deemed it their duty to the Church, to the welfare and advancement of which they had consecrated their energies and their lives; X.L.. Czhurch, South. 317 to the African race residing in the South, so many thousands of whom had been brought to Christ through the instrumentality of Methodism; and to the people among whom they lived and labored, to manifest their disapproval in language entirely free from ambiguity. A quiet submission to the action of the General Conference, would not only be the price of their influence as ministers of the gospel of Christ among the people they served, but would result in the exile of Methodism from the Southern States. Standing upon the New Testament basis, they had preached to the master and the slave, teaching humanity to the former, and obedience to the latter, and had succeeded in winning both to Christ. The smiles of Heaven were resting on their labors, and the approval of the Almighty was seen and felt in the happy conversion of thousands. Immediately after the vote of the Conference on the substitute, Dr. Lovick Pierce arose and said: It would be within the recollection of the members and spectators who had listened to this discussion with so much interest, that, in the event of the Conference deciding upon the passage of this resolution, the Southern delegation had declared that they would enter their solemn protest 318 Organization of the against it, without a dissenting voice or faltering step. They should, at the earliest possible moment, do so, and it should be a manly, ministerial, and proper protest against this action of the Conference, as an extrajudicial act, that their sentiments on the subject might go down to posterity. He contended that, however conscientiouslyand he gave them full credit for that-they had acted, still they had acted contrary to the rule of compromise. The constitutionality, or otherwise, of their proceeding would probably be tried before other tribunals. It had never entered into his heart in any thing to depart from the spirit and intention of the Discipline of the Church, and those who were his brethren in the South were of the same mind. lIe believed that, when the public mind had been sounded, and the deep tones of public opinion came pealing up from all quarters of the Connection, there would be a verdict in favor of the South. On the 3d of June, Mr. Slicer, of Baltimore, offered the following resolutions: "Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that the vote of Saturday last, in the case of Bishop Andrew, be understood as advisory only, and not in the light of a judicial mandate. "Resolvec, 2dly, That the final disposition of 11~1. E. Ch/urch, South. 319 Bishop Andrew's case be postponed until the General Conference of 1848, in conformity with the suggestion of the Bishops, in their address to the Conference on Friday, 31st AMay.' H. SLICER, "T. B. SARGENT." These resolutions were laid on the table by a, vote of 75 to 68 —the South voting unanimously against laying on the table. On the same day Dr. Capers offered the following resolution:'"Be it resolved by the delegates of all tihe Annual Conferences in General CUonference assembled, That we recommend to the Annual Conferences to suspend the constitutional restrictions which limit the powers of the General Conference so far, and so far only, as to allow of the following alterations in the government of the Church, viz.:'"1. That the Methodist Episcopal Church, in these United States and Territories, and the Republic of Texas, shall constitute two General Conferences, to meet quadrennially, the one at some place south, and the other nzorth of the line which now divides between the States commonly designated as free States and those in which slavery exists. "'2. That each of the two General Conferences thus constituted shall have full powers, under the limitations and restrictions which are now of force 320 Organizzation of the and binding on the General Conference, to make rules and regulations for the Church, within their territorial limits, respectively, and to elect Bishops for the samnie. " 3. That the two General Conferences aforesaid shall severally have jurisdiction aIs follows: The Southern General Conference shall comprehend the States of Virgini(a, Kentucky, and Missouri, andt the States and Territories lying southerly thereto, and also the Republic of Texas, to be known and designated by the title of the'Southern General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States.' And the Northern General Conference to comprehend all those States lying north of the States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, as above, to be known and designated by the title of the'Northern Generll Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States.' "4. Andcl be it farther resolved, That as soon as three-fourths of all the members of all the Annual Conferences shall have voted on these resolutions, and] shall approve the same, the said Southern and Northern General Conferences shall be deemed as having been constituted by such approvral; and it shatll be competent for the Southern Annual Conferences to elect delegates to said Southern General Conference, to meet in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, on the first of May, 1848, or sooner, 1f. E. E. Clurchz, Soulth. 321 if a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Annual Conferences composing that General Conference shall desire the same.'"5. And be it fartlher resolved, as aforesaid, That the Book Concerns at New York and Cincinnati shall be held and conducted as the property and for the benefit of all the Annual Conferences as heretofore: the Editors and Agents to be elected once in four years at the time of the session of the Northern General' Conference, and the votes of the Southern General Conference to be cast by delegates of that Conference attending the Northern for that purpose. ("6. And be it fcarther resolved, That our Church organization for foreign missions shall be maintained and conducted jointly between the two General Conferences as one Church, in such manner as shall be agreed upon from time to time between the two great branches of the Church as represented in the said two Conferences. Dr. Bangs moved that the resolutions be referred to a select committee, consisting of Messrs. Capers, Winans, Crowder, Porter, Fillmore, Akers, Hamline, Davis, and Sandford. On the 5th of June, Dr. Capers announced'"that they could not agree on a report which they judged would be acceptable to the Conference." In the afternoon session of the same day, Dr. 14* 322 Oryanization of /the Longstreet presented the following "Declaration of the Southern members:" "The delegates of the Conferences in the slaveholding States take leave to declare to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that the continued agitation on the subject of slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church — the frequent action on that subject in the General Conference-and especially the extrajudicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, which resulted, on Saturday last, in the virtual suspension of him from his office as superintendent-must produce a state of things in the South which renders a continuance of the jurisdiction of that General Conference over these Conferences inconsistent with the success of the ministry in the slaveholding States." Virginia Conference.-John Early, W. A. Smith, Thomas Crowder, Leroy M. Lee. KIentuclc. —H.. Bascom, William Gunn, II. H. Kavanaugh, Edward Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush. Missouri.-W. W. Redman, William Patton, J. C. Berryman, J. M. Jameson. Holston.-E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, Thomas Stringfield. Georgia. —G. F. Pierce, William J. Parks, L. Pierce, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Longstreet. I31. E. C1hurch, South. 323 Nrorth Carolina. —James Jameson, Peter Doub, B. T. Blake. Illinois.-J. Stamper. Men his. — G. W. D. Harris, Winm. McMahon, Thomas Joyner, S. S. Moody. ArkCansas.-John C. Parker, William P. Ratcliffe, Andrew Hunter. MJississippi. William Winans, B. M. Drake, John Lane, G. M. Rogers. Texzas. —Littleton Fowler. Alabanza.-Jesse Boring, Jefferson Hamilton, W. Murrah, G. Garrett. Tennessee. —Robert Paine, John B. McFerrin, A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin. o'ulh Carolina. —W. Capers, William M. Wightman, Charles Betts, S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker. Dr. Elliott proposed the reference of the paper to a committee of nine. Mr. Sandford said he had some objections to that motion in the present form of the communication just read. It alleged what he presumed the General Conference would not admit, that there had been extrajudicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew. For one he denied that that was the fact, and he supposed a majority of the Conference would coincide in that view of the matter, and he did not see how they could allow a paper to come under their action which alleged 324 Oryanizalion of the that which they did not believe to be true. Ile was aware that during the discussion speakers on the other side had said this was the case, but it was expressly disavowed on the floor of that Conference; and he knew that the member who had presented the document now before them head said, just before the vote was taken, that unless he heard some expression to the contrary, he should take the meaning attached to it by the friend of the mover as its proper meaning. IHe (Mr. S.) heard no response in contradiction to the construction thus put upon the resolution. How then could it come to pass that men who heard this avowal could now come forward and say that this Conference had been guilty of an extrajudicial act? To him the course taken appeared as a direct insult to that body, and such as they should not yield to. Let those who had presented this paper mnake a communication according to existing and acknowledged facts, but not asserting what the General Conference denied to be true. If they thought the proposed course necessary, let them say so without adding insult thereto, and the Conference would hear them, but he could not consent to having such a paper as the present one referred to a committee. Mr. Longstreet said he believed this was the third speech they had had from that brother on the subject of the sentence, or advice, or counsel, -i Pt.. Ctrclh, Sotlih. 