| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume 1 (of 2) : A history of religious proscription, the seizure of churches, and the persecution of ministers of the Gospel, in the state of Missouri during the late Civil War, and under the "Test Oath" of the new Constitution.
Author: Leftwich, William M.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume 1 (of 2) : A history of religious proscription, the seizure of churches, and the persecution of ministers of the Gospel, in the state of Missouri during the late Civil War, and under the "Test Oath" of the new Constitution." ***
MARTYRDOM IN MISSOURI
A HISTORY OF
RELIGIOUS PROSCRIPTION, THE SEIZURE OF CHURCHES, AND THE PERSECUTION OF
MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL, IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI
DURING THE LATE CIVIL WAR,
AND UNDER THE
“TEST OATH” OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION.
BY
REV. W. M. LEFTWICH, D. D.
VOLUME I.
SAINT LOUIS:
S. W. BOOK & PUB. CO., 510 & 512 WASHINGTON AVE.
PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR.
1870.
=Dedication.=
TO THE
MARTYRS OF MISSOURI,
AND THE
CAUSE FOR WHICH THEY SUFFERED,
THIS BOOK
IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED,
BY THE AUTHOR.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by
W. M. LEFTWICH,
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
PREFACE.
“We are making history,” was the convenient and popular boast of certain
politico-religious fanatics during the late civil war, and for a few
years subsequent to its close. It will not be considered impertinent,
now that the “piping times of peace” have come, and men are permitted to
look back upon the cooled passions and crystallized events of that
dreadful period with somewhat of calm philosophy, if the fact should be
announced that “we are writing history.” It is one thing to make the
history, it is quite another thing to write it. If others could afford
to “make history,” and, then, in popular cant and with prurient vanity,
boast of it, we can well afford to write it up for them. And if our part
of the task be fairly, candidly and correctly done, they will have
little reason to complain if they appear before the world and go down to
posterity in the light of the history they have made, and with their
true character brought out by the shadows they have thrown forward upon
the future. History is valuable, not merely as a catalogue of events and
an inventory of things, but for the principles involved and the lessons
taught. The events herein narrated are notorious, the principles
involved are vital, and the lessons important.
Missouri will ever be conspicuous in the annals of history as the only
State in the American Union to inaugurate and authorize a formal
opposition to Christianity, as an institution, and legalize the
persecution of ministers of the gospel, as a class. The fact will not be
denied, and the history furnishes the saddest, wisest lessons. Ministers
of the gospel have been robbed, arrested, imprisoned, and even murdered,
for no other cause than that they were ministers of the gospel. They
have been indicted by grand juries, arrested and imprisoned with common
felons, mobbed and put to death for no other cause than that of
preaching the gospel without taking the “Test Oath” of the New
Constitution. A pure, unsecular Christianity owes much to the moral
heroism of the Missouri ministry. The faith once delivered unto the
saints, the integrity of the Church of Jesus Christ, as a kingdom not of
this world, the purity of the gospel, the divine authority of the
ministry, the liberty of conscience, and the rightful sovereignty of
Christ in his Church, with every principle and phase of religious
liberty, have been illustrated in the lives and sublimely vindicated in
the sufferings of the ministers of the gospel in Missouri.
The author fully appreciates the delicacy and difficulty of dealing with
such recent events and so many living names—events, too, which belong to
the catalogue of crime, and names that will pass into history associated
with the persecution and stained with the blood of the Lord’s annointed.
But if the task is difficult and the questions delicate, the duty is no
less imperative. It is due alike to the martyrs, living and dead, and to
the holy cause for which they suffered, that their names and deeds be
preserved, and that their unswerving fidelity and sublime devotion to a
principle and a cause, equal to the purest heroism of the ancient
martyrs, should not be lost to the Church. It is one of the gravest
responsibilities of the hour, and one of the most gracious opportunities
of the Church, to preserve the history, vindicate the faith, maintain
the principles and impress the lessons of the turbulent past upon the
peaceful future, that grace may abound through suffering and God may be
glorified in his servants.
A diluted charity says, “Let the dead past bury its dead, and let the
living present draw the mantle of charity over the unfortunate
by-gones.” This might be well enough if the “dead past” did not contain
the imperishable gem of a resurrection life that speaks to us with
authority in the vital principles of yesterday, to-day and forever, and
tells us, amongst other thins, that the chief of the Christian virtues—a
pure, discriminating charity—has no mantle for crime, however
Christ-like may be its compassion for the penitent criminal.
Both Federal and State legislation shield those who committed the crimes
of the war from legal prosecution; but such enactments possess no
control over the pen and the press.
In presenting this work to the public the author is fully conscious of
its many literary defects. But for all that, he dare not sacrifice the
facts of history, even to literary excellence. Many subjects possess an
importance and a grandeur wholly independent of those who handle them.
If, in treating of so many men and such recent events, injustice has
been done the living or the dead, the author pleads the absence of
intention and claims the benefit of a discriminating charity.
Both the work and the author will receive the severest criticism—perhaps
censure—possibly abuse. The first—he would not escape if he could; the
second—he could not escape if he would; the third—well—it is no new
thing under the sun for those who are set for the defense of truth and
righteousness to be abused.
The following prefatory notes, furnished by Dr. M‘Anally and Bishop
Marvin, together with the Introduction by Dr. Summers, will not only
assure the timid and establish the doubtful, but will be as grateful to
the Methodist and general public as to the author:
PREFATORY NOTE.
“In the following pages the reader may find an account of some of
those horrible outrages perpetrated on Christian ministers in
Missouri, chiefly because they were Christian men and Christian
ministers; but scarce a tenth of all such outrages have been, or
likely ever will be, placed before the public. They have cast a foul
and ineraseable blot upon the fame of the State of Missouri, and must
consign the immediate perpetrators to an infamy as lasting and as
hateful as that of the most cruel persecutors of Christians in gone-by
ages. And what deepens, blackens and renders more odious the guilt of
these things is, they were for the greater part done by, or under the
sanction of, men professing to love and follow the Lord Jesus Christ;
with a claim to, and under the pretext of, a purer patriotism and
holier Christianity, they committed atrocities that would disgrace
barbarians and savages.
“It is well the record of these horrible deeds be preserved, that the
better portion of the people in this and other States may have some
knowledge of what was done and suffered here during the dark and
bloody days, from 1861 to ’65.
“Many of those, directly or indirectly, implicated in these deeds of
cruelty and shame are now loud and earnest in their entreaties for
‘by-gones to be by-gones,’ and profess great grief that anything
should be said or done ‘to keep alive the feelings of the past.’ It is
not strange they should feel thus; but can they reasonably expect an
honest and outraged people should continue to cover up such
abominations, receive those who committed them into respectable
society, and treat them as though they were innocent, honest,
high-minded, Christian gentlemen? That would be strange—passing
strange! No! Truth and righteousness, justice and mercy, alike demand
that a faithful record of all such inhuman outrages be made,
extensively circulated and carefully preserved; that all the
perpetrators, instigators and abettors be consigned to that infamy
they so deservedly earned. Of such a record this is the first volume,
and it is hoped another, and another, and, if need be, yet another,
will be forthcoming, until the whole matter shall be placed in its
true and proper light.
“Of the manner in which the author has performed his work in the pages
following I need not speak. Each reader will judge for himself, and
each will find something to interest and instruct. The facts developed
are exceedingly suggestive, and suggestive, too, in regard to all the
interests of society.
“The thoughtful render will naturally inquire as to the cause of, and
reason for, such things, as well as to their natural and legitimate
effects, and this may induce an honest, healthful inquiry as to what
influences should be brought to bear to make men better, and thus
prevent the recurrence of such things as are here detailed. Let the
book be extensively circulated, carefully read, and its contents well
considered.
“D. R. M’ANALLY.
“CARONDELET, MO., December 29, 1869.”
“ST. LOUIS, December 24, 1869.
“REV. W. M. LEFTWICH:
“_Dear Sir_—I have seen the proof sheets of a large portion of the
first volume of ‘Martyrdom in Missouri,’ now soon to come from the
press.
“The publication of this book meets my hearty approval. I have met
with some who say, ‘Let the past sleep; let all its crimes, and the
had blood engendered by them, be buried forever.’ I have not so
learned Christ. He, the Incarnate Love, charged the blood of the
prophets upon the sons of their murderers. The true work of Christian
charity is to _eradicate_ crime, not to ignore it. The maudlin
sentiment that would daub over the great public crimes committed by
the highest dignitaries of the Northern Methodist Church and their
representatives in the South and along the border, is _not_ charity.
It is at best a clumsy counterfeit of that chief of the virtues. True
charity will seek to bring them to confession and recantation of their
deeds.
“To all their former misdeeds they now add, to avoid the shame of the
past, denials, equivocation and, as in the case of the Holston
property seized by them, false recriminations. The sober truth is that
they never hesitated during the time of our public trouble to use the
influence an active partisanship gave them with the party in power, to
take possession of our property, either by military order, or
terrorism, or mob violence. The public conscience of that Church seems
to have been debauched by their efforts to defraud us of our property
at the time of the division of the Church.
“But the stench of these recent atrocities is so strong in the
nostrils of the people that the perpetrators resort to the ever open
refuge of the evil-doer—denial. This book is opportune. The great body
of the preachers and members of the Church North are honest men. The
denials made by their leading men and Church papers they suppose to be
true. Here are facts in detail, with places, names, dates, and copies
of legal proceedings taken from official sources.
“Before the war, when Northern preachers were objects of suspicion,
and public demonstrations were sometimes made against them, the editor
of the St. Louis _Christian Advocate_, Rev. D. R. M‘Anally, raised his
voice against all mobs and mob violence with a will and an emphasis
that left no covert suggestions of encouragement to those who might
have been disposed to resort to violent measures. Led by the
_Advocate_, the whole Southern Church in the State gave its influence,
publicly and privately, against all violent proceedings. If that paper
and our Church had, at that time, pursued the course that the Northern
preachers and papers did towards us during the war, they would have
been driven from the State. As it was, in order to get credit for
persecution, they had to resort to the most remarkable tricks. Take,
for instance, the case, given with proper names in this book, of one
of their camp meetings being broken up by the preacher in charge of it
being caught in the act of adultery—broken up by their own members.
This they published to the world as a case of persecution by Southern
people.
“While I do not agree fully with all the views set forth in the
preliminary chapters of this volume, I am prepared to say that the
_facts_ bearing on the main topic have been collected and verified
with great care, and that there can be no doubt of the accuracy of the
statements. You have been pleased to hold yourself responsible, giving
proper names, dates, etc. I do not hesitate to invite upon myself a
full share of the responsibility.
“Hoping that you will soon have the second volume, containing the
names of our other murdered brethren, ready for the press,
“I am, very respectfully,
“E. M. MARVIN.”
INTRODUCTION.
BY
REV. T. O. SUMMERS, D.D.
The author of the following work has desired an expression of our
opinion in regard to its publication. We have read the manuscript with
painful interest, and are free to say that we have had some misgivings
as to the expediency of sending it forth to the world. The facts here
brought to light are so revolting, and their record is so damaging to
the reputation of those by whom they were perpetrated and their aiders
and abettors, that we might well hesitate, as to the propriety of their
publication. As Methodists, in particular, we are strongly tempted to
throw the veil of oblivion over those scenes of oppression and outrage,
in which many of our co-religionists of the North bore so conspicuous a
part.
But the cause of truth and righteousness demands the publication. There
is a measure of retribution which must not be relegated to the “judgment
to come,” but which must be dealt out in the present world.
We owe it to “the noble army of martyrs,” whose lives were sacrificed to
appease the demands of fanaticism, bigotry, cruelty, and hate, that
their murderers shall not go unwhipped of justice—at least, such
castigation as the truth of history can inflict.
We owe it to those who were made widows and orphans by the monsters who
enacted these bloody scenes, to let the world know that the husbands and
fathers of these innocent sufferers were not rebels and traitors, but
good men and true, “of whom the world was not worthy.”
We owe it to the institutions of our country to let it be known that the
appalling scenes that were enacted during the late reign of terror were
not the result of the principles which underlie our Federal and State
governments, but of the palpable contravention of them.
We owe it to the ecclesiastical bodies of the South that posterity shall
be told who invaded their rights; who robbed them of their churches,
parsonages, cemeteries, and seminaries; who murdered, scourged, and
plundered, and banished many of their ministers and lay members,
including even women and children, because they would not compromise
principles which they held dearer than life itself.
It is well for the world to be told that moral heroism has not, like
Astræa, left the earth and ascended to the skies. Thank God! there have
been heroes in our times; and we are encouraged to believe that the race
will not soon become extinct. The night of persecution would bring such
stars to view again. Daniel and the “three children,” the Maccabees, the
Apostles, Polycarp, Ignatius, and other victims of Pagan persecution in
primitive times—the Albigenses, Waldenses, Huguenots, the Marian
martyrs, and other victims of papal persecution—Nonconformist and
Remonstrant confessors, who “took joyfully,” or at least patiently, “the
spoiling of their goods,” imprisonment, exile, and sometimes death—these
have had their successors in the fearful times through which we have
passed, and the record of them gives us a guaranty that under similar
circumstances such heroes will appear again.
In perusing this work one is constantly reminded of the saying of the
wise man, “Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time which was before us.” He had seen
similar evils to those which we have seen and suffered. “There is an
evil which I have seen under the sun as an error which proceedeth from
the ruler: folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place.
I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon
the earth.” “So I returned and considered all the oppressions that are
done under the sun and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and
they had no comforter.” Then, as in our late calamitous times, good men
mourned as they were forced to
——bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes.
The history of these terrible transactions is valuable, too, as an
admonitory lesson, teaching us that no sect is absolutely proof against
the seductive influence of political power and ascendency. Down to the
present decade the Methodists could plume themselves with an honest
satisfaction upon the fact that while nearly all other sects had risen
to power and abused it to persecuting purposes, they never had. It was,
indeed, sometimes insinuated that they never had persecuted because they
never had the power to do so. But they contended, and, it was thought,
with good reason, that the principles of Methodism, being so pure,
spiritual, and catholic, would be a sure safeguard from political
alliances, worldly ambitions, and persecuting practices; but, alas! that
ground of boasting is taken away. The devil came with his “third
temptation” to Northern Methodists, including even bishops of the
Church, and they did not say, “Get thee hence, Satan!” They ascended by
the devil’s ladder to “thrones of power,” and played such tricks during
the continuance of their brief authority as made the angels weep! The
wrongs of 1844 and 1848 developed into horrible atrocities in the sun of
political prosperity which shone upon them during the war which
subjugated the South. The lesson, we repeat, is admonitory. We trust in
God no such temptation will ever be set before the Southern Church; it
seems to be “a test for human frailty too severe.”
It is not intended by these remarks to inculpate all the ministers and
members of the Northern Methodist Church. God forbid! There are
thousands among them who have not bowed the knee to Baal. They are
attached to the Northern connection because of their location—they
denounce the evil deeds of their brethren; indeed, in many instances
they are not apprised of them, or honestly believe that they are gross
exaggerations.
These enormities, however, are, to a great extent, charged upon the
Northern Methodist Connection because they were perpetrated by its
bishops and other agents; endorsed, or at least not disowned, by General
and Annual Conferences, and have not been repented of until this day.
Need any one seek further for a reason why the Southern Church wants no
fellowship with those who murder, rob, oppress, and slander its
ministers and members, or sanction those who do?
It must not be supposed that we lay all the blame upon Northern
Methodists—other Churches furnished their quota of persecution and
oppression, though, for obvious reasons, Southern Methodists suffered
more from their Northern co-religionists than from any other parties.
Thus was it with pagan and popish persecutions—a man’s foes were
frequently those of his own household. Apostates have ever been the most
bitter and unscrupulous persecutors. This is a painful reflection. The
eagle is pierced by an arrow feathered from an eagle’s wing! Thus
history repeats itself.
The perusal of this work will teach us not to put our trust in man, not
even in princes; no, nor in institutions of our own framing, written
constitutions, compacts, and the like, which upon occasion may prove to
be worth no more than the parchment on which they are engrossed.
Nothing is perfectly true, and just, and good, and stable, but the
kingdom of God. Nevertheless, the recital of the horrors portrayed in
this book, which contains a mere modicum of what might be narrated,
ought to lead us to thank God most devoutly that these calamities are
nearly overpast, and we have the prospect of civil and religious
liberty, which we know better than ever how to appreciate. The changes
which have taken place in the government of the United States lead many
to entertain gloomy anxieties for the future, and to despair of the
permanency of republican institutions; yet we venture to hope that a
wise, gracious, and powerful Providence will so interpose in behalf of
our country that these forebodings will not be realized.
We may just state that we are assured of the truth of many of the
details in this work by other testimonies; and for the rest we depend
confidently on the accuracy of the author, who has taken great pains in
collecting his materials from the most trustworthy sources. He is a
reputable minister of the Missouri Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, and holds himself responsible for all that he narrates.
T. O. S.
_Nashville, Tenn., Nov. 22, 1869._
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
MISSOURI DISTINGUISHED FOR RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
Religious Liberty Secured to every Citizen by the Constitution of the
United States, by every State Constitution and every Department of
the Federal and State Governments—Religious Liberty Protected and
Enjoyed for two Centuries—The Stephen Girard Will Case—Mr. Webster’s
Great Speech—Religious Rights Defined—General Assembly of Missouri
Refuses to elect a Chaplain—Legalizes Sunday Beer Gardens—A Card—A
Renegade Minister—Reflections.
CHAPTER II.
POLITICAL EXCITEMENT OF 1850 AND ’60.
Foreigners—Know-Nothingism—Foreign Element in Politics—Class
Legislation to Encourage Immigration, Develop the Resources, and
Subvert the Religious Institutions of the State—German Rationalists
and Christianity—The True Interests of a State—Modern
Spiritualism—Its Pretensions—Phenomena—Influence upon the
Credulous—“Circles”—Mediums—Agents—Lecturers—Free-Loveism—Thousands
of Disciples—Midnight Lamp in Thousands of Homes—Many Turned from
the Faith to Serve Tables—Most Dangerous and Powerful Form of
Infidelity—Free-Thinkers—A Novel Encounter with an “Improved
Monkey”—Napoleon’s “Moral Combinations” at Work upon the Public
Mind.
CHAPTER III.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION.
All Nationalities and all Social Peculiarities Fused into a Common
Mass—Missourian—First Settlers of the State—Where From and their
Type of Domestic and Social Life—The “Kansas-Nebraska Bill”—Its
Effect upon the Population of Missouri—“Emigration Aid
Societies”—Extremes Brought Together in Missouri—Reflex Tides of
Population—Rapid Increase—Unique Social Formation—Social
Peculiarities Fuse—Religious Characteristics Become more
Distinct—Religious Thought and Feeling—Doctrines and Dogmas are
Sharply Defined and Fearfully Distinct in Missouri—Sects and their
Peculiarities—Sectarian Strife Uncompromising—Why—Religious
Controversy—Published Debates—Their Effect—Sectarian Bigotry and
Intolerance—Differences, Essential and Non-essential—History Ever
Repeating Itself—Persecution has Adopted Few New Expedients—Early
Martyrs and the Missouri Martyrs—“The Altar, the Wood and the Lamb
for a Burnt Offering.”
CHAPTER IV.
DIVISION OF THE CHURCH IN 1844.
Slavery only the Occasion—Action of the General Conference in
1836—Slavery in the Church in 1796 and in 1836—No Change of its
Moral Aspects in 1844—Facts Perverted—Constitutional Powers of the
Church—Bishop Andrew a Scapegoat—Protest of the Southern
Conferences—Resolution and Plan of Separation—Dr. Elliott and
Schism—The Vote—The Question in the South—Louisville Convention in
1845—Division—The Bishops of the M. E. Church Accept the Division
the following July—Failure to Change the Sixth Restrictive
Rule—General Conference of 1848 Pronounce the Whole Proceedings Null
and Void—Dr. Lovick Pierce Rejected—Fraternization
Denied—Responsibility of Non-Fraternization—Northern Church Refuse
to Make any Division of Property—Appeal to the Civil Courts—Decision
of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New
York—Justice McLean—United States Circuit Court for the Southern
District of Ohio—Judge Leavitt’s Decision—Supreme Court of the
United States—Points Decided—The Decision of the Supreme Court in
Full.
CHAPTER V.
FROM THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH, IN 1845, TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CIVIL
WAR, IN 1861.
Provision of the Plan of Separation—Line of Division—The Missouri a
Border Conference—Vote on Adhering North or South nearly
Unanimous—The Disaffected—Covenant Breakers—The M. E. Church in
Missouri after the Division—Her Ministers and Members—How
Regarded—Relative Strength of the Two Churches in Numbers and
Property—Sympathy—Persecution—Tenacity in Spite of
Opposition—Success the only Revenge—The Class of Northern Methodist
Preachers—Their Connection with Clandestine Efforts to Free the
Slaves—Their Condemnation and their Secret Service—Character of the
Old Missourians—Their Vindication—Northern Methodists Condemned for
being Secret Political Partisans, and not for Preaching the
Gospel—The Anti-Slavery Element in Missouri Ten Years before the
War—Lawful _vs._ Clandestine Means—“Underground Railroad” and other
Nefarious Schemes to Run off the Slaves of Missouri—These Things
Condemned by the Anti-Slavery Party—Public Meetings of Citizens in
the Interest of Order and Peace.
CHAPTER VI.
FROM 1845 TO 1861, CONTINUED.
Responsibility of Ministers, Editors and Publishers—Perversion of
Facts, a Double Guilt—Public Meetings—Presses Mobbed—Fabius Township
Meeting in 1854—Rev. Mr. Sellers—Review of the Preamble and
Resolutions—Meeting at Rochester, Andrew County—Three Facts Affirmed
of these Meetings—The Best Citizens Controlled Them—What the Author
of the Fabius Township Resolutions Says—Jackson Seminary in Cape
Girardeau County—The Jefferson City Land Company and the Great
Northern Methodist University—The Transaction Transparent—Resolution
of Missouri Conference of 1858—A. Bewley—The True Facts in his
Case—That he was Hanged at Fort Worth, Texas, not for being a
Minister of the Gospel, but for Complicity in the most Horrible
Crimes—The Facts Analyzed—The Bailey Letter—Bishop Morris—Dr.
Elliott—Truth is Mighty—Correct View of the Relation of the M. E.
Church to the People of Missouri prior to the War.
CHAPTER VII.
CHARACTER OF THE STRIFE IN MISSOURI.
Conflict of Sentiment—Party Spirit—New England and Missouri
Fanatics—Fraternal Blood—“Houses Divided—Three against Two and Two
against Three”—Organized Armies and Predatory Brigands—Bull Run,
Seven Pines, The Wilderness, Gettysburg and Vicksburg Reproduced on
a small scale in every County and Cross Roads in Missouri—War upon
Non-Combatants—The Bloodiest Records—Ministers of the Gospel—Their
Troubles and Perplexities—Peculiar Trials and Persecutions—Military
Fetters put upon the Conscience—Disloyal Prayers and Military
Orders.
CHAPTER VIII.
ANOMALOUS CONDITION OF THE STATE—GREAT EXCITEMENT.
Border Slave State—Missouri State Convention—The Last Hope—Virginia
Convention—Missouri would not Secede—Rights in the
Union—Disappointment—Anomalous Position—Governor Jackson and General
Trice—Great Excitement—Ministers Embarrassed—One False Step
Fatal—The Sword _vs._ Sympathy—Why the Innocent and Helpless
Suffered more in Missouri than Elsewhere—Constructive
Sympathy—Predatory Bands—Hon. Luther J. Glenn Commissioner from
Georgia—The Effect of the Fall of Fort Sumter and President
Lincoln’s Proclamation—The State Officers, Legislature and Militia
Adhere South—Assemble at Neosho, Pass an Act of Secession, Elect
Delegates to the Confederate Congress, etc., etc.—Preparations for
War—Union _vs._ Price’s Army State Convention Meets Again—Its Acts
and Doings—Two State Governments—Sympathy, Property and
Plunder—Ministers Again—Their Course—Days of Fasting and
Prayer—Conferences—Meeting in St. Charles—Resolutions—Prudence and
Prayer—The Press—Anti-Christ Abroad—_Central Christian Advocate_ and
a few Facts—Rev. Mr. Gardner—“Men and Brethren Help”—State
Convention again in October—The First Oath for Ministers.
CHAPTER IX.
THE PULPIT AND PRESS ON THE SITUATION IN MISSOURI.
Ministers of Peace—Course Pursued by the St. Louis _Christian
Advocate_—Rev. Dr. M‘Anally its Editor—Candid, Truthful, Honest—The
Cause of its Suppression, and the Imprisonment of the
Editor—Ministers of the M. E. Church, South, Labor and Pray
Earnestly for Peace—Days of Fasting, Humiliation and
Prayer—Ministers who became Political Partisans had no use for such
days—“Breathing out Threatening and Slaughter”—Spirit of the
Northern Methodist Press—False Publications for a Purpose—One Mr.
John Stearns and the _Western Advocate_—Glaring
Falsehoods—Excitement in St. Louis and Throughout the
State—Persecution of Ministers in Kansas and Reign of Terror along
the Border—Rev. W. H. Mobly and Rev. John Monroe in Southwest
Missouri—Systematic Efforts to Break up the M. E. Church, South, and
Disperse her Ministers—Editorial in _St. Louis Advocate_—_The
Central Again_—Impressions Abroad—Baptists and Presbyterians
Implicated—“Religion in Missouri”—Missouri Conference at Glasgow—St.
Louis Conference at Arrow Rock and Waverly—Conference Stampeded by
the Rumor of a Gunboat—Author Arrested.
CHAPTER X.
PILLAGE, PLUNDER, BLACK-MAIL—MURDER OF THE REV. J. FEWEL—3,050 NEW
ENGLAND CLERGYMEN.
Indiscriminate Robbery, Pillage, Arson and Murder—Banditti and
Revenge—Black-Mail and Espionage—Panic, Depopulation and
Plunder—Demoralization—Virtue Sacrificed—Some who Would not Bow the
Knee to Moloch—God had an Altar and Israel a Priest—Persecution,
Arrest and Imprisonment of Revs. J. Ditzler, J. B. H. Wooldridge and
D. J. Marquis—Many others Suffered in Like Manner—Rev. James Fewel
Arrested, Cruelly Treated, and Died from the Effects of Inhuman
Treatment, aged Seventy-two Years—Many such Victims—The True Office
and Work of the Ministry—Its Spirit and Mission—Any Departure
Unsettles the Public Mind—A Sad Day for the Country, Church and
State—Relations and Dependencies—Three Thousand and Fifty New
England Clergymen Before Congress—A Solemn Protest and its
Effects—Then and Now—Ecclesiastical Bodies on the “State of the
Country”—Ecclesiastical Bummers—A Settled Policy to Drive the Old
Ministers out of the State—General Halleck’s Order.
CHAPTER XI.
SEIZURE OF CHURCHES—CHURCHES IN KANSAS CITY AND INDEPENDENCE.
Church Property—Can the War Revive or Create Titles—Church Property on
the Border—Maysville, Kentucky—Legal Rights of
Property—Attainder—Honest Inquiry—Eighth Commandment—The Truth of
History—_Church in Kansas City_—North Methodists—Faithful
Ladies—What was Said at the Time—Some who were with us Went out from
us—Their loss our gain—_Church in Independence_—How they Got it and
Why they Kept it—The Former Pastor—Why he left—Battle of
Independence—“Black Thursday”—A Rev. James Lee—How he got Possession
of the Church—Rev. Mr. DeMott—How he got Possession of the
Parsonage—A Poor Widow Turned Out by Military Order—Strategy—Rev. M.
M. Pugh Demands the Property—Why Refused—Recourse to the Civil
Courts—Statement of the Case by Counsel—Side Scenes—Extracts from
the St. Louis _Advocate_—This Property in the Statistics of Northern
Methodism—Action of the Missouri and Arkansas Conferences, M. E.
Church, on the Subject—Reflections.
CHAPTER XII.
CHURCH SEIZURES—CONTINUED.
_Church at Lexington_—Suit Brought for it by the Methodist
Church—Statement of Mr. Sawyer—Suit Dismissed—Salem, Arrow Rock,
California and other Churches—_Lagrange Church History_—How the
Church North Borrowed and then Seized it—Notice Served—Colonel W. M.
Redding the “Faithful Guardian”—Rev. W. C. Stewart—Christian
Charity—What a Southern Methodist Says—_Central Advocate_—Mr.
Stewart’s “Honor” Transmitted—Suit for
Possession—Arbitration—_Louisiana Church_—Its History and how it was
Seized—Civil Courts and Church Trustees—Names Forged—Counter
Petition—Decision of Court of Common Pleas—Supreme Court of
Missouri—History of the Case—Opinion of the Supreme Court—S. S.
Allen, Esq., on Church and State—Rulings of the Court—The Case
Reversed—Efforts to Compromise—Five Years’ Possession—Reported in
Church Statistics—Supplement—Able Argument of Smith S. Allen, Esq.
CHAPTER XIII.
CHURCH SEIZURES—CONTINUED.
Church in Boonville—One of the Oldest Religious Centers—Rev. J. N.
Pierce and his Exploits—“An Honest Looker On” in the St. Louis
_Christian Advocate_—Circuit Court vs. County Court and J. N.
Pierce—Supreme Court—Howard et al. _vs._ Pierce—Report and
Opinion—Circuit Court Sustained—John N. Pierce et al. Exhibited in
no Enviable Light—Legal History of the Case—Decision—Points to be
Noted—Moral Travestie—Judgment of Posterity—_Church in
Springfield_—How Obtained—How Long Used—How Released—Particulars
Reported by a Committee of the St. Louis Conference—_Church in
Potosi_—Statement of W. S. Woodard—Plattsburg, Fillmore, Macon,
Glasgow and other Churches—Strange Assertion—Statistical Value of
Churches Seized over $100,000—How Restored—Property Rights Secured
to the M. E. Church, South—Great Moral Courage or “Hard
Cheek”—“Making History”—Martyrdom of Principle.
CHAPTER XIV.
CHURCH SEIZURES CONTINUED AND MADE GENERAL.
War Claims of Northern Methodists Settled by Ecclesiastical
Black-Mail—Military Mitres and Episcopal Shoulder-Straps—The
Difference—The “Stanton-Ames Order”—“The Great Episcopal
Raid”—“Special Order, No. 15,” from Major-General Banks—Official
Board of Carondelet Street Church, New Orleans, and Bishop
Ames—Episcopal Power Then and Ecclesiastical Criticism Now—Popular
Verdict—Abandoned(?) and Embarrassed Churches and Ecclesiastical
“Bummers”—Church Extension in the South—Letters and Extracts—Bishop
Clark and “Church Extension Meetings”—Does the End Justify the
Means, or Success Satisfy the Demands of Modern Ethics?—Property
Acquired by the M. E. Church in the South in a few Years—Four
Hundred and Eight Churches, Eighteen Parsonages and Eight Literary
Institutions in two Years, Worth $446,659.00, all in Five
Conferences—Opinions of their Leading Men and Journals—Hon. John
Hogan, of St. Louis, Scuttles the Episcopal Ram—Order from the War
Department, with President Lincoln’s Endorsement—Possible
Deception—Rev. Dr. Keener, of New Orleans, Sues for the Churches of
Louisiana four Months—McKendree Church, Nashville, Vacated, “by
Order from Bishop Simpson”—Memorial of the Holston Conference M. E.
Church, South, to the Chicago General Conference, and How it was
Treated—Action of Chicago General Conference—“Stanton-Ames Order”
Duplicated for the Baptists—Conclusion—Sensible Warning from the St.
Louis _Anzeiger_.
CHAPTER XV.
MARTYRDOM—REVS. J. M. PROCTOR, M. ARRINGTON, J. M’GLOTHLIN AND JAMES
PENN.