325 or whatever name they choose to give the action on Saturday against the Bishop, and he had hoped that in some one of those speeches he would have told them how he did understand that action. Hie (Mr. L.) had striven to get at it in vain. When he rose some days ago to address the Conference, he remarked that there was some ambiguity in the form of the resolution, but that the plain import of its language was, when taken in connection with the ficts, nzandalory-imperative was his word —and that he should thus understand it unless he was corrected by somebody. Nobody did correct him, nor did he hear, until Dr. Durbin got up, froml the lips of any one that he had misinterpreted the resolution. After that explanation he (Mr. L.) said then, unless he was corrected he should understand it as so explained, and nobody objected, so he was at liberty to understand it either way! He could not have conceived that that Conference could have taken a position so strictly ambiguous. When an explanatory resolution on the subject was introduced the other day, Mir. Sandford rose and said, that he thought it very plain, but he never told us how he viewed it. The vote of this Conference against the South was then both mandatory and advisory. Will any one dispute that? [No answer.] Well, now, it is not disputed! Will that brother tell us how he understood it? Then it appears to me we are 326 Oranycizaction of the thrown back upon its plain legitimate terms, which, in connection with the facts, make it mandatory upon the Bishop. Why? Because you substituted it for the request, and changed the terms to "it is the sense of this Conference," etc. What was the use of the substitute unless it was the design of this Conference, which he could not believe, to have two or three positions on which each man could take his stand to explain his views? Then, he should maintain, it was a sentence; and did their saying so insult the Conference? Now, a judicial sentence is one in which the tribunal having cognizance of the case pronounces its judgment after due forms of law, on the finding of a court or jury, after hearing all the circumstances of the case. But had there been one single sentence in this whole proceeding which partakes of a judicial proceeding? Certainly not. Then the resolution was the sense of the house expressed extrajudicially. Nothing (said Mr. L.) could have been farther from our intention than to offer an insult to this body. We have now the calmness of despair. This has been thrown out as an olive branch of peace. It is hoped that we can now meet on some common ground, for the thing is done, and the mischief is accomplished, and now we are in a situation to come together, and viewing the wreck, see what we can save from it. We express our 3i. E. Zhurch, &S'outh. 327 opinion that it is no longer desirable that this Conference should have jurisdiction. This continual harassing us on a subject fiom which we cannot escape, only brings us to quarrel with each other. Now the question is, whether we cannot meet with something that will harmonize us all. Let me relieve the persons who present that paper from any intention to insult or cast firebrands into this Conference. The word objected to is so commonly used with reference to the recent action of this Conference, that it has become a household word with us, and I regret that the brother should so generally take these verbal exceptions, and should exhibit this morbid sensibility about mere words. I regret that he has not more charity than to suppose that the fifty-two should design to insult the one hundred and twenty-eight. Mr. Sandford explained, that he did not attribute design in the matter. Mr. Longstreet. Then it is an insult, which the fifty-two had not capacity to discover. At the request of the President, Mr. Longstreet farther defined and illustrated what he conceived to be meant by a judicial act. A man must be brought to the judgment of a court of some kind, according to the forms of law necessary to bring him within the range of the judge's power, when by due form he is put upon his trial, and the jury or court, having heard him, sentence is passed 328 Ogyaniz'aionz of t/ze upon him, and such sentence I take to be a judicia.l sentence. But if brought up without any precept having been directed to him setting forth the accusation; and if, -without examination of witnesses, he is made to testify against himself, and out of that testimony are extracted the charges against himl, the prosecutors being the parties against whom the alleged offense has been committed, the prosecutors trying him, and pronouncing sentence without forms of law, and without examining witnesses, then it is truly and properly an extrajudicial act. Dr. Olin said he would not have supported the substitute if he had regarded its operations as judicial or punitive. He considered that Bishop Andrew was not punished, was not tried; that the Conference did not depose him, nor in the legal meaning or consequences of the terms employed in that resolution did he consider that the Bishop was in any way disqualified fromn performing the functions of his office. His acts now would not be invalid, though constitutionally he would be liable to appear before the next General Conference and answer for his conduct. IIe would embody his sentiments in the form of resolutions, which, however, he would not press upon the Conference. "Resolved, That this Conference does not consider its action in the case of Bishop Andrew as either BI. Ch. urci, So'dulh. 329 judicial or punitive, but as a prudential regulation for the security and welfare of the Church. "'Resolvecl, That having made a -solermni declaration of what, in their judgment, the safety and peace of the Church require, it is not necessary or proper to express any opinion as to what amount of respect may justly belong to their action in the premises." The Declaration was then referred to a committee of nine, consisting of Messrs. Paine, Fillmore, Akers, Bangs, Crowder, Sargent, Winans, Hamline, and Porter. The following resolution of instruction to the committee was adopted: "'Resolved, That the committee appointed to take into consideration the comnmunication of the delegates from the Southern Conferences be instructed, provided they cannot in their judgment devise a plan for an 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.'J. B. McFERRIN, ".TOBIAS SPICER." It was apprehended by some of the Southern delegates that the question of jurisdictional division might be embarrassed by constitutional scruples, and hence it was moved by Mr. Crowder, of Virginia, to amend the instruction by striking 330 OrganziVafion of the out the word "constitutional." This, however, was defeated, the Conference determining on a constitutional division if any. The committee were to provide "a constitutional plan for a mutual and friendly division of the Church," provided they cannot, in their judgment, devise a plan for an amicable adjustment of existing difficulties. On the 6th of June, Dr. Henry B. Bascom, of Kentucky, read the following Protest of the Minority in the case of Bishop Andrew: In behalf of thirteen Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and portions of the ministry and membership of several other Conferences, embracing nearly five thousand ministers, traveling and local, and a membership of nearly five hundred thousand, constitutionally represented in this General Conference, we the undersigned, a minority of the delegates of the several Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled, after mature reflection, impelled by convictions we cannot resist, and in conform-ity with the rights and usages of minorities, in the instance of deliberative assemblies and judicial tribunals, in similar circumstances of division and disagreement, Do nzost solemnnlzy, and in date form, protest against the recent act of a majority of this General Conference, in an attempt, as understood by the minority, to degrade and punish the Rev. 11. P. E hurzch, Sozuth. 331 James 0. Andrew, one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by declaring it to be the sense or judgment of the General Conference that he desist from the exercise of his Episcopal functions, without the exhibition of any alleged offense against the laws or discipline of the Church, without form of trial, or legal conviction of any kind, and in the absence of any charge of want of qualification or faithfulness in the performance of the duties pertaining to his office. We protest against the act of the majority in the case of Bishop Andrew, as extrajudicial to all intents and purposes, being both without law and contrary to law. We protest against the act because we recognize in this General Conference no right, power, or authority, ministerial, judicial, or administrative, to suspend or depose a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, or otherwise subject him to any official disability whatever, without the formal presentation of a charge or charges, alleging that the Bishop to be dealt with has been guilty of the violation of some law, or at least some disciplinary obligation of the Church, and also upon conviction of such charge after due form of trial. Ve protest against the act in question as a violation of the fundamental law, usually known as the compromise law of the Church, on the subject of slavery-the only law which can be brought to bear upon the case of Bishop Andrew, and the 332 Organization of the assertion and maintenance of which, until it is constitutionally revoked, is guarantied by the honor and good faith of this body, as the representative assembly of the thirty-three Annual Conferences known as contracting parties in the premises. And we protest against the act farther, as an attempt to establish a dangerous precedent, subversive of the union and stability of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and especially as placing in jeopardy the General Superintendency of the Church, by subjecting any Bishop of the Church at any time to the will and caprice of a majority of the General Conferenbe, not only without law, but in defiance of the restraints and provisions of law. The undersigned, a minority of the General Conference, in protesting, as they do, against the late act of the majority, in the virtual suspension of Bishop Andrew, regard it as due to themselves and those they represent, as well as to the character and interests of the Church at large, to declare, by solemn and formal avowal, that after a careful examination of the entire subject, in all its relations and bearings, they protest as above, for the reasons and upon the grounds following, viz., 1st. The proceeding against Bishop Andrew in this General Conference has been upon the assumption that he is connected with slavery —that he is the legal holder and owner of slave property. On the M. EP. Czhurch, South. 333 subject of slavery in the Methodist Episcopal Church, both as it regards the ministry and membership, we have special law, upon which the adjudication of all questions of slavery must, by intention of law, proceed. The case of Bishop Andrew, therefore, presents a simple question of law and fact, and the undersigned cannot consent that the force of circumstances and other merely extrinsic considerations shall be allowed to lead to any issue, except that indicated by the law and the facts in the case. In the late act of the m1ajority, law, express law, is appealed from, and expediency in view of circumstances- relative propriety-assumed necessity, is substituted in its place as a rule of judgment. It is assumed, and the assumption acted upon, that expediency may have jurisdiction even in the presence of lawthe law, too, being special, and covering the case, in terms. In the absence of law, it might be competent for the General Conference. to act upon other grounds; this is not disputed, nor yet that it would have been competent for the Conference to proceed upon the forms of law; but that the terms and conditions of a special enactment, having all the force of a common public charter, can be rightfully waived in practice, at the promptings of a fugitive unsettled expediency, is a position the undersigned regard not merely as erroneous, but as fraught with danger to the best interest- of the Church. 334 Orgyctaization of the The law of the Church on slavery has always existed since 1785, but especially since 1804,.and in view of the adjustment of the whole subject, in 1816, as a virtual, though informal, contracte of 9mutual concessionZ and forbearctnce, between the North and the South, then, as now, known and existing as distinct parties, in relation to the vexed questions of slavery and abolition. Those Conferences found in States where slavery prevailed constituting the Southern party, and those in the nonslaveholding States the Northern, exceptions to the rule being found in both. The rights of the legal owners of slaves, in all the slaveholding States, are guarantied by the Constitution of the United States, and by the local Constitutions of the States respectively, as the supreme law of the land, to which every minister and member of the Methodist Episcopal Church within the limits of the United States' government professes subjection, and pledges himself to submit, as an article of Christian faith, in the common creed of the Church. Domestic slavery, therefore, wherever it exists in this country, is a civil regulation, existing under the highest sanctions of constitutional and municipal law known to the tribunals of the country, and it has always been assumed at the South, and relied upon as correct, that the North or non-slaveholding States had no right, civil or moral, to interfere with relations and interests iL E.. Ctiurchl, South. 335 thus secured to the people of the South by all the graver forms of 1aw and social order, a.lnd that it cannot be done without an abuse of the constitutional rights of citizenship. The people of the North, however, have claimed to think differently, and have uniformly acted toward the South in accordance with such opposition of opinion. Precisely in accordance, too, with this state of things, as it regards the general population of the North and South, respectively, the Methodist Episcopal Church has been divided in opinion and feeling on the subject of slavery and abolition since its organization in 1784: two separate and distinct parties have always existed. The Southern Conferences, in agreeing to the main principles of the compromise law in 1804 and 1816, conceded by express stipulation their right to resist Northern interference in any form, upon the condition, pledged by the North, that while the wzuole Church, by common consent, united in proper effort for the mitigation and final removal of the evil of slavery, the North was not to interfere; by excluding from membership or ministerial office in the Chlurch persons owning and holding slaves in States where emancipation is not practicable, and vwhere the liberated slave is not permitted to enjoy freedom. Such was the compact of 1804 and 1816, finally agreed to by the parties after a long and fearful struggle, and such is the compact now the proof 336 Oerganizalion of the being derived from history and the testimony of livin(g witnesses. And is it possible to suppose that the original purpose and intended.application of the law was not designed to embrace every member, minister, order, and office of the Methodist Episcopal Church? Is the idea of excepted cases allowable by fair construction of the law? Do not the reasons and intendment of the law place it beyond doubt, that every conceivable case of alleged misconduct that can arise, connected with slavery or abolition, is to be subjected by consent and contract of parties to the jurisdiction of this great conservative arrangement? Is there any thing in the law or its reasons creating an exception in the instance of Bishops? Would the South have entered into the arrangement, or in any form consented to the law, had it been intimated by the North that Bishops must be an exception to the rule? Are the virtuous dead of the North to be slandered by the supposition that they intended to except Bishops, and thus accomplished, their purposes, in negotiating with the South, by a resort to deceptive and dishonorable means? If Bishops are not named, no more are Presiding Elders, Agents, Editors-or, indeed, any other officers of the Church, who are nevertheless included, although the same rule of construction would except them also. The enactment was for an entire people, East, West, North, 31. E. E. Clzrch, South. 337 and South. It was for the Church, and every member of it-for the common weal of the body -and is, therefore, universal and unrestricted in its application; and no possible case can be settled upon any other principles, without a direct violation of this law both in fact and form. The law being what we have assumed, any violation of it, whatever may be its form or mode, is as certainly a breach of good faith as an infringement of law. It must be seen, from the manner in which the compromise was effected, in the shape of a law, agreed to by equal contracting parties, "the serveral Annual Conferences," after long and formal negotiation, that it was not a mere legislative enactment, a simple decree of a General Conference, but partakes of the nature of a grave compact, and is invested with all the sacredness and sanctions of a solemn treaty, binding respectively the well-known parties to its terms and stipulations. If this be so-and with the evidence accessible who can doubt it?-if this be so, will it prove a light matter for this General Conference to violate or disregard the obligation of this legal compromise, in the shape of public recognized law? Allow that the present parties in this controversy cannot be brought to view the subject of the law in question in the same light, can such a matter end in a mere difference of opinion, as it respects the immediate parties? The law exists in the Discipline 15 338 Organization of the of the Church. The law is known, and its reasons are known, as equally binding upon both parties, and what is the likelihood of the imputation of bad faith under the circumstances? Wh~at the hazard that such imputation, as the decision of public opinion, it may be from a thousand tribunals; will be brought to bear, with all the light and force of conviction, upon any act of this body, in violation of the plain provisions of long-established law, originating in treaty, and based upon the principles of conventional compromise? In proportion to our love of truth, of law, and order, are we not called upon to pause and weigh well the hazard, before, as a General Conference, we incur it beyond change or remedy? The undersigned have long looked to the great conservative law of the Discipline, on the subject of slavery and abolition, as the only charter of connectional union between the North and the South; and whenever this bond of connection is rendered null and void, no matter in what form, or by what means, they are compelled to regard the Church, to every practical purpose, as already divided, without the intervention of any other agency. By how far, therefore, they look upon the union of the Methodist Episcopal Church as essential to its prosperity, and the glory and success of American Methodism, by so far they are bound to protest against the late act of the General Conference, -m E. Clurch, South. 