Philosophy of Martyrdom—Living Martyrs—Names Made Immortal by
Persecution—Martyrs of Missouri—Difference Between Martyrs for the
Testimony of Jesus, only Questions of Time and Place—The Spirit the
Same Everywhere—Causes—Explanatory Remarks—_Rev. James M. Proctor_
Arrested Coming out of the Pulpit—Connection with the M. E. Church,
South, his only Offense—Kept in Prison for Weeks, then
Released—_Rev. Marcus Arrington_—Chaplain—Insulted—Kept in Alton
Prison—_Rev. John McGlothin_—Petty Persecution and Tyranny—_Rev.
James Penn_—Meeting Broken Up—Driven from His own Churches by a
Northern Methodist Preacher Leading an Armed Mob—Persecution—Prayer.
CHAPTER XVI.
REVS. W. CLEAVELAND AND JESSE BIRD.
Ministers of other Churches in the Fellowship of Suffering and on the
Rolls of Martyrdom—_Rev. Wm. Cleaveland_ Arrested for Preaching in a
Rebel Camp—Imprisoned and Insulted—Made to Pray for Mr. Lincoln on a
Loyal Cannon—Rev. Captain Cox, a Northern Methodist Preacher, his
Persecutor—Other Indignities—Indicted, Arrested and Arraigned as a
Common Felon for Preaching without taking the “Test Oath”—_Rev.
Jesse Bird_ Arrested, Silenced and Banished—Losses, Exposure and
Hardships of his Family—Returns—Arrested and put in Jail for
Preaching without taking the “Test Oath”—Public Indignation—The Most
Virulent Persecutors Subsequently Elevated to the Highest Civil
Offices.
CHAPTER XVII.
ELDERS J. DUVAL, ISAAC ODELL AND ALLEN SISK.
_Elder James Duval_—His Own Statement—Endorsement—Minister of the
Regular Baptist Church—Arrested at Midnight—Suffered Much—Passes and
Permits—Assessment for Military Purposes—Arrest of Elder G. W.
Stout—Elder Duval again Arrested—Sent to Chillicothe—Charge, Trial
and Acquittal—Making History—Re-arrested at New Garden—Heavy Bond—In
Court for not Taking the Oath—Met others in the Same
Condemnation—_Isaac Odell_ and _Allen Sisk_ under Indictment with
Elder Duval—Estebb, the Prosecuting Attorney—Dunn & Garver for the
Defense—Baptist Church at New Garden—Trial of their Pastor, Elder
Isaac Odell, for not taking the Oath—Acquitted—Then
Convicted—Division of the Church—Troubles—Non-Fellowship.
CHAPTER XVIII.
WOOLDRIDGE, MARQUIS, PUGH AND BREEDING.
Exceptional Distinction—_Revs. J. B. H. Wooldrige_, _D. J. Marquis_ and
Geo. N. Johnson Arrested, Abused and Imprisoned for Associating
Together—_Rev. M. M. Pugh_ Arrested and Imprisoned—Arrested Three
Times—Indicted—Northern Methodists Implicated in his
Persecutions—Flags over Pulpits by Military Orders—Efforts to Force
the Consciences of Ministers—A Caustic Note—“Der Union Flag on Der
Secesh Church”—A Minister’s Wife Ordered to Make a Shroud for a Dead
Union Soldier—Keen Retort—An Old Minister in a Rebel Camp—How he
“Went Dead” and “Saved his Bacon” and Potatoes—_Rev. J. M.
Breeding_—Armed Men Visit him at Midnight—Order him to Leave the
Country in Six Days because he was a Southern Methodist
Preacher—Arrested at Church by Lieutenant Combs—A Parley—Men said if
They were not Permitted to Shoot They would Egg Him—Waylaid by
Soldiers to Assassinate Him—Providential Escape—Waylaid the Second
Time, and Providential Escape—Move to Macon County—Further
Troubles—Reflections.
CHAPTER XIX.
REVS. R. N. T. HOLLIDAY AND GREEN WOODS.
_Rev. R. N. T. Holliday_—Statement of his Persecutions Furnished by Dr.
Richmond, a Federal Officer—Could not War upon the Institutions of
Heaven—Mr. Holliday aloof from Politics—Misconstrued—General Wm. P.
Hall and his Militia Proclamation—General Hall and Mr.
Holliday—General Bassett—Rev. Wm. Toole, Provost-Marshal, and Mr.
Holliday—A Renegade—Platte City Burned by Jennison and Mr. H.
Ordered to be Shot on Sight—He Escapes—Is Arrested in Clinton
County—Again Ordered to be Shot—Escapes to Illinois—Returns in
1865—Goes to Shelbyville and is Indicted, for Preaching Without
Taking the Oath—Crimes of the War—Common Law Maxim
Reversed—Prominent Ministers of the M. E. Church, South, Assumed to
be Guilty of Treason—Murder of _Rev. Green Woods_—Birth, Early
Ministry and General Character—Gives up his District—Retires to his
Farm in Dent County—Affecting Account of his Murder given by his
Daughter—Extract from a Letter Written by his Wife—Details Published
in the St. Louis _Advocate_ of June 13, 1866—Reflections.
CHAPTER XX.
REVS. A. MONROE, W. M. RUSH, NATHANIEL WOLLARD.
_Rev. A. Monroe_, the Patriarch of Missouri Methodism—Age, Honor and
Sanctity not Exempt from Profanation—Mr. Monroe and his Wife
Arrested in Fayette—Mrs. Monroe’s Trials and Witty Retorts—How Mr.
Monroe Escaped the Bond—Robbed of Everything by Kansas Soldiers in
1861—An Old Man Without his Mittens—A Tower of Strength—“Our
Moses”—Calls the Palmyra Convention—_Rev. W. M. Rush_—The Character
of Missouri Preachers—A Native Missourian—Settles in Chillicothe—In
St. Joseph the First Year of the War—Caution in Public Worship—An
Offensive Prayer by Rev. W. C. Toole—General Loan Closes the Church
and Deposes Mr. Rush from the Ministry by Military Order—General W.
P. Hall vs. Mr. Rush—Hall Publishes a Letter that Denies Mr. Rush
Protection, and Exposes him to Assassination—Mr. Rush Returns to
Chillicothe—His House a Stable and his Home a Desolation—Bold
Attempt to Assassinate him—Correspondence with General Hall—Goes to
St. Louis—Masonic Endorsement—In Charge of the Mound Church—Will
Hear of Him Again—_Rev. Nathaniel Wollard_ Murdered in Dallas
County—Horrible Details—Particulars—Reflections.
CHAPTER XXI.
REV. B. H. SPENCER.
His Character and Position as a Minister—Order of Banishment—Interview
with General Merrill—Note to Colonel Kettle—Cause of
Banishment—Letter to A. C. Stewart—Provost-Marshall at
Danville—Frank, Manly Reply—Second Letter to Mr. Stewart, and
Petition to General McKean—The Latter Treated with Silent
Contempt—Strong Loyal Petition Endorsed by H. S. Lane, U. S.
Senator, and O. P. Morton, Governor of Indiana—“Red Tape”—Petition
Returned—Hon. S. C. Wilson Counsel for the Exiles—General Schofield
Finally and Unconditionally Revokes the Order of
Banishment—Indictment for Preaching Without Taking the “Test Oath.”
CHAPTER XXII.
REVS. D. B. COOPER, H. N. WATTS AND THOS. GLANVILLE.
_Rev. D. B. Cooper_—Attempt Made to Ride him on a Rail—Defeated by the
Timely Appearance of Soldiers—Particulars Furnished by Dr. N. W.
Harris—_Rev. H. N. Watts_—A Native of Missouri—Efforts Made to Place
the Old Ministers under Disability or Run them out of the State—Mr.
Watts Arrested—Silenced—Correspondence with Provost-Marshals Ried
and Sanderson—“Test Oath”—_Rev. Thos. Glanville_—An Englishman by
Birth—Early Life—Peculiar Trials—Manner of Life as a Citizen and a
Minister—Driven from Home in 1863—Returns and Obtains Written
Permission to Preach—Warned not to fill his Appointment on Sabbath,
September 20, 1863—Remains at Home—That Night he is Shot Through his
Window—Shot a Second and Third Time, and Expires Praying for his
Murderers—His Eldest Son Shot and Killed the Same Night—Details
Furnished by J. H. Ross and Rev. John Monroe—Conclusion.
MARTYRDOM IN MISSOURI.
CHAPTER I.
Missouri Distinguished for Religious Persecution—Religious Liberty
Secured to every Citizen by the Constitution of the United States,
by every State Constitution, and every Department of the Federal and
State Governments—Religious Liberty Protected and Enjoyed for two
Centuries—The Stephen Girard Will Case—Mr. Webster’s Great
Speech—Religious Rights Defined—General Assembly of Missouri Refuses
to elect a Chaplain—Legalizes Sunday Beer Gardens—A Card—A Renegade
Minister—Reflections.
The State of Missouri is justly entitled to the distinction of being the
first and only State in the American Union to inaugurate and authorize a
formal opposition to Christianity, as an institution, and to legalize a
systematic proscription and persecution of ministers of the gospel, as a
class. Her constitution, statute books and judicial proceedings alone
reproduce the ordinances, enactments and decisions of the “dark ages,”
without the papal superstitions and priestly conscience. Her prison
walls and dungeons dark have revived the horrors of Spain without the
Inquisition, and her civil and military officers, her courts and mobs,
have re-enacted the cruel tyranny and the religious intolerance of
Austria, with the papal “concordat” left out.
Her fertile soil has been stained with the blood of real martyrs, and
the “seed of the church” has been scattered all over her broad prairies
and along her winding streams. Unmarked graves and marble monuments here
and there fix the eye of God as he watches the dust of his martyred
servants awaiting the resurrection, and a double portion of his Spirit
is given to the living watchman in answer to the brother’s blood that
cries from the ground.
The Spirit of the Divine Master, in whose service they fell, inspires
charity for the living, and will not rebuke the tears that fall for the
dead. We have both, and it is profitable to indulge them, while we
accord to Missouri the distinction she has justly won in reviving the
laws and repeating the religious persecutions which an enlightened
Christianity vainly hoped had passed away with the barbarous times which
produced them.
The right to worship God without molestation, according to the dictates
of conscience, was not only secured by the Federal and State
Constitutions, but was always sacredly preserved and defended by the
three co-ordinate branches of the Federal Government, and by the
executive, judicial and legislative departments of the several State
governments, until it had become so thoroughly interwoven with every
form and feature, every principle and fiber of our institutions, and had
penetrated so deeply and permeated so generally the popular heart, that
its defenses were considered impregnable and its sacredness inviolable.
Every attempt to abridge the religious liberties involved in the rights
of conscience, from whatever quarter and under whatever disguise, has
been met and resisted by a public sentiment that pronounced it the most
dangerous and unwarranted invasion of the dearest rights of American
citizens. The enactment of laws to restrain the liberties of the citizen
in any other direction might be tolerated, but whenever and wherever the
enactment of laws, the decision of courts or the exercise of power have
impinged upon the rights of conscience, or placed religious institutions
under disability, the American people have moved to a resistance that
subordinated all minor differences and distinctions and put their hearts
and lives, their all, upon the defense.
The strenuous efforts made to break the will of Stephen Girard, in the
courts of Pennsylvania, in 1839 and ’41, and in the Supreme Court of the
United States in 1844, are too fresh in the minds of American jurists
and many of the American people to require more than a reference to one
single item in this connection as an illustration.
The founding of the institution in the city of Philadelphia that bears
the name of Girard, and his princely bequest for that purpose, would
have passed his name down to the generations to come as one of the great
benefactors of his race, but for one restrictive clause in his will; and
it was in the light of that clause that the case assumed a national
importance, and enlisted some of the ablest advocates of the American
bar, prominent amongst whom was Mr. Webster.
After providing for all the college buildings that would be necessary,
and the enclosure of the grounds by high stone walls, with iron gates
for ingress and egress, he adds the following restrictions:
“Secondly—I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary or
minister of any sect whatever shall ever hold or exercise any station or
duty whatever in the said college, nor shall any such person ever be
admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises
appropriated to the purposes of said college.”
Mr. Girard had a right to dispose of his estate in any way that his
wisdom might direct, provided, however, the rights of others were duly
respected; and Mr. Webster’s unanswerable argument clearly sets forth
the relations of Christianity to the State, and shows that such
disabilities are in direct conflict with the institutions of the
country, against the public policy of Pennsylvania, and every other
State in which Christianity is recognized as the law of the land, and
must be subversive of the dearest rights and liberties of the people.
What is the value of Mr. Girard’s bequest, however great or munificent,
when it touches the very foundations of human society—when it touches
the foundations of religious liberty, of public law, and endangers the
well-being of the State?
The restrictive provisions of Mr. Girard’s will, in the opinion of Mr.
Webster, distinctly repelled Christianity in the person of its
accredited ministers; for whatever proscribes the minister of
Christianity proscribes Christianity itself. The ministry is a part of
Christianity, divinely instituted and authorized, and whoever makes war
upon ministers of the gospel, as a class, makes war upon the
Christianity they teach and represent.
In the light of these facts the State of Missouri, by her military and
civil officers, her conventions, her General Assembly and her courts,
has fairly won the unenviable distinction here announced, the painful
history of which is recorded in these pages.
The ground work of this persecution was laid in the public mind years
before its manifestation. The first out-croppings of the anti-Christian
spirit was in the session of the General Assembly of 1858–9, in
declining to elect a Chaplain, and in the refusal to repeal what was
called the “Sunday Law.” The encouragement given to this infidel spirit
by a large portion of the press of the State, and by many so-called
benevolent associations of foreigners, and from other influential
sources hereafter noticed, prepared the public mind for the legislation,
the military and civil despotism, and the mob violence which authorized
and executed a system of persecution, the history of which presents a
catalogue of crime and scenes of blood and murder disgraceful to the
State and revolting to the whole civilized world.
The refusal of the General Assembly to elect a chaplain, December, 1858,
derives its importance, not from the fact, but the _animus_ of the
debates, and the sentiment reflected by the action.
The journal of the House of Representatives, of Dec. 29th, 1858,
contains the following:
“EVENING SESSION.—Mr. King, of St. Charles, offered the following
resolution: _Resolved_, That the House do now proceed to the election of
chaplain. Mr. Edwards, of Dallas, offered the following amendment to the
resolution: ‘And that the individual members of this House pay said
chaplain for his services out of their private means;’ which, on motion
of Mr. Sitton, was tabled by a vote of 79 to 43.
“Dec. 30th, 1858.—The House resumed the consideration of the regular
order of business, viz., the election of chaplain, when Mr. King, of St.
Charles, nominated Mr. Leftwich; Mr. Brisco, of Cass, nominated Mr.
Williams; Mr. Boulware, of Callaway, nominated Mr. McGuire; Mr. Lenox,
of Miller, nominated Mr. Litsinger; Mr. Davis, of Buchanan, nominated
Mr. Welch. Mr. Ament moved to reconsider the vote on the adoption of the
resolution to proceed to the election of chaplain, pending which motion
Mr. Morris, of Barton, nominated Mr. Crow. Mr. Welch moved to lay the
motion to reconsider on the table, which was negatived by a vote of 49
to 69.
“AFTERNOON SESSION.—Mr. Ament offered the following resolution as a
substitute for the resolution of Mr. King, of St. Charles, in regard to
the election of chaplain for the House: ‘_Resolved_, That the speaker be
authorized to invite, each alternate week, the services of the
respective resident ministers of this city, in opening, daily, this
House with prayer.’”
This resolution awakened a lively discussion, which consumed much of the
time of the three succeeding days—at a cost to the tax-payers of the
State of not less than $20,000—and was finally passed under the
operation of the previous question. Several efforts wore made afterward
to reconsider, but to no effect. The Senate, after some discussion,
adopted a similar resolution.
The debate upon this resolution was very spirited, and drew out the
sentiments of the people’s representatives quite fully. Party lines were
drawn clearly between the chaplain men and the anti-chaplain men, and
this resolution was considered by both parties a compromise upon the
vexed question. But why compromise such a question? Why make it a vexed
question at all? Former Legislatures had elected chaplains and paid
them, and thus recognized Christianity, not only as an element of
national character, but as an accepted institution of the State, the
doctrines of which were confessed in the oath of office and in all
judicial tribunals, and the institutions of which conserve the highest
interests of public weal, as they appeal to the most sacred guardianship
of the State.
If the position taken by Mr. Webster, in his great speech before the
Supreme Court of the United States, in the Girard will case, is accepted
as true—and it is so accepted by all the right-thinking men of the
country—there is nothing in the New Testament more clearly established
by the Author of Christianity than the appointment of a Christian
ministry; that the ministry is a necessary part of Christianity,
divinely ordained for its propagation, and whoever rejects the regularly
authorized minister of the gospel rejects the Christianity he teaches
and represents; whatever repels the ministry repels Christianity, for it
is idle, and a mockery and an insult to common sense, to pretend that
any man has respect for the Christian religion who yet derides,
reproaches and stigmatizes all its ministers and teachers.
The action of the House of Representatives was spread upon the journal,
but the _animus_ of the members could only be gathered from the
speeches, and then only by one who was present to hear and see. The kiss
of betrayal precedes crucifixion.
It was in view of the spirit developed by this action, more than the
action itself, that three of the resident ministers of the city held a
council, and after due deliberation published the following card in the
city papers:
“A CARD.
“We, the undersigned, resident ministers of this city, believing that
the discussion just closed in both branches of the General Assembly,
on the office of chaplain, is a virtual repudiation of the claims of
Christianity by that body; and that the action had is only a
compromise measure, designed to reconcile the hostility of members
somewhat to that office; and believing that for us to comply with any
request to officiate in that capacity, under existing circumstances,
will compromise the dignity of our office and the gospel which we
preach; therefore,
“_Resolved_, That we will not sacrifice our self-respect and
ministerial dignity to the enemies of Christianity by officiating in
the office of chaplain for either branch of the General Assembly.
(Signed) “W. M. LEFTWICH,
Pastor M. E. Church, South.
“S. D. LOUGHEED,
Pastor Presbyterian Church.
“R. H. WELLER,
Rector Episcopal Church.
“JEFFERSON CITY, MO., Dec. 31, 1858.”
It is due alike to Christian integrity, ministerial fidelity and the
truth of history to state that Rev. Mr. Lougheed did subsequently
officiate as chaplain to the Senate, upon the solicitation of one or two
members of that body, and under the operation of the unrescinded action
of December 31st, 1858, after he had solemnly affirmed and formally
announced to the world, through the public prints, that to do so would
“compromise his self-respect and ministerial dignity.”
This same session of the Legislature was made famous by the failure to
repeal what was known as the “Sunday Law,” which was passed merely upon
its title, and in disguise, by the previous session, and which legalized
the opening of beer gardens, play-houses, and many other places of
drunken licentiousness on the Christian Sabbath in St. Louis. Pending
the effort to repeal this unchristian law the discussions in both Houses
and in the public press assumed an importance and a gravity which
greatly alarmed the Christian people of the State for the freedom and
safety of all religious institutions, and awakened the faithful watchmen
upon the walls to the real issues that the enemies of Christianity would
make, and to the real danger that threatened the peace and well-being of
society in the not distant future.
CHAPTER II.
Political Excitement of 1859 and
’60—Foreigners—Know-Nothingism—Foreign Element in Politics—Class
Legislation to Encourage Immigration, Develop the Resources, and
Subvert the Religious Institutions of the State—German Rationalists
and Christianity—The True Interests of a State—Modern
Spiritualism—Its Pretensions—Phenomena—Influence upon the
Credulous—Circles—Mediums—Agents—Lecturers—Free-Loveism—Thousands of
Disciples—Midnight Lamp in Thousands of Homes—Many Turned from the
Faith to Serve Tables—Most Dangerous and Powerful Form of
Infidelity—Free-Thinkers—A Novel Encounter with an “Improved
Monkey”—Napoleon’s “Moral Combinations” at Work upon the Public
Mind.
Many will remember with unfeigned regret the political excitement that
began to agitate the whole country in 1859, and which increased in
violence and intensity the nearer the Presidential election of 1860 was
approached.
In times of great popular excitement, when partisans are using their
utmost efforts to carry elections, it is less surprising than hurtful
that politicians should appeal for support to every class of citizens.
The German population of St. Louis, St. Charles, Franklin, Cole, and
some other counties and cities had increased rapidly in the past few
years, and now for the first time began to make their presence and power
felt in Missouri politics. They had fairly recovered from the effects of
Know-Nothingism, if, indeed, the existence and labors of that singular
political freak did not precipitate the foreign born citizens into a
distinct political element and foist them into political prominence.
Being courted, and flattered, and fawned upon by political
place-seekers, they were easily induced to believe that they held the
balance of power at the ballotbox in many of the largest cities of the
State, and they began to claim the right, not only to vote, but to be
represented as a distinct class in the city and State governments—to
hold office and control municipal patronage.
To secure the support of this class of citizens politicians stood ready
to enact special laws for their relief, to grant privileges and
immunities to them as a class, and to accommodate their social
peculiarities and religious castes and creeds. The statutes of the State
and the ordinances of cities show that they were the _privileged class_,
and that class legislation, which always endangers the well-being of
society, was accommodated in this instance to those peculiarities of the
foreign element which looked to the subversion of the Christian
institutions of the State, and the protection of an infidel sentiment
that dared to invade the sanctity of the Christian Sabbath, disturb the
peace of Christian worshipers, and strike down the supreme authority of
the Word of God as a code of morals and a system of law.
To encourage foreign immigration for the development of the resources of
the State, to build railroads, open coal beds, work lead mines and melt
iron mountains, special legislation may have been necessary, but a State
consists of something other than broad, fertile acres for agricultural
purposes, or coal beds, lead mines, iron mountains and railroads.
These may be fruitful sources of material wealth, and may be necessary
to support and sustain a vast population, but they can not create
intelligence, promote virtue, regulate the social system, or in any way
define and adjust the higher duties and prerogatives of citizenship.
The wisest legislation protects equally the rights of all and confers
exclusive privileges upon none, and the best government guarantees equal
rights to all its citizens.
It is natural to expect that foreigners coming to these shores and
settling in these States would accept the institutions with the
protection of the government, and not seek to supplant the institutions
of the State that offers them home and shelter; and yet it will not be
denied that the foreigners in Missouri, taking advantage of the
readiness of politicians to truckle to their passions and prejudices,
have made strong demands upon the peculiar institutions of the State,
and their demands have not been unheeded. It could not be expected that
German rationalists, who could scarcely speak English well enough to
carry on the most ordinary traffic, would understand, or care to
understand, those institutions of the State which characterized the
State as a Christian commonwealth.
Nor did legislators, politicians, editors or preachers consider the
moral forces they were starting and fostering for evil, and the subtle
agencies that would work with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in
them that perish, and whose coming was after the manner of Satan, with
all power, and signs, and lying wonders, deceiving the very elect, and
spending its force and fury upon the desecrated altars and martyred
ministers of Christianity.
Other and different agencies were at work, and had been for years, which
could not be reached or affected by State legislation, and which
contributed no little to that state of the public mind which put the
institutions and ministers of Christianity under disability—what was
commonly denominated “Spiritualism.” It existed in a multitude of forms,
had many names, and manifested itself in many strange phenomena.
Professing to hold communication with the spirit world and receive
intelligence from departed spirits, it appealed strongly to the curious,
the credulous and the superstitious.
Those who believed in the supernatural, or whose hearts of grief kept
them near the “region and shadow of death,” or whose caste of
temperament made them super-sentimental, or who, by some constitutional
or cultivated peculiarity, easily take up with every wild fancy and
foolish vagary that produces a new and novel sensation; and many others,
too, who had credit for intelligence, refinement and piety—and as for
that, some of the most gifted minds of the State—were led away by it,
and became its deceived disciples, in one form or another, without
suspecting its deceitful moral tendencies.
Lecturers came into the cities and traversed the State, circles were
formed, mediums constituted, spirits rapped and wrote, tables moved and
turned, and men, women and children forgot their meals, and stood in
superstitious awe within the enchanted circles. Thousands of people lost
their relish for the Word of God and forsook his altars of worship. Men
neglected their fields, women their homes and children their schools,
and for whole days and nights hung with bated breath upon the supposed
communications from departed spirits, made often through the most
ignorant mediums. Not only in the cities full, but throughout the vast
populations of the rural districts, all classes seemed more or less
affected by and interested in it. In thousands of homes in Missouri the
midnight lamp shone upon tables surrounded by groups and circles of
people so intent upon the unintelligible incantations and messages of
spiritualism, so-called, that sleep was banished from swollen eyes and
pillows brought no rest to aching heads. By it many were disqualified
alike for secular, domestic and religious duties.
A peculiarity of spiritualism was that night and darkness were necessary
to evoke the spirits. They would rarely communicate to mortals in the
day time, or perform any very remarkable feats, such as playing on
musical instruments, untying mediums, singing in the air, etc., except
in total darkness. Evil spirits, like evil men, “love darkness rather
than light, because their deeds are evil.”
This modern spiritualism—neither the history nor philosophy of which it
is necessary here to discuss—organized itself into bands, circles and
societies of men and women in the larger cities, had their places of
secret nocturnal meetings, rented halls for public Sabbath exercises,
had their rituals and creeds, their priests and prophets, their altars,
incantations and genuflexions, which answered to some sort of public
worship. The first female lecturers and public speakers were
spiritualists, and in the spiritualists’ church, so-called, women are
the high priests and the scriptural teachings in regard to the relation
of men and women and their duties in the church are reversed.
Indeed, to call them a church at all is a misnomer, and a shameful
reflection upon every idea, principle and function of a true church of
Jesus Christ, for by believing in a revelation direct from departed
spirits in the spirit world they reject God’s revelation.
They commissioned mediums to write, women and men indiscriminately to
preach, to heal the sick, to see through the material and reveal the
spiritual, to break up the marriage relation, to destroy parental
affection, to form new standards of private and social virtue, to
disturb and destroy all the old foundations and safeguards of society,
and reconstruct the social system upon the modern ideas of socialism and
the most offensive forms of free-loveism.
Religious liberty with them meant social licentiousness, and the social
virtues were sacrificed to the lustful passions.
These things can not all be affirmed of all spiritualists, and yet the
inevitable tendency is the same, and the extremest consequences are
legitimate. To say that thousands of people in Missouri, through the
subtle agencies of spiritualism, renounced their religion, forsook the
church, neglected to read God’s Word, turned themselves away from paths
of piety and works of righteousness to serve tables, and became
downright infidels, is not half of the whole truth. To a large extent
the minds of men became detached from the foundations of Divine truth,
and wandered, like the “unclean spirit, seeking rest and finding none.”
Systems of infidelity, and infidelity without system, sprang up in every
direction and found supporters amongst those that were least suspected,
and the church began to tremble for the “faith which was once delivered
unto the saints.” Free-thinking, so-called, took the place of solid,
religious faith, and every form of doctrine received encouragement in
the public mind. The tendency in the public mind to skepticism was never
more alarming, and the mystic vagaries of Andrew Jackson Davis stood in
defiant competition with the New Testament. Lecturers appeared in every
city and centre of population, haranguing the people upon the vain
philosophies of men and questions of science, falsely so-called, seeking
to turn away their ears from the truth unto fables, and “doting about
questions and strifes of words” that would and did disturb the
foundations of godliness. Nor could both the religions press and pulpit
countervail their influence upon the public mind. Infidel clubs and
associations were formed under different disguises, and many
mischief-makers began to believe and teach “unwholesome doctrines” and
deceive the ignorant and unwary. It was a common thing to hear of men
lecturing in the principal towns on spiritualism, a higher civilization,
phrenology, pathology, physiology, hygiene, and other kindred topics,
and selling maps, charts and cheap books. In some places they drove a
brisk trade, and set all the old women—and young ones, too—men and boys
to talking and querying over the new ideas and theories advanced by
these flippant, and often immodest lecturers.
The character of such teachings can not better be illustrated than by
relating a somewhat novel adventure which the author had in the spring
of 1859 with one of these lecturers.
While stationed in Jefferson City I was invited by the Moniteau County
Bible Society to deliver a lecture in California on the Bible cause, and
aid them in raising funds to supply the destitute of the county with the
Word of God. Arriving in California by the afternoon train I was
informed that a gentleman, a stranger, had been there lecturing for
several evenings, and would lecture again that evening, in a public
hall. My informants had not heard him, and could not tell exactly his
subject or his object. When informed that his lectures were free, and
that he was selling some kind of books, I was not long at a loss to
reckon his moral latitude and longitude, and, indeed, to “guess” whence
he came, and what he came for, and hoped that some lucky chance would
throw us together.
The meeting of the Bible Society that night was quite a success, but my
anxiety to see the lecturer seemed fated to disappointment. The next
morning, in company with a friend, I went to the hotel, near the depot,
to await the arrival of the down train. A goodly number of gentlemen sat
and stood about in the public room awaiting the train also. My friend
soon opened the way (as he knew many of them) for an appeal to them for
contributions to the Bible cause, to which they pretty generally
declined to respond. About this time a rather queer looking genius
entered the hotel from the street, hastily and boisterously relieving
himself at once of what seemed to be a meal sack half filled with books,
and several rather pert exclamations and general salutations, taking a
seat near me. I did not at first suspect his identity, but his
inveterate loquacity brought him into notice, and my eye soon measured a
small, thin-visaged, sharp-nosed, squint-eyed, thin-lipped, cadaverous,
nervous specimen of humanity, a stranger to every sense of modesty,
propriety and decency, and who believed that with himself all wisdom
would die. He soon learned that I lived in Jefferson City, and the
following conversation occurred. Turning to me, whom he had evidently
been regarding for some time with uncivil curiosity, he said:
“You live in Jefferson City?”
“Yes, sir.”
“On your way home now?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Will you be good enough to make an announcement for me to lecture in
your city next week?”
“Well, I don’t know. Our people are not good lecture-goers.”
“Why, don’t you think I can have a good house?”
“That depends upon circumstances.”
“What circumstances? My object is to do good.”
“What subject do you propose to lecture on?” I asked.
“Various subjects; but especially treating of the construction and
functions of the human body, the laws of physiology and hygiene.”
“You may possibly do some good by lecturing on such subjects,” said I,
“and as we both are trying to do good, but in different ways, possibly
if you will help me I may be able to help you.”
By this time, of course, we had the eager attention of all present.
“How can I help you?” he inquired.
“I am trying,” I replied, “to raise money to supply the destitute of
this county with the Bible, and as I have applied to all of these
gentlemen for help, perhaps you would give me something.”
“No, indeed,” said he, with emphasis, “I would rather give my money to
have all the Bibles in the county burned up.”
“You don’t believe much in the Bible, then?”
“Not a bit of it,” he replied. “It has deceived the people long enough
already. If the people would only read my books on physiology and
hygiene, and learn something of the nature and laws of their own
physical organization, and what will promote the health, growth and
action of all its parts, and let that ‘old fable’ alone, they would be
healthier, happier and better off every way.”
He said this with an air of assurance and authority which he evidently
thought and desired would settle the matter with me, at least for the
present, as he rose and walked the room nervously.
But I had seen too many men in the West to be bluffed off after that
style, and my interest in him was too intense.
“Well, my friend,” I said, after he subsided a little, “If you do not
believe the Bible, what do you believe?”
“I am a free-thinker, sir.”
“And what is a free-thinker?”
“One who thinks freely, and as he pleases, upon all subjects, without
the shackles and ‘leading strings’ of the Bible, or any other old
book—who has the independence and manliness to think for himself.”
“I have long desired to see a free-thinker,” said I, rather coolly.
“Look at me, then, and you will see one,” he replied, rather curtly.
“Will you be kind enough,” I asked, “to tell me what you think,
‘freely,’ upon some subjects of grave importance of which the Bible
treats?”
“What subjects?”
“The origin of man, for instance. If you reject revelation, how do you
account for the origin of our race?”
“Easy enough;” he replied. “In the same way that I account for the
origin of plants and animals by growth and development.”
“You believe, then, in what is called the ‘development theory?’”
“I do, most fully and freely.”
“From what is man a development?” I asked.
“From the lower animals, and immediately from the animals whose organism
is nearest like ours.”