339 in the irregular suspension of Bishop Andrew, as not only without law, but in direct contravention of legal stipulations known to be essential to the unity of the Church. And they are thus explicit in a statement of facts, that the responsibility of division may attach where, in justice, it belongs. The minority, making this protest, are perfectly satisfied with the law of the Church affecting slavery and abolition. They ask no change. They need-they seek no indulgence in behalf of the South. Had Bishop Andrew been suspended according to law, after due form of trial, they would have submitted without remonstrance, as the friends of law and order. TfzLey except and protest, fartlher, against the lawless procedure, as they think, in the case of Bishop Andrew, because apart from the injustice done him and the South by the act, other and graver difficulties, necessarily incidental to this movement, come in for a share of attention. The whole subject is, in the very nature of things, resolved into a single original question: Will the General Conference adhere to, and in good faith assert and maintain, the compromise law of the Church on the vexed question dividing us, or will it be found expedient generally, as in the case of Bishop Andrew, to lay it aside and tread it under foot? No question on the subject of.slavery and abolition can be settled until the General Confer 340 Organi~zaiion of the ence shall settle this beyond the possibility of evasion. In the present crisis, it is the opinion of the undersigned that every Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and every member of this, General Conference, is especially called upon, by all the responsibilities of truth and honor, to declare himself upon the subject; and they deem it proper respectfully and urgently to make such call a part of this protest. When so much depends upon it, can the General Conference, as the organ of the supreme authority of the Church, remain silent without incurring the charge of trifling both with its interests and reputation? Law always pledges the public faith of the body ostensibly governed by it to the faithful assertion and performance of its stipulations; and the compromise law of the Discipline, partaking, as it does, of the nature of the law of treaty, and embracing, as has been seen, all possible cases, pledges the good faith of every minister and member of the Methodist Episcopal Church against saying or doing any thing tending to annul the force or thwart the purposes of its enactment. The only allowable remedy of those who object to the law is to seek a constitutional change of the law, and in failure, to submit, or else retire from the Church. All attempts to resist, evade, or defeat the objects and intended application of the law, until duly revoked, must be regarded as unjust and revolu il. E. Church, South. 341 tionary, because an invasion of well-defined conventional right. And the undersigned except to the course of the majority, in the informal prosecution of Bishop Andrew and the anomalous quasi suspension it inflicts, as not only giving to the compromise a construction rendering it entirely ineffective, but as being directly subversive of the great bond of union which has held the North and South together for the last forty years. Turning to the confederating Annual Conferences of 1804, and the vexed and protracted negotiations which preceded the General Conference of that year, and finally resulted in the existing lIaw of the Discipline, regulating the whole subject, and glancing at nearly half a million of Methodists, now in the South, who have come into the Church with all their hopes and fears, interests and associations, their property, character, and influence, reposing in safety upon the publicly-pledged faith of the Methodist Episcopal Church, only to be told that this is all a dream, that a part of what was pledged was never intended to be allowed, and that the whole is at all times subject to the discretion of a dominant majority, claiming, in matter of right, to be without and above law, competent not merely to make all rules and regulations for the proper government of the Church, but to govern the Church without rule or regulation, and punish and degrade without even the alleged infringement 342 Organization of the of law, or the form of trial, if it be thought expedient, presents a state of things filling the undersigned with alarm and dismay. Such views and facts, without adducing others, will perhaps be sufficient to show the first and principal ground occupied by the minority in the protest. They cannot resist the conviction that the majority have failed to redeem the pledge of public law given to the Church and the world by the Methodist Episcopal Church. 2d. The undersigned are aware that it is affirmed by some of the majority, but meanwhile denied by others, and thus a mooted, unsettled question among themselves, that the resolution censuring and virtually suspending Bishop Andrew, as understood by the minority, is mere matter of advice or recommendation; but, so far from advising or recommending any thing, the language of the resolution, by fair and necessary construction, is imperative and mandatory in form, and, unqualified by any thing in the resolution itself, or in the preamble explaining it, conveys the idea plainly and most explicitly, that it is the judgment and will of the Conference that Bishop Andrew shall cease to exercise the office of Bishop until he shall cease to be the owner of slaves. "Resolved, That it is the sense of this Conference that he desist." That is, having rendered himself unacceptable to the majority, it is their judgment that 1L E. Chutrch, South. 343 he retire from the bench of Bishops, and their field of action. No idea of request, advice, or recommendation is conveyed by the language of the preamble or resolution; and the recent avowal of an intention to advise is, in the judgment of the undersigned, disowned by the very terms in which, it is said, the advice was given. The whole argument of the majority, during a debate of twelve days, turned upon the right of the Conference to displace Bishop Andrew without resort to formal trial. No one questioned the legal right of the Conference to advise; and if this only was intended, why the protracted debate upon the subject? But farther, a resolution, respectfully and affectionately requesting the Bishop to resign, hbad been laid aside, to entertain the substitute under notice; a motion, -too, to declare the resolution advisory, was promptly rejected by the majority; and in view of all these facts, and the entire proceedings of the majority in the case, the undersigned have been compelled to consider the resolution as a mandatory judgment, to the effect that Bishop Andrew desist from the exercise of his Episcopal tulnctions. If the majority have been misunderstood, the language of their own resolution, and the position they occupied in debate, have led to the misconception; and truth and honor, not less than a most unfortunate use of larngua.ge, require tht;t they explain themselves. 344 Organizca/ion of the 3d. NVe except to the act of the majority, because it is assumed that conscience and principle are involved, and require the act complained of, as expedient and necessary under the circumstances. Bishop A. being protected- by the law of the Church having cognizance of all offenses connected with slavery, such connection in his case, in the judgment of all jurisprudence, can only be wrong in the proportion that the law is bad and defective. It is not conceived by the minority, how conscience and principle can be brought to bear upon Bishop A., and not upon the law, and the Czhurch having such law. They are obliged to believe that the law and the source from which it emanates must become the object of exception and censure before Bishop A., who has not offended against either, unless the Church is against the law, can be subjected to trial, at the bar of the conscience and principles of men who profess subjection and approval, in the instance both of the law and the Church. The undersigned can never consent, while we have a plain law, obviously covering an assumed offense, that the offense shall be taken, under plea of principle, out of the hands of the law, and be resubjected to the conflicting opinions and passions which originally led to a resort to law, as the only safe standard of judgment. They do not understand how conscience and principle can attach iPL. E. church, South. 345 grave blame to action not disapproved by the law -express law, too, made and provided in the case -without extending condemnation to the law itself, and the body from which it proceeds. The Church can hardly be supposed to have settled policy and invariable custom, in contravention of law; the avowal of such custom and policy, therefore, excluding from the Episcopacy any and every man, in any way connected with slavery, is mere assumption. No contract, agreement, decree, or purpose of this kind, is on record, or ever existed. No such exaction, in terms or by implication, was ever made by the North or conceded by the South. No conventional understanding ever existed to this effect, so far as the South is concerned, or has been informed. That it has long, perhaps always, been the purpose of the North not to elect a slaveholder to the office of Bishop, is admitted. But as no law gave countenance to any thing of the kind, the South regarded it as a mere matter of social injustice, and was not disposed to complain. The North has always found its security in numbers, and the untrammeled right of suffrage, and to this the South has not objected. The assumption, however, is entirely different, and is not admitted by the South, but is plainly negatived by the law and language of the Discipline, as explained by authority of the General Conference. No such concession, beyond peaceable submis15* 346 Organization of thze sion to the right of suffrage, exercised by the majority, will ever be submitted to by the South, as it would amount to denial of equal abstract right, and a disfranchisement of the Southern ministry, and could not be submitted to without injury and degradation. If, then, the North is not satisfied with the negative right conceded to the South by law in this matter, the minority would be glad to know what principle or polzcy is likely to introduce beyond the existing provisions of law. As the contingency which has occasioned the difficulty in the case of Bishop Andrew, and to which every Southern minister is liable at any time, does not and cannot fall under condemnation of existing law, and he cannot be punished, nor yet subjected to any official disability, without an abuse of both right and power, on the part of this General Conference, the minority are compelled to think that the majority ought to be satisfied with the consciousness and declaration, that they are in no way responsible for the contingency, and thus, at least, allow Bishop Andrew the benefit of their own legislation, until they see proper to change it. This attempt by the majority to protect a lawless prosecution from merited rebuke, by an appeal to conscience and principle, condemning Bishop Andrew, while the law and the Church, shielding him from the assault, are not objected to, is looked upon by the minority as a species of moral, we IT. E. Church, South. 347 will not say legal casuistry, utterly subversive of all the principles of order and good government. 4th. The act of the majority was ostensibly resorted to because, as alleged, the Church in the Middle and Northern Conferences will not submit to any, the slightest, connection with slavery. But if connection with slavery is ruinous to the Church in the North, that ruin is already wrought. Who does not know that the very Discipline, laws, and legislation of the Church necessarily connect us all with slavery? All our provisional legislation on the subject has proceeded on the assumption that slavery is an element of society-a principle of action-a household reality in the Methodist Episcopal Church in the IUnited States. It is part and parcel of the economy of American Methodism, in every subjective sense. It has given birth to law and right, conventional arrangements, numerous missions, and official trusts. Every Bishop, every minister, every member of the Church, is of necessity connected with slavery. Each is brother and co-member, both with slave and master, by the very laws and organization of the Church. If, then, connection with slavery is so disastrous, the only remedy is to purify the Church by reiorganization, or get out of it as soon as possible. And would not this aversion to slavery-would not conscience andcl principle, so much pleaded in this controversy-appear much more consistent in 348 Organization of the every view of the subject, in striking at the root of the evil, in the organic structure of the Church, than in seeking its personification in Bishop Andrew, protected although he be by the law, and proceeding to punish him, by way of calling off attention from the known toleration of the same thing, in other aspects and relations? Impelled by conscience and principle to the illegal arrest of a Bishop, because he has incidentally, by bequest, inheritance, and marriage, come into possession of slave property, in no instance intending to possess himself of such property, how long will conscience and principle leave other ministers, or even lay members, undisturbed, who may happen to be in the same category with Bishop Andrew? Will assurances be given that the lawlessness of expediency, controlled, as in such case it must be, by prejudice and passion, will extend no farther-that there shall be no farther curtailment of right as it regards the Southern ministry? Yet what is the security of the South in the case? Is the public faith of this body, as instanced in the recent violations of the compromise-law, to be relied upon as the guarantee for the redemption of the pledge? What would such pledge or assurance be but to remind the South that any departure at all from the great conservative pledge of law, to which we appeal, was much more effectually guarded against origi I. E. COhurce, Souith. 349 nally, than it is possible to guard against any subsequent infringement, and to make the South feel farther that disappointment in the first instance must compel distrust with regard to the future? The Church having specific law on the subject, all questions involving slavery must inevitably, by intention of law, come within the purview of such special provision, and cannot be judged of by any other law or standard, without a most daring departure from all the rules and sobrieties of judicial procedure, and the undersigned accordingly except to the action of the majority in relation to Bishop Andrew, as not only without sanction of law, but in conflict with rights created by law. 5th. As the Methodist Episcopal Church is now organized, and according to its organization since 1784, the Episcopacy is a coordinate branch, the executive department proper of the government. A Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church is not a mere creature —is in no prominent sense an officer-of the General Conference. The General Conference, as such, cannot constitute a Bishop. It is true the Annual Conferences select the Bishops of the Church by the suffrage of their delegates, in General Conference assembled; but the General Conference, in its capacity of a representative body, or any other in which it exists, does not possess the power of ordination, without which a Bishop cannot be constituted. 350 OrganzZation of tle The Bishops are, beyond a doubt, an integral constituent part of the General Conference, made such by law and the constitution; and because elected by the General Conference, it does not follow that they are subject to the will of that body, except in conformlity with legal right and the provisions of law, in the premises. In this sense, and so viewed, they are subject to the General Conference, and this is sufficient limitation of their power, unless the government itself is to be considered irregular and unbalanced in the coordinate relations of its parts. In a sense by no means unimportant, the General Conference is as much the creature of the Episcopacy, as the Bishops are the creatures of the General Conference. Constitutionally, the Bishops alone have the right to fix the time of holding the Annual Conferences; and should they refuse or neglect to do so, no Annual Conference could meet according to law, and, by consequence, no delegates could be chosen, and no General Conference could be chosen, or even exist. And because this is so, what would be thought of the impertinent pretension, should the Episcopacy claim that the General Conference is the mere creature of their will? As executive oelcers as well as pastoral overseers, the Bishops belong to the Church as such, and not to the General Conference as one of its counsels or organs of action merely. 31. E. Churc/h, South. 351 The General Conference is in no sense the Church, not even representatively. It is merely the representative organ of the Church, with limited powers to do its business, in the discharge of a delegated trust. Because Bishops are in part constituted by the General Conference, the power of removal does not follow. Episcopacy even in the Methodist Church is not a mere appointment to labor. It is an official consecrated station under the protection of law, and can only be dangerous as the law is bad or the Church corrupt. The power to appoint does not necessarily involve the power to remove; and when the appointing power is derivative, as in the case of the General Conference, the power of removal does not accrue at all, unless by consent of the coordinate branches of the government, expressed by law, made and provided in the case. When the Legislature of a State-to appeal to analogy for illustration-appoints a judge, or senator in Congress, does the judge or senator thereby become the officer or creature of the Legislature? or is he the officer or senatorial representative of the State of which the Legislature is the mere organ? And does the power of removal follow that appointment? The answer is negative in both cases, and applies equally to the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who, instead of being the officers and creatures of the General Con 352 Organizalion of the ference, are de facto the officers and servants of the Church, chosen by the General Conference, as its organ of action, and no right of removal accrues, except as they fail to accomplish the aims of the Church in their appointment, and then only in accordance with the provisions of law. But when a Bishop is suspended, or informed that it is the wish or will of the General Conference that he cease to perform the functions of Bishop, for doing what the law of the same body allows him to do, and of course without incurring the hazard of punishment, or even blame, then the whole procedure becomes an outrage upon justice, as well as law. The assumption of power by the General Conference beyond the warrant of law, to which we object, and against which we protest, will lead, if carried into practice, to a direct violation of one of the restrictive rules of the constitution. Suppose it had been the "sense" of this General Conference, when the late communication from the Bishops was respectfully submitted to the Conference, that such communication was an interference with their rights and duties-an attempt to tamper with the purity and independence, and therefore an outrage upon the claims and dignity, of the Conference not to be borne with. And, proceeding a step farther, suppose it had been the "sense" of the Conference that they all desist from performing the functions of Bishops until the "'im L. E. Churchz, South. 