“What animal,” I asked, “do you think furnishes the resemblance so
striking that leads you to believe that man is a development from it,
and an improvement on it?”
With evident embarrassment, he answered, “I suppose the ape or the
monkey.”
“Then,” said I, “I think I can have you a fine audience in Jefferson
City next week, if I can make the announcement according to your
theory.”
“How is that?” he inquired.
“I will tell the people that an improved monkey will lecture to them.”
The excitement of the man was scarcely less than the evident pleasure of
the listeners.
“And, moreover,” I continued, “I will readily excuse you for not giving
me anything for the Bible cause, and can no longer be surprised that you
desire to see all the Bibles destroyed.”
“Why?” he asked, turning upon me sharply.
“Because,” said I, “I can not expect a monkey, however developed and
improved, to appreciate a revelation from God.”
He became furious, sprang to his feet, and with gesticulations as rapid
and violent as the volubility of his tongue, and as threatening as the
intensity of the mingled chagrin and anger that burned in his
countenance, delivered himself somewhat as follows:
“You are a Methodist preacher, going about trying to make the people
believe that they can get religion—that God can convert them. It is all
a deception—a delusion. God can do no such thing. I was deceived once,
too, and was fool enough to join the Methodist church and believe that
God could convert me. I went to the mourners’ bench, where you try to
get people to go; they sang, and prayed and shouted over me, and beat me
on the back, and tried to make me believe that I was converted. But it
was no such thing. God could not convert _me_. How could he get into me?
Where would he come in at? At the mouth? or nose? or ears? All the men
in the world could not make me believe that I could be converted. God
’lmighty could not convert _me_.”
He closed, pretty well exhausted, and yet with his feelings somewhat in
the ascendant, and with marked interest awaited my reply.
“I am not at all astonished at the fact,” said I, “that God could not
convert you.”
“Why? Do you not teach the people that God can convert and save men?”
“Certainly I do. But, then, I read in the Scriptures no provision
whatever for the conversion and salvation of monkeys, however improved.”
Without another word he wheeled and “went away in a rage,” snatching up
his sack of books in his flight, and muttering something that could not
be heard above the roar of laughter that followed him. I never saw him
afterward. From that moment he went his way, and I mine. Our paths never
crossed each other, or at least we never met. Our encounter lasted about
half an hour, and when he disappeared so unceremoniously nearly every
gentleman present walked up and gave me a dollar for the Bible cause, as
the best way of testifying their appreciation of the victory.
This aptly illustrates the pernicious character of the teachings then
rife through the State, and this “improved monkey” was a fair specimen
of the class of itinerant lecturers that were then talking to thousands
upon thousands of the people every week.
The rejection of the office of chaplain by the State Legislature, and
the passage of the “Sunday law,” and other class legislation affecting
the religious institutions of the State, meant more than the temporary
freak of a few irreligious politicians. It was the expression of a
wide-spread and growing sentiment amongst the people, and the first bold
demand of a fast-maturing infidelity.
The great Napoleon said that “there are certain moral combinations
always necessary to produce revolution; and if they do not exist it is
impossible to revolutionize a government or interrupt its peaceful
administration. Without them a few ambitious leaders, inspired by
selfish motives, may struggle in vain for political power.”
If civil revolutions attest the wisdom of this remark of the great
military chieftain, much more the moral and religious phases which
revolutions assume under given conditions.
The foreign element, with its rationalism, anti-Sabbatarianism and
abused Romanism; the irreligious element, with its Spiritualism,
Universalism, Free-lovism and open and disguised infidelity—these
furnish to the reflecting “moral combinations” sufficient to produce, or
at least to control and direct, the great moral agencies that were so
efficient during the civil revolution in burning churches, breaking up
religious associations, hunting down and dragging ministers of the
gospel “to prison and to death,” and adding to the horrors of civil war,
this, that the comforting ministrations of Christianity are proscribed,
or altogether prohibited, under the penalty of imprisonment or death, or
both imprisonment and death, to the man of God whose enlightened
conscience teaches him to fear God rather than man.
CHAPTER III.
Characteristics of the Population—All Nationalities and all Social
Peculiarities Fused into a Common Mass—Missourian—First Settlers of
the State—Where From, and their Type of Domestic and Social Life—The
“Kansas-Nebraska Bill”—Its Effect upon the Population of
Missouri—“Emigration Aid Societies”—Extremes Brought Together in
Missouri—Reflex Tides of Population—Rapid Increase—Unique Social
Formation—Social Peculiarities Fuse—Religious Characteristics Become
more Distinct—Religious Thought and Feeling, Doctrines and Dogmas,
Sharply Defined and Fearfully Distinct in Missouri—Sects and their
Peculiarities—Sectarian Strife Uncompromising—Why—Religious
Controversy—Published Debates—Their Effect—Sectarian Bigotry and
Intolerance—Differences, Essential and Non-essential—History
Repeating Itself—Persecution the Same in Every Age—Early Martyrs and
the Missouri Martyrs—“The Altar, the Wood and the Lamb for a Burnt
Offering.”
The population of Missouri differs in some respects from that of any
other State. There is a greater variety of nationalities blended, of
blood mingled, and of national, political, social, domestic and
religious characteristics crossed and intermixed than can be found in
any other State.
Other States may have more nationalities represented in their
population, and the political, social and ecclesiastical characteristics
may be more sharply defined; but that fact only confirms the position
taken—that in Missouri these characteristics lose their identity, to a
greater or less extent, and become fused in the common mass. Nearly all
the nationalities of Europe, and many of Asia, are represented in
Missouri, but only a few years’ residence is sufficient to either
destroy or modify their national characteristics.
The social and domestic peculiarities of every State in the Union, with
many foreign states, are exotics here; while many of them die out
altogether and are abandoned, others compromise and intermingle, until
the type of social and domestic life is somewhat of a hybrid, and is
peculiarly Missourian.
The bulk of the old population of the State was from Kentucky, Virginia,
Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee and Ohio, with a respectable number
from Indiana, Illinois and New York. Up to 1855 and ’56 the types of
social life existing in these several States were scarcely disturbed in
Missouri. After the passage by Congress of the somewhat notorious
“Kansas-Nebraska bill,” in 1854, and the organization of these
Territories, the population of Missouri increased rapidly and became of
a more general character.
“Emigration aid societies” in New England and the Eastern States threw
into these newly-formed Territories thousands of families who
represented in their social and religious lives the extreme of New
England ideas and New England faith.
Emigration from the Southern Atlantic and Gulf States, whether by aid
societies or otherwise, rushed to these Territories, bringing the
extremest types of Southern life. The middle and Mississippi Valley
States furnished their share, until the swelling population of Kansas
presented a scene of contrasts and conflicts turbulent and exciting
beyond anything before known in the history of territorial settlement.
It is true that it was the struggle of political parties for dominion,
each seeking to incorporate its peculiar class of ideas and cast of
policy into the corporate structure of the future State by controlling
the Territorial election; yet the effect upon the social and domestic
peculiarities of Missouri, as well as the peculiar institutions of the
State, was marked and decided.
Missouri caught the reflex tide of population, and her fertile soil,
mineral wealth and commercial advantages not only retained this reflex
population, but supplied an effective appeal to thousands more from all
parts of the country—North, East and South—until for a few years her
population increased at the rate of nearly one hundred thousand per
annum. And yet, in her extended area of territory, this immense influx
was scarcely perceptible. Along her rivers and railroad lines her
population thickened, and her great commercial centres felt the life and
power of multiplied agencies and resources.
Either the rapid growth of cities, the stir and excitement of trade, the
strife for fortune and fame, the magical charm of Western life, or
something else peculiar to the climate, the country or the people, all
of these distinct and opposing types of social life, began soon to lose
their “type force” and blend into a conglomerate social mass, with fewer
Northern, Eastern and Southern peculiarities than Western—a rather
unique social formation, which the modern sociologists have not yet
classified.
Few Southern men and Southern families long retained their purely
Southern style of life, and few Eastern or Northern men and families
long retained the social and domestic habits that were peculiar to the
latitude from which they hailed. It is easy to see how the social life
that derives its characteristics from such different and distant systems
would be peculiar in itself and to itself.
People lose their social characteristics much sooner and more easily
than they do their religious peculiarities. The former are based on
education, taste, association and habit, the latter on principles vital
and divine. As every national and social characteristic known to
American society has become mixed and blended in Missouri, so every
shade of religious thought and feeling, every form of religious doctrine
and dogma, together with every type of ecclesiasticism known to modern
American civilization, exists in the hearts and homes of Missouri—at
least to some extent. Nearly every shade of religious belief has a
representative in Missouri, and stands out more or less distinct upon
the moral phases of society.
These do not blend. No moral alchemist can fuse the distinct religious
peculiarities of a people. Men may relinquish their social and domestic
characteristics because they are matters of taste or convenience; but to
give up their distinctive religious characteristics is considered a
sacrifice of principle and conscience.
Men do not struggle long to maintain and propagate that which was
peculiar to their former social life, but will contend forever for that
which is peculiarly distinctive in their religious belief. That which
men hold lightly and esteem of little value to them elsewhere assumes an
importance and a value in the West, and will not be surrendered tamely.
Religious ideas which in Massachusetts and South Carolina existed in the
mind crudely or loosely; exerting no influence upon the life, would in
Missouri take a permanent shape, seek affinities, and ultimately grow
into churches struggling for a place in the great moral agencies of the
State. Men whose religious habits were scarcely formed, and whose lives
had not assumed any positive ecclesiastical type in the older States, on
coming to Missouri became positive, decided, unequivocal, sectarian
partisans, and often uncharitable bigots. Men who would contend fairly
for their distinctive tenets elsewhere contend fiercely here, and very
few live long in this State without espousing, to some extent, the cause
of some religious sect.
There are causes for this state of things. Society is, to a great
extent, in a formative state. In very few places, if any, has society
settled down into grooves, and channels, and circles, and social and
church castes, as in the older States; and then society exists in a
great variety of unassimilated elements, Northern, Southern, Eastern,
Western; English, French, German, Scotch, Irish, with a hundred
different shades of social and domestic life, which are too distinct to
become homogeneous, and which seek in church creeds and church
associations their social as, well as religious affinities.
The result is that, perhaps, no other State can furnish as great a
variety of distinct sects, or denominations of Christians, with the
religious population so liberally distributed amongst them. There may be
more sects in States that have a much larger population, but in
proportion to the population, no State has a greater variety of churches
which accommodate such a diversity of belief, each of which has so large
a hold upon the public mind.
It would, indeed, be anomalous if all of these sects could exist
together in peace. Missouri can not claim such exceptional distinction.
In, perhaps, no State or country has denominational contention and
strife been more general and uncompromising.
Not willing to accept the standards of doctrine published and recognized
by each church, nor to abide by the verdict of learned debates upon all
questions of difference, ministers and members, with astonishing freedom
and with defiant presumption, enter the arena of controversy, public and
private, with a zeal and a spirit equally hurtful to Christian charity
and the general cause of true piety. Nothing can awaken a community more
generally and excite the people more intensely than a public debate,
formally arranged and pitched by two noted champions. The notoriety
gained by the _antagonistæ_ outlasts, if it does not outreach, the
settlement of disputed questions. And, then, each man or woman, however
old or young, must become an adept in religious controversy, and convert
every road side, street corner, shop, office, counting room, kitchen and
parlor into a place for petty, spiteful theological disputation. Instead
of edifying one another in love, and deepening the work of grace in the
heart by appropriate religious conversations, they embitter the
sectarian spirit, destroy Christian charity, alienate personal
friendship, a and “dote about questions and strifes of words, whereof
cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputing of
men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth.”
With many, sectarian jealousy is equaled only by sectarian bigotry, and
the great work of soul-saving is made only tributary to denominational
success. Indeed, many go so far as to deny the virtue of saving grace to
all but themselves, and vainly imagine that the saving virtues of the
atonement are transmitted to the hearts of men only through their church
ministrations and distinctive ordinances.
Nothing excites sectarian jealousy more thoroughly than great religious
awakenings and revivals in any given church. It is natural that the
minister of the gospel who, as a human instrument, is very successful in
winning souls to Christ should be “highly esteemed in love for his
work’s sake,” and yet nothing exposes him more to the unjust criticisms
and unchristian detractions of his less successful brethren in the
ministry. Let a revivalist be successful in stirring the religious life
of a whole community and in producing a general religious awakening, and
the ministers and members of other churches, instead of joining heartily
with him in the great work and laboring together for the general good,
will watch with jealous interest the progress of the work, discuss with
uncharitable criticism its character, and seize the first opportunity to
begin a meeting Of their own, that they may make the religious awakening
of the community inure to their denominational advantage. Should the
revival occur in a small town where the whole population Christianized
could not more than adequately support one healthy church organization,
with one pastor, instead of assimilating all the religious elements, it
would act like a moral solvent, disparting and isolating each shade of
religious belief and thought. “Where two or three are gathered together”
of the same belief they will organize, send for a pastor and set up for
themselves. Thus the little community becomes divided into little
sectarian factions, each to drag out a half-conscious, miserable,
contentious existence, instead of uniting in one large, healthy,
self-sustaining congregation, with all the benefits and advantages of a
first-class minister well supported, a good church and Sabbath school,
with all the regular ministrations of the gospel.
These things can not be affirmed of all ministers of the gospel, nor of
all churches and communities in Missouri; but the facts are too common,
too prominent and deplorable to be overlooked in any legitimate search
for the animus of sectarianism in Missouri.
Where the differences between denominations are essential they are
agreed upon their differences and live in peace, each pursuing a
distinct line of operations in its own way unmolested, and their lines
rarely, if ever, cross each other. On the other hand, where the
difference is non-essential, they will not agree to disagree, and
wrangling and contention, disputings and debates, mark the conflict.
Where the difference lies in fundamental doctrines, debates are rare and
formal. If the difference lies in ecclesiastical polity, or in forms of
worship, or in sacraments or modes of ordinances, the discussions are
interminable and the petty disputations endless. The nearer
denominations approach each other in all that is essential in doctrine,
worship and works of righteousness, the deeper seated and more bitter
the jealousy and strife between them. Non-fraternization and
non-intercourse are maintained with much punctiliousness between those
Churches which are one in origin, one in doctrine, and one in all of
their essential characteristics, but which have separated from each
other upon questions of ecclesiastical polity, or for some other like
cause.
Judging from the character of the strife between them, their methods of
ecclesiastical warfare, and the downright animosity that enters into and
characterizes these strifes, one would readily suppose that, according
to their own interpretation, their peculiar commission is to overcome,
root out, exterminate and supplant the church that bears the same “image
and superscription.” Particularly is this true when the essential
grounds of difference are political.
For confirmation of this position it is only necessary to refer to the
two Methodist, the two Presbyterian, and recently the two Baptist
Churches of this State, which are divided, not upon doctrines or
ordinances, but upon questions of ecclesiastical polity—whether
ecclesiastical bodies, as such, have the right to legislate upon or
intermeddle with questions that belong to the State, and must be
controlled by the State.
This allusion is sufficient for the present purpose. It only remains to
be noted here how readily ecclesiastical partisans take advantage of
everything in political and civil strife that will confer upon them
power and position. How readily they identify themselves with dominant
parties, if by so doing they can damage their ecclesiastical opponents
and gain position and power for themselves! How heartily they endorse
the policy of the party in power, if by it their own disability is
exchanged for temporary enfranchisement, and their own minority is
invested with temporary power to oppress and persecute the hated
majority!
History repeats itself; and the genius of religious persecution and
proscription has discovered very few new expedients and adopted very few
new instruments since the days of the Master. The manger of Bethlehem
cradled the Incarnate Innocence, and Pilate’s judgment hall gave birth
to the diabolical genius of persecution, which was equal to the task, in
that it did there and then invent and employ the only expedient that
could at once be successful in the crucifixion of Incarnate Innocence,
and in transmitting itself to every country and age with undiminished
efficiency to pursue to prison and to death the followers of its first
and greatest Victim as long as time should last. The cry of disloyalty
and treason made by ecclesiastics is now, as it always has been, the
strongest appeal to the guardians and defenders of the State; and as
that was successful before Pilate, and forced him to sign the death
warrant of the Master, so it has been successful in every tribunal of
earthly power, and procured the death warrant of all the martyrs in
every country and age, and under every form of government and every
phase of ecclesiasticism from that day to this. “We found this fellow
perverting the nation, forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that
he himself is Christ—a king.” “If thou let this man go thou art not
Cæsar’s friend; whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar.”
Such declarations made by the High Priests of the Church could, and did,
influence the Roman Procurator against the convictions of his better
judgment, against reason, against all the facts, again right and against
innocence. What were all these to the life blood of their victim?
In some form or other these charges have been repeated in every
systematic persecution of ministers of the gospel and martyrs for the
truth, from Stephen, Antipas, Polycarp and Barnabas to the Bartholomew
Massacre in Paris, and from the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and
the Papal Inquisition to the last great tragedy in the drama, occurring
during and since the late civil war in America, in free Missouri and
under the ægis of institutions that boast of religious liberty, and the
sanction of men who profess to represent the advanced Christian
civilization of the age.
But, then, “the disciple is not above his Master, nor the servant above
his Lord.” “Remember the word that I said unto you, The disciple is not
above his Lord. If they have persecuted me they will persecute you.”
They beheaded John, crucified Christ, stoned Stephen, murdered Paul,
“and others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover,
of bonds and imprisonment; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder,
were slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheep-skins and
goat-skins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented; of whom the world was
not worthy.”
Every age and country have reproduced in some form the altar and the
victim, the persecutor and the persecuted, the Caiaphas and the Christ,
without material alteration in the charge or the trial. Missouri has
provided the altar, the wood, the fire and the sacrifice for the
offering demanded by this age and country in the interest of the Church.
Woods, Sexton, Glanville, Wollard, Robinson, Wood, Headlee and others
supplied the sacrifice.
While this chapter prepares the way, in an important sense, for the
better understanding of the subject in hand, it will also embody a
standing declaration and testimony against the peculiar spirit and
character of sectarian strife in Missouri.
CHAPTER IV.
Division of the Church in 1844—Slavery only the Occasion—Action of the
General Conference in 1836—Slavery in the Church in 1796 and
in 1836—No Change of its Moral Aspects in 1844—Facts
Perverted—Constitutional Powers of the Church—Bishop Andrew, a
Scapegoat—Protest of the Southern Conferences—Resolution and Plan of
Separation—Dr. Elliott and Schism—The Vote—The Question in the
South—Louisville Convention in 1845—Division—The Bishops of the M.
E. Church Accept the Division the following July—Failure to Change
the Sixth Restrictive Rule—General Conference of 1848
Pronounce the Whole Proceedings Null and Void—Dr. Lovick
Pierce Rejected—Fraternization Denied—Responsibility of
Non-Fraternization—Northern Church Refuse to Make any Division of
Property—Appeal to the Civil Courts—Decision of the United States
Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York—Justice
McLean—United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of
Ohio—Judge Leavitt’s Decision—Supreme Court of the United
States—Points Decided—The Decision of the Supreme Court in Full.
It is due to the uninformed that a true statement be made here of the
causes, conditions, plan and immediate results of the great division, in
1844, of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. This is
made the more necessary by the misrepresentation of the facts made by
the press and pulpit of the Northern wing of the Church, and the
political and other uses a perversion of the facts was made to subserve
in Missouri.
1. Slavery was not, in any proper sense, the _cause_ of division, but
was made, incidentally, the _occasion_ only. American slavery had
existed in the Church for sixty years in the same form, and under the
same civil and religious sanctions that authorized and covered it in
1844. If it was the “sum of all evils” in 1844, it was the same in 1796;
and the moral character of the institution was not changed in 1836, when
the General Conference in Cincinnati, by a vote of 120 to 14, adopted
the following _preamble_ and resolutions:
“WHEREAS, Great excitement has prevailed in this country on the subject
of modern abolitionism, which is reported to have been increased in this
city recently by the unjustifiable conduct of two members of the General
Conference, in lecturing upon and in favor of that agitating subject;
and, whereas, such a course on the part of any of its members is
calculated to bring upon this body the suspicions and distrust of the
community, and to misrepresent its sentiments in regard to the points at
issue; and, whereas, in this aspect of the case, a duo regard for its
own character, as well as a just concern for the interests of the Church
confided to its care, demand a full, decided and unequivocal expression
of the ideas of the General Conference in the premises; therefore,
“_Resolved_, By the delegates of the Annual Conferences in General
Conference assembled, that they disapprove, in the most unqualified
sense, the conduct of two members of the General Conference, who are
reported to have lectured in this city recently upon and in favor of
modern abolitionism.
“_Resolved_, That they are decidedly opposed to modern abolitionism, and
wholly disdain any right, wish or intention to interfere in the civil
and political relation between master and slave as it exists in the
slaveholding States of this Union.”—_Bangs’ History of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, vol. 4, pp. 245, 246._
This is rather strong language, but not more so than the pastoral
address issued by the same General Conference. In that address the
following language is used: “It can not be unknown to you that the
question of slavery in these United States, by the constitutional
compact which binds us together as a nation, is left to be regulated by
the several State legislatures themselves, and thereby is put beyond the
control of the general government _as well as that of all ecclesiastical
bodies_, it being manifest that in the slaveholding States themselves
the entire responsibility of its existence or non-existence rests with
those State legislatures; and such is the aspect of affairs in reference
to this question that whatever else might tend to ameliorate the
condition of the slave, it is evident to us, from what we have witnessed
of abolition movements, that these are the least likely to do him good.”
Reasons are given amply sufficient to prove that abolition speeches and
publications all “tend injuriously to affect his temporal and spiritual
condition, by hedging up the way of the missionary who is sent to preach
to him Jesus and the resurrection, and thereby abridging his civil and
religious privileges.”
“These facts,” the address continues, “which are only mentioned here as
reasons for the friendly admonition which we wish to give you, constrain
us, as your pastors, who are called to watch over your souls, as they
who must give an account, to exhort you to abstain from all abolition
movements and associations, and to refrain from patronizing any of their
publications, and especially from those of that inflammatory character
which denounce in unmeasured terms those of the brethren who take the
liberty to dissent from them.” * * * * “From every view of the subject
which we have been able to take, and from the most calm and
dispassionate survey of the whole ground, we have come to the solemn
conviction that the only _safe_, _scriptural_ and _prudent_ way for us,
both as ministers and people, to take, is wholly to refrain from this
agitating subject which is now convulsing the country, and consequently
the Church, from end to end, by calling forth inflammatory speeches,
papers and pamphlets. While we cheerfully accord to such all the
sincerity they ask for their belief and motives, we can not but
disapprove of their measures as alike destructive to the peace of the
Church and the happiness of the slave.”—_Bangs’ History of the M. E.
Church, vol. 4, pp. 258, 260._
It is patent to every candid observer that the Church in 1836 did not
consider the subject of slavery as the “sum of all evils,” and therefore
to be extirpated at whatever cost to Church and State, but rather that
the danger to the peace of the Church and country was not in slavery
itself, but in the “abolition movements,” “speeches and papers” that
were “convulsing the country and Church from end to end,” and “that the
only _safe_, _scriptural_ and _prudent_ way for both ministers and
people was wholly to refrain from this agitating subject.” Slavery was,
according to this address, “_beyond the control of all ecclesiastical
bodies_,” and it would have been fortunate for the peace and welfare of
both the Church and the country had it remained beyond their control,
and had the teachings and deliverances of all ecclesiastical bodies upon
this subject remained just as this General Conference expressed it in
1836. Slavery remained unchanged; and if it was “safe, scriptural and
prudent” for the Church in ’36 to let it alone, and leave it under the
“control of the State legislatures,” where “the constitutional compact
which binds us together as a nation placed it,” why was it not “safe,
scriptural and prudent” to do the same in ’44? Did slavery, as a
domestic, moral or civil institution present any new aspects in 1844?
What civil or moral questions were applicable to slavery in 1844 that
did not equally apply in 1836 or 1796? Had slavery just been admitted
into the Church for the first time, then those who contend that it was
the cause of division would have some show of reason. If slavery was the
“sum of all villainy” in 1844 it was in 1798, unless time can change the
character of “villainy,” for it _did not_ change the character of
slavery. If a slaveholder was “a thief, a robber, a murderer and a
sinner above all others” in 1844, he was the same in 1836. Nathan Bangs,
George Peck, Charles Elliott, Orange Scott, and many others were members
of the General Conference of 1836, but they did not discover such mighty
man-defrauding, God-defying wrongs in slavery and slaveholders then.
Their optics were different when, in 1844, the effort to make the
institution of slavery a proper subject for ecclesiastical legislation,
by deposing Bishop James O. Andrew from the Episcopal office because his
wife had inherited slaves, revealed the dangerous advances the Church
had made toward the control of civil questions.
In this case “certain constructions of the constitutional powers and
prerogatives of the General Conference were assumed and acted on, which
were oppressive and destructive of the rights of the numerical minority
represented in that highest judicatory of the Church.” It was upon the
“construction of the constitutional powers of the church” that they
differed, and in the discussions and decisions that followed “certain
principles were developed in relation to the political aspects of
slavery, involving the right of ecclesiastical bodies to handle and
determine matters lying wholly outside of their proper jurisdiction.”
No candid man who will study the philosophy of that memorable Conference
in the light of the plain facts can believe that slavery was more than
the occasion for the separation.
When men willfully pervert the facts of history, or misrepresent the
connection and bearing of these facts, they must have a motive, and
candid men are justified in suspecting an end that can not be reached by
straightforward, honorable means.
Northern Methodist preachers had become fanatical on the subject of the
abolition of slavery—had recently discovered great moral wrong in the
“peculiar institution,” and commenced a war upon everything that favored
the existing relations of master and slave. All at once it was
discovered that all the resolutions and pastoral address of 1836 were in
sympathy with the “sum of all villainies,” and for that reason should be
disregarded. It was discovered that ministers of the gospel were
slaveholders—which had been the case from the beginning—and the most
noted instance then existing was James O. Andrew, a man of unblemished
character, unswerving integrity and singular purity of heart and life.
Why not take him for a scapegoat? They needed one, for many of them had
been connected with the same institution in one way or another. But how
could they reach his case? Did the law of the Church cover the case? Did
the constitution of the Church confer upon the General Conference the
power to depose a Bishop because his wife had inherited a slave, and the
laws of the State would not admit of emancipation? Could not a majority
of the General Conference so interpret and construe the law that the
case could be reached, and the “abolition movement” that had been
unequivocally condemned eight years before be just as unequivocally
indorsed now and greatly advanced by the great Methodist Church in the
United States? And what if this assumption of constitutional power
should be rejected? Aye, there was the rub. _This was the cause._ Admit
the authority of the General Conference to depose a man from office for
incidental or even positive complicity with slavery, and with it the
right is established to depose a man from the ministry for complicity
with democracy, republicanism, or any thing else purely political. The
same authority extends to the ballotbox and all the distinctive
privileges of citizenship.
There were other questions incidentally brought out at the Conference of
1844 which tested the _animus_ of the delegates from the North, and
disclosed the construction placed by their leaders upon the
constitutional prerogatives of the college of Bishops.
Any one at all acquainted with ecclesiastical government can readily see
how these questions could divide the Church whether slavery had an
existence or not. The same questions have produced division in
ecclesiastical bodies since slavery was abolished.
It was not the three cents a pound upon tea that caused the American
revolution of 1776, but the right to tax tea to that amount involved the
right to make every man in the British colonies a slave; and the right
to depose Bishop Andrew implied the right to depose every man from the
ministry who differed from the numerical majority upon any political
question whatever.
To all sober, unbiased, right-thinking, candid men this position will be
undeniable—unanswerable. To others it will be like “casting pearls
before swine.”
2. The _plan_ of division provided a remedy for the _cause_ of division.
The one stands in the light of the other. When the action in the case of
Bishop Andrew was taken in the General Conference of 1844 the delegates
from thirteen Annual Conferences, making fifty-one in all, drew up a
declaration in which they set forth the fact that in the slaveholding
States the objects and purposes of the ministry would be defeated by it.
Upon this protest the General Conference raised a committee of nine, six
from the Northern Conferences and three from the Southern Conferences,
to whom the declaration was referred. After deliberation they submitted
what is known in history and in law as the “Plan of Separation.”
It begins thus:
“WHEREAS, A declaration has been presented to this Conference, with the
signatures of fifty-one delegates of the body from thirteen Annual
Conferences in the slaveholding States, representing that, for various
reasons enumerated, the objects and purposes of the Christian ministry
and church organizations can not be successfully accomplished by them
under the jurisdiction of the General Conference as now constituted;
and,
“WHEREAS, In the event of a separation, a contingency to which the
declaration asks attention as not improbable, we esteem it the duty of
this General Conference to meet the contingency with Christian kindness
and the strictest equity; therefore,
“_Resolved 1_, Provided that should the Annual Conferences in the
slaveholding States find it necessary to unite in a distinct
ecclesiastical connection, all the societies, stations and Conferences
bordering on the line of division, adhering by vote of a majority of the
members of the society, station or Conference to either the Church in
the South or the M. E. Church, shall remain under the unmolested
pastoral care of the church to which they do adhere.”
The rule was not to apply to interior charges, which shall, in all
cases, be left to the care of that church within whose territory they
are situated.
It should be observed that the Plan of Separation was thus agreed upon
by the General Conference: “Should the Annual Conferences in the
slaveholding States find it necessary to unite in a distinct
ecclesiastical connection.” They were to be the sole judges of the
_necessity_ of such “distinct ecclesiastical connection.” The “plan”
also provided for “ministers of every grade and office” adhering either
North or South, “without blame,” and for a change of the sixth
restrictive rule by a constitutional vote of all the Annual Conferences,
so that in the event of separation an equitable _pro rata_ division of
the Book Concerns at New York and Cincinnati, and the Chartered Fund at
Philadelphia, could be made. It provided, also, for the division of the
property by a joint commission, in which N. Bangs, S. Peck and J. B.
Finly were to represent the Church North; and the ninth resolution was
as follows:
“_Resolved 9_, That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, conference funds,
cemeteries, and of every kind within the limits of the Southern
organization, shall be forever free from any claim set up on the part of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution can be of
force in the premises.”
It is pertinent to the case to state here that on the day the “committee
of nine” was raised, and before it was formed or announced, the
following resolution was passed, without debate:
“_Resolved_, That the committee appointed to take into consideration the
communication of the delegates from the Southern Conferences be
instructed—provided they can not, in their judgment, devise a plan for
the amicable adjustment of the difficulties now existing in the Church
on the subject of slavery—to devise, if possible, a constitutional plan
for a mutual and friendly division of the Church.”
The adoption of this resolution, without debate, embodied and announced
the decision of the General Conference upon the constitutional powers of
the body to divide the Church.
An effort was made to strike the word “constitutional” from the
resolution, but it failed, and the resolution as passed forms a part of
the history of the division, bearing directly upon the constitutional
prerogatives of the General Conference.
Dr. Charles Elliott, who subsequently made himself notorious by
denouncing the Church, South, as a secession, and by making war upon the
“Plan of Separation” and all that it accomplished, was the first man in
the General Conference to move the adoption of the report of the
committee of nine, and in a long speech he urged, with many arguments,
the practicability, the propriety, the necessity and the expediency of a
division of the Church, avowing distinctly that “were the present
difficulty out of the way there would be good reason for passing the
resolutions contained in the report. The body was too large to do
business advantageously. The measure contemplated was _not schism_, but
separation for their mutual convenience and prosperity.
After much debate and a full and free discussion of every possible point
that could be raised by that able body of men, amongst whom were many of
the best constitutional lawyers of the Church, the report was adopted;
the vote on the several resolutions varying from 135 to 153 in the
affirmative, and from 22 to 12 in the negative. These were certainly
very large majorities, and show plainly the _animus_ of the General
Conference of 1844.
With implicit confidence in the sincerity and good faith of this action,
the Southern Conferences proceeded to ascertain whether there existed a
necessity in the Southern States for the separation thus provided for.