353 pediment" of such offense had been removed-assume this, (and, so far as mere law is concerned, no law being violated in either case, it was just as likely as the movement against Bishop Andrew,) and had it taken place, what had become of the general superintendency? If a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church may, without law, and at the instance of mere party expediency, be suspended from the exercise of the appropriate functions of his office, for one act, he may for another. Admit this doctrine, and by what tenure do the Bishops hold office? One thing is certain, whatever other tenure there may be, they do not hold office accorcing to law. The provisions of law and the faithful performance of duty, upon this theory of official tenure, afford no security. Admit this claim of absolutism, as regards right and power on the part of the General Conference, and the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church are slaves, and the men constituting this body their masters and holders. They are in office only at the discretion of a majority of the General Conference, without the restraints or protection of law. Both the law and thelselves are liable and likely at any time to be overborne and trampled upon together, as exernplified in the case of Bishop Andrew. If the doctrine against which we protest be admitted, the Episcopal office is, at best, but a quadrennial 354 Organization of tike term of service, and the undersigned are compelled to think that the man who would remacin a Bishop, or allow himself to be macle one, under such circumstances, "desires a good work," and is prepafred for self-sacrifce, quite beyond the comprehension of ordinary piety. As it regards Bishop Andrew, if it shall be made to appear that the action in his case was intended only to advise and request him to desist from his office, it does not in any wavy affect the real or relative character of the movement. When a body, claiming the right to compel, asks the resignation of an officer, the request is, to all official and moral purposes, comnpulsory, as it loads the officer with disability, and gives notice of assumed unworthiness if not criminality. The request has all the force of a mandate, inasmuch as the officer is, by such request, compelled either to resign or remain in office contrary to the known will of the majority. A simple request, therefore, under the circumstances supposed, carries with it all the force of a decree, and is so understood, it is believed, by all the world. To request Bishop Andrew to resign, therefore, in view of all the facts and relations of the case, was, in the judgment of the minority, to punish and degrade him; and they maintain that the whole movement was without authority of law, is hence of necessity null and void, and, therefore, Rl E. Czhurch, South. 355 not binding upon Bishop Andrew, or the minority protesting against it. 6th. We protest against the act of the majority, instructing Bishop Andrew to desist from the exercise of his office, not merely on account of the injustice and evil connecting with the act itself, but because the act must be understood as the exponent of principles and purposes, as it regards the union of the North and South in the Methodist Episcopal Church, well-nigh destroying all hope of its perpetuity. The true position of the parties in relation to a long-existing conventional arrangement, on the subject of slavery and abolition, has been fully under notice; and when men of years and wisdom, experience and learning —men of no common weight of character, and with a well-earned aristocracy of Church influence thrown about them-assume and declare, in action as well as debate, that what a plain law of the Churchthe only law applicable in the case-sustained and enforced, too, by an explanatory decree of this body, at a previous session-decides shall not be a disqualification for office of any grade in the ministry-when such men, the law and decision of the General Conference notwithstanding, are heard declaring that what law provides for and protects nevertheless always has been, and always shall be, a disqualification, what farther evidence is wanting to show that the con.pronmise basis of unoin. 356 Oryanization of the from which the South has never swervel, has been abandoned both by the Northern and Middle Conferences, with a few exceptions in the latter, and that principles and purposes are entertained by the majority, driving the South to extreme action, in defense both of their rights and reputation? And how far the long train of eventful sequences, attendant upon the threatened result of division, may be traceable to the Northern and Middle Conferences, by the issue thus provoked, is a question to be settled not by us, but by our contemporaries and posterity. It is matter of history, with regard to the past, and will not be questioned, that now, as formerly, the South is upon the basis of the Discipline, on the subject of slavery. The minority believe it equally certain that this is not true with regard to the North proper especially. In view, then, of the unity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which party has been, in equity, entitled to the sympathy and protection of the Middle or umpire Conferences? those who, through good and evil report, have kept good faith and adhered to law, or those whose opinions and purposes have led them to seek a state of things in advance of law, and thus dishonor its forms and sanctions? 7th. In proportion as the minority appreciate and cling to the unity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they are bound farther to except to the AM. i. Church, South. 357 position of the majority in this controversy. Allow that Bishop Andrew, without, however, any infringement of law, is, on account of his connection with slavery, unacceptable in the Northern Conferences. It is equally known to the majority that any Bishop of the Church, either violating, or submitting to a violation, of the compromisecharter of union between the North and the South, without proper and public remonstrance, cannot be acceptable at the South, and need not appear there. By pressing the issue in question, therefore, the majority virtually dissolve the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, because in every constitutional aspect it is sundered by so crippling a coordinate branch of it as to destroy the itinerant general superintendency altogether. Whenever it is clearly ascertained that the compromise-law of the Church, regulating slavery and abolition, is abandoned, every Bishop, each of the venerable and excellent men who now adorn the Church and its councils, ceases to be a general superintendent. The law of union, the principle of gravitation, binding us together, is dissolved, and the general superintendency of the Methodist Episcopal Church is no more! 8th. The South have not been led thus to protest merely because of the treatment received by Bishop Andrew, or the kindred action of this body in other matters. The abandonment of the com 358 Oratnziatioln of tIe promise-the official refilsal by the majority, as we have understood them, to abide the arbitrament of law, is their principal ground of complaint and remonstrance. If the minority have not entirely misunderstood the majority, the abolition and antislavery principles of the North will no longer allow them to submit to the law of the Discipline on the general subject of slavery and abolition; and if this be so, if' the compromise-law be either repealed or allowed to remain a dead letter, the Southz cannot submit, and the absotlte necessity of division is alreadyy dated. And should the exigent circumstances in which the minority find themselves placed, by the facts and developments alluded to in this remonstrance, render it finally necessary that the Southern Conferences should have a separate, independent existence, it is hoped that the character and services of the minority, together with the numbers and claims of the ministry and membership of the portion of the Church represented by them, not less than similar reasons and considerations on the part of the Northern and Middle Conferences, will suggest the high moral fitness of meeting this great emergency with strong and steady purpose to do justice to all concerned. And it is believed that, approaching the subject in this way, it will be found practicable to devise and adopt such measures and arrangements, present and prospective, as will secure an amicable 31. E. Church, South. 359 division of the Church upon the broad principles of right and equity, and destined to result in the common good of the great body of ministers and members found on either side the line of secparation. Signed by the following delegates, viz.: Kentuclcy Conference. —H. B. Bascom, William Gunn, H. H. Kavanaugh, Edward Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush. ]lissouri.-W. W. Redman, William Patton, J. C. Berryman, J. M. Jameson. iIolston. —E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, Thomas Stringfield. Tennessee.-Robert Paine, John B. McFerrin, A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin. North carolina. —B. T. Blake, James Jameson, Peter Doub. Ohio.-E. W. Sehon. Meml2phis.-G. W. D. Harris, S. S. Moody, W. McMahon, Thomas Joyner. Arkcansas.-John C. Parker, William P. Ratcliffe, Andrew Hunter. Virginia. —John Early, T. Crowder, W. A. Smith, Leroy M. Lee. Mississi8pi.-William Winans, B. NI. Drake, John Lane, G. M. Rogers. Philadelphia.-I. T. Cooper, W. Cooper, T. I. Thompson, Henry White. Texas. —Littleton Fowler. 360 Oryanization of the Illinois.-N. G. Berryman, J. Stamper. Alabama.-Jesse Boring, Jefferson Hamilton, W. Murrah, G-. Garrett. Georqia.-G. F. Pierce, William J. Parks, L. Pierce, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Longstreet. South Uarolina. —W. Capers, William I. Wightman, Charles Betts, S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker. Nezw Jersey.-T. Sovereign, T. Neal. New York, June 6, 1844. Mr. Simpson offered a resolution to the following effect: That while they could not (admit the statements put forth in the Protest, yet, as a matter of courtesy, they would allow it to be placed on the journal; and that a committee, consisting of Messrs. Durbin, Olin, and Hamline, be appointed to make a true statement of the case, to be entered on the journal. Dr. Winans objected to the word 1"courtesy." The minority asked no courtesy at the hands of the majority. They demanded it as a right. The chair decided that the first part of the resolution was not in order, as a minority had a right to have their Protest entered on the journal. In this decision two of his colleagues concurred, and one dissented. Several members here rose to points of order. Mr. Simpson withdrew the first part of his resolution, and the remainder was then adopted. JT * St. clntrchn Soitlk. 361 On motion, the special commnittee of nine were alloXwed to retire. The Committee aIppointed by the General Conference to reply to the Protest of the Minoritry, performed their Nwork and presented their report on the 10tl of June. At the close of the General Conference, before leaving 1New York, Dr. Bascomn, by whom the Protest was written, gave notice, through the papers of the Church, of his intention to review at his convenience the Reply of Drs. Durbin, Peck, and Elliott, to the Protest of the Minority of the General Conference. This review, under the title of'"Methodisnm and Slavery," made its appearance just previous to the Louisville Convention, and met with a wide circulation. Anl edition of six thousand copies was sold in a few days. "' This powerful production made a strong impression favorlable to the cause of the Church, South, which was strongly seconded by the clear and able Report of the Committee of the' Louisville Convention on a Southern Organization, drawn up by the same hand. "Dr. Bascom's Review was replied to by Dr. Peck, one of the Committee who replied to the Protest, and Editor of the Methodist Quarterly Review. This attempt to answer the clear reasoning of Dr. Bascom's work, was a remarkable failure. The work of Dr. Peck abounds in special 16 362 Organization of the pleading-imputes to the South doctrines never entertained by it or Dr. Bascom, and advocates at length opinions never broa~ched until the General Conference of 1844, as the orthodox doctrines of Methodism." "The action of the Conference had involved the Bishops in a perplexing difficulty. The Conference had declared it the sezse of the body that Bishop Andrew should ce-ase to exercise the functions of his office; but the resolution was so conveniently ambiguous, that while on the one hand Mr. Hazmline had pronounced it'a mandamus measure, whose passage would ABSOLUTELY suspend the exercise of the superitenclent's functions, until he complied wvith the prescribed condition-the power to do wlhich was the s-ame with that required to suspend or depose a Bishop'-on the other hand, Dr. Durbin said that the resolution'only proposed to express the sense of this Conference in i'egard to the matter which it cannot, in duty and conscience, pass by without a suitable expression; and having made the solemn expression, it leaves Bishop Andrew to act as his sense of duty shall dictate.' He even said, that if any man should charge him, in voting for the resolution, (the mazndamus measure of absolute suspension of Mlr. Hamline,) with voting to depose Bishop -Andrew, he would consider it a personal insult. Now, it became the duty of the Bishops to make 31T. E. (/wrcll South. 363 out and publish their plan of Episcopal visitation for the succeeding four years, at the close of the General Conference; and if the construction of the IHamline section was correct, Bishop Andrew was'absolutely suspended,' and of course could not be taken into the plan of Episcopal labor; but if the Durbin section of the party was right, then the General Conference having expressed its sense of the matter, left Bishop Andrew perfectly free to be governed by his sense of duty, and of course there was nothing to prevent his being rendered available in the Episcopacy. In this state of conflictingo opinions among the Northern leaders, the Bishops found it necessary to apply again to the oracle for a less equivocal response; for act as they might, they must come into conflict with one or other division of' the majority. They therefore addressed to the General Conference the following inquiries: "'To the General Conference: "cReverend and Dear Brethren: As the case of Bishop Andrew unavoidably involves the future action of the superintendents, which in their judgment, in the present position of the Bishop, they have no discretion to decide upon, they respectfully request of the General Conference official instruction, in answer to the following questions: 364 Organ izcdtaiot n of th/c "'First. Shall Bishop Andrew's name remain as it now stands in the Minutes, Hymn-book, and Discipline, or shall it be struck off these official records? "'#Second. How shall the Bishop obtain his support? as provided for in the form of Discipline, or in some other way? "'~Third. What work, if any, may the Bishop perform? and how shall he be appointed to the work? "'JOSHUA SOULE, "'ELIJAH HEDDING,' cBEVERLY WAUGHI, "c THos. A. MORRIS.' "To these inquiries the Conference returned the following answer: "'Resolved, 1st. As the sense of this Conference, That Bishop Andrew's name stand in the Minutes, Hymn-book, and Discipline, as formerly. "'Resolved, 2d. That the rule in reference to the support of a Bishop and his filmily, applies to Bishop Andrew. "'RCesolvecl, 3d. That whether in any, and in what work, Bishop Andrew be employed, is to be determined by his own decision and action, in relation to the previous action of this Conference in his case.' "The first of these resolutions was adopted by 31M. E. Celzrceh, South. 365 a vote of 155 to 17, none voting against it but ultra northerners or abolitionists. "The second resolution was adopted by a vote of 152 to 14. "On the third, the grand mystifying resolution, which placed the matter just where it was before, the vote stood as follows: "YEAs.-Nathan Bangs, Phineas Rice, George Peck, John B. Stratten, Peter P. Sandford, Fitch Reed, Samuel D. Ferguson, Stephen Martindale, Marvin Richardson, J. Lovejoy, F. Upham, S. Benton, Paul Townsend, J. Porter, D. S. King, P. Crandall, C. Adams, G. Pickering, M. Hill, E. Robinson, D. B. Randall, C. W. Morse, J. HIobart, Hemnan Nickerson, G. Webber, Elihu Scott, S. Chamberlain, S(amuel Kelley, J. Perkins, J. Spaulding, C. D. Cahoon, William D. Cass, Truman Seymour, James Corel, Tobias Spicer, Seymour Coleman, James B. HIoughtaling, Jesse T. Peck, A. D. Peck, A. Adams, G. Baker, W. W. Ninde, J. M. Snyder, S. Comfort, N. Rounds, D. A. Shepherd, IH. F. Row, E. Bowen, D. Holmes, G. Fillmore, S. Luckey, A. Steele, F. G. Hibbard, A. Abell, W. Hosmer, J. B. Alverson, J. S. Steadman, John Bain, G. W. Clarke, J. Robinson, T. Goodwin, William Ihunter, I1. J. Clark, J. Spen: cer, S. Elliott, S. Wakefield, J. Drummond, C. Elliott, William IH. Raper, J. M. Trimble, J. B. Finley, L. L. Hanmline, Z. Connell, J. H. Power, 366 Organization of the A. Poe, E. Yocurn, W. Runnells, E. Crane, A. Billings, J. A. Baughman, M. Simpson, A. Wiley, E. R. Ames, J. Miller, C. W. Ruter, A. Wood, A. Eddy, J. HIIaens, B. Weed, H. W. Reed, J. T. Mlitchell, P. Akers, P. Cartwright, A. Griffith, J. Bear, N. J. B. Morgan, J. A. Collins, J. Davis, J. P. Durbin, L. Scott, I. Winner, J. S. Porter, J. K. Shaw-103.'"NAYs. —C. W. Carpenter, John G. Dow, nR. Boyd, G. Smith, J. Stamper, J. Van CleAe, N. G. Berryman, W. WV. Redman, J. C. Berryman, J. M. Jameson, H. B. Bascomn, W. Gunn, H. H. Ka.vanaugh, E. Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush, E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, T. Stringfield, R. Paine, J. B. McFerrin, A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin, G. W. D. Harris, S. S. Moody, Williami McMahon, T. Joyner, J. C. Parker, WV. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter, L. Fowler, William Winans, B. M. Drake, J. Lane, G. M. Rogers, William Murrah, J. Boring, G. Garrett, J. Hamilton, G. F. Pierce, L. Pierce, W. J. Parks, J. W. Glenn, J. E. ERans, A. B. Longstreet, William Capers, NV. M. Wightman, C. Betts, S. Dunwody, H. A.. C. Walker, Peter Doub, B. T. Blake, J. Ealrly, L. M. Lee, W. A. Smith, T. Crowder, H. Slicer, C. B. Tippett, T. B. Sargent, J. A. Gere, G. Hildclt, T. J. Thompson, HI. White, I. T. Cooper, W. Cooper, T. Neal, T. Sovereign -67. "This resolution allowed one party at the North M PE. CZhurch, So0t1h. 367 still to regard the action of the General Conference as mandacttory, and the other to consider it merely advisory. And up to the present time not the smallest advance has been made toward any settled or agreed understanding on the part of the majority, as to the true nature and intention of the action against Bishop Andrew." On the 7th of June, Dr. Paine, chairman of the select committee of nine, reported the following Plan of Separation: "The select committee of nine to consider and report on the DeclaLration of the delegates from the Conferences of the slaveholding States, beg leave to submit the following report: "'Whereas, a declaration has been presented to this General 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 min. istry and Church organization cannot be successfully accomplished by theim under the jurisdiction of this 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 emergency with 368 Orgyanizcatiou of the Christian kindness and the. strictest equity; therefore, L"Resolvecd, by the delegates.of the several Annual Conferences in General Conference assemb)led, "lst. That, should the delegates from the ConferIences in the slaveholdingo States find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical Connection, the following rule shaill be observed with regardl to the Northern bounda(lry 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 nowise attenmpt to organuize 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 South reciprocally observe the same rule in relation to Stations, Societies, and Conferences adhering, by vote of a mlnjority, to the Methodist Episcopal Church; provri(ded also that this rule shall apply only to Societies, Stations, and Conferences bordering on the line of division, alnd not to interior charges, which shall in all cacses be left to the care of that Church within whose territory they are situated. AI. PE. hurch, South. 