The Southern Conferences were to be the _sole judges_ of the necessity
for such action as would make this provisional separation a real one;
and that in their judgment such necessity did exist, the history is in
proof. However greatly the opinions and purposes of men may change, the
facts of history that have gone to official record can not change. Upon
such facts intelligent judgment alone can rest, and to such facts an
honest public will always make a final appeal.
“The Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States” _did_ “find it
necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection,” and for
that purpose met in convention, in Louisville, Ky., in 1845, and reduced
the possible contingency to fact. In the organization of a “distinct
ecclesiastical connection” the Louisville convention adhered strictly to
the plan adopted by the General Conference of 1844. The division of the
church into two distinct co-ordinate branches, which was considered a
contingency, and, as such, provided for in 1844, was, by the action of
the “Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States” represented in the
convention at Louisville, made an accomplished fact in 1845. After this
convention erected the “Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States”
into a “distinct ecclesiastical connection” the Bishops of the M. E.
Church (North) met in New York, July, 1845, and passed, among others,
the following resolution:
“_Resolved_, That the plan adopted in regard to a distinct
ecclesiastical connection, should such a course be found necessary by
the Annual Conferences of the slaveholding States, is regarded by us as
of binding obligation in the premises, so far as our administration is
concerned.”
They also gave instructions respecting the voting of “those societies
bordering on the line of division, to decide for themselves whether they
would adhere to the Church North or South.” And they further declared
that they did not feel justified in presiding over the Conferences
South, and struck them from their plan of Episcopal visitation. Thus the
Bishops of the Church, North, quietly and gracefully resigned their
jurisdiction over the Southern Conferences, because they considered the
“Plan of Separation” adopted in 1844 of “binding obligation.”
The division of the Church was recognized by the Bishops of the North as
an accomplished fact, and the “Plan of Separation” as of “binding
obligation.” And it may fairly be assumed that, had there been no
property interests to be divided according to that plan, _pro rata_,
there would have been “a mutual and friendly division of the Church.”
But after the separation had been accomplished and recognized as
legitimate and of “binding obligation,” the Northern wing of the Church
discovered that the required vote of the Annual Conferences to change
the sixth restrictive rule was not obtained, and the pretext was
furnished them to refuse a _pro rata_ or any other division of the
property that was held by the Northern Church, which consisted of a Book
Concern in New York, what was known as a Chartered Fund in Philadelphia,
and a Book Concern in Cincinnati.
To ignore and set aside the claims of the Church, South, to the common
property it was necessary to pronounce the General Conference of 1844
incompetent to divide the Church, and to declare the “Plan of Separation
null and void,” so that “there should exist no obligations to observe
its provisions.” This was done by the Northern General Conference of
1848, after the separation had been acknowledged by their Bishops as an
accomplished fact, and the “Plan of Separation” as of “binding
obligation.”
Dr. Lovick Pierce, father of Bishop Pierce, and the noblest Roman of
all, was duly accredited to this General Conference of 1848 as the
fraternal messenger of the Church, South, to express to that body the
Christian regards and fraternal salutations of his Church. Upon the
reception of his credentials the General Conference “_Resolved_, That as
there are serious questions and difficulties existing between the two
bodies it is not proper at present to enter into fraternal relations
with the M. E. Church, South.”
Fraternal intercourse was declined by official action. The door was
shut, and the fraternal messenger of the Church, South, stood without,
feeling most keenly the unchristian rejection. That he felt the
dishonor, the humiliation, the insult thus offered to his Church most
sensibly the closing words of his communication to that body, upon being
notified of his rejection, is in evidence: “You will now regard this
communication as _final_ on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South. She can never renew the offer of fraternal relations between the
two great bodies of Wesleyan Methodism in the United States. But the
proposition can be renewed at any time, either now or hereafter, by the
Methodist Episcopal Church; and if ever made, upon the basis of the Plan
of Separation as adopted by the General Conference of 1844, the Church,
South, will cordially entertain the proposition.”
His language to the General Conference of the Church, South, in
submitting his report to that body, was worthy of the great cause he was
delegated to serve, worthy of his Church, and worthy of himself. One
single sentence of that report illustrates the whole, and reflects the
highest honor on his head and heart: “Thus ended the well-intended
commission from your body. Upon this noble effort I verily believe the
smile of Divine approbation will rest when the heavenly bodies
themselves have ceased to shine. We did affectionately endeavor to make
and preserve peace, but our offer was rejected as of no deserving.”
He returned home and, with his entire Church, had to accept the
situation thus decreed by the M. E. Church, North. And with the
responsibility of non-fraternization rests the shame and disgrace of the
fact, in the estimation of the enlightened Christian world, as well as
all the damaging results.
But the Church, North, knowing that the Church, South, could not be
divested of her legal rights to the property otherwise, proceeded to set
aside the Plan of Separation, to pronounce the Church, South, a schism,
and to decline all fraternal intercourse. Thus cut off as illegitimate,
as schismatics and as secessionists, by an action wholly _ex parte_, all
claim upon the common Church property was denied, and all the authority
of commissions to settle with the Church, South, was revoked.
An appeal to the civil courts was thus made necessary, and the strong
arm of the civil law was evoked to force the unwilling conscience of the
Northern Church, and to become “a judge and a divider over us.”
It is unnecessary to give in detail the history of these civil suits.
Suffice it to say, that the United States Circuit Court for the Southern
District of New York and the Supreme Court of the United States both
recognized and affirmed the authority of the General Conference to
divide the Church, pronounced that body competent to provide a plan of
separation, fix a boundary line, determine the _status_ of ministers,
adjust the rights of property, and erect two separate and distinct
ecclesiastical bodies, of co-ordinate existence and authority, out of
the M. E. Church of the United States. These highest judicial tribunals
of the country did affirm the validity of the “Plan of Separation”
adopted by the General Conference of 1844 to be of “binding obligation”
in every part and particular; and, notwithstanding the failure of the
sixth restrictive rule, the United States Circuit Court for the Southern
District of New York caused a decree to be entered, November 26th, 1851,
ordering a _pro rata_ share of the property of the New York Book
Concern, including both capital and produce, to be transferred to the
agents of the M. E. Church, South, and it was referred to the Clerk of
the Court to ascertain the amount and value of the property. When he
reported, exceptions were filed, the Court could not agree upon some
points, and the case was certified to the Supreme Court of the United
States for decision.
Judge McLean, a leading member of the M. E. Church, and at the time one
of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, induced the
Commissioners of the two parties to come together in New York. The
result of this interview was an agreement between them about dividing
the property of the New York Book Concern, which agreement was afterward
made a part of the decree of the U. S. Circuit Court, December 8th,
1852. By this decree the property of the New York Book Concern was
settled, of which the Church, South, obtained about $191,000.
It may not be out of place to insert here a part of the decision of the
United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York,
Justice Nelson and Judge Betts presiding. The former delivered the
opinion of the Court.
After analyzing the Plan of Separation, the decision of the Court goes
on to say: “Now, it will be seen from this analysis of the Plan of
Separation that the only condition or contingency upon which an absolute
division of the Church organization was made to depend was the action of
the several Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States. If these
should find it necessary to unite in favor of a distinct organization,
by the very terms of the Plan the separation was to take place according
to the boundary designated. It was left to them to judge of the
necessity, and their judgment is made final in the matter. And when the
division is made, and the Church divided into two separate bodies, it is
declared that ministers of every grade and office in the Methodist
Episcopal Church may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, or without
blame attach themselves to the Church, South. The whole Plan of
Separation confirms this view. As soon as the separation takes place, in
accordance with the first resolution, all the property in
meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, Conference funds and
cemeteries, within the limits of the Southern organization is declared
to be free from any claim on the part of the Northern Church. The
general and common property, such as notes and other obligations,
together with the property and effects belonging to the printing
establishments at Charleston, Richmond and Nashville, and the capital
and produce of the Book Concern at New York, was reserved for future
adjustment. This was necessary on account of the restrictive article
upon the power of the General Conference. * * * When the Annual
Conferences in the slaveholding States acted, and organized a Southern
Church, as they did, _the division_ of the Methodist Episcopal Church
into two organizations _became complete_. And so would the adjustment of
the common property between them, if the assent of all the Annual
Conferences had been given to the change of the restrictive article. The
failure to give that has left this part of the plan open, the only
consequence of which is to deprive the Southern division of its share of
the property dependent upon this assent, and leave it to get along as it
best may, unless a right to recover its possession legally results from
the authorized division into two separate organizations.”
The suit for a division in the Cincinnati Book Concern was brought in
the United States Circuit Court for the District of Ohio, July 12th,
1849. The evidence agreed on by the counsel for both parties was the
same used in the New York case. Justice McLean declined to sit in the
case, because he had previously expressed his opinion that the Sixth
Restrictive Rule could be constitutionally modified by the General and
Annual Conferences so as “to authorize an equitable division of the fund
with the M. E. Church, South.”
Judge Leavitt presided, and reached the decision that “the General
Conference possessed no authority, directly or indirectly, to divide the
Church.” And that, as the Annual Conferences did not change the Sixth
Restrictive Rule, the Church, South, could not recover; and dismissed
the suit. He said, however, that the power to divide the Church “rested
with the body of the traveling ministry, assembled _en masse_ in a
conventional capacity.” This was fatal to his whole decision; for since
the first delegated General Conference in 1808, the whole body of the
traveling ministry had been assembling by delegation every four years,
and, authorized to exercise all the powers of the entire body of
traveling preachers, six clearly defined restrictions on its powers only
excepted.
From the decision of Judge Leavitt the Commissioners of the M. E.
Church, South, appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. That
august tribunal was then composed of Chief Justice Taney, and Associate
Justices McLean, Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, Curtis and
Campbell. (Justice McLean did not sit in the case.)
The cause was heard in Washington City, in April, 1854, and the decision
in favor of the rights of the Church, South, was without dissent from
any of the Justices. Judge Nelson delivered the opinion of the Court,
April 25th, 1854. The main points settled by that decision are these:
(1) That the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States was
divided. (2) It was not a secession of a part from the main body. (3) By
it neither division lost its interest in the common property. (4) The
General Conference of 1844 had the power to divide the Church into two
distinct ecclesiastical bodies. (5) The six restrictive articles did not
deprive the General Conference of the authority and power to divide the
Church. (6) The proposed change of the Sixth Restrictive Rule was not a
condition of separation, but to enable the General Conference to carry
out its purpose. (7) The separation of the Church into two distinct
parts being legally accomplished, the “Plan of Separation” must be
carried out in good faith, and a division of the joint property by a
Court of Equity follows as a matter of course.
By this decision of the Supreme Court the M. E. Church, South, obtained
from the Cincinnati Book Concern, in money, bonds, Southern notes and
accounts, about 893,000.
These facts have all been gathered from official documents, and will not
be denied. If they serve to place before the public, in a succinct form,
the true history of the division of the Church, and by so doing
countervail the many misrepresentations and mischievous falsehoods that
have led to the unprovoked persecutions of the ministers of the M. E.
Church, South, in Missouri and elsewhere, the end will be reached and
the labor will not be in vain.
As the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the above
case is not accessible to every reader, it may serve the purpose of
history, while it serves the cause of truth and righteousness, to put in
convenient form, and as a befitting close to this chapter, that decision
in full—except so much of it as was necessary to carry out the decree of
the Court in detail.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
“WILLIAM A. SMITH, _et al._, _vs._ LEROY SWORMSTEDT, _et al._
“This was the appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the
District of Ohio, which dismissed the bill.
“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the
Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Ohio, and was
argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is ordered, adjudged and
decreed by this Court that the decree of said Circuit Court in this
cause be and the game is hereby reversed and annulled; and this Court
doth farther find, adjudge and decree:
“1. That under the resolution of the General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, holden at the city of New York, according to the usage
and discipline of said Church, passed on the eighth day of June, in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-four (in the
pleadings mentioned), it was, among other things, and in virtue of the
power of said General Conference, well agreed and determined by the
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, as then
existing, that in case the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States
should find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical
connection, the ministers, local and traveling, of every grade and
office in the Methodist Episcopal Church, might attach themselves to
such new ecclesiastical connection without blame.
“2. That the said Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States did find
and determine that it was right, expedient and necessary to erect the
Annual Conferences last aforesaid into a distinct ecclesiastical
connection, based upon the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church
aforesaid, comprehending the doctrines and entire moral and
ecclesiastical rules and regulations of the said discipline (except only
in so far as verbal alterations might be necessary to or for a distinct
organization), which new ecclesiastical connection was to be known by
the name and style of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and that
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was duly organized under said
resolutions of the said Annual Conferences last aforesaid, in a
convention thereof held at Louisville, in the State of Kentucky, in the
month of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty-five.
That by force of the said resolutions of June the eighth, eighteen
hundred and forty-four, and of the authority and power of the said
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as then existing,
by which the same were adopted; and by virtue of the said finding and
determination of the said Animal Conferences in the slaveholding States
therein mentioned, and by virtue of the organization of such Conferences
into a distinct ecclesiastical connection as last aforesaid, _the
religious association known as the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
United States of America, as then existing, was divided into two
associations, or distinct Methodist Episcopal Churches, as in the bill
of complaint is alleged_.
That the property denominated the Methodist Book Concern at Cincinnati,
in the pleadings mentioned, was, at the time of said division and
immediately before, a fund subject to the following use, that is to say,
that the profits arising therefrom, after retaining a sufficient capital
to carry on the business thereof, were to be regularly applied toward
the support of the deficient traveling, supernumerary, superannuated and
worn-out preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, their wives,
widows and children, according to the rules and Discipline of said
church, and that the said fund and property are held under the act of
incorporation in the said answer mentioned by the said defendants, Leroy
Swormstedt and John H. Power, as agents of said Book Concern, and in
trust for the purposes thereof.
“5. That, in virtue of the said division of said Methodist Episcopal
Church in the United States, the deficient, traveling, supernumerary,
superannuated and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows and children
comprehended in, or in connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, were, are, and continue to be, beneficiaries of the said Book
Concern to the same extent and as fully as if the said division had not
taken place, and in the same manner and degree as persons of the same
description who are comprehended in, or in connection with, the other
association, denominated, since the division, the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and that as well the principal as the profits of said Book
Concern, since said division, should of right be administered and
managed by the respective General and Annual Conferences of the said two
associations and Churches under the separate organizations thereof, and
according to the shares or proportions of the same as hereinafter
mentioned, and in conformity with the rules and Discipline of said
respective associations, so as to carry out the purposes and trusts
aforesaid.
“6. That so much of the capital and property of said Book Concern at
Cincinnati, wherever situated, and so much of the produce and profits
thereof as may not have been heretofore accounted for to said Church,
South, in the New York case hereinafter mentioned, or otherwise, shall
be paid to said Church, South, according to the rate and proportions
following, that is to say: In respect to the capital, such share or part
as corresponds with the proportion which the number of the traveling
preachers in the Annual Conferences which formed themselves into the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, bore to the number of all the
traveling preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church before the
division thereof, which numbers shall be fixed and ascertained as they
are shown by the minutes of the several Annual Conferences next
preceding the said division and new organization in the month of May, A.
D. eighteen hundred and forty-five.
“And in respect to the produce and profits, such share or part as the
number of Annual Conferences which formed themselves into the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, bore at the time of said division in May, A. D.
1845, to the whole number of Annual Conferences then being in the
Methodist Episcopal Church, excluding the Liberia Conference, so that
the division or apportionment of said produce and profits shall be had
by Conferences, and not by numbers of the traveling preachers.
“7. That said payment of capital and profits, according to the ratios of
appointment so declared, shall be made and paid to the said Smith,
Parsons and Green, as Commissioners aforesaid, or their successors, on
behalf of said Church, South, and the beneficiaries therein, or to such
other person or persons as may be thereto authorized by the General
Conference of said Church, South, the same to be subsequently managed
and administered so as to carry out the trusts and uses aforesaid,
according to the Discipline of said Church, South, and the regulations
of the General Conference thereof.”
CHAPTER V.
FROM THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH, IN 1845, TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CIVIL
WAR, IN 1861.
Provisions of the Plan of Separation—Time of Division—The Missouri a
Border Conference—Vote on Adhering North or South nearly
Unanimous—The Disaffected—Covenant Breakers—The M. E. Church in
Missouri after the Division—Her Ministers and Members—How
Regarded—Relative Strength of the Two Churches in Numbers
and Property—Sympathy—Persecution—Tenacity in Spite of
Opposition—Success the only Revenge—The Class of Northern Methodist
Preachers—Their Connection with Clandestine Efforts to Free the
Slaves—Their Condemnation and their Secret Service—Character of the
Old Missourians—Their Vindication—Northern Methodists Condemned for
being Secret Political Partisans, and not for Preaching the
Gospel—The Anti-Slavery Element in Missouri Ten Years before the
War—Lawful vs. Clandestine Means—“Underground Railroad” and other
Nefarious Schemes to Run off the Slaves of Missouri—These Things
Condemned by the Anti-Slavery Party—Public Meetings of Citizens in
the Interest of Order and Peace.
The “Plan of Separation” adopted by the General Conference of 1844, to
which attention is given in the preceding chapter, fixed the line of
separation along the line of division between the free and the
slaveholding States, for the most part, and provided as follows, to-wit:
“1. That, should the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States find
it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, the
following rule shall be observed with regard to the northern boundary of
such connection: All the societies, stations and Conferences adhering to
the Church in the South, by a vote of a majority of the members of said
societies, stations and Conferences, shall remain under the unmolested
pastoral care of the Southern Church, and the ministers of the Methodist
Episcopal Church shall in no wise attempt to organize churches or
societies within the limits of the Church, South, nor shall they attempt
to exercise any pastoral oversight therein: it being understood that the
ministry of the Church, South, reciprocally observe the same rule in
relation to societies, stations and Conferences adhering by vote of a
majority to the Methodist Episcopal Church; provided, also, that this
rule shall apply only to societies, stations and Conferences bordering
on the line of division, and not to interior charges, which shall in all
cases be left to the care of that Church within whose territory they may
be situated.”—_General Conference Journal, vol. 2, p. 135._
The Missouri Annual Conference was one of the Conferences “bordering on
the line of division,” and the question of adhering North or South was
thoroughly canvassed and decided almost unanimously in favor of the
South. Those ministers favoring the North were allowed to adhere North
“without blame,” by the “Plan of Separation.” They were seven out of one
hundred and thirty-six.
Prior to the session of the Conference in Columbia, in the fall of 1845,
when the vote was taken, the “societies and stations,” along the border
particularly, were asked to decide by a vote of the members whether they
would adhere North or South. The vote was so nearly unanimous in favor
of adhering South that not a single “society or station” in the
Conference gave a majority in favor of adhering North, and in very few
of them was there a division at all. In a few societies along the
border, such as St. Louis, Hannibal, Lagrange and some others, and a few
scattering societies in the interior, there was a small minority in
favor of adhering North. These were generally men recently from the
Northern States, or mal-contents who rejoiced in the occasion thus
afforded to seek notoriety or revenge in a contentious faction. Such
persons are found, more or less, in every community, and unfortunately
for the peace of society some sections of Missouri unwittingly offered
special inducements to that class of immigrants, and received quite a
large surplus of them from the older States. Amongst the few disaffected
of Missouri Methodists who would not go with the majority in this
division may have been some honorable exceptions, but they were few and
far between, and only prove the general rule.
The vote to adhere South was so general in the State that no one thought
of accepting the “pastoral care” of the ministers of the M. E. Church,
North, until after that Church had pronounced the “Plan of Separation
null and void,” and had proceeded to violate their plighted faith and
disregard every “binding obligation in the premises.”
The right and authority of one party to set aside and declare “null and
void” a solemn contract or covenant entered into by two parties, without
the consent of the other party, is not debatable. The failure of the
sixth restrictive rule, according to the decision of the United States
Supreme Court, did not vitiate the covenant, nor had the M. E. Church,
South, up to 1854, by act or deed, according to the same high authority,
forfeited the covenant to the other party by any failure to comply with
its provisions.
The assumption of authority, therefore, by the M. E. Church to set aside
the conditions of the covenant, to violate what their Bishops had
pronounced its “binding obligations in the premises,” to reject the
fraternal messenger and ignore the claims of the Church, South, and
proceed to “organize churches and societies within the limits of the
Church, South,” could only exhibit to the world their utter recklessness
of moral obligation and place them before the public as covenant
breakers, “truce breakers and false accusers.”
In such light were they and their friends and abettors held in Missouri,
after the Church in the whole State had decided so positively to adhere
South. Indeed, so general was this decision, that for many years after
the division the existence of the M. E. Church, North, in Missouri was
scarcely suspected by the best informed.
There were but few places in the State where their presence was
tolerated; not because of any religious or political proscription and
persecution, but because their presence in Missouri was not only
unauthorized, but in direct violation of the most solemn ecclesiastical
compact, for which an instinctive sense of right in every community was
disposed to hold the Northern Methodist preachers responsible.
All our best notions of religious toleration revolt at the idea of
proscribing the largest liberties of any church in any country or
community for any reasons. But, then, when a church deliberately
proscribes herself and fixes her own limits of territory, transferring
all her claims to property and privileges beyond her self-appointed
boundaries to another and a “distinct ecclesiastical organization,” a
decent respect for moral obligation and the covenanted rights of others
demand that every enlightened community should hold every such church to
the strictest accountability for every violation of her self-imposed
obligations. Covenant breakers forfeit their claims to all the benefits
of the covenant broken, if they do not forfeit their claims upon the
confidence and protection of the community whose rights and privileges
the broken covenant respected.
Communities whose sense of justice and moral right are outraged by
religious teachers, to whom neither civil nor criminal law will apply,
have recourse only to a public sentiment which can place the guilty
under the ban of public condemnation. The Northern Methodist preachers
who were trying to “organize societies” and “exercise pastoral care” in
Missouri, from the division of the Church in 1844 to the beginning of
the civil war in 1861, need not be reminded how terrible and general was
this ban of public condemnation. It was not a proscription which they
themselves had not authorized; nor could they claim the benefits of a
persecution for righteousness’ sake without confessing to an indictment
which truth and honesty found against them for obtaining said benefits
under false pretenses. They raised the cry of persecution, but failed to
enlist the popular sympathy due to such a cry, because the virtues and
elements of a religious persecution were all wanting. They,
nevertheless, managed to keep up a factious, feeble organization in some
places in the State, sustained by missionary money from the North, which
took advantage of every popular excitement against them to manufacture
foreign sympathy, and, at the same time, furnished a convenient refuge
for the disaffected, mal-contents, of the M. E. Church, South.
They sought, by maintaining a convenient proximity to the Southern
Church, not only to catch the Methodist immigration from the North, but,
also, to afford a convenient retreat for those who seek in prominence
what they lack in piety, and to “beguile unstable souls” with the false
plea of “Old Church” and “Old Methodism.” Thus, while serving all the
purposes of factious agitation, and furnishing in themselves an example
of covenant breaking for covetousness’ sake, which can never be
reproduced and re-enacted, they have, also, served the purposes of peace
and purity by receiving from other churches the contentious, the
dissatisfied and the disaffected. It was an easy road to a miserable
revenge, as it was often a happy riddance of a pestilent element, while
the rule of loss and gain was reversed.
The relation of the two churches during that period to the people of the
whole State will be seen in their statistics. At the time of the
division the whole Church in Missouri numbered 26,310 members, served by
113 traveling preachers. In 1850 the M. E. Church, South, had 27,012
members and 126 traveling preachers in Missouri alone. In 1850 the M. E.
Church, North, had 5,474 members and fifty-one traveling preachers in
Missouri and Arkansas together.
The relative strength of the two churches in 1860 is seen in the
following figures: The M. E. Church, South, had 48,797 members and 243
traveling preachers, and the M. E. Church, North, had 6,619 members and
sixty-nine traveling preachers.
In church property there was a much greater difference. When the Church
divided, all the property in churches, parsonages, cemeteries, colleges,
Conference funds, and of every other description, passed into the hands
of the M. E. Church, South, according to the “Plan of Separation.” Those
who voted to adhere North were not strong enough in any one place to set
up any claim to the Church property. The Church, North, was thus left
without houses of worship or any other property possessions in the
State. By common consent, as well as by the decision of the courts, the
division of the Church extinguished the right and title of the M. E.
Church to all property in the State of Missouri. The struggle for
existence, under the circumstances, was a forlorn hope, and the erection
of churches in communities where they were not in sympathy with either
the masses or the moneyed people was a slow and doubtful enterprise.
They had to rely, for the most part, upon private houses in obscure
neighborhoods for places of public worship, for it was not always that
they could even get the use of school houses for that purpose. In St.
Louis they had one Church, Ebenezer, which had to supply them with
church facilities for the whole State for many years. They built a small
church in Hannibal in 1850. In 1856 they added Simpson Chapel, in St.
Louis, to the list, and then, in 1858, they erected a small brick church
in Jefferson City, for which they had help from abroad. These were all
small churches, but amply sufficient for all their wants. They may have
had a few other small churches in different sections of the State, but
their number and resources were quite small, and their influence for
good in each community was unfortunately counteracted by the spirit of
contention and strife they created. In 1860 the whole of their Church
property in this State and in Arkansas was estimated in their statistics
at $36,400.
Under these circumstances it is not surprising if they made up in
bitter, spiteful jealousies what they lacked in the true elements of
success, and repaid the public disapprobation in a dogged tenacity that
seeks revenge in success despite all opposition.
They had no friendly feeling for the Church, South, and gladly and
freely employed every means to disaffect and disintegrate the Southern
organization, especially in obscure neighborhoods. Nor did they scruple
at the grossest misrepresentations of the facts concerning the division
of the Church.
Their preachers traversed the State and visited every family that was
suspected of being in sympathy with them; and wherever two or three
could be gathered together of kindred sympathy they were organized into
a society, regularly visited, and made a nucleus around which to gather
the disaffected and disappointed of the M. E. Church, South.
The preachers engaged in this work were not of the class and style of
men whose ministrations would reach and affect the intelligent and
cultivated portions of the people. They were, for the most part, rough,
uncultivated and illiterate, and hence their social and intellectual
affinities were found among the lower classes and the ignorant. They
were the kind of men to be doggedly pertinacious, and to know nothing
amongst men outside of one idea, one purpose, one cause. They looked
upon everything that did not favor them and their cause as wrong _per
se_, and considered their mission unfulfilled until it was righted or
removed.
They had more patience than charity. They could bide their time, but
could not tolerate opposition. They could proscribe, and even persecute,
others for opinion’s sake, but could not endure with fortitude the
reflex influence of their own bigotry.
Public opinion and jesuitical policy required them to be discreet as
ministers of the gospel in their public performances, but as partisans
they were strangely indiscreet. They were sent into Missouri by the
authorities of their Church distinctly and thoroughly indoctrinated in
the belief that the success of the Church whose credentials they bore
was in the success of the anti-slavery party; hence they were secret and
earnest partisans _out of the pulpit_. They associated with
abolitionists, and warmly espoused every measure for the abolition of
slavery. Whether right or wrong, slavery existed then by the authority
of the Constitution of the State and under the protection of her laws;
and, like all other men, slaveholders could not surrender tamely their
constitutional and legal rights to that species of property in which
they had invested their money, much less could they look with
indifference upon the presence and movements of men who were seeking by
clandestine, “under-ground” methods to render insecure their property by
means neither open nor honorable.
No class of men were more favorably circumstanced for the prosecution of
such a work than these Northern Methodist preachers, and they were
considered by the abolition party as indispensable to final success.
It was in the character of partisans, and not ministers, that they were
put under the ban of public sentiment. The fact that they were ministers
of the gospel, and that they used the privileges of their profession to
further the objects of a party that sought by unlawful and disingenuous
means the extirpation of slavery, made their presence, character and
work the more offensive to the people of the State. The common opinion
among men who cared less for the institutions of Christianity than for
the institutions of the State was that the Northern Methodist preachers
in this State were wolves in sheep’s clothing. Only by an unseemly
torture of facts could they make it appear that they were opposed and
persecuted because they were ministers of the gospel.
When ministers of the gospel become political partisans, and expect
their high calling to protect them in a sinister attempt to abolish the
institutions and laws under which the rights of property are protected,
they should not complain if honorable men detect and denounce the
hypocrisy.
The spirit of reckless insubordination that animated these fanatical
preachers has often, of late, found emphatic utterance through their
Church papers. This is its language: “We must teach people to make
better laws, or trample upon such as are made, if we expect to meet God
in peace.”
But in those days the utterance was in the signs and symbols of secret
societies, and the execution was in the by-ways, around the corners, in
“Uncle Tom’s cabin,” in occasional doses of poison and midnight arson,
with the aid of butcher-knives, axes and “under-ground railroads.” For
such work true ministers of the gospel are never held responsible; but
when it is incited and aided by those calling themselves such, the
verdict of double guilt can not be escaped.
It would be as unfair to say that all Northern Methodist preachers in
the State engaged in this nefarious business as to say that none of them
were respectable, Christian gentlemen. Suspicion rested upon all of
them, because the grounds of suspicion were too strong and the evidence
of guilt too general to make wholesale exceptions. Nor did the masses of
the people know or care to discriminate.
It is true that very few men of worth, of ability, or of standing in the
M. E. Church could be had for this work. They looked upon it as
involving much toil, sacrifice, suffering, and perhaps martyrdom, for
which they were not candidates. But men who had broken down in other
fields, and were no longer wanted in other Conferences, and men who had
despaired of distinction in the more honorable fields of competition
with their brethren, embraced the opportunity thus afforded to win
notoriety.
The men who could consent to do such work for a political party while
they wore the cloth of a holy calling were the pliant tools of the John
Browns and others who were prominent leaders in the great crusade
against the institutions of the South.
It is due to the truth of history to state that the old settlers of
Missouri and the slaveholders of that day were high-minded, honorable,
intelligent men, who would scorn to proscribe and persecute men for
opinion’s sake, or protect and harbor men who would secretly and
treacherously use the hospitality of the slaveholder to reach the slave
and poison his mind against his master, and inspire him with the hope of
freedom by the torch and the dagger.
Missourians were not hypocrites, nor would they abuse a generous
hospitality, betray either public or social confidence, or seek by
underhanded, sinister means the destruction of the rights of property
and the guarantees of domestic and social order. However they may be
characterized by ugly epithets and maligned by partisan hirelings, they
will stand vindicated on the pages of history as humane, generous,
peaceful, prosperous, intelligent, honorable and high-minded citizens,
who could neither perpetrate a mean act nor tolerate, even in so-called
ministers of the gospel, the abuse of confidence or domestic treachery.
In illustration of the abuse of hospitality to secret abolition
purposes, one instance in a thousand must suffice.
In the spring of 1856 Mr. Thomas E. Thompson, of Palmyra, Mo., was
returning home late on Saturday evening, when he found a stranger by the
road side preparing to camp in a corner of the fence, with his wife and
child. He had unharnessed his team and stretched his wagon cloth on the
fence over them for a shelter from the inclement weather.
Mr. Thompson stopped and inquired why the stranger did not go into the
city and obtain better accommodations; and when informed that he had no
money, and thought of spending not only the night but the following
Sabbath there, and that the stranger was a Northern Methodist preacher
trying to get to Kansas, he told him it would not do, invited them to
his house, and offered them a generous hospitality, which was accepted.
The child had never seen negroes, was much alarmed at the sight, and
would not remain in their presence.
During the night the preacher got to talking to one of the colored
women, tried to persuade her that she was free, and that he would assist
her to reach Illinois. She reported the facts to Mr. T.; and on Sabbath
afternoon he overheard the preacher talking with the husband of this
woman in the stable, telling him that he was not only a free man, but
that he would do right in taking Mr. T.’s horse, or anything else by
which he could gain his freedom. The negro told the preacher to go off
and let him alone, that he had a good master, a good home and everything
in plenty, and he did not want to be free. Mr. Thompson ordered the
preacher to leave, telling him that he could not protect him from
violence if the community were apprised of the facts. He let him depart
in peace.
If Northern Methodist preachers were condemned, it was not for preaching
the gospel and trying to save the souls of men, but for a palpable
violation of plighted ecclesiastical faith, and more particularly for
their partisan services in the cause of emancipation.
Let it be understood, also, that Missourians did not so much oppose the
emancipation of their slaves as they did the means used to accomplish
it. For thousands of slaveholders believed that the abolition of slavery
would be a blessing both to the slave and the master, if it could be
done in a lawful and peaceable way. Many of them were laboring to reach
the result through a political organization, by open-handed, lawful
means.
For ten years before the war it was a foregone conclusion with the more
intelligent classes that slavery would be abolished in Missouri, and a
system of free labor adopted that would be more successful in developing
the resources of the State. But they looked for it to be done by a
change of the Constitution and the necessary legislation; and, while
they expected this result to be reached in a lawful way, they heartily
detested the secret organizations and treacherous agents that were
seeking to decoy the slave from his master, and furnish facilities for
his escape from bondage, and his protection from the legal claims of his
owner.
This was against law, in contravention of law, and in flagrant violation
of constitutional guaranties, which all the courts and officers of the
country were sworn to protect and enforce; and hence it was considered
by the people and the courts—by the law and the gospel—a _crime_ against
the peace and dignity of the State. But it was one of those crimes which
either could not be covered by statutory enactments, or in the
commission of which the statute could be evaded or the guilty party
concealed.
Legal processes could not be served; the law could be set at defiance
while the mischief was being done; and the only recourse left to the
people was in such protection as they could devise outside of the law.
Some carried their slaves into the Southern States and disposed of them.
And in some communities, where forbearance with these disturbers of
domestic tranquillity had ceased to be a virtue, the citizens assembled
together in a peaceable and lawful way, interchanged views, and devised
the only lawful means left them to protect themselves and secure the
public peace. They adopted resolutions, stating publicly and openly
their grievances, and warning the abolition emissaries to desist from
intermeddling with their property and their rights, and if they could
not settle down and become peaceable, law-abiding citizens, then to
leave the country for the country’s good. In a few counties of the State
these public meetings were held, and in no instance was there any
indignities or outrages committed on the person or property of any man
by such public assemblies or by their authority.
CHAPTER VI.
FROM 1845 TO 1861, CONTINUED.
Responsibility of Ministers, Editors and Publishers—Perversion of
Facts, a Double Guilt—Public Meetings—Presses Mobbed—Fabius Township
Meeting in 1854—Rev. Mr. Sellers—Review of the Preamble and
Resolutions—Meeting at Rochester, Andrew County—Three Facts Affirmed
of these Meetings—The Best Citizens Controlled Them—What the Author
of the Fabius Township Resolutions Says—Jackson Seminary in Cape
Girardeau County—The Jefferson City Land Company and the Great
Northern Methodist University—The Transaction Transparent—Resolution
of Missouri Conference of 1858—A. Bewley—The True Facts in his
Case—That he was Hanged at Fort Worth, Texas, not for being a
Minister of the Gospel, but for Complicity in the most Horrible
Crimes—The Facts Analyzed—The Bailey Letter—Bishop Morris—Dr.
Elliott—Truth is Mighty—Correct View of the Relation of the M. E.
Church to the People of Missouri prior to the War.
When historical facts are perverted, or so detached from each other as
to destroy their connection, and false impressions are made thereby, and
bad feelings created in the interest of designing men, the moral wrong
is twofold, and the perpetrators are doubly guilty—falsehood reaches its
result on the credit of truth, and Christ, the truth, is fatally wounded
in the house of his friends. Ministers of the gospel, editors and
publishers are accountable to men and God for the most potent of all
responsibility. They are a savor of life or a savor of death, and
through them peoples and countries have peace or war.
The uses made by them of the public meetings of citizens held in various
parts of this State prior to the war did much to aggravate the spirit of
animosity between the Northern and Southern people in Missouri, and to
embitter the scenes of war. Some papers were so severe upon certain
classes of citizens as to provoke mob violence, when party feeling was
at blood heat, and a few printing offices were visited by an insulted
populace, and type, press, cases and fixtures thrown into the streets,
or made to settle accounts at the bottom of the river, while the editors
and publishers were driven off. Public meetings were called in many
places by the best citizens, to prevent mob violence and promote the
public tranquillity. This was their object.
Much has been said in the Northern press and pulpit about a meeting of
the citizens of Fabius Township, Marion county, Mo., held February 18,
1854, just after fifteen slaves had walked off to Canada from that
township. It was alleged by these preachers and papers, and the
statement is reiterated by Dr. C. Elliott, in his book called
“Southwestern Methodism,” that the said “meeting was held by the
citizens of Fabius Township for the purpose of carrying out a scheme to
expel Rev. Mr. Sellers, a minister of the M. E. Church, from the
country”—p. 39; and a great hue and cry was raised over the persecution
of this Mr. Sellers by the aforesaid citizens. And all the cheap capital
was made out of this heroic victim of pro-slavery malice of which the
utmost torture of the facts was capable. But, after all, it is rather
surprising to find that neither in the long preamble nor in any one of
the five resolutions is the name of Mr. Sellers so much as once used;
nor do they contain so much as a personal allusion to him or any other
individual man. They refer to a class of men, and are directed against a
dozen others as much as against Mr. Sellers.
The preamble sets forth, amongst other things, as follows: “And,
_Whereas_, there is in our community considerable excitement, arising
from the belief upon the part of many of our citizens that the ministers
of the Northern division of said Church, who have for some time past
been preaching in Fabius Township, are the representatives of a body
whose sentiments upon the subject of slavery are decidedly hostile to
our interests as slaveholders and dangerous to our peace; and that the
leading object of their mission here is the destruction of slavery by
the propagation—in any manner not inconsistent with the safety of their
persons—of doctrines calculated to array against the institution the
weak-minded and fanatical among us, and to create discontent,
dissatisfaction and insubordination among our slaves; therefore,” &c.
No one will doubt that these utterances were directed against the
Northern Methodist preachers as political partisans, and not as
ministers of the gospel, and that the cry of persecution for
righteousness’ sake failed of its sympathy where it failed of the truth.
The _first_ resolution advises these men to “desist from visiting and
preaching among us.”
The _second_ is a declaration of rights, and amongst them the following:
“When the law fails to protect, we claim to have the natural right, as a
community, to resort to the use of such means as will afford us
protection.”
The _third_ affirms that “Northern fanatics have forced the question of
slavery into all the churches,” and claims protection under the
Constitution and laws of the United States government for the
institution of slavery thus endangered.
The _fourth_ affirms the unity of Methodist doctrine and worship, the
validity of the Plan of Separation, and “protests against the M. E.
Church, North, sending ministers among us, and respectfully requests
such ministers to make no more appointments in this vicinity.”
The _fifth_ is as follows: “That, as we are situated contiguous to
Quincy, a city containing some of the vilest abolition thieves in the
Mississippi Valley, and as we have already suffered so much at the hands
of these incendiaries we regard it as absolutely necessary to the
protection of our slave interests that we close our doors against
abolition and free-soil influences of every character and shade, and
that we shall, therefore, esteem it highly improper for any citizen
hereafter to countenance or encourage the preaching or teaching in this
community of any other minister or teacher, person or persons, the
representatives of, or in any way connected with, any church or
churches, any association or society, whether religious or political, or
of any character whatsoever, who have heretofore or shall hereafter take
ground, directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly, against the
institution of slavery.”
That resolution is both special and general. It may apply to Mr.
Sellers, and it may apply to Dr. Elliott, and a hundred others, as
abolitionists and not ministers, or as abolitionists and ministers.
A similar meeting was held in Rochester, Andrew county, in June, 1856,
at which resolutions of a similar character were passed. In a few other
places, too, the people assembled peaceably and expressed their
disapprobation of their course and asked them to desist. But whatever
may be said to the contrary in partisan publications, the page of
unerring history will affirm _three_ facts of the people of Missouri in
these meetings:
1. That the M. E. Church, South, as such, had nothing whatever to do
with them; while her members, _as citizens_, were only equally
interested and implicated in them with the members of other churches.
2. Whenever these meetings denounced the preachers of the M. E. Church,
North, it was not because they were ministers of the gospel, _as such_,
but because they abused the privileges of their profession, and were
secret, active political partisans and abolition emissaries.
3. Mob violence was never instigated by these meetings, but prevented.
No man suffered in person or property from them in Missouri.
In confirmation of this position it is only necessary to state the fact
that the best class of citizens were the prime movers in these public
meetings, and, indeed, they were only called when it became apparent
that the peace and safety of the community demanded it; for in every
community there are passionate, reckless men, who are ready to take the
law into their own hands and vindicate their rights, at whatever danger
to the public safety. But the best men of the country, and those who had
the deepest interest in its peace and security, entered the most
heartily into these meetings, as peace measures, and they now, and will
ever, believe that such meetings were necessary to prevent mob violence
and insure the general tranquillity.
The author of the Fabius Township resolutions, a distinguished citizen
and lawyer of Marion county, and a colonel commanding a regiment of
Missouri Militia in the Union army during the war, not only authorizes
the above statement, but affirms freely that, though he had been an
anti-slavery man for many years, and rejoices in the emancipation of the
slaves as he does in the restoration of the Union, yet he endorses that
meeting and those resolutions to-day, and would conscientiously pursue
the same course again should a similar state of things exist in the
community to demand it. An old citizen of Missouri, a member of no
church—friendly to all—a Union man from first to last, speaking, working
and fighting to restore and preserve the supremacy of the Federal
government, he would make affidavit to-day that, to the best of his
knowledge, the three facts above stated are fully vindicated in the
Fabius Township and all similar meetings held for similar purposes in
Missouri. Thousands of the best citizens of the State are ready to
affirm the same facts and vindicate the good people of Missouri against
the aspersions of the Northern press.
Similar meetings to that of Fabius township were held in Andrew county,
in Independence, Jackson county, in Cass county, and perhaps other
places, and with similar results. In no single instance was the M. E.
Church, South, implicated. In no single instance were the ministers of
the M. E. Church, North, mobbed or murdered, and in no single instance
was mob violence against the “vilest abolition thieves” counseled or
countenanced; and with all honest people who know the facts the hue and
cry raised in certain quarters about religious intolerance, mob
violence, persecution of ministers, and the martyrdom of innocent and
holy men is as gratuitous as it is contemptible.
When the lower House of the Missouri Legislature, in February, 1855,
refused, by a vote of sixty to thirty-six, to charter what was called
the Jackson Seminary, in Cape Girardeau county, for the Northern
Methodists, it was not because the representatives of the people opposed
the establishment of literary institutions, or wished to proscribe any
form of religion, but because, as then stated, the Northern Methodist
preachers were the emissaries of abolitionism, and by encouraging them
in establishing institutions in Missouri they encouraged their purposes
and organization to subvert the lawful institutions of the State, which
the lawmakers did not hesitate to affirm would be encouraging a
cowardly, clandestine treason against the laws and government of the
State. Four years later the Legislature refused to charter a university
at Jefferson City for the Northern Methodists, for the same reason.
The “Jefferson City Land Company,” to encourage immigration, build up
the city and enhance the private fortunes of its members, proposed a
liberal grant of land to the Northern Methodists, or any others, who
would build up and endow, with foreign capital, a university at the
State Capital. Though many of the members of this Land Company were
slaveholders, and some of them large slaveholders, they believed that
the introduction of free labor into the State would greatly facilitate
the development of her material resources, by building railroads and
opening her vast beds of coal, and lead, and iron to the markets of the
world. They conceived the idea of inviting and encouraging free labor
from the Northern States through the active agency of the Northern
Methodist Church.
The class of immigrants they desired were opposed to negro slavery, and
the Northern Methodist Church was opposed to negro slavery. Methodist
ministers, more than any other ministers, were in sympathy with the
anti-slavery surplus populations of the Northern and Eastern States, and
could influence them more. Hence the alliance.
The proposition to donate so much land for a university, even at a
fictitious value, was a splendid prize for that church in Missouri,
backed, as it was, by the names and influence of some of the first men
of the State, and located at the seat of political power—the State
Capital.
On the other hand, the promise of the most extensive and efficient
agency in the world actively working throughout the dense populations of
the older States to put into operation a system of emigration that would
fill up the State with industrious laborers, absorb the surplus lands
and enrich the centers of settlement, was a tempting premium upon the
cupidity of the “Jefferson City Land Company,” for which they could
afford to give up their slaves and their former principles.
The inevitable logic of facts does not compliment either the benevolence
of the Land Company or the religion of the Church. The members of the
Land Company may have been anti-slavery from principle, and their
benevolent donation may have been unselfish: if so, they were
unfortunate in their schemes; if not so, they were unskilled in
dissimulation.
They succeeded in this much, at least, in making the impression pretty
general that their creed was a policy, and their policy was simply a
question of loss and gain. Not that they loved slavery less, but that
they loved money more; not that they loved the Northern Methodist Church
more, but that they could use that Church better: while the success of
the other party resolved itself into a question of deception; either
deceiving themselves or deceiving others—possibly both.
Residing in Jefferson City at the time, and being personally acquainted
with each member of the Land Company, as well as cognizant of all the
facts, the author feels justified in thus making transparent the shrewd
scheme about which so much was said at the time. The only motive for
this _expose_ is a vindication of the truth of history and an analysis
of the spirit of the times before the war.
After the failure of the “Jefferson City Land Company” and the M. E.
Church, North, to build up a Cambridge or a Harvard at the State Capital
the Land Company subsided, and the Church directed attention to other
expedients and sought a footing in Missouri through other agencies.
Public sentiment was against them; political prejudices and social
barriers denied them access to the people. All other religious
denominations were unfriendly to them; their best preachers left them,
and either went into the M. E. Church, South, or returned home. The
better class of Northern immigrants, even from their own Church at home,
found it to their interest to seek other church connections.
A suspicion followed them into the domestic, the social and the business
relations of life, which manifested too clearly the instinctive sense of
moral justice and religious fidelity in the public mind to be either
mistaken or escaped by them as covenant breakers, false accusers and
clandestine enemies to the property and peace of the State. It was
natural for them under such circumstances to long for redress, and
gladly embrace and use every means in their power to effect their
purpose. They had a lively conception of the horrors of slavery, and
more skill than conscience in magnifying them for the Northern press and
the Northern public. By this means the Northern mind was misled, and
many a victim of their misrepresentations was undeceived only on coming
to Missouri and seeing for himself the system of slavery, not as it
existed in a blinded imagination, but as it existed in the homes and on
the farms of slaveholders; and abandoning their deceivers, they
vindicated both the system and the people from the false impeachment of
unscrupulous fanatics. This made against them and exasperated them, and
when they found that they were not sufficiently successful in deceiving
the public mind to secure even the letters with their bearers from their
own Church in the Free States, the Missouri Conference, in 1858, uttered
complaint in the following resolution:
“_Resolved_, That we hereby earnestly and affectionately request our
brethren of other Conferences, in dismissing from their charges, by
letter, members who intend immigrating to Missouri, that they be at
pains to inform them that, under the blessing of the great Head of the
Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church in this State is living and
thriving, and urge upon them the propriety of attaching themselves to
our Church here immediately on their arrival.”
Several Quarterly Conferences took action on the subject, and set forth
more fully the grounds of complaint, which even Dr. Elliott could not
escape or overlook in his “Southwestern Methodism.”
Perhaps no event in the history of those times furnished them more food
for comment and capital than the hanging of the Rev. Anthony Bewley by
the citizens of Fort Worth, Texas, in September, 1860. Out of this event
the strongest system of falsehood was manufactured by designing men to
fire the Northern Methodist heart against the Southern people,
especially the Southern Methodists.
It was at a time when the country was convulsed with political
excitement from one end to the other, and partisan politics, more or
less, colored every report of the affair. It was almost impossible at
the time to get a true history of the event, as the most extravagant
statements were put in circulation to influence the Presidential
election the following November. The reports in the papers made at the
time, and under the pressure of the most exciting and embittered
political campaign known to the history of this country, must be
received with great allowance and heavy discount. After the heat of
political excitement, when every ballot stood for a thousand bullets,
and the fire and blood of the civil war that followed have all passed
away, when passion and prejudice can no longer serve the purposes of
party, the following facts appear upon the surface and bear the imperial
image and superscription of truth:
1. That the Rev. Anthony Bewley, a minister of the M. E. Church, North,
was hung at Fort Worth, Texas, September, 1860.
2. That the said Bewley had been living in Texas but a short time,
operating when he could as a minister of his Church, but connected with
an extensive secret organization for the purpose of freeing the slaves,
at whatever risk to the peace, the property, and the lives of citizens.
3. That he was implicated in a nefarious plot to poison wells, fire
towns and residences, and, in the midst of conflagrations and death, to
run off the slaves. This fact rests upon much oral and documentary
evidence.
4. That a Vigilance Committee had been formed to ferret out the plot,
capture the guilty parties and bring them to justice.
5. That this Committee had cause to suspect Mr. Bewley, ascertaining
which he fled the country and made his way to Missouri, whither he was
pursued by them, captured, and taken back to Fort Worth.
6. That the evidence was so strong against him that neither the
Vigilance Committee nor the officers of the law could protect him from
the outraged and enraged populace, and about midnight he was taken by
force and hung.
7. That if there was a member of the M. E. Church, South, on the
Vigilance Committee, or in the mob that hung him, the evidence does not
appear.
8. Neither the extremest torture of facts nor the most distorted
construction of collateral circumstances can implicate Bishop Pierce, or
any other Bishop, minister, or member of the M. E. Church, South, as
such, in the murder of Bewley.
9. With all due respect to the character of the Northern Methodist
publications of this affair, and to Dr. Elliott in his “Southwestern
Methodism” in particular, it may be asked with some degree of
consistency, “Was Bishop Ames Bewley’s hangman?” Bishops Janes and Ames
are responsible for Bewley’s appointment to Texas; the latter for his
re-appointment, after Bewley had made him acquainted with all the facts
existing there that would prevent his usefulness and endanger his life.
The Bishop sent him upon a missionary appropriation of $400, for which
he pledged the Missionary Society of the Church. Bewley and Willet were
sent to the Nueces country with specific instructions “not to organize
societies next summer, but to correspond with the Missionary Board.”
10. The evidence upon which he stood convicted in the public mind of
complicity in the bloody plot to poison wells, burn towns, and, through
fire and blood and insurrection, free the slaves, convicted others also,
who were not ministers of the M. E. Church. It can not be made to
appear, therefore, by any legitimate construction, that he suffered
_because_ he was a minister of that Church; but _because_ he was a
ringleader in the clandestine scheme of fire and murder, that was too
diabolical to discriminate even in favor of women and children, but
doomed all indiscriminately who might drink of the wells, or be the
victims of midnight conflagrations, or in any way be exposed to the
wide-spread negro insurrection thus instigated. _For this cause_, and
not for preaching the gospel, he was hanged.
11. The following letter, written by one Rev. W. H. Bailey, addressed to
Rev. A. Bewley, and acknowledged by him to have been received and
subsequently lost, was the principal evidence upon which he was
convicted. Bewley acknowledged to his brother-in-law, Mr. John Cook,
that the latter was genuine, and had been received by him and lost. The
letter was dated, “Denton Creek, Texas, July 3, 1860,” and was found by
the Vigilance Committee, authenticated, and extensively published by the
secular and religious papers of the country, and is as follows:
“DENTON CREEK, July 3, 1860.
“_Dear Sir_: A painful abscess in my right thumb is my apology for not
writing to you from Anderson. Our glorious cause is prospering finely
as far South as Brenham. There I parted with Brother Wampler; he went
still further South. He will do good wherever he goes. I traveled up
through the frontier counties—a part of the time under a fictitious
name. I found many friends who had been initiated, and understood the
mystic Red. I met a number of our friends near Georgetown. We had a
consultation, and were unanimously of the opinion that we should be
cautious of our new associates; most of them are desperate characters,
and may betray us, as there are some slaveholders among them, and they
value the poor negro much higher than horses. The only good they will
do us will be destroying towns, mills, &c., which is our only hope in
Texas at present. If we can break Southern merchants and millers, and
have their places filled by honest Republicans, Texas will be an easy
prey, if we only do our duty. All that is wanted for the time being is
control of trade. Trade, assisted by preaching and teaching, will soon
control public opinion. Public opinion is mighty and will prevail.
Lincoln will certainly be elected; we will then have the Indian
nation, cost what it will; squatter sovereignty will prevail there as
it has in Kansas. That accomplished, we have but one more step to
take—one more struggle to make—that is, free Texas. We will then have
a connected link from the Lakes to the Gulf. Slavery will then be
surrounded, by land and water, and will soon sting itself to death.
“I repeat, Texas we must have, and our only chance is to break up the
present inhabitants—in whatever way we can—and it must be done. Some
of us will most assuredly suffer in accomplishing our object, but our
Heavenly Father will reward us in assisting him in blotting out the
greatest curse on earth. It would be impossible for us to do an act
that is as blasphemous in the sight of God as slaveholding.
“We must have frequent consultations with our colored friends. (Let
our meetings be in the night.) Impress upon their clouded intellects
the blessings of freedom; induce all to leave you can. Our
arrangements for their accommodations to go North are better than they
have been, but not as good as I would like.
“We need more agents, both local and traveling. I will send out
traveling agents when I get home. We must appoint a local agent in
every neighborhood in your district. I will recommend a few I know it
will do to rely upon—namely, Brothers Leak, Wood, Evans, Mr. Daniel
Vicry, Cole, Nugent, Shaw, White, Gilford, Ashley, Drake, Meeks,
Shultz and Newman. Brother Leak, the bearer of this, will take a
circuitous route and see as many of our colored friends as he can. He
also recommends a different material to be used about town, etc. Our
friends sent a very inferior article—they emit too much smoke, and do
not contain enough camphene. They are calculated to get some of our
friends hurt. I will send a supply when I get home.
“I will have to reprove you and your co-workers for your negligence in
sending funds for our agents. But few have been compensated for their
trouble. Our faithful correspondent, Brother Webber, has received but
a trifle—not so much as apprentice’s wages; neither have Brothers
Willet, Mungum and others. You must call upon our colored friends for
more money. They must not expect us to do all. They certainly will
give every cent if they knew how soon their shackles will be broken.
My hand is very painful, and I close.
“Yours truly, W. H. BAILEY.”
Should any one be tempted to doubt the genuineness of this letter, his
attention is directed to what critics call internal evidence, to the
testimony of witnesses on the spot, and the acknowledgment of Bewley
himself to Mr. Cook, his brother-in-law, and others.
The disclosure of such a diabolical plot, to be executed simultaneously
in all parts of the country, with these preachers and others in secret
league and clandestine confederation, extending, perhaps, all over the
South, and involving a negro insurrection with all the horrible crimes
of St. Domingo intensified and aggravated a thousandfold, could not fail
to enrage the populace and fire the passions of men to an uncontrollable
point.
Upon such provocation Bewley and Bailey were both hung. And with all the
efforts made to hold the Southern Methodist papers, Bishops and members
responsible for the crime, no papers and no men more deeply regretted
and more heartily condemned the act.
How the venerable Bishop Morris, of the M. E. Church, could write—“One
of our godly and inoffensive ministers, A. Bewley, was hung by a Texan
mob, for no other crime but connection with the Methodist Episcopal
Church,” it is difficult to conceive unless we assume that he was kept
in ignorance of the facts. Surely the good Bishop would not suffer his
prejudices to blind him to the true state of things as they will ever
stand out in the history of that deplorable event.
Dr. Elliott says: “Mr. Bewley was suspended upon the same limb and tree
upon which several negroes and a Northern man named Crawford had been
hung.” Were these negroes and this “Northern man named Crawford” hung
“for no other crime but connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church?”
and yet, so far as the facts appear, they were hanged for the same crime
of which that “godly and inoffensive minister, A. Bewley,” was
convicted.
We could excuse the above declaration from the pen of Dr. Cartwright or
Dr. Elliott; we could palliate it somewhat had it come from Bishop Ames;
but from Bishop Morris! the astonishment can scarcely surpass the
mortification.
“Truth is mighty and will prevail” and from all the rubbish of falsehood
and all the coloring of distorted facts the true history of this event
will finally reach posterity, and vindicate Southern Methodism of every
aspersion made by a subsidized press, and tear the martyr’s crown from
the victim who expiated his crimes upon “the Crawford limb.”
This whole chapter will furnish the reader with a correct view of the
relation of the M. E. Church, North, to the people, the property, the
laws and the institutions of the State between the division of the
Church, in 1844, and the breaking out of the civil war, in 1861. But
this is subordinate to the prime object, which is to show, at least, one
reason for the conspicuous and efficient agency of Northern Methodist
preachers in the vindictive persecution of the ministers of the M. E.
Church, South, the seizure and use of Church property, etc., under the
constructive association of the latter with slavery, secession,
rebellion, treason, &c., &c., during the civil war. A vindictive spirit
put many of them in Missouri and in the army during the war. “Vengeance
is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”
CHAPTER VII.
CHARACTER OF THE STRIFE IN MISSOURI.
Conflict of Sentiment—Party Spirit—New England and Missouri
Fanatics—Fraternal Blood—“Houses Divided—Three against Two and Two
against Three”—Organized Armies and Predatory Brigands—Bull Run,
Seven Pines, The Wilderness, Gettysburg and Vicksburg Reproduced on
a small scale in every County and Cross Roads in Missouri—War upon
Non-Combatants—The Bloodiest Records—Ministers of the Gospel—Their
Troubles and Perplexities—Peculiar Trials and Persecutions—Military
Fetters put upon the Conscience—Disloyal Prayers and Military
Orders.
The mixed population of Missouri, presenting such diverse types of
domestic and social life, and such different casts of political and
religious belief, could not fail to be turbulent, contentious and almost
self-destructive in any civil revolution. The people were not
homogeneous, and could not unite upon any principles or policy, civil or
ecclesiastical; but, on the contrary, each shade of political and
religious faith stood out upon the face of society sharply defined,
firmly set and fully armed for both offensive and defensive warfare.
Party leaders were bolder, party spirit ran higher, party blood waxed
hotter and party strife raged fiercer than in any other State.
When the Northern fanatics adopted a platform and announced a line of
policy, the Missouri fanatics of the same school would not only fall
into line, but glory in their excess of fanaticism, and push the
extremest measures of their Northern masters to the most reckless
results. Likewise the Southern fire-eaters, so-called, could always find
in Missouri politicians the champions of their extremest measures. Hence
it was a common “cant” saying among the politicians that “when the New
England fanatics took snuff the Missouri fanatics would sneeze,” and,
indeed, some times the sneezing was done before the snuff was taken, and
in all that was revolutionary and reckless in politics and religion they
could “out-herod Herod.”
The extremists, North and South, whether religious or political, found
the heartiest supporters in Missouri; and that which brought the two
sections together in organized warfare brought the citizens of the same
neighborhood in Missouri, and even members of the same family, into the
sharpest personal conflict. The great battles of Bull Run,
Fredericksburg, Vicksburg, the Wilderness, Seven Pines and Gettysburg
were reproduced on a limited scale in a thousand places in Missouri. The
brush, the prairie, the glen, the road side all over the State sheltered
concealed foes, and often witnessed the deadliest combats between
neighbors and brothers. Here “houses were divided, two against three and
three against two,” “a man was set at variance with his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law, and a man’s foes were they of his own household.” There
was in many instances a literal fulfillment of the prediction that “the
brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child,
and the children shall rise up against their parents and cause them to
be put to death;” and the spirit of contention was too rife to confine
itself to the hostile armies, or even the lawless bands of armed men,
who, in the name of one party or the other, satiated their diabolical
hatred and inordinate cupidity by robbery, plunder, pillage and
depopulation with fire and sword.
It is no marvel that the most relentless and inhuman spirit of the war
found encouragement, if not protection, and expended its force and fury
upon the non-combatant and helpless population of Missouri; for this
State furnished the bravest men for the armies and the most dastardly
cowards for “home protection.” While her brave sons fought and fell upon
the fields of honor, making the very blood and death of battle
illustrious by an unchallenged heroism, the warfare at home presented
scenes of outrage and horror unsurpassed by anything in the annals of
civilized warfare, if, indeed, there can be such a thing as civilized
warfare, for every thing about it is intensely savage.
Between the “jayhawkers” of Kansas and the “bushwhackers” of Missouri
some whole counties were plundered, some were desolated by fire and
sword, and some were almost depopulated. Widows’ homes were pillaged and
burned, delicate mothers and daughters were captured, taken to camp and
compelled to cook and wash for ruffian bands of armed men, to say
nothing of nameless indignities and the most horrible crimes. Churches
and dwellings were seized, converted into barracks for soldiers, stables
for horses, and often burned to the ground in wanton destruction.
It was often heard in boast that the track of armies, or more properly
predatory bands, should be lighted through entire counties by the glare
of burning buildings, and the threat was too often witnessed in all the
midnight glare of faithful execution by the pallid and panic-stricken
old men, women and children in mid-winter. But the heart sickens at the
recital, as the enlightened conscience revolted then at the reality.
These statements must suffice to recall the scenes which were enacted
and the men who educated and then hardened the public conscience for the
crimes committed during the war, against God and his chosen ministers
and church, and for the subsequent legislative proscription of ministers
of the gospel, as a class, and Christianity as an institution.
The attitude of ministers of the gospel in Missouri toward the issues of
the war, and how far they participated, on the one side or the other, in
its fatal scenes require notice here.
At the first, and, indeed, for two years and more after the war
commenced, the sentiment of the State was so equally divided between the
contending sections that ministers who did not propose to forsake their
high calling and become active participants in the strife were very
cautious in their expressions of sympathy. But as the Northern or
Southern feeling predominated in any given locality it became so
intolerant as to demand from ministers, as well as all others, an
unequivocal avowal of sentiment, which always subjected the minister to
the severest criticism and the most unsparing censure when he chanced to
think differently from the majority. The people of opposite sentiments
denied him access to them for good, withdrew their encouragement and
support, and thus forced him either into the army or into exile. The
people were so prejudiced and intolerant as to believe that a man of
opposite political faith was unfitted, by that fact, to minister to them
in holy things—that sectional sympathy disqualified men for the
ministry, and that the men who would preach Christ must either dry up
the fountains of human sympathy, surrender all the rights of
citizenship, or subordinate the message of life and salvation to the
_dictum_ of the leaders and representatives of the intolerant spirit of
anti-Christ that prevailed. In this shape the persecution of ministers
of the gospel commenced in Missouri with the first breaking out of the
war. Ministers were forced to give up their pulpits and abandon their
congregations where the two were not in sympathy upon the issues of the
war.
Many an old man who had been settled for years in one pastoral charge,
where his children had grown up and some of them had died, and where all
the tenderest and dearest associations known to the sacred relation of
pastor and people had ripened and matured around the fireside, in the
sick room, the funeral scene, the homes and hearts of grief, and around
the bridal and sacramental altars, suddenly found himself and his family
proscribed, maligned and friendless in the very homes and hearts in
which aforetime their pre-eminence was unchallenged. A bitter necessity
forced him often to give up his home and his pulpit, leave his flock in
the wilderness and seek protection and support either in the army or
among strangers. In this way many ministers, old and young, were driven
to a course which they did not elect, and forced into a position which
was neither of their own choosing nor consistent with their sense of
ministerial propriety and ministerial obligation.
And yet for a position forced upon them by the proscriptive intolerance
of their former friends they were held responsible, and even severely
censured by the public.
Many went into both armies—not willingly, but by constraint—not of
choice, but of necessity—not to fight the living with carnal weapons,
but to save the dying with the power of salvation, and to fight the
battles of the Lord of Hosts with the spiritual weapons that are “mighty
through God to the pulling down of strongholds.”
Some ministers of the gospel entered the army as soldiers to fight the
battles of the country, and no doubt did it conscientiously, believing
it to be a high patriotic duty. They claimed nothing on the score of
their profession, but accepted in good faith the issues of war and the
arbitrament of the sword. Those who survived the war claim no undue
credit, and those who sacrificed their lives for a principle and a cause
deserve no censure.