369 "'2d. That ministers, local and traveling, 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. "3d. Resolved, by the delegcates of all the Annual Conzferences in General Conference assembled, That we recommend to all the Annual Conferences, at their first approaching sessions, to authorize a change of the sixth restrictive article, so that the first clause shall read thus:'They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows and children, and to such other purposes as maly be determined upon by the votes of twothirds of the members of the General Conference.' "14th. That whenever the Annual Conferences, by a vote of three-fourths of all their members voting on the third resolution, shall have concurred in the recommendation to alter the sixth restrictive article, the Agents at New York and Cincinnati shall, and they are hereby authorized and directed to deliver over to any authorized agent or appointee of the Church, South, should one be authorized, all notes and book accounts against the ministers, Church-members, or citizens within its boundaries, with authority to collect the same for 16* 370 Organiz'zation of the the sole use of the Southern Church, and that said agents also convey to the aforesaid agent or appointee of the South, all the real estate, and assign to him all the property, including presses, stock, and all right and interest connected with the printing establishments at Charleston, Richmond, and Nashville, which now belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church.'"5th. That when the Annual Conferences shall have approved the aforesaid change in the sixth restrictive article, there shall be transferred to the above agent of the Southern Church so much of the capital and produce of the Methodist Book Concern as will, with the notes, book accounts, presses, etc., mentioned in the last resolution, bear the same proportion to the whole property of said Concern that the traveling preachers in the Southern Church shall bear to all the traveling ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church; the division to be made on the basis of the number of traveling preachers in the forthcoming Minutes. "16th. That the above transfer shall be in the form of annual payments of $2,500 per annum, and specifically in stock of the Book Concern, and in Southern notes and accounts due the establishment, and accruing after the first transfer mentioned above; and until all the payments are made, the Southern Church shall share in all the net profits of the Book Concern, in the proportion Hf. E. Chzurch, South. 371 that the amount due them, or in arrears, bears to all the property of the Concern. "'7th. That be and they are hereby appointed commissioners to act in concert with the same number of commissioners appointed by the Southern Organization, (should one be formed,) to estimate the amount which -will fall due to the South by the preceding rule, and to havre full powers to carry into effect the whole arrangements proposed with rega.rd to the division of property, should the separation take place. And if by any means a vacancy occurs in this Bo.ard of Commissioners, the Book Committee at New York shall fill s.aid vacancy. "Sth. That whenever Iany agents of the Southern Church are clothed with legal authority or corporate power to act in the premises, the agents at New York are hereby authorized and directed to act in concert with said Southern agents, so as to give the provisions of these resolutions a legally binding force. (t'9th. 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.,) 372 Oryaniz.ation of the'10th. That the Church so formed in the South shball have a common property in all the copyrights in possession of the Book Concern at New York and Cincinnati, at the time of the settlement by the comimssioners. "'esoltecl, That the Bishops be respectfully requested to lay that plart of this report requiring the action of the Annual Conferences before themas soon as possible, beginni-ng with the New York Conference. ROBERT PAINE, C67airmzan. "New York, June 7, 1844." k. Dr. Elliott moved the adoption of the report. He said: HIe had had the opportunity of exanmining it, and had done so narriowly. H-Ie believed it would inslure the purposes designed, and would be for the best interests of the Church.) It wTas his firm opinion that this was a proper course for them to pursue, in conformity with the Scriptures, and the best analogies they could collect from the ancient Churches, as well as from the best-organized modern Churches. All history (lid not furnish an example of so large a body of Christians remaining in such close and unbroken connection as the Methodist Episcopal Church. It was now found necessary to separate this large body, for it was becoming unwieldy. H-le referred to the Churches at Antioch, at Alexandria, at Jerusalem, which, though they continued as one, were at -Al. E. C/lurclh, South. 373 least as distinct as the Methodist Episcopal Church would be if the suggested separation took place. The Church of England was one under the Bishops of Canterbury and York, connected and yet distinct. In his own mind it had been for years perfectly cle-ar that to this conclusion they must eventually come. Were the question that now unhappily agitated the body dead and buried, there would be good reason for p~assing the resolutions contalined in that report. As to their representation in that General Conference, one out of twenty was but a meager representation, and to go on as they had done, it would soon be one out of thirty. And the body was now too large to do business advantatgeously. The measure contemplated was not schism, but separation for their mutual convenience and prosperity. Dr. Paine said the committee wished a verbal alteration made. In the fifth resolution' preachers" were spoken of in the Southern Church, and "Cministers" in the Northern. Nothing was said there of. the Chartered Fund-the committee had prepared the following additional resolution to meet the omission:'"12. R2esolved, That the Book Agents at New York be directed to make such compensation to the Conferences South for their dividend from the Chartere.d Fund as the commissioners to be provided for shall agree upon." 3 74t Orgaiz-at'iou of the Speeches were made in opposition to the report by Messrs. Griffith, Cartwright, and Sandford, and in its favor by Drs. Bangs, Paine, and Luckey, and Messrs. Fillmore, Finley, Hanmline, Collins, and Porter. During the pending of the discussion, Dr. Paine moved to insert the word'"Conferences," instead of "delegaltes," in the first resolution, which was agreed to. In the afternoon session of the sa.me day, the report was taken up and each resolution voted on separately, The first resolution was adopted by a vote of 142 to 22; and after the change suggested by Dr. Paine, inserting Conferences instead of delegates to decide on the necessityr of a separation, the vote was again taken, and stood ayes 135, noes 15. The second resolution was adopted by 135 in the affirmative to 7 in the negative; the third resolution by 147 to 10; the fifth resolution by 153 ayes to 13 noes; and-the remnaiinder with the preamble, without a division. Dr. Bangs then moved that the blank in the seventh resolution be filled, and Dr. Bangs, Dr. Peck, and James B. Finley were appointed as commissioners on the part of the General Conference. The report was then adopted as a whole. On the 10th of June the Conference adjourned sine die. It was the last General Conference in which the Representatives of the t.wo sections ever mlet. The separation was final. Al. E. Cwr'C/I, Sout/z, 375 CHAPTER V. The Meeting of the Southern Delegates in New York —Plan of action recommended to the Annual Conferences —Their Address to the members of the Church in the Slaveholdin g States and Territories-Excitement throughout the Church —Resolutions adopted in Virginia, in Alabama, in North Carolina, in South Carolina, in Georgia, in Louisiana, in Tennessee, in Kentucky —Dr. Elliott advocates Division —The action of the several Annual Conferences -Bishop Andrew's position —Letter from Bishop Soule to Bishop Andrew —Letter from Bishop Soule in reply to Dr. Bond-Communication from the College of Bishops. WHEN the General Conference of 1844 adjourned, there was probably not a member of the body who entertained any hope of the continued unity of the Church, under one jurisdiction. As we have already seen, impressed with the belief, that the interests of Methodism in the South would demand a separate organization, provision was made not only for the formation of "a distinct ecclesiastical Connection" of the Conferences in the slaveholding States, under the jurisdiction of a Southern General Conference, but also defining 376 Orglanization of the the stafts -of societies, stations, and Conferences on the border, both North and South. In order to preserve the unity of the Church on the border, it had been agreed that " all the societies, stations, and Conferences, adhering to the Church, South, by a m:.ljority of the members of said societies, stations, and Conferences, shall remain under the unmolested pastoral care of' the Soutlhern Church; and the ministers of the Mi. E. Church shall, in nowise, attempt to organize Churches or societies within the limits of the Church, South." This rule was to be reciprocal. Provision was also made for an equitable division of the Book Concerns in New York and Cincinnalti, and the Chartered Fund, and at the same time securing to the Southern Church "1all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church in meetinghouses, parsonages, colleges, schools, Conference funds, cemeteries, and of every kind within the limits of the Southern organization," making these "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." We cannot but admire the sense of justice, as well as the spirit which prompted it, by which the Inajority were influenced in the adoption of the Plan of Separation, by which the rights of the South were secured. It was worthy such a body of Christian ministers. L -E. Cl/ur'cl, ~South. 377 It is true that the obligation to carry out these resolutions depended upon the necessity of the organization of the Conferences in the slaveholding States into a separate ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This necessity, however, was left to be determined by the judgment of the Annual Conferences in the Southern and South-western St:ates. They alone were to be the umpires in deciding this question. As the best method of ascertaining the sense of the several AnnuXal Conferences, before leaving iNew York7 the Southern delegates held a meeting for consultation, at which they adopted the following plan of action, to be recommended to the Conferences they represented: ":~ With a view to promote uniformity of action in the premises, we beg leave to submit to your consideration the expediency of concurring in the following plan of procuring the judgment of the Church within the slaveholding States, as to the propriety of orga