Those who entered either army voluntarily, either as chaplains or
soldiers, did it understandingly and, perhaps, conscientiously, and
accepted the penalty or reward due to such a position only. As a soldier
the preacher claimed no exceptional privileges, and as a preacher the
soldier claimed no exemption from duty on the field or punishment at
home. But it is a notorious fact that preachers who were in the Southern
army as soldiers, and who survived the war and returned to their homes
in Missouri, no matter how gladly, gracefully and loyally they accepted
the situation, have not met the consideration nor received the treatment
in all cases meted out to other Confederate soldiers; nor have preachers
from the Union army in all instances been treated as other Federal
soldiers who returned from the same regiments and to the same counties.
Charity at least demands the belief that this is due rather to the
instinctive disapprobation in the public mind of ministers bearing arms
at all than to any studied maliciousness; and the belief is just as
grateful as it is warranted by the facts. But if it should fall out in
the subsequent facts to be presented in this book that a studied malice
and a methodical madness have done more than the anti-war sentiment,
then, however ungrateful, we must accept the facts as the best
interpretation of the anti-christian spirit which has exhausted itself
upon the ministers of the gospel in this State.
Under this kind of pressure many pastors were without churches and many
churches without pastors; and, in many parts of the State, the churches
were disorganized and broken up, and the flocks scattered in the
wilderness, like sheep having no shepherd. It is true, some ministers
refused to be driven, but remained faithful to their trust, in the midst
of many discouragements, much threatening, much murmuring, and not a
little persecution. Such men, pursuing the even tenor of their way,
neither turning to the right or left, reviled, but reviling not again,
“counting not their lives dear unto themselves,” nor “conferring with
flesh and blood,” deserve the most honorable mention; and with those who
know the pressure of sentiment brought to bear upon them they will ever
be revered as the finest models of moral heroism and ministerial
fidelity. This class of men were not confined to any one church, but
have their representatives in all the churches which, by construction,
were considered unfriendly to the ruling powers of the State. Many of
them were faithful men of God—men of one work—seeking the souls of men,
and continuing “steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of
the Lord,” through all the storm and shock of war; and this, too, at no
little cost.
It was a time of wide-spread iniquity with almost all classes. Crime, in
every conceivable form, reveled without shame, and hesitated at no
atrocity. The officers of law and the courts were alike powerless to
punish crime and protect innocence; “and because iniquity did abound the
love of many waxed cold,” and the man of God who could be faithful to
the souls of men without fear or favor had nerve, courage, faith.
His home was at the mercy of lawless bands whose nameless crimes his
last sermon rebuked, and his head was a target for the assassin’s bullet
whose cowardly heart felt the sting of conscious guilt under the
searchings of God’s truth—a guilt, too, of which the minister was wholly
ignorant. More than one faithful watchman, during those “times that
tried men’s souls,” went from his pulpit to find his home in ashes, his
wife and children shelterless in the storm, and breadless and friendless
in the world; and more than one, who did not know that they had an enemy
in the world, were called from their beds at midnight to be shot down
like dogs, or butchered like hogs in the very presence of their
families, without warning, without any known provocation, and without
knowing their murderers.
Some of the brightest and purest lights of the Church went out at
midnight—suddenly, appallingly—and their “souls were under the altar”
many long, weary hours before the news of their murder could pass beyond
the family threshold, and often days before it could even reach the
family itself. Many of these murders are wholly unaccountable upon any
other hypothesis than that intimated above, as the victims hereafter to
be named had kept themselves from strife, and had pursued, with
“singleness of heart as unto the Lord,” their one calling; they had
taken neither part nor lot in the war, one way or the other, and,
indeed, were not all of one political faith; their sympathies were—some
for the Union and some for the South.
The men who stood faithful amid the faithless were not rash and
reckless, but prudent and cautious, as it well becomes those who stand
up for the truth in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. Some
ministers, by a prudent, consistent course, ministering to all alike,
and keeping their political views and sympathies to themselves,
conquered, in a measure, the respect and confidence of the leading men
of both parties, after so long a time, and they were henceforth pretty
secure. But many had to abandon the ministry for the time being and seek
a support in other pursuits.
For some reason, no part of the minister’s public exercises were looked
to with more interest or scrutinized more closely than his
extemporaneous prayers. Military officers, partisan leaders, and all men
of strong sympathies either way, watched with more vigilance than
devotion the objects, the subjects, the language and the sentiment of
the extemporaneous prayers of the pulpit. They were supposed to show the
drift of the minister’s sympathies and reflect his political sentiments,
and many people felt much more interested in that than in any
supplications he might make for the pardon of guilt and the salvation of
the soul. Post Commanders and Provost-Marshals would not unfrequently
send written orders to the officiating minister whose sympathies were
suspected, commanding him to pray for Mr. Lincoln, for the flag, for the
success of the army in crushing out the rebellion, or for the
destruction of all traitors, or something else of the sort as a test of
loyalty. And often a minister’s bread, his home, his liberty or his life
were suspended upon and determined by the shade of meaning given to a
word or phrase in his prayer. The effort was made to force the
conscience at the point of the bayonet, and convert the prayer into
blasphemy, or get from it a pretext for executing a malicious purpose
already formed, and for which there existed neither cause nor occasion.
CHAPTER VIII.
ANOMALOUS CONDITION OF THE STATE—GREAT EXCITEMENT.
Border Slave State—Missouri State Convention—The Last
Hope—Virginia Convention—Missouri would not Secede—Rights in the
Union—Disappointment—Anomalous Position—Governor Jackson and
General Price—Great Excitement—Ministers Embarrassed—One False
Step Fatal—The Sword vs. Sympathy—Why the Innocent and Helpless
Suffered more in Missouri than Elsewhere—Constructive
Sympathy—Predatory Bands—Hon. Luther J. Glenn Commissioner from
Georgia—The Effect of the Fall of Fort Sumter and President
Lincoln’s Proclamation—The State Officers, Legislature and
Militia Adhere South—Assemble at Neosho, Pass an Act of
Secession, Elect Delegates to the Confederate Congress, etc.,
etc.—Preparations for War—Union vs. Price’s Army—State
Convention Meets Again—Its Acts and Doings—Two State
Governments—Sympathy, Property and Plunder—Ministers Again—Their
Course—Days of Fasting and Prayer—Conferences—Meeting in St.
Charles—Resolutions—Prudence and Prayer—The Press—Anti-Christ
Abroad—_Central Christian Advocate_ and a few Facts—Rev. Mr.
Gardner—“Men and Brethren Help”—State Convention again in
October—The First Oath for Ministers.
The people of Missouri contemplated the possibilities of civil war with
the peculiar interests of a border State, fearing that when it came the
border slaveholding States would be the main theatre of strife. They
looked with the deepest solicitude to every plan for the peaceful
adjustment of the troubles, and not until the failure of the “Crittenden
Compromise” did they consider the result inevitable. The much talked of
“Border States Convention” inspired hope in the less informed, but when
nothing came of it the last hope perished.
The Missouri Legislature, by an act, “approved January 21, 1861,” called
a State convention “to consider the then existing relations between the
Government of the United States and the people and Government of the
several States and the Government and people of Missouri, and to adopt
such measures for vindicating the sovereignty of the State and the
protection of its institutions as shall appear to them to be demanded.”
This convention assembled in Jefferson City February 28, 1861, and
organized and proceeded to the work for which it was called.
By the time of its session no less than seven of the Southern States
had, by their conventions, adopted ordinances of secession, declaring
themselves separated from the Government of the United States, and
organized for themselves a distinct national confederation. Other States
were in a greatly disturbed condition, had called State conventions, and
would inevitably follow their sister Southern States. War was imminent
and preparations for it were active—alarming.
Many still clung to the delusion that the national difficulties would be
settled without bloodshed, and that the very preparations for war would
prevent it.
Virginia, “the mother of Presidents,” had a State convention then either
in session or about to assemble, and the deepest anxiety was felt
throughout the whole country as to the course that sturdy old State
would take. It was believed that the action of Missouri and Virginia
would either prevent or precipitate war, by determining the true
position of all the border slave States; consequently, every act of
these conventions, and every sentiment uttered in them, was watched and
weighed with an interest and eagerness never before known in the history
of the country.
In Missouri the liveliest interest was taken by all the people in the
debate on the report of the committee on Federal Relations, and not
until it became an ordinance of the Convention could the majority of the
people in the rural districts believe that the State would not secede
from the Federal Union and unite her fortunes with the Southern
Confederacy. The simple fact that Missouri was a slaveholding State was
sufficient in the minds of many to determine her Federal relations, or
at least the policy of secession. Rights in the Union were considered
possible by the few; rights out of the Union were considered the only
hope by the many.
The fact that the State officers and Legislature, elected just the fall
before, were so nearly unanimous in their Southern sympathies that they
could, and did, secede in a body without disorganization, and without
taking the State with them, shows how strong must have been the Southern
feeling at the time of their election. Sectional issues were as clearly
and distinctly made in the State as in the Presidential election, and
with a unanimity rare in the history of elections the people endorsed
the pro-slavery party.
The action of the State convention in February, 1861, put the State in
an anomalous condition. The effect was to detach the State government
from the State and vacate the several departments of the State
government without a vacating ordinance. The representatives in the
State Legislature found themselves without a Constitution and the people
without representatives. It was soon evident that neither Governor C. F.
Jackson and his cabinet nor the majority of the General Assembly were in
sympathy with the action of the Convention. The President of the
Convention, Hon. Sterling Price, and a respectable minority dissented in
their feelings from the action of a majority, and conscientiously
believed that the true interest of the State was in political and
commercial alliance with the Southern Confederacy.
Notwithstanding the majority of the people were loyal to the Federal
Government when the delegates to the State Convention were elected, in
January, 1861, yet the course pursued by Governor Jackson, General
Price, and those high in authority who were associated with them, very
greatly unsettled the people of the State in their political faith, and
produced such general excitement amongst all classes, that the greatest
fears were entertained from the first of an intensity and bitterness of
strife in Missouri to which other States would not be subjected.
No one not then residing in the State can fully appreciate the condition
of things which this complication of public policy developed. Ministers
of the gospel and other non-combatants wore not prepared to meet the
novel exigencies arising out of such an anomalous state of things, in
consequence of which many of them were placed in very embarrassing
circumstances, and not a few found themselves forced into positions
which their cooler and better judgment afterward condemned. The pride of
some kept them in positions where their indiscretion had placed them,
and from which their sober judgment would fain extricate them; and in
this way many non-combatants were made combatants, and many were forced
from their families, their homes, their property and their country. The
people were all unused to civil revolutions and inexperienced in the art
of adjustment and adaptation. One false step in youth may be fatal to
all the objects and aims of life, blast all its hopes and promises, and
cause all its plans and purposes to miscarry—may be irretrievably
disastrous. So in the first stages of civil revolutions, a mistake may
be fatal; and fatal mistakes are common. Men who were not secessionists
found themselves fighting for secession, and men who were not Union men
were forced by a combination of circumstances to fight for the Union. A
man’s sword often cut through his sympathies, and his sympathies often
formed the scabbard for his sword; while the “aiding and abetting” was
as often by constraint and coercion as by choice. Even the regimental
colors of opposing armies did not always and faithfully reflect the true
sentiment of field and staff, rank and file. Sympathy was too confused
and policy too unsettled to admit of either infallible prescience in
choice or fidelity in the execution in all cases. Hence many good men
suffered for principles not their own, and sacrificed life and all for a
cause with which they were not in sympathy.
Popular excitements are never favorable to deliberate prejudgment or
right action, and in Missouri more than elsewhere the intensity of
excitement at this time dethroned judgment and defeated action. It is
believed that much suffering and many of the most shocking features of
the war could have been prevented by the party leaders on both sides in
Missouri.
It is confidently believed that when a true history of the war is
written, it will appear that, in its recklessness of life and wantonness
of destruction, and in all its most shameless, and revolting, and
nameless crimes perpetrated upon the unoffending, the innocent and the
helpless, the non-combatant population of Missouri has suffered more
than any other class of people in any State. And much of the sufferings
of this class of people is justly chargeable to those into whose hands
the conduct of the war in this State was first placed. The just judgment
of posterity and the just retributions of eternity will hold to a
righteous accountability those who, under whatever pretense, made war
upon ministers of the gospel, unoffending old men, and helpless women
and children, dragging them to prison and to death, while the pretext
for it was found only in the hasty expression of sympathy, or the
constructive connection with one side or the other based upon church
affiliations.
For instance, Southern Methodists, and Southern Baptists, and Southern
Presbyterians were by the Union men and forces constructively identified
with secession and rebellion, and put in sympathy with the Southern
cause. The first from the beginning, the last two after the virtual
disruption of those respective churches.
Under the heat of party passion many innocent victims suffered the
spoiling of their goods, and often the loss of life itself, only upon
this constructive evidence.
The principal portions of the State were always held by the Union
forces, and their subordinate officers and independent, predatory bands
were either commissioned to make war upon these innocent and defenseless
people or they did it without commission. Certain it is that it was
done, and done, too, relentlessly and indiscriminately. How far this
state of things is due to the converse action of the legitimate State
Legislature and the legitimate State Convention—the one elected in
November, 1860, and the other elected in January, 1861, and both
assuming to reflect the will of the people—and how far it is due to the
course pursued subsequently by Governor Jackson, General Price, and the
whole State Government, with the legislative branch thrown in, adhering
South, may be determined by others. The people of the State, who were
not accustomed to a long search after remote causes, were free—and many
of them are still free—to attribute these most inhuman features of the
war to those who were put in command of the Federal forces in this
department, the officers and men of the State militia, and the “Kansas
Redlegs,” as they were generally called.
The first session of the State Convention did very little more than
discuss and determine the Federal relations of the State. The State of
Georgia had an accredited commissioner present in the person of Hon.
Luther J. Glenn, a distinguished citizen of that State, asking Missouri
to secede and join the Southern Confederacy. The Convention heard him
respectfully, but, after due deliberation, rejected the proposition, and
resolved to remain in and try to preserve the integrity of the Union.
The Convention also appointed a Commission to attend the “Border States
Convention,” and adjourned to await results.
The people of the State were still in much of a dilemma until after the
fall of Fort Sumter, the proclamation of President Lincoln, and the
capture of Camp Jackson. Then it was discovered that the State
Government, with Governor Jackson at the head, was in sympathy with the
South, and would adhere South in defiance of the Convention. It was also
discovered that the “Missouri State Guard,” which had been raised,
officered, armed and equipped by the Legislature the previous winter,
would adhere South, with General Sterling Price in command. These
revelations excited and alarmed the people all over the State, and
presented new difficulties and embarrassments, which were greatly
complicated and enhanced by the simultaneous appearance in different
parts of the State of the U. S. forces equipped for war. Indignation and
consternation alternated in the public mind, until some definite line of
policy was disclosed and the people knew what to expect.
Governor Jackson fled the capital of the State with his officers and
army, taking the great seal of State and the official records of the
several State Departments with him, as far as it could be done. He
convened the Legislature in Neosho, organized and put into operation the
several Departments of the State Government. “An Act of Secession” was
passed by the General Assembly; delegates were elected to the
Confederate Congress; a proclamation was issued to the people of
Missouri, and many other things were done to force the State out of the
Union and commit her destinies to the fate of the Southern cause. This
meant war; and the wisest men abandoned for ever the idea of a peaceful
adjustment of the difficulties, and prepared for that which neither the
counsels of the prudent nor the prayers of the good could avert.
For the next few months the preparations for war on both sides were
active and general. Plows were left standing in the furrows; wheat stood
unshocked and ungarnered in the fields; mechanics and artisans closed
their shops and exchanged hammers and saws for guns and swords;
merchants dismissed their clerks and manufacturers their hands, and all
prepared for the war; saddleries, foundries and gunsmiths were pressed
out of measure with work, and the country was ransacked for mules and
horses for service. The policy was, “He that hath no sword, let him sell
his coat and buy one.”
President Lincoln’s call upon Governor Jackson for the quota of troops
from this State to help the Federal Government put down insurrection and
rebellion had been promptly and curtly declined by that official, and
yet ten times more than the President asked for stood ready to respond
to the call in defiance of Governor Jackson.
The cities and towns along the railroad lines especially turned out a
heavy surplus population for the Union army, while the river towns and
rural districts supplied men and material for “Price’s army,” as it was
familiarly called.
The state of things thus presented made it necessary to convene the
State Convention again, which was done by the Committee appointed for
that purpose at its first session. In pursuance of the call of a
majority of said Committee the State Convention assembled again in
Jefferson City, July 22, 1861.
A very different state of things existed now in the State, and the
Convention had to meet new questions and provide for new exigencies. The
Governor of the State, the president and many members of the Convention,
and the Legislature that originated and provided for the Convention, had
all cut themselves loose from the Convention and the people represented
by the Convention.
The State was virtually without a Governor, and the Governor was without
a State. The Convention did not hesitate in meeting these novel
exigencies promptly and decidedly. On the seventh day the Convention
passed “An Ordinance providing for certain Amendments to the
Constitution,” which ordinance vacated the offices of Governor,
Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State and members of the General
Assembly, provided for the election of the first three by the Convention
immediately, and then ordered a general election the following November.
Hon. Hamilton R. Gamble was elected provisional Governor, Hon. Willard
P. Hall Lieutenant-Governor, and Hon. Mordecai Oliver Secretary of
State. Henceforth the people of the State had two State Governments, and
the divisions and strifes were distinct and complete.
The effect of this state of things was to unsettle the people more than
ever, and the lines were clearly drawn. The policy of the Federal and
State authorities was more positive and decided. “He that is not for us
is against us” was not only of frequent utterance, but of dogged
application. It was assumed that all men had sympathies for one party or
the other, and an expression of them in any way was sure to provoke the
hostility of those who assumed the guardianship of human sensibilities.
Property belonging to persons of opposing sympathies was confiscated and
appropriated to the use of the officers and men taking it; and at this
stage of the war the effort was made to force the sympathies of men
through their property. Many a well stocked farm was stripped of
everything that could be carried off and the dwellings burned to the
ground, because it was said the family had Southern sympathies; and many
a helpless man and woman, too, had to prove themselves innocent of
crimes of which they were assumed to be guilty to save them from an
uncoffined grave.
Armed brigands came down from Kansas and Iowa, and over from Illinois,
to plunder and rob the rich farmers of Missouri, and many of the poor
ones, too, in the name of the Union, and to preserve the Constitution.
They carried away wagons, horses, mules and stock of every description,
plundered houses of silver plate, jewelry, beds and bedding, carpets,
clothing of men, women and children—even the mementoes of ladies and the
toys of children—everything that could gratify their cupidity or vex and
mortify the original owners. All this for the preservation of the Union,
by enriching the houses and pockets of men who cared for no higher
distinction.
Ministers of the gospel suffered in common with others, especially those
of the Southern Methodist Church, and others who were suspected of
disloyal sentiments. Many of them had to “take the spoiling of their
goods joyfully,” or otherwise, and were wholly broken up and reduced to
penury and want, and yet many of them were honestly and earnestly
laboring to abate the feverish excitement, allay the bitterness of
feeling and promote “on earth peace and good will toward men.”
The Annual Conferences of the M. E. Church, South, in the fall of 1860,
recommended to all Christian people the observance of a “day of fasting,
humiliation and prayer” for the peace of the country and the amicable
adjustment of existing difficulties. This had been generally observed
throughout the State the week before the Presidential election, and,
doubtless, did much good in humbling the Church before God, and in
directing the hearts and faith of the people to the only “refuge and
strength and present help in time of trouble.”
After actual hostilities had been in progress a little more than one
month a number of ministers of different churches assembled in St.
Charles, Mo., May 21, 1861, and, after prayer and deliberation, adopted
the following:
“WHEREAS, In the Providence of God our country is now involved in a
civil war, which has already brought upon us many calamities, and still
threatens to introduce a state of ill will, discord and desolation
utterly inconsistent with our condition as a Christian land; therefore,
“_Resolved_, 1. That we meet together on this day in the fear of God,
and with a firm reliance on his divine Providence as a Christian people,
communicants of the respective churches in this city, to observe such
means as will at least tend to promote good will among ourselves during
the continuance of this war.
“2. That we regard all war as a sore calamity, contrary to the spirit
and teaching of the gospel, and more especially a civil war, as
revolting to our Christian teaching, unnatural, abhorrent to all our
Christian instincts, and subversive of the cause of Christ, whose
blessed mission was to establish peace on earth.
“3. That, as ministers of the Christian churches, irrespective of our
private opinions, we do hereby pledge ourselves, one to another,
ministers and people, to abstain as far as possible from all bitter and
exciting controversy upon the questions now agitating the public mind,
but will, each within the sphere of our influence, endeavor to promote a
spirit of brotherly love, and by calm and judicious counsel, animated by
the Spirit of Christ, our peaceful Master, suppress every act among
ourselves which may have a tendency to increase the present
difficulties.
“4. That we call upon the Christians of our land to band together to
stay, if possible, the further shedding of fraternal blood, etc., etc.
“5. That we will not forget our best refuge—prayer—and therefore humble
ourselves before God and supplicate our Heavenly Father to quell the
madness of the people and put away from us all bitterness, and anger,
and clamor, and evil speaking, and animate us with the gentle spirit of
peace on earth and good will toward men.
“6. That, with trustful resignation and humble faith in the strength of
the Lord of Hosts, we do cordially recommend to all Christian churches
to set apart Thursday, June 6, 1861, as a day of private and public
supplication, with fasting, humiliation and prayer,” etc.
Similar meetings were held in other places to avert the calamity of war,
or to abate some of its bitterness, and promote peace and good will
amongst neighbors and non-combatants.
Very few ministers, comparatively, espoused actively the cause of either
party, but pursued with a singleness of purpose their legitimate
calling, ministering to all alike, and seeking only to make the gospel
the “power of God unto salvation.” Individual ministers and
ecclesiastical bodies felt deeply the importance of prudence, quietness
and ministerial fidelity to the Church of Jesus Christ, over which the
Holy Ghost had made them pastors; that the ministry be not blamed, that
the cause of the Master be kept above reproach, and that a pure
Christianity might always conserve the public peace.
Notwithstanding the good intentions and laudable efforts made by the
ministry of Missouri generally to promote the public peace, the press of
the State, both secular and religious, did very much to break the force
of their well-meant endeavors, and seemed determined either to drag the
Church into the most ultra partisan support of the war, or, in case of
failure, to place both under the suspicion and surveillance of the
military authorities.
The spirit of anti-Christ, which had been increasing and spreading for
years in Missouri, now assumed a boldness and a defiance that hesitated
not to use the party hatred of religious editors and preachers to make a
bold advance upon the doctrines and services of those who represented a
pure, non-political, unsecular Christianity. It was not uncommon for the
plainest facts to be perverted, if, by so doing, the cry of persecution
for loyalty’s sake could be raised and the most reckless passions of men
could be fired. In this kind of business the Northern Methodist
preachers and papers were more expert than others, and the hope of
wreaking a mean vengeance on the M. E. Church, South, supplied
sufficient motive. Such a declaration should not be made unless demanded
and supported by the plainest facts. Unfortunately they are not wanting,
and a few only must be selected from the many.
The _Central Christian Advocate_, published in St. Louis for the M. E.
Church, North, and edited by Dr. C. Elliott, seized every event that
could be tortured into an occasion for an inflammatory article against
the ministers and members of the M. E. Church, South.
Some time in September, 1860, the Northern Methodists held a camp
meeting not far from Utica, in Livingston county, North Missouri. The
preacher in charge was one Rev. Mr. Gardner, who had already rendered
himself obnoxious to the people by intermeddling with politics,
tampering with slaves and unministerial conduct in the social circle.
This camp-meeting was broken up on a Monday without service and in great
confusion. The cause was no matter of conjecture, nor of its
authenticity were the people permitted to doubt.
The Rev. Mr. Gardner had, the night before, been found in the wrong
tent, from which he was summarily ejected by the ladies. The public
indignation was too intense the next day to allow services to be held,
and the crime of the preacher was made too apparent by the separation of
a man and wife, the latter of whom had made herself rather conspicuous
by her great zeal in the service of Gardner and the Church.
The _Central Christian Advocate_ published it as a “great outrage,” and
made the breaking up of that meeting do good service in the persecution
of the ministers of the M. E. Church by the ministers and members of the
M. E. Church, South. The editor of that paper said so much about it that
good, honest, reliable men went to the place and investigated the
matter. It was afterward ventilated through the public prints, to the
infinite humiliation of the profession which the man disgraced and the
reproach of the cause which he shamelessly belied.
Many other things of similar character did much good service for the
party and the Church during the following winter and spring, doubtless
designed to manufacture prejudice against the people of the State, and
especially the Southern Methodists.
The _Central_, of May 15, 1861, contained the following:
“MEN AND BRETHREN, HELP!
“One of our preachers, last Sabbath week, some thirteen miles from
this city, was struck down, his meeting broken up, and members of the
M. E. Church, South, had oversight of the assault, which was conducted
under their superintendence. So said Bro. Miller, the preacher, and a
member of our Church, a Missourian, whose father and mother were
buried in Missouri, and in which he proposes to be buried, whether
killed by others or dying in the natural way.”
While the editor should be excused for writing a paragraph so awkward
and bungling, the real object will not be mistaken. It is only necessary
to state that an intelligent gentleman who was present pronounces the
whole thing utterly false. The meeting was not broken up, the preacher
was not knocked down, and there was but one member of the M. E. Church,
South, present at the service, and he left before the trouble, which
occurred outside of the church after services were closed, and grew out
of some insulting language used by the preacher to a gentleman present,
which was resented with only one slight blow which scarcely reached the
reverend offender. They were separated before any damage was done, and
left the _Central_ to do all the damage.
In this case, as in the Gardner case, the Southern Methodists were not
implicated; but for these and many other things of which they were
wholly innocent they had to suffer deeply and grievously, as these pages
will show.
During the summer of 1861 a number of ministers in different portions of
the State were robbed of all that they possessed of this world’s goods,
some were driven into exile, and some arrested and put into military
prisons. But more of these hereafter.
The State Convention assembled again, October 10, 1861, in St. Louis,
passed several vacating ordinances, and provided for the more efficient
prosecution of the war and the establishment of a more reliable sympathy
between the State and the Federal Administration. Amongst other things
it was ordained that all the civil officers of the State should take,
subscribe and file with County Court Clerks an oath of allegiance or
loyalty to support the Constitution of the United States and of the
State of Missouri, and not to take up arms against the Government of the
United States or the Provisional Government of this State, nor give aid
or comfort to the enemies of either, and maintain and support the
Provisional Government established by the State Convention of Missouri.
This oath of allegiance was required of _ministers of the gospel, as
such_.
CHAPTER IX.
THE PULPIT AND PRESS ON THE SITUATION IN MISSOURI.
Ministers of Peace—Course Pursued by the St. Louis _Christian
Advocate_—Rev. Dr. M‘Anally its Editor—Candid, Truthful,
Honest—The Cause of its Suppression, and the Imprisonment of the
Editor—Ministers of the M. E. Church, South. Labor and Pray
Earnestly for Peace—Days of Fasting, Humiliation and
Prayer—Ministers who became Political Partisans had no use for
such days-“Breathing out Threatening and Slaughter”—Spirit of
the Northern Methodist Press—False Publications for a
Purpose—One Mr. John Stearns and the _Western Advocate_—Glaring
Falsehoods—Excitement in St. Louis and Throughout the
State—Persecution of Ministers in Kansas and Reign of Terror
along the Border—Rev. W. H. Mobly and Rev. John Monroe in
Southwest Missouri—Systematic Efforts to Break up the M. E.
Church, South, and Disperse her Ministers—Editorial in _St.
Louis Advocate_—_The Central Again_—Impressions Abroad—Baptists
and Presbyterians Implicated—“Religion in Missouri”—Missouri
Conference at Glasgow—St. Louis Conference at Arrow Rock and
Waverly—Conference Stampeded by the Rumor of a Gunboat—Author
Arrested.
That the ministers of the gospel in Missouri did not commit themselves
to the strife of war, but sought to promote peace and good order in the
State, may be learned from the frequent counsel given to their
congregations to remain at home, and “as much as lay in them live
peaceably with all men.”
Many a young man was prevented from going to “Price’s army,” or any
other, by the timely advice of these men of God, and many a wife and
mother rejoice to-day in the life and love of husband and son only
through the godly admonition of faithful pastors. Some few ministers, it
is true, were led astray by popular excitement, or forced to quit their
homes and flocks by causes heretofore mentioned, and then they preached
privately what they practiced publicly. But such cases were too rare to
involve the whole ministry as a class, even by the weakest implication.
Neither were the ministers of the gospel as a whole, nor the ministers
of any one Church in Missouri, disloyal to the Government of the United
States or the Provisional Government of this State. But the very
Churches and ministers that had to suffer the most direful penalties, in
the destruction of property, the persecution, imprisonment and murder of
ministers in the subsequent years of the war, were now doing more than
any other in the State to prevent the war and promote the public peace
and tranquillity.
The St. Louis _Christian Advocate_, edited by the Rev. D. R. M‘Anally,
D. D., contained a series of very able editorials, running through April
and a part of May, 1861, on “_The Times_,” “_The Duty of Christian
Men_,” “_The Time for Prayer_,” “_To the Ministers and Members of the M.
E. Church, South, in Missouri and Kansas_,” “_The Times—A Word to our
Patrons and Friends_,” and kindred topics, in which the people were
warned of the character of the danger that threatened, advised to remain
at home, cultivate their lands and pursue the avocations of peace and
piety in the fear of God, as the best means of promoting good order in
the State, and at least mitigating the horrors of war.
That paper was candid and earnest in warning the public of the magnitude
of the rebellion and the unprecedented unanimity and courage of the
Southern people, and when the Northern press generally represented the
boasted strength of the rebellion as too puerile and insignificant to
involve the National Government in any serious trouble or protracted
war, that paper sought truthfully and conscientiously to disabuse the
public mind, and thereby prevent the many disastrous blunders committed
by an underestimate of the military resources and strength of the South.
How much of suffering might have been prevented, and how many thousands
of valuable lives might have been spared to the country, to say nothing
of the millions of treasure, had the advice of that paper been taken and
the timely warnings of its honored editor been heeded. But, like all
gratuitous counsel that is unpalatable, because truthful, it was
contemned, the motive of its author suspected, and the existence of its
medium considered dangerous.
Very many of the religious papers of the border States had already been
suspended, and the continuance of this one was a doubtful problem for
many months before its suppression.
Dr. M‘Anally’s ideas of right and wrong, of truth and error, of justice
and righteousness, were derived from the old standards. He had no
patience with the new standards of virtue that grew out of party
fanaticism and war expediencies; new fangled notions, dissimulations,
prevarication and moral travesty “he could not away with.” He had not so
learned the responsibilities of public journalism, and hence his
simple-hearted appreciation of right led him to expose the wrong
wherever it existed. His honesty required him to denounce the
wide-spread dishonesty of the times. His simple love of truth caused him
to make honest and truthful reports of the “News of the Week” according
to the actual facts, without reference to the interest of this party or
that party, this army or that, this commanding officer or that. In this
his paper presented such a contrast with the press generally that it was
sought and read by thousands of both parties, and accepted by the
unprejudiced as the most reliable paper then published.
But _because_ it was truthful, and honest, and candid, and popular, and
reliable, it was pronounced disloyal and dangerous; and because it would
not serve the cause of cruelty, confiscation, conflagration, desolation
and destruction, and with the venom of a viper hound on the barbarous
hordes with fire and sword to the commission of the foulest deeds of
war; nor with sanctimonious hypocrisy sanctify the implements and
instruments of blood and death, and canonize the vilest thieves, and
robbers, and murderers; for these reasons the paper was set down by the
enemies of the M. E. Church, South, as in the interest of treason and
rebellion, and _by them_ the military authorities wore induced to
suppress the paper and arrest and imprison its editor. Of his arrest and
long confinement in the Myrtle Street Military Prison, St. Louis, the
reader will be more fully informed hereafter.
That the ministers of the M. E. Church, South, who suffered more than
others during the war in Missouri, did not provoke the strife nor
enhance its malignity, but, on the contrary, labored earnestly and
prayed fervently for the return of peace to our distracted country, take
the following from the St. Louis _Christian Advocate_, of June 18, 1861:
“FASTING AND PRAYER.
“_To the Ministers and Members of the M. E. Church, South, in the
Missouri and St. Louis Conferences._
“DEAR BRETHREN AND SISTERS: _Whereas_, our once happy and prosperous
country is now involved in the calamities of civil war, which
threatens ruin to all our cherished hopes and interests; and whereas,
God alone, in the exercise of his sovereign and gracious
dispensations, can avert the terrible evil; and as he has promised to
be inquired of by those that fear him, and to interpose for those who
reverently and submissively supplicate his mercy and seek his Divine
interposition, it therefore becomes to every Christian community both
a high privilege and a solemn duty, in such times of serious and
alarming trials, humbly and reverently to prostrate themselves before
the mercy seat and supplicate that aid and deliverance which God only
can afford.
“And, as I have been requested by many ministers and laymen of both
Conferences (in view of my seniority as a minister) to designate and
recommend a day of fasting and prayer, I would, therefore, most
respectfully recommend that Wednesday, the third day of July, be set
apart and observed for this solemn purpose, and that appropriate
religious services be held in all our places of worship; and, in
accordance with the expressed wishes of many, and, as I think, in
accordance with manifest propriety, I tender most cordially, in behalf
of the whole Church, an invitation to all Christian people of the
State to unite with us on that day, humbly and devoutly to supplicate,
in behalf of our common country, that God, who can turn the hearts of
men as the streams in the south, would forgive our sins and in his
merciful providence hasten the return of peace to our country—our
entire country.
“ANDREW MONROE.
“_Fayette, Mo., June 5, 1861._
“The undersigned do most cordially approve the above proposition, and
earnestly recommend its observance throughout the State.
“JOSEPH BOYLE,
“E. M. MARVIN,
“H. S. WATTS,
“P. M. PINCKARD.
“_St. Louis, Mo., June 12, 1861._”
In compliance with this recommendation the churches of the State were
generally well filled with devout worshipers, and the prayers of tens of
thousands of earnest Christians ascended to the Lord of Hosts that his
anger might be turned away, that “our country—our whole country”—might
be spared the further calamities of war, and that “we might lead a quiet
and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”
These public calls to “humiliation, supplication and prayer” were
frequent in occurrence and general and fervent in response; and the
unpolitical ministry in those days presented a spectacle of touching
moral sublimity, in their fidelity to the Church and their unselfish
devotion to the cause of peace and righteousness in the midst of
universal strife and war, that deserved a higher consideration and a
better fate, while it prepared them for the scenes of suffering and the
thrones of martyrdom that yet awaited them in the not distant future.
It has not escaped the observant, however, that the ministers who
committed themselves and their pulpits to the purposes and prosecution
of the war had more days of feasting than fasting; more seasons of
glorification than humiliation; more days of thanksgiving than
supplication; more banners and bonfires than confessions of sin and
prayers for peace. If any of them observed a day of fasting, humiliation
and prayer in the proper spirit, during the whole war in Missouri, the
fact has wholly escaped the author’s mind. Their prayers, for the most
part, consisted in “breathing out threatenings and slaughter,” and in
inflaming the dangerous passions of men by the most unblushing
blasphemies and the most envenomed imprecations.
The scenes and services which dishonored the gospel and disgraced the
pulpits and those who occupied them in certain quarters during the war
can not now be recalled without the most painful sense of humiliation
and shame. It would be an outrage upon public decency and taste to
reproduce even the best specimens of them in these pages. We have
oblivion for the facts and pity for the fanatics; and if a faithful
record of the sad history we have made should require any further
allusion to such scenes, it will be made with mingled shame and
commiseration.
While the ministers in Missouri were striving manfully and humbly to
allay the bitterness of strife by frequent calls to public humiliation
and prayer, and by wise and godly counsels of peace and quietness,
designing men who had left the State, and some even who remained in the
State, were at work, through the different media of reaching the public
mind, trying to arouse the suspicions and inflame the passions of those
in power against the only real “peace-makers” in the State. Specimen
extracts have already been given from the _Central Advocate_ of
Missouri, and it may not be out of place to insert one from the _Western
Christian Advocate_, of Cincinnati, of June 12, 1861:
“’METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH,’ MISSOURI.
“We had a call from Mr. John Stearns, late a resident of Miller
county, Mo. He was formerly of Pennsylvania, but for some years had
resided in Missouri, and has been a member of the M. E. Church over
thirty-five years. He gave us the names of two of his neighbors who
had, been hung for their Union sentiments, and for being members of
the ‘so-called’ Northern Methodist Church. The leaders of the mob
hanging these men were members of the M. E. Church, South. Mr. Stearns
says further that he was informed through a friend that he himself was
to be hung Saturday, June 1st, but that he defeated the attempt by
escaping the previous night. The man who led on the mob of Jefferson
City in riddling the Methodist Episcopal Church there, of which the
expatriated Rev. Z. S. Weller was pastor, was the son of Claiborne
Jackson, the Governor of Missouri. Mr. Stearns tells us that but for
the M. E. Church, South, there would be no secessionism in the State.
The preachers and members of that denomination see that the triumph of
Unionism is their death knell, and hence the fury and despair which
characterize their fight.”
It will not be unkind to say now that such stories were manufactured
to order and published for effect. The war has come and gone, and
passion and prejudice have been measurably displaced by peace and
order; and yet, to this day, the hanging of two of Mr. Stearns’
neighbors, in Miller county, Mo., has only come to the knowledge of
the people of Missouri through the _Western Christian Advocate_, and
upon the authority of one Mr. Stearns, “formerly of Pennsylvania.”
But that this assertion is not made without good authority, read the
following extracts from two letters, as only a sample of many others on
hand:
“PLEASANT MOUNT, Miller Co., Mo., July 4, ’61.
“_Mr. Editor_: I see in your issue of June 20th a statement from one
Mr. John Stearns, who says he has been a citizen of Miller county for
some years, and that two of his neighbors were hung for their Union
sentiments, and for being members of the M. E. Church, North; that he
himself barely made his escape by starting the night before.
“Now, as to the hanging part, Mr. Stearns has grossly misrepresented
the people of Miller county. There has never been any person hung in
the bounds of the county, under any pretext whatever, much less for
their political or religious creed; and Mr. Stearns knew when he made
the statement that it was false. In fact, I doubt whether there has
ever been such a man in Miller county, at least I have found no one
who has ever known such a man, and I have inquired of the Sheriff of
the county, and the Clerk of the County Court, as well as of a number
of citizens who have lived here ever since before Miller county was
organized, and none of them have ever known such a man as John
Stearns; and if it were necessary I could get hundreds of the most
reliable men of this county to bear testimony to the truth of the
above, &c., &c.
“(Signed) THOMAS J. SMITH.”
Another letter, written by Wm. M. Lumpkin, July 2, 1861, says:
“I was born and raised in this (Miller) county, and can safely say there
never was a man hung in this county to my knowledge. I have served a
good time in this county in the capacity of Deputy Circuit and County
Clerk, and County School Commissioner, and I have never heard of such a
man before as Mr. John Stearns,” &c.
The statements were denied at the time, and means instituted to
ascertain their truth or falsity, but up to this time no information of
such hanging has come to light. But the article served its purpose, and,
like one that appeared a short time before in the New York papers, about
the hanging of a Rev. Mr. White near St. Charles, Mo., where no such man
had ever been seen, known, or heard of, and many others of a similar
style, character and purpose, it passed away much sooner than the
prejudices and passions it excited, and which were left to expend their
fury upon those who made no “fight,” and whose “death knell” was not
heard in the triumph of Unionism, except only as it was uttered from the
pulpits and pens of “false prophets.”
About this time there was intense excitement in St. Louis, especially
over the capture of Camp Jackson, the burning of bridges on the Pacific
Railroad, and the retreat of Governor Jackson and General Price from
Jefferson City. This excitement was greatly increased by the soldiers
firing into promiscuous crowds of citizens along the streets, in which a
number of citizens, with some women and children, were killed and
wounded; and also the battle of Boonville, in which it was reported in
the _Missouri State Journal_ and other papers that Gen. Lyon’s forces
had been badly cut to pieces, but which the knowledge of the facts
afterward modified to some extent. The small engagement between the
Federal and State forces at Rock Creek, near Independence, Mo., about
the same time, added somewhat to the general excitement, which by this
time had spread throughout the State.
Along the border of Kansas the people of the State were kept in constant
alarm by the depredations of what were called at that time “Kansas
Jayhawkers.” Many families were robbed, houses burned and preachers
forced to fly for safety, as the following extract from a letter to the
_St. Louis Christian Advocate_, from the Rev. N. Scarritt, a highly
esteemed minister and a presiding elder then laboring in Kansas, will
show:
“In addition to this, some of our preachers in the southern portion of
the Conference have been compelled to quit the field and leave their
work for the present, on account of the violence of civil strife so
prevalent in that section.
“Our preachers there have taken no part in the political questions that
are involving the country in so much trouble. They have been peaceable,
law-abiding citizens, leaving politics alone, and devoting themselves
exclusively to the peaceable work of preaching the peace-making gospel
of the Prince of peace.
“Yet, though this has been their known and acknowledged character, it
has not been sufficient to protect them from the rage of fanaticism and
outlawed violence. Several of them have had their horses stolen from
them by the Jayhawkers. Repeated threats of hanging, shooting, &c., have
been made against them by the jayhawking tribe, though no attempt, so
far as we know, has been made in the form of any overt act to execute
these threats.”
In Southwest Missouri several of the ministers of the M. E. Church,
South, were robbed and otherwise maltreated, amongst them Rev. W. H.
Mobley, now gone to rest, and Rev. John Monroe, one of the oldest
ministers of any Church in Missouri. These occurrences began to attract
attention by their frequency and atrocity, and it was soon discovered
that a systematic effort was being made to so annoy, and harass, and
persecute the Southern Methodist ministers that they would have to
abandon the State, and leave their churches and flocks to be seized and
absorbed by others.
The following editorial in the St. Louis _Christian Advocate_, of July
25th, indicates but too plainly the condition of things then being
forced upon us at this early period of the war:
“_Traveling Preachers._—We are sad, sad indeed, when we think of the
privations and sufferings of many of the traveling preachers of our
Church in Missouri during these troublous times. The treatment some of
them have received has been severe, not to say cruel. Bad men have
sought to implicate them in measures with which they had nothing to do,
and have them annoyed and distressed merely that private _piques_ and
personal animosities might be gratified. A number have literally been
driven from their work, either by the malice of their enemies or by
pressing want. Some, it may be, have acted imprudently—have become
partisans in the strifes now going on, and thus, in part at least, were
the authors of their own troubles. We have, at present, only a word to
say. We hope that the preachers will remain at their work as generally
as possible, that they will devote themselves to their work to the
fullest possible extent, reproving, exhorting, comforting, etc., with
all long suffering and kindness. In these times we must all suffer, more
or less, and let us suffer with our people, and be sure that we suffer
for righteousness’ sake and not as evil-doers. God rules, and they that
serve him in spirit and in truth shall find him a very present help in
time of trouble.”
The purpose to destroy the M. E. Church, South, in Missouri, was not
only formed, but expressed also, and the Northern Methodist papers were
then earnestly engaged in the effort to convince those in authority, and
to fasten it upon the public mind, that but for the Southern Methodists
treason and rebellion could not exist in Missouri. Such declarations as
the following, taken from the _Central Christian Advocate_, of August 7,
’61, were of weekly publication in the most conspicuous places in their
papers, and industriously circulated in the centres of military power:
“_A Ruined Church._—An excellent brother, for the present a local elder
of the M. E. Church, South, in Missouri, under date of July 27th, writes
to us as follows: ‘I shall endeavor to advance the interests of the
_Central_; I have no Christian fellowship with traitors and treason. Dr.
M‘Anally has ruined the Church in this country, and I hope to see the
time when a loyal Church will occupy this entire ground.’”
This, also, may be of a piece with the Gardner, the Miller and the
Stearns stories, but it was none the less effective in its object on
that account; and the license given to bad men to commit worse crimes by
such publications was only equaled by the malicious motive that
conceived it, and its influence upon the army, officers and men.
To further show what impressions were made at home and abroad upon the
public mind by false publications, let the following item, taken from
the Philadelphia _Banner of the Covenant_, of nearly the same date, be
noted:
“_Religion in Missouri._—The Baptists in Missouri, the largest
denomination, are about unanimous in favor of secession. The M. E.
Church, South, the same, with but few exceptions. The Presbyterians, the
third in numbers, are about equally divided. The M. E. Church, North,
the fourth in size, are unanimous and earnest in favor of the Union.
Half of their membership and one-third of their ministers have been
driven from the State.”
But for the exceptions in the M. E. Church, South, another paragraph in
the same paper would reveal the author of the above information. It is
as follows:
“Rev. Mr. Shumate, of Missouri, having been appointed to the chaplaincy
of a regiment, asked leave of absence for a few days, made a flying
visit to Indiana, and returned with two companies which he had recruited
for the regiment.”
The papers were filled with statements designed to prejudice the
authorities and the public against the old ministers of Missouri, which
had much to do in bringing upon the ministry and Church the peculiar
character of persecution which distinguishes the history of those times.
Henceforth the Baptist ministers of the State will have to share largely
in the persecutions and trials of their less fortunate Southern
Methodist brethren, and not a few of the Presbyterian ministers were
implicated in the same way, and had to suffer for being in Missouri.
Tho Missouri Annual Conference, M. E. Church, South, had been appointed
to meet in Hannibal, Mo., in September, 1861, but on account of the
general excitement in that portion of the State, and the deep prejudices
created by false statements against the ministers of that Church
throughout the State, it was deemed by them unsafe to attempt to hold
the Conference session in Hannibal, and it was removed to Glasgow, on
the Missouri river.
This Conference, by formal resolution, deprecated the calamities of
civil war, and affirmed its loyalty to the Government of the United
States and the Provisional Government of Missouri, attended to its
regular minute business, with Rev. W. G. Caples presiding in the absence
of a bishop, made the appointments of the preachers and separated to
their several fields of labor, all with as much dignity, quietness and
decorum as ever characterized a body of consecrated divines. Many of
them met in Conference, worshiped and wept together for the last time.
Before they could convene again a number of them had ceased at once to
suffer and to live, and had gone to mingle with the blood-washed and
white-robed beyond the flood.
The parting scenes of the preachers at this Conference were truly
touching and solemn. Many of them seemed to be impressed that the trying
scenes through which they were yet to pass would not only “try men’s
souls,” but consign many of their bodies to the grave and send their
souls “under the altar.” What names were on the “death roll” no one
could divine, and yet the general fact was scarcely concealed from them,
“that in every city bonds and afflictions awaited them.”
The St. Louis Annual Conference had been appointed to meet in
Warrensburg, but for the same reasons that influenced the Missouri
brethren to go to Glasgow the St. Louis Conference session was moved to
Arrow Rock, Saline county. The Conference convened September 25, 1861.
After organizing, with D. A. Leeper in the Chair and W. M. Prottsman
Secretary, and transacting some little committee business, the
Conference adjourned to Waverly, believing that more preachers would
meet them there, and that they would be less likely to be disturbed in
their deliberations. How much the report of a gunboat coming up the
Missouri river, or a military transport with reinforcements for the army
at Lexington, influenced this movement to Waverly, statements differ. A
Methodist Conference stampeded by a rumor, and fleeing for very life
across a whole county, scattering Bibles, hymn books and saddle-bags in
their flight, was quite a novelty; and whether it occurred or not the
report of it was enough for the malicious on the one hand and the
mischievous on the other. The very thought of it was so novel and
ridiculous that it inspired some youthful poet to immortalize the scene
in song, and his failure was due rather to the absence of the genuine
muse than to the existence of some basis and a persistent attempt at
clever rhyme.
The author himself was spared the novelty and notoriety of the occasion
only by the untimely interference of a small detachment of Colonel
Nugent’s command, then posted at Kansas City.
I had announced on Sabbath to my congregation that I would start to
Conference the next day, stating where it would be held, and about how
long I expected to be absent.
On Monday morning early, in company with Mr. H. B. Conwell, a
brother-in-law and a steward in the Church, I started for Conference.
Just as we were passing out of the city on the main road to Independence
we discovered a small squad of soldiers riding slowly about half a mile
ahead of us. To avoid molestation and detention we took a by-road that
would intersect the Westport and Independence road, on reaching which we
discovered the soldiers still ahead of us, and began at once to
conjecture some designs upon us. They had halted by a peach orchard and
were helping themselves when we drove up. They very politely gave us of
their peaches and requested us not to go ahead of them.
We traveled on behind them for some distance, when the officer in
command stopped to talk with a farmer by the road side who knew me well,
and asked when we drove up if I was on my way to Conference.
“What Conference?” asked the officer.
“The Conference of the M. E. Church, South, at Arrow Rock,” I replied,
quite indifferently.
“What, that secesh concern? I’ll see to that. No such body of traitors
can meet in this State.” And with the last words he spurred his horse up
with his command and detailed four men to put us under arrest and guard
us to Independence.
With “two behind and two before” we were ordered to “drive.” Thus we
traveled until we reached Rock Creek, two miles from Independence, when
an orderly was sent back who dismounted and ordered us to “halt.”
“I want you men to get out of this,” he said.
“For what,” I asked, mildly protesting against the proceedings.
“I want to send this buggy and horse back to camp,” he replied. “We have
use for such things sometimes to ride our wives and children out a
little.”
“Where is your camp?” was asked by Mr. Conwell, at the same time
declaring that the horse and buggy belonged to him. And when informed
that their camp was in Kansas City, at Col. Nugent’s headquarters, he
asked—
“Then why can’t you send us back to Kansas City in the buggy, under
guard if you like? We live in Kansas City.”
“No,” said he; “no use talking. If you are loyal men you can afford to
walk ten miles for the sake of the Government; and if you are disloyal,
we are not round hauling rebels. _Get out!_”
We did not wait for another invitation, but got out; and when we found
that it was not _us_ but _our’s_ they wanted we felt somewhat relieved,
took a luncheon to stay the appetite, and then the roof of the stage an
hour after, which safely landed us back whence we started.
Mr. Conwell soon obtained his horse and buggy, and a message to me, that
if I would stay at home and attend to my own business I would not be
molested; but it would not be well for me to make another attempt to go
to Conference.
The preachers in the city of St. Louis and in Southeast Missouri could
not reach the Conference. The session was short, the minute business
only receiving attention, and the presiding elders left to make the best
disposition of the preachers in their respective districts that the
circumstances would allow. The preachers separated to their several
homes and fields of labor with about the same feelings and in about the
same spirit that characterized the parting scenes at Glasgow two weeks
before. Many of them to pass through scenes of trial, persecution,
suffering, desolation, blood, and fire, and death, ere another
Conference could be held.
Looking back now upon those perilous times, it is “marvelous in our
eyes” how that these faithful men of God “endured hardness as good
soldiers,” “not counting their lives dear unto themselves so that they
might finish their course with joy, and the ministry which they had
received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.”
The history of the Church furnishes few such instances of moral heroism
as these men exhibited, even in that early period of the war troubles;
and when, afterward, the Baptists, Presbyterians and Catholic priests
became our fellow-sufferers, and augmented our moral strength, the moral
heroism was complete, sublime. The spirit of consecration to Christ and
his cause was equal to the extremest perils of property, health and
life.
CHAPTER X.
PILLAGE, PLUNDER, BLACK-MAIL—MURDER OF THE REV. J. FEWEL—3,050 NEW
ENGLAND CLERGYMEN.
Indiscriminate Robbery, Pillage, Arson and Murder—Banditti and
Revenge—Black-Mail and Espionage—Panic, Depopulation and
Plunder—Demoralization—Virtue Sacrificed—Some who Would not Bow the
Knee to Moloch—God had an Altar and Israel a Priest—Persecution,
Arrest and Imprisonment of Revs. J. Ditzler, J. B. H. Wooldridge and
D. J. Marquis—Many others Suffered in Like Manner—Rev. James Fewel
Arrested, Cruelly Treated, and Died from the Effects of Inhuman
Treatment, aged Seventy-two Years—Many such Victims—The True Office
and Work of the Ministry—Its Spirit and Mission—Any Departure
Unsettles the Public Mind—A Sad Day for the Country, Church and
State—Relations and Dependencies—Three Thousand and Fifty New
England Clergymen Before Congress—A Solemn Protest and its
Effects—Then and Now—Ecclesiastical Bodies on the “State of the
Country”—Ecclesiastical Bummers—A Settled Policy to Drive the Old
Ministers out of the State—General Halleck’s Order.
The events of 1861 had a very decided moral effect upon the public mind.
Several severe battles were fought in the State during the year, and the
armies and armed bodies of men were largely recruited. Men who, at the
first, had no thought of entering either army found themselves forced,
by circumstances, to take up arms in what was, by construction, called
self-defense—that is, by constant annoyance from armed men, by harassing
fears, from threats and rumors of mischief to person and property,
frequent arrests, pillage, plunder, etc., many a peaceable, quiet,
orderly citizen was tormented into the necessity of taking up arms.
Armed bands appeared in every part of the State—some on one side and
some on the other, some with authority and some without, but all
subsisting as they could, and but few caring how. These bands, many of
which were irresponsible brigands and marauders, usually “foraged” on
the citizens whose sympathies were on the opposite side. They did not
always stop at the necessary supplies for subsistence, but were robbers
of houses, and many of them indiscriminate and general thieves, taking
horses, mules, cattle, wagons, corn, hay, flour, bacon, fruit, blankets,
quilts, feather beds, carpets, clothing of every kind, from elegant
silks, furs and shawls to children’s shoes and toys; money, watches and
jewelry were often taken from the persons of ladies. These highwaymen
would often put the torch to dwelling houses at night and take a
fiendish pleasure in seeing the awakened inmates make their escape or
perish in the flames. Men were shot down by them on the highway, in the
fields, the woods and at the doors of their houses as though life was of
little value, and its appreciation was about equal to the effect of one
bootless, midnight murder upon the great question of Union or division.
At all events, after the battle of Lexington, September 21, 1861, and
the rapid movements of armies which followed, human life was at the
caprice of the armed banditti that multiplied so rapidly over the State.
Many defenseless citizens suffered such indignities and insults from
them, in addition to the loss of all they had on earth, that they fled
to the army for protection, or to the brush and banded together for
revenge. Men, whose houses were destroyed, and whose wives, and
daughters, and sisters had been worse than insulted by inhuman ruffians,
swore the direst vengeance, and with unsparing recklessness scattered
desolation and death in their tortuous track. For their deeds military
commanders of posts would hold defenseless communities responsible, levy
black-mail upon them, sometimes to the full value of their property, and
institute a system of espionage that would put an eavesdropper under
nearly every man’s window and a detective in every social circle and
public assembly. Property and life were thus put at the mercy of
unprincipled detectives and spies, selected often from the lowest and
most unscrupulous classes of men and women. With such a system of
military despotism no man’s life was safe, and indeed many men were
accused, arrested, imprisoned, tried, convicted and put to death without
ever knowing the charges against them.
It is not difficult to conjecture the effect of this state of things
upon the public mind. To say that the people in some whole counties
along the borders of Iowa and Kansas were seized with panic and
consternation is not more than the truth. Men and families broke up, and
taking what they could with convenience and safety fled for life and
protection, some North, some South, some to Canada, some to California,
some to the army, some to the large cities, and some to the brush. Some
men ordered and some frightened their neighbors away, and then, to
furnish them means to travel, bought their stock and lands at a nominal
price—in some instances for a mere song. What a farmer, or mechanic, or
merchant left behind in his flight was seized as lawful prey by the
first that found it and appropriated to private use. Indeed, in one
instance a whole county was depopulated outside of the towns, by
military order, and devoted to pillage and plunder, and that the third
county of the State in population and wealth.
It was even worse, if possible, in the track of large armies and in
those parts of the country upon which they subsisted.
No part of the State suffered more than the Southwest, extending from a
line that would strike Rolla, Sedalia and Fort Scott, in Kansas, to the
State of Arkansas. Many parts of that section of the State were
literally laid waste, and made a desolation by fire and sword. The
breath of war, like the simoon, swept over the country, leaving a wide
waste of desolation and death, which the benignity of peace and the hand
of industry can not reclaim and rebuild for many long years.
To say that public sentiment in the State was demoralized by such scenes
before the end of 1861 is an expression too tame to reflect adequately
the real fact. The moral forces of society were paralyzed, social
restraints were broken down, and even religious character was powerless
either for protection or public good. The old standards of virtue,
integrity, honesty and right principle were borne down and swept away,
and men became reckless of the laws of God and man. In the fury and fire
of partisan strife, and amid the familiar scenes of blood and death, men
trampled upon right, crucified truth, murdered innocence, loved
vengeance, despised virtue, abandoned principle, forgot their loves,
left their dead unburied and their buried uncoffined, and hung upon the
bloody war path like avenging furies.
In the midst of such fearful and wide-spread demoralization God
preserved only a few thousand who would not bow the knee to the bloody
Moloch. Israel was not without an altar, and the altar was not without
an acceptable sacrifice; but the spirit of anti-Christ seemed the more
embittered and enraged by that fact, and the persecution became more
general and unrelenting throughout the State.
Many congregations of quiet worshipers were dispersed; many societies
were broken up and scattered; many churches were burned, and many
ministers arrested, silenced or banished—not in the cities so much as in
the country.
Amongst the first arrests was that of the _Rev. J. Ditzler_.
In 1860 and ’61 Rev. J. Ditzler was stationed in Jefferson City, in
charge of the M. E. Church, South. He was also chaplain to the lower
House of the General Assembly.
After Governor Jackson and General Price had evacuated the State capital
and the United States forces under General Lyon had taken possession,
Mr. Ditzler remained as a non-combatant, supposing that he would not be
molested. In this he was mistaken. He was not allowed long to remain in
his quiet study at the Ferguson House or to attend to his pastoral
duties. An “orderly,” with a guard of seven men, called on him at the
Ferguson House, arrested and marched him through the city, and put him
with others in an old meat (smoke) house. He was taunted and sneered at
by his guard—the Dutch—through the cracks of the old log house. Mr.
Ditzler talked back at them in German, Italian, Spanish, French, Greek
and Hebrew, quoting freely from Schiller, Goethe and other German
authors of note, for his own relief and their amusement, until he was
reported to Col. Boernstein, Post Commander, and by him unconditionally
released, solely upon literary grounds. No charges were preferred
against him, nor could he ever find out why he was imprisoned. His
father fought at Tippecanoe, in 1812, and his grandfather at Valley
Forge, under Washington, and this treatment was not borne without some
little indignation.
Brigadier-General Brown succeeded Col. Boernstein, and Mr. Ditzler was
apprised of the purpose to re-arrest him. He was advised by his friends
to flee, and accordingly took the train late Saturday night for St.
Louis; and at noon the next day (Sabbath) a posse of ten armed soldiers
entered his church to arrest him, but he was gone. They followed him to
St. Louis only to find that he had taken a train on the Ohio and
Mississippi Railroad and made his escape.
The Rev. J. B. H. Wooldridge, the Rev. D. J. Marquis, and other
ministers, were arrested and imprisoned about the same time, and without
cause. Indeed, it became so common for ministers to be arrested that by
the last of the year 1861 it ceased to be a matter of surprise to any.
The only novelty was in finding a minister out of the army who had not
been arrested by one party or the other, and the most that could be
hoped was that life and liberty to non-political and non-juring
ministers would be exceptional.
If he lived out of the track of large armies, he would not escape the
marauding bands; and if his home should be so secluded and retired that
he could not be reached by the public highway, or easily found, there
were always unprincipled men in every neighborhood who, to seek revenge,
gain favor with the authorities, or to make an opportunity to pillage
and plunder from the sheer love of it, would go to the nearest military
post, inform on the quiet “parson,” and volunteer their services to
guide the ruffian soldiers to the home of the innocent victim. From such
causes many an innocent man suffered both in property and person.
When ministers of the gospel happened to fall into the hands of regular
army officers or those lawless brigands they were treated with a
severity and cruelty that was not often visited upon others, and which
indicated with alarming certainty the policy that would be pursued
toward the enemies of all unrighteousness.
Amongst the many instances of cruelty to ministers of the gospel who had
committed no offense whatever against the peace and dignity of the
State, it is sufficient here to mention the case of the _Rev. James
Fewel_.
This venerable servant of the regular Baptist Church, who had lived and
labored in Henry county, Mo., for many years—known, respected and
honored as a peaceable, upright, good and useful citizen—was found and
arrested near his own residence and taken off as a political prisoner to
Sedalia, thence to St. Louis, where he lay in prison more than a month,
and until death came to his relief.
His death was due solely to the cruel treatment he received from his
captors and persecutors. He had never taken up arms against his country,
had never committed a crime of any sort—not even what irresponsible
persons call treason—and had never been engaged in lawless acts of any
kind; but, then, he was a minister of the gospel, and the parties who
arrested him, and those who afterward guarded him, had commiseration
neither for his profession nor gray hairs. He lacked only three days of
being seventy-two years old when he died.
He was arrested by Capt. Foster’s company of Col. Hubbard’s regiment,
Missouri State Militia, in the latter part of December, 1861, near his
own residence, in Henry county. The weather was cold, and when the old
man found that he would be taken off he begged permission to go to his
house for more and warmer clothing. This was refused him. He then asked
the natural privilege of sending a message to his aged companion, to
inform her of his condition and obtain at least a blanket to protect him
from the weather. Even this poor boon was denied the old man, and he was
torn from his home and hurried away to Sedalia. The weather turned
bitterly cold, and the freezing December blasts swept mercilessly across
the extended prairie the livelong night, while this old man was kept in
an open railroad car, shelterless, bedless, blanketless and comfortless.
His very prayers and tears seemed to freeze on the chilly night air as
he thought of home and his long years spent in the service of God for
the good of his race. But he had to suffer this cruel treatment and
trust the God of Elijah to prepare him for what was still in store for
him. The morrow came, and with it still further and severer trials. The
weather did not moderate, neither did the severity of his persecutors.
With others he was placed in a common stock car and sent to St. Louis.
With no better protection, no better accommodations, than the horned
beasts who had been temporarily displaced by them, and even with
insufficient supplies of food, they were kept traveling and stopping all
that day and night. Chilled through and through, hungry and half dead,
this old man reached St. Louis and was hurried off to the military
prison, in which he soon fell a victim to pneumonia, and
lingered—without accusation, without trial, and without even permission
to be seen by his friends—until February 1, 1862, when death came to his
release and found him ready to “depart and be with Christ, which was far
better.”
If any charges were ever preferred against him they never came to light.
This is only one of the many instances of cruelty that occurred during
the latter part of this year, in which ministers of the gospel were
persecuted and imprisoned, and some of them died of their treatment, not
because they had been in rebellion, or because they were trying to save
the Union, but because they were ministers trying to save the souls of
men.
We have been accustomed to look upon ministers of the gospel as the
divinely commissioned ambassadors of Heaven, sent forth with a
dispensation of the gospel of peace, preaching “Jesus and the
resurrection,” and “praying men in Christ’s stead to be reconciled to
God;” that their one work was to preach the gospel, build churches,
devise ways and means for the furtherance of the kingdom of grace,
project schemes for the enlargement of the borders of Zion and for the
diffusion of the power and spirit of Christianity; to plant the gospel
standard where it is not, and build up the waste places; to do the most
possible good to the greatest number, and to do this work of love in the
spirit of the divine Master, by “being an example of the believers, in
word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity,” “by
pureness, by knowledge, by long suffering, by kindness, by the Holy
Ghost, by love unfeigned.” In this way and in this spirit to spread
“scriptural holiness over these lands,” and promote “peace on earth and
good will to men.” These ideas of the spirit and work of the gospel
ministry have become so deeply rooted in the hearts of men, and so
thoroughly interwoven with their thoughts, that any departure from that
work as thus understood creates surprise, suspicion and distrust in the
public mind.
When ecclesiastical bodies assemble it is assumed that they meet to
deliberate upon the legitimate interests of the Church of Jesus
Christ—how that form of it committed to them may be made more efficient
in bringing men to a saving knowledge of Christ Jesus, the Head of the
Church, and how their plans and polity may be improved and vitalized.
It was a sad day for this country when the gospel ministry first
departed from this work and began to legislate upon questions purely
secular and political; and if our free government should ever be broken
up and our free institutions destroyed—if our religious liberties should
ever pass away, and a political and ecclesiastical despotism be
established in this land—the philosophic historian of the future, whose
melancholy task it will be to chronicle the “decline and fall” of the
greatest republic of the world, will linger with painful interest upon
that sad event as the beginning of the catastrophe.
The separate but mutually dependent relations of Church and State, the
support of the Church and her ministry by the voluntary contributions of
the people, liberty of thought and speech, the freedom of worship and
the rights of conscience, are almost peculiar to our country and form of
government. In these things our institutions are distinct from, and in
contrast with, the Church establishments and ecclesiastical hierarchies
of Europe and Asia.
They constitute the soul and centre of our free Republican government.
The very genius of our institutions resides in them, and the ægis of
liberty shields and protects them. The State may not restrict or control
them, and the Church dare not intermeddle with the affairs of State.
Tho two may exist together, but can never coalesce. They must be
distinct and separate in their laws, their government, their
administration, their spirit, their agencies and their objects, while
they have the same subjects. So long have Church and State existed
separately in this country, and so widely different in their spirit,
agencies and objects, that it is both natural and philosophical for the
public mind to be disturbed and alarmed by every attempt of the one to
intermeddle with the legitimate affairs of the other.
Few events in the history of this country caused greater alarm for our
peace and safety in the minds of reflecting men than the appearance
before the Congress of the United States of three thousand and fifty
clergymen of New England in the following protest against the passage of
the Kansas-Nebraska bill, in 1854:
“_To the Honorable, the Senate and House of Representatives, in Congress
assembled_:
“The undersigned, clergymen of different religious denominations in New
England, hereby, in the name of Almighty God and in his presence, do
solemnly protest against the passage of what is known as the Nebraska
bill, or any repeal or modification of the existing legal prohibitions
of slavery in that part of our national domain which it is proposed to
organize into the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. We protest against
it as a great moral wrong, as a breach of faith eminently unjust to the
moral principles of the community, and subversive of all confidence in
national engagements; as a measure full of danger to the peace and even
the existence of our beloved Union, and exposing us to the righteous
judgments of the Almighty: and your protestants, as in duty bound, will
ever pray.
“_Boston, Massachusetts, March 1, 1854._”
This pretentious protest—“in the name of Almighty God”—was the first
open and bold attempt of the clergy in this country to influence
national legislation; and while Messrs. Mason, Douglass and others in
the United States Senate administered to these officious clergymen a
severe rebuke for thus intermeddling with the affairs of the National
Government, good men were justly alarmed for the result, and the whole
country was appalled by this bold advance of the Church toward the
control of the affairs of the State.
Then the finest model of ecclesiastical polity in the world trembled and
the wisest frame work of civil government felt the shock. Then the work
of our fathers—combining the wisdom of the ages and the religion of the
gospel in one grand structure of civil and religious liberty—the glory
of Washington, the pride of every American, the dread of tyrants and the
admiration of the world, began to reel upon its throne and totter to its
fall. Then the deadly virus was injected, and the veins and arteries of
national life carried the poison to every part of the body politic, and
from that day forth “death was in the pot.” Then the axe was laid at the
root of the fair tree of liberty, whose roots had been fastened deep in
the national heart, and whose branches already spread over a continent
and toward heaven, under which the oppressed of every nation found
shelter, and the down-trodden of every clime sought repose, peace,
liberty and life. Then the religious and political waters mingled, and
the whole stream of national life was corrupted and hastened on in
turbulent commotion to the “blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke” of ’61.
Ministers contented themselves then with a firm and solemn protest; they
afterward made imperious demands. They sought then to prevent the
enactment of “a measure full of danger to the peace and even the
existence of the Union;” they afterward demanded, in the name of
Almighty God, the enactment of laws, the conduct of the war, the
election of men to office, the success of party measures, manhood
suffrage, and any other purely political matter, as though the union of
Church and State was an accomplished fact and they were the constituted
vice-regents to supervise and control the legislation of the country.
At the beginning of the war, and during its continuance, when
ecclesiastical bodies met, about the gravest matter before them for
deliberation was the “State of the Country,” and how they could deliver
themselves so as to effect in any particular direction either the course
of Congress, political elections or the movement of armies. This was
true in an eminent degree of the M. E. Church, the Presbyterian Church
(Old and New School), Congregational, Unitarian, and some Baptist
associations of the Northern and Eastern States.
Nor wore these deliverances confined to the larger representative Bodies
of these Churches, but the primary church courts, ministers’
associations, conventions and Conferences made themselves conspicuous by
such unwise interference with matters purely secular and political.
Secret conclaves were held in Missouri by ministers and others
professing to be disciples of Christ, in which plans were devised and
projected to persecute, by proscription, robbery, arrests, imprisonment
and confiscation, if not by means still severer, ministers of the gospel
in this State who would not stultify themselves nor disgrace their
profession by falling in with them and joining the hue and cry for blood
and death.
Consultations were had and schemes devised by which the military
authorities could be used to oppress and persecute ministers whose
loyalty was questioned by these politico-ecclesiastics, and whose only
crime was that they possessed property and stood high in the confidence
of the people whom they had served faithfully for many years.
Revolutions never go backward, and it was a part of the forward movement
of these scheming adventurers who followed the army to keep out of
danger, and who served post and field commanders as volunteer aids for
the uses they could make of them in taking possession of churches,
persecuting and running off ministers and foisting another ministry on
the people.
It was a settled purpose to drive the old ministers out of the State.
Those who had planted the Church and grown up with her institutions, and
whose long and useful lives were identified with the early and heroic
history of the Church, had now to give place to newcomers, whom the
people did not want, or yield to the pressure of the new order of
things. These ecclesiastical bummers had influence at military
headquarters, and could use the officers of the army to accomplish their
purpose; and it was doubtless through their influence that so many
orders were issued from the Headquarters of the Department of Missouri
bearing directly upon ministers as a class. Not enough to affect them as
citizens in common with other citizens, but as ministers.
The following order may suitably close this chapter:
When Major-General Halleck was in command of the Department of Missouri
he caused to be issued an Order, under date of February 3, 1862, called
“General Orders No. 29,” requiring the “President, Professors, Curators
and all other officers of the University of Missouri to take and
subscribe the oath of allegiance prescribed by the sixth article of the
State Ordinance of October 16, 1861,” or failing to do so within thirty
days their offices will be considered vacant, and “in order that its
funds should not be used to teach treason or to instruct traitors, the
authorities of the University should expel from its walls all persons
who, by word or deed, assist or abet treason.”
The offices of railroad companies, Government contractors, agents,
clerks and Government employees, and all military officers were required
to take either the same oath or the one prescribed by an act of
Congress, approved August 6, 1861.
This long military order closes as follows:
“V. It is recommended that all clergymen, professors and teachers, and
all officers of public and private institutions for education,
benevolence, business and trade, and who are in favor of the
perpetuation of the Union, voluntarily to subscribe and file the oath of
allegiance prescribed by the State Ordinance in order that their
patriotism may be made known and recognized, and that they may be
distinguished from those who wish to encourage rebellion and prevent the
Government from restoring peace and prosperity to this city and State.”
Or, in other words, “mark them that company not with us.”
CHAPTER XI.
SEIZURE OF CHURCHES—CHURCHES IN KANSAS CITY AND INDEPENDENCE.
Church Property—Can the War Revive or Create Titles—Church
Property on the Border—Maysville, Kentucky—Legal Rights of
Property—Attainder—Honest Inquiry—Eighth Commandment—The Truth
of History—_Church in Kansas City_—North Methodists—Faithful
Ladies—What was Said at the Time—Some who were with us Went out
from us—Their loss our gain—_Church in Independence_—How they
Got it and Why they Kept it—The Former Pastor—Why he left—Battle
of Independence—“Black Thursday”—A Rev. James Lee—How he got
Possession of the Church—Rev. Mr. DeMott—How he got Possession
of the Parsonage—A Poor Widow Turned Out by Military
Order—Strategy—Rev. M. M. Pugh Demands the Property—Why
Refused—Recourse to the Civil Courts—Statement of the Case by
Counsel—Side Scenes—Extracts from the St. Louis _Advocate_—This
Property in the Statistics of Northern Methodism—Action of the
Missouri and Arkansas Conferences, M. E. Church, on the
Subject—Reflections.
The fact has been stated elsewhere that the division of the Methodist
Church in 1844 extinguished all right and title to the Church property
in this State that inhered in the M. E. Church, North. After the
Missouri Conference voted, in the fall of 1845, to adhere South, and by
that act became an integral part of the M. E. Church, South, according
to the “Plan of Separation,” the other wing of the Church became, in
fact and in law, dispossessed of all the Church property in the State.
By the decree of the Church and of the civil courts the right and title
of the M. E. Church, North, to all species of Church property was so
effectually extinguished that no claim was ever set up and no effort
made by that Church to gain possession of any church, parsonage, or
other property in this State, from the vote of the Missouri Conference
in 1845 to the beginning of the war in 1861. That Church accepted the
situation, acquiesced in the decision, and yielded her claims to the
decree of Missouri Methodism.
If any claim was ever set up to any species or piece of property, or any
suit in any civil court was ever instituted to gain possession of any
property during this period of seventeen years, the author is to this
day ignorant of the fact. A residence in the State of nearly twenty
years has failed to bring the fact to his knowledge. It is, therefore,
of no minor significance that these facts stand in the records of
history, and must enter largely into the consideration of subsequent
facts now to be put on record. Let them be duly considered and they will
color with deepest significance the acts and doings of that Church
during the war.
It may be that the decision of the Church in Missouri was too nearly
unanimous, and the force of public opinion was too strong in its
endorsement of the Plan of Separation and the vote of the Conference;
and, then, it may be that the few scattered preachers and members whose
sympathies were with the Church, North, were in themselves too feeble at
any given point, or had the sense of justice and right too strong at
every point, to encourage any attempt to gain possession of property
that rightfully belonged to others. If their complete acquiescence can
not be accounted for upon either of the above hypotheses, then it rests
with the fact that in other States the rights of property would be
settled by the civil courts; and in Missouri they preferred to await the
decision of courts in those States where the Northern claimants would
not be put at such great disadvantage.
While the property question was in an unsettled state several churches
along the border of Kentucky and Virginia were put through the sharpest
litigation.
Prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the
great “Church Property Case,” appeals were made to the civil courts in
several places to decide the rights of property, of which that for the
Church in Maysville, Ky., was among the earlier and most noted.
In this Church, out of a membership of two hundred and fifty-six,
ninety-seven voted to adhere North. This minority had a preacher sent to
them from Ohio and sued for possession of the Church property. The case
was carried to the State Court of Appeals, and that distinguished
jurist, Chief Justice Marshall, in decreeing that the property
rightfully belonged to the M. E. Church, South, among other things,
said:
“There are now two distinct Churches in the place of the M. E. Church of
the United States—the one the M. E. Church, North, the other the M. E.
Church, South—these two differing from the original and from each other
only in locality and extent; each possessing in its locality the entire
jurisdiction of the original Church.”
Wherever the right of property was referred in any given locality to the
civil courts the decision was the same as that above, and the Northern
Methodists of Missouri acquiesced in the extinguishment of their right
to all the property formerly owned by the original Church, and its legal
confirmation to the M. E. Church, South.
Now, it may well and significantly be inquired how the civil war of 1861
could revive the title to property that had been extinguished, in fact
and in law, by the will of its legal owners in 1845? Laws may be
repealed, altered and amended, but not so as to affect the previous
rights of property. Nothing is more sacredly guarded by civil
legislation than the rights of property. Laws may change, but justice
and equity remain the same; and courts of equity not unfrequently
pronounce upon the equity of legislation in respect to the rights of
property. Hence the strongest rights are those founded both in law and
equity.
If the rights of property were revived by the civil war it must have
been done in one of two ways: either by legislation or attainder. It was
never claimed to have been revived by legislation, which, to say the
least, was a doubtful expedient, and conferred a doubtful right, if any
at all. It could not have been done by attainting the blood of the
lawful property holders, except by due process of law and for cause.
This was never even attempted.
Then we fall back upon the original inquiry, how the civil war revived
property rights that had been extinguished nearly twenty years? What
virtue in armies, in battles, in fire or blood to resuscitate
extinguished titles? What virtue in martial law, in military occupation
and orders, or in drum-head courts-martial, to set aside the legal and
moral rights of one Church and set up the legal claims of another
Church? Was it the right of might, and the might of arms? Could bullets
and bayonets set aside or substitute warranty deeds? How could the
battle of Springfield, fought August 10, 1861, affect the title of
Church property in Springfield secured by deed of conveyance, dated
October 11, 1856, to certain gentlemen as trustees of the M. E. Church,
South, to hold in trust for the uses of said Church? Or how could the
battles of Boonville or Lexington destroy the rights of property in
those cities which inhered in the members of the M. E. Church, South?
If the ministers and members of the M. E. Church sought, under cover of
military orders and with the support of bayonets, to gain possession of
the property of others, was it not _prima facie_ evidence that their
claims would not be recognized in law or equity? and was it not a
confession to the mean purpose of obtaining by force that to which they
had no shadow of right in law? If they obtained Church property by
unfair and clandestine means, under the covert sanction of the military
authorities, wherein do they differ from others who break the eighth
commandment? Can military orders suspend Divine commands and confer a
moral right to take possession and appropriate the property of others?
Let these questions, and all others of a kindred nature which the
curious casuist may be disposed to ask, be answered in the light of the
foregoing and the forthcoming facts. Put that and this, then and now,
together, and let the conscientious verdict of an enlightened public
judge between us.
The truth of history requires a record now, and a detailed statement of
historical facts, that for the sake of common honesty, the plainest
equity, the humblest scale of justice, and the lowest stages of our
common Christianity, should forever be buried with the dead past and lie
forgotten “as a dream when one awaketh.” But truth and justice demand
many things which a common charity, and even a common decency, would
consign to oblivion. A diluted charity should never make the pen
hesitate in the presence of important, though unpalatable, truths.
History must be worthy of its theme, and the pen must be equal to the
utmost demands of the history. “Naught extenuate, and naught set down in
malice.”
In 1862 and ’63 there was a movement—so general over the State that the
conviction that it was concerted and simultaneous can not be escaped—to
seize, possess and hold for their own use, by the Northern Methodists,
the churches belonging to the M. E. Church, South. Persistent efforts
for this purpose were made in almost every county in the State; and if
the whole history could be brought to light it would be seen that there
was held, at some place or places, a secret conclave of ministers in
which the purpose and the plan were agreed upon. It will not be
necessary to specify the particulars of every case of church seizure,
but the following more prominent cases will be sufficient:
CHURCH IN KANSAS CITY.
In the fall of 1862 Rev. M. M. Pugh, then stationed at Kansas City, was
forced by persecution to abandon his church and charge and flee for
protection to a neighboring military post. Mr. Pugh was watched by
enemies and warned by friends. The threat, oft repeated, of arrest and
imprisonment did not deter him. But to know that his steps were dogged,
that detectives were on his track, that his life was threatened, and to
be told by military officers that they could not be responsible for his
life any night, and to be advised that there were lyers-in-wait to
assassinate him, put his life in too great peril to remain with his
people. He fled.
As soon as his absence was known the Northern Methodists took possession
of the church and held it under military protection. They organized a
society composed of a few Northern fanatics and a few renegade and
weak-kneed Southern Methodists. They pronounced the M. E. Church, South,
dead and beyond the hope of resurrection, tried to get possession of the
church records and declare all the former society of Southern Methodists
members, _nolens volens_. When they found that but few would accept the
transfer, they pronounced the rest disloyal, and threatened them with
confiscation. “But none of these things moved them,” and they maintained
their fidelity to the Church of their choice notwithstanding all the
abuse, and slander, and threatenings, and slaughter, that these
religious loyalists could bring to bear upon them.
After the occupancy of the church for some months they became conscious
of wrong-doing and of guilt, and in shame and humiliation turned the
property over to the rightful owners. They found that military orders
did not confer letters of administration. If the Church, South, was dead
and buried, what right had they more than others to administer on the
estate?
In the _St. Louis Christian Advocate_, of May 31, 1866, a correspondent
from Kansas City makes the following statement:
“But the Church. During the war our Church passed through sore
trials—had ‘fightings without and fears within.’ She was ‘persecuted,
but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed.’ Rev. M. M. Pugh
remained with the Church in Kansas City until the latter part of 1862,
attending to his legitimate business in his own quiet way—preaching
Christ and his cross to perishing sinners—when the presence of
blood-thirsty Northern Methodist preachers and their willing tools,
threatening his life on the streets and dogging his steps, hounded him
off to safer quarters where he could rely upon the protection of
military power. The Northern Methodists then took possession of the
church, organized a society, composed in part of a few blinded fanatics
and weak-kneed renegades from the M. E. Church, South, who at once
imagined themselves possessed of other people’s property, began to abuse
and traduce Southern Methodists, pronounced the Church dead, and
proceeded to administer on the estate.
“But ‘military necessity’ did not confer upon them letters of
administration, and they reckoned without their host. It is true, the
General Conference of the M. E. Church, North, enacted a political test
of membership for all persons everywhere who seek admission to her
pales; and I submit whether or not they make the repeal of the eighth
commandment, also, a test of membership for the province of Missouri.
For it seems that no sooner do people get into that Church than they
proceed to take and to hold, to possess and to use, property for which
others have paid, and houses which others have built, supposing that
membership in that Church invests them, under the operation of a ‘higher
law,’ with rights and titles above warranty deeds and Supreme Court
decisions.”
In the same paper, of June 13, 1866, the following statement appears
upon the same subject:
“After Brother Pugh was run off the Church was occupied for some time by
the Northern Methodists, who assumed that the Church property was
theirs, to have and to hold, with all the appurtenances thereto
belonging, to them and to their successors forever. They abused Southern
Methodists roundly, threatened them much, and with all the prestige of
power assaulted the gates of our Zion until they became so offensive
that all _true_ friends of our Church and of the Government gave them a
wide berth and left them alone in their shame.
“Some who in name had been with us, but were not in heart of us, went
out from us to take shelter under their political banner, prove their
loyalty to the Government, and—as they were told—save their property and
their lives, and be fitted, as it proved, to enjoy the product of
others’ labor and the spoils of pious conquest.
“The faithful of our Church pursued the even tenor of their way, and
when refused their own house of worship met in private houses for
worship, and when denied this means of grace they kept up the sewing
circle and mite society, and in this way the ‘faithful women not a few’
preserved an organization, a name and a life. While their harps were
upon the willows they often sat down together and wept when they
remembered their Zion, once so beautiful for situation—the joy of all
hearts. They suffered all that the betrayal of Judas and the denial of
Peter could inflict upon them. Yet, believing truth and right, though
nailed to the cross and buried in the tomb, would, like the divine
Redeemer, rise again leading captivity captive and conferring gifts upon
men, they waited patiently and hopefully till their change should come.
And it did come, and that by a way they knew not. They were, like their
Lord, ‘despised and rejected of men,’ yet their faith failed not. They
had confidence in the Church and the pledges of her risen Head. Their
faith grew sublime as the darkness increased and the troubles multiplied
about them. ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ they heard
in the thick darkness, and bowing to the storm they sheltered themselves
within the clefts of the everlasting Rock ‘until these calamities be
overpast.’
“There were some men in authority who loved the right and hated the
wrong. There were, also, ‘good men and true’ in the Church, whose
loyalty to the Government was only equaled by their fidelity to the
Church, and neither could be shaken by all the libels and slanders of
ecclesiastical hirelings. When such men have the adjustment of the
rights of property, truth and righteousness will at last prevail, and
justice will be reached in the end. To such are we indebted for our
Church property in Kansas City.”
These extracts show the purpose and the plan of these ministers and
members of the M. E. Church. The virtues of super-loyalty claimed for
themselves, and the cry of disloyalty and treason against Southern
Methodists, were not to go unrewarded. It may be uncharitable to suspect
the motives of others, but it is not uncharitable to record their acts
and doings when the cause of truth and righteousness will be served and
the truth of history vindicated thereby.
CHURCH AT INDEPENDENCE.
In 1857 the members and friends of the M. E. Church, South, erected,
finished, furnished, dedicated and paid for a beautiful Church in the
city of Independence. The architecture was half Gothic, and most elegant
in its proportions and finish, two stories, with Sunday school, lecture
room, pastor’s study, class rooms, closets, library and furnace rooms
below, and above one of the handsomest audience rooms in the State. The
whole cost was over $15,000. A convenient and commodious parsonage in
the rear, on the same lot, with ample and tastefully ornamented grounds
for both Church and parsonage.
This property was built and paid for by Southern Methodists, and used
and occupied by them without molestation till the fall of 1862, when it
was left temporarily without a pastor. A covetous eye had been on it,
and the pastor for 1861 and ’62 had often been warned of personal danger
and advised to seek some place of safety. He was several times put under
military arrest, and several times informed of plots and purposes to
shoot or hang him. The leaders of marauding bands of Kansas “Redlegs” or
“Jayhawkers” had often sworn vengeance against him because he was a
Southern Methodist preacher. They had hunted diligently for some
accusation against him, or some pretext for taking his life, but he had
been too prudent and cautious for their purpose; had pursued with
singular fidelity his own calling, nor turned to the right or left for
any purpose or party; had made many warm friends amongst the best Union
men, who demanded that he should be let alone in his work and not
molested any way by the authorities. They pronounced him loyal to his
Master, his Church, his country, “and to have nothing laid to his charge
worthy of death or of bonds.” He felt safe in the hands and under the
protection of the regular military authorities, even such desperate
characters as Lane, Jennison, Anthony, Montgomery, Nugent, etc., within
whose military lines he had lived, and preached, and labored without any
great annoyance or molestation. But the bands of lawless desperadoes and
plunderers who could be used by designing men for any purpose whatever,
such as Cleveland and others, from Kansas, were too irresponsible and
reckless to trust. Friends had traveled in the night from Kansas City to
Independence, a distance of twelve miles, to warn him of threats to hang
him made by Cleveland and other outlaws, and through many other sources
he was impressed with the fact that to remain would be to sacrifice his
life causelessly. His friends advised him to seek safety in flight, even
the Union military officers of the post counseled this course and
provided the necessary facilities.
While his preparations to leave were being made the battle of
Independence was fought, in which the Confederates, under Colonels
Hughes, Thompson, Boyd and others, succeeded in taking the city, with
its garrison, after a contest of four hours. This occurred on the
morning of August 13, 1862, and precipitated the flight of the pastor.
After the surrender he spent the day in caring for the wounded and
dying, the night in packing up and storing his effects, and the next day
at 2 P. M., with his family, his trunks and some few movable effects, in
a coverless two-horse wagon, he started for Lexington and St. Louis.
He had not been gone two hours when the city, was re-entered by the
Federal forces—a much enraged Kansas regiment—and for some cause yet
unknown his house and church were searched, and every place of possible
concealment in the whole vicinity visited with unsparing vigilance to
find him. Enraged soldiers stamped the pavement in bitter
disappointment, and swore loudly that if he could be found the first
limb would be too good to swing his lifeless carcass for the fowls of
the air.
Many a dark day had he shared with his flock, and they rejoiced now in
his safety. He will never forget the “Black Thursday,” as it was called
by sad distinction, when all the men of the city were arrested by Col.
Jennison, penned up in the Court House yard, and guarded by a double
line of soldiers all around the public square, while the drunken negroes
of his command were turned loose upon the city to free the slaves and
pillage and plunder the homes of the people to their hearts’ content.
The insults offered the ladies by those beastly semi-savages, infuriated
by bad whisky, and the deeds of horror committed by them, will
sufficiently characterize the day as the “Black Thursday,” and
distinguish the annals of crime without any detailed record here. None
can forget the pillage and burning of Porter’s elegant residence and the
very narrow escape of his sick daughter, who was rescued from the second
story only by the efforts of the ladies, in defiance of the threats of
the brutal soldiery; nor will that line of burning buildings, the light
of which fell on their retreating path all the way back to Kansas City,
and made lurid and fervid the evening sky, ever pass from the mind. Many
other scenes of similar character had made life and property insecure;
and Southern Methodist ministers were the objects of particular
displeasure.
During that fall, and before the church had been supplied with another
pastor, a Rev. James Lee, of the M. E. Church, North, made his
appearance in Independence and demanded possession of the church. He
first demanded the key, which the rightful owners refused to give up. He
then appealed to the military commander of the post. This officer
ordered the trustees of the M. E. Church, South, to report the key to
his headquarters under pain of confiscation and banishment. The key was
surrendered to him, and he gave it to Mr. Lee with his authority to hold
and use the Church. After Mr. Lee got possession of the house of worship
he, as if to “add insult to injury,” went through with a formal
dedication service, setting the house apart to the worship of God as
though it had been a pagan temple; after which it was used by the
Northern Methodists as though it belonged of right to them, and without
any seeming compunctions of conscience. The Church, South, had no place
of worship, and in some respects the ladies of Independence duplicated
the work and re-enacted the scenes of Kansas City.
In 1864 Rev. Mr. DeMott was sent by his Church to hold possession of and
use the property. Not content with the church, he demanded the
parsonage. He already had the coat and he wanted the cloak also. But the
trustees of the M. E. Church, South, had rented the parsonage to a poor
widow, Mrs. Brazil by name. Mr. DeMott asked her to vacate the house,
this she declined to do; he demanded the key, she refused to give it up.
He then appealed to the Commander of the Post, and returned with the
result of this appeal in the form of the following military order:
“HEADQUARTERS 43d INF. MO. VOLUNTEERS. }
INDEPENDENCE, MO., March 31, 1865. }
“_To Mrs. Brazil, living in Methodist Parsonage, Independence, Mo._:
“It having been represented to the commanding officer that you occupy
the parsonage belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, and persist
in retaining the possession of the same to the exclusion of the
minister of said Church, using in connection with such refusal
language defiant of the Federal authorities and treasonable to the
United States Government, you are therefore required to move your
household goods out of and evacuate said parsonage by the morning of
the third of April proximo; at which time, on failure on your part to
comply with this order, your goods will be removed by the commander of
this station.
“Very respectfully,
“B. R. DAVIS,
“Major 43d Mo. Vols., commanding station.”
Now, let it be understood that this property, as well as the church, had
been built and paid for by the Southern Methodists, and of the three
hundred members of that Church then in Independence, not more than eight
or ten united with the M. E. Church, North.
The language of the above order sufficiently indicates the
representations made by Mr. DeMott to the military authorities to
influence them to move in that direction in their work of saving the
Union.
To turn a defenseless and helpless widow with her children and household
effects into the streets to make room for a Northern Methodist minister
to occupy and hold property that belonged to others was, perhaps, a
military movement of great strategic importance to the cause of the
Union and the restoration of the Government; but in the light of moral
honesty and Christian decency the military manœuvre becomes a pious
fraud, which the perpetrators were forced, after using its opportunities
for several years, to confess before men.
The church and parsonage were occupied and used by Mr. DeMott, when in
the fall of 1865 Rev. M. M. Pugh was appointed by the St. Louis Annual
Conference, M. E. Church, South, to the Independence station. On his
arrival he made a formal demand of Mr. DeMott for the property. This was
just as formally refused; the occupant declaring at the same time that
he “had been sent there by his Church to hold that property for the use
and benefit of the M. E. Church, and he intended to do it.” Recourse was
had to the law, and suit for possession was instituted.
This suit was called in the Circuit Court for the spring of 1866, when
Mr. DeMott made affidavit that important witnesses were absent and he
was not ready for trial—the case was continued. The following fall term
of the Court was held, and the defendants again swore that they were not
ready for trial. Again the case was continued, but it was apparent that
the motive for continuing the case so often was the farther use of the
property, of which they knew the law would deprive them. They were never
ready for trial, but began to feel the force of public sentiment and the
shame of fraudulent dealing, if the sense of shame still remained; and
the wiser and abler of them began to fear the penalty, not only of
fraud, but of rents and damages, and advised a compromise. In February,
1867, they proposed, through their counsel, one Col. Hines, to surrender
the property and pay all costs if the M. E. Church, South, would
withdraw the suit. To this Messrs. Sawyer, Chrisman and Hovey, counsel
for plaintiffs, agreed. The suit was accordingly withdrawn, the property
vacated, and the rightful owners took possession.
The property was much damaged, and involved heavy expense in the
necessary repairs. Those who occupied it evidently felt that it did not
belong to them, and abused it accordingly.
To show more fully the grounds of the suit and the defense set up by
defendants it may not be out of place, as an important part of the
history of this affair, to introduce here a statement of the case
furnished by Sam’l Sawyer, Esq., of Independence, one of the counsel for
plaintiffs. It is as follows:
“The Church property at this place (Independence), as you are aware, was
taken possession of by the M. E. Church, North, during the war, and the
trustees of the Church, South, were compelled to assume the offensive.
At first a suit by forcible entry was instituted before a Justice of the
Peace, which was moved to the Circuit Court by _certiorari_; but as the
suit, however determined, would not settle the title to the property, it
was thought advisable to institute a suit, not only for possession, but
also to quiet the title. In this last suit a full history of the church
at Independence, as well as of the action of the General Conference in
New York in 1844, and the Louisville Convention in 1845, was set up. In
the answer filed by defendants they admitted the action of the General
Conference of 1844, and the Convention at Louisville, Ky., the following
year; also, the action of the Missouri Annual Conference of 1845, but
deny their authority to act in the premises, and assert that the
property was conveyed for the use of the M. E. Church at Independence
Station, that they are the successors of the original trustees named in
the deed of conveyance, and as such they assert their title to the
property. Within the past few months several passes have been made for a
compromise, but nothing definite was proposed until last Saturday, when
I received a proposition from the attorney for defendants to surrender
the whole property and pay all the costs. This proposition, although not
what it should have been, yet, under the circumstances, and in view of
the uncertainty hanging on the future, it was deemed best to accept; and
on last Monday morning I received the keys, and possession was at once
given to the trustees of the M. E. Church, South. This I hope ends the
controversy.
“I would be glad to believe that the motive claimed, viz., a disposition
to do right, was the governing motive in giving up the property; but my
own opinion is, they saw that whenever trial could be had they had no
case, and hence concluded to get out of a bad scrape with as much credit
as possible. There was a difference of opinion among their members.
Those, as usual, who had no pecuniary interests, and no property to
answer for the costs and damages that might be recovered, were for fight
to the last, while the more moderate and the men of means were
determined to yield the possession, and their better counsels
prevailed.”
Thus ended the case as it exists plainly in the facts of history, but
there are some side lights and side scenes in the details without which
the affair will not be complete. A few circumstantial details, which are
contained in a communication found in the _St. Louis Christian
Advocate_, of June 20, 1866, will serve to sample the whole. Take the
following extracts:
“And there, too, stands that elegant church, with its stained windows
and tall, graceful spire, at once the pride and ornament of the city;
but its aisles are trod by other feet, and its cushioned pews are filled
or reserved for other worshipers than those who built, or bought, or
owned the property. The pulpit and altar, so tastefully fitted and
furnished by the young men in 1857, are now served by other hands and
other tongues, and I had almost said by another gospel, than those for
whom or that for which they were prepared.
“The parsonage, which has housed so many good men of our church and
their families, for whom it was built, is now occupied by another; and
the spacious yard, once so tastefully ornamented with shade and fruit
trees, flowers and evergreens, is laid waste and almost bare—now the
common resort of horses, cows, hogs, dogs and dirty children from the
streets.
“Sadly I turned away from a scene of wrong and desecration to pity the
moral condition of the hearts that could meditate and the hands that
could perpetrate such sacrilegious injustice. What right have the
Northern Methodists to this property? Did they build it? buy it? pay for
it? or even give one dollar toward paying for it? What claim do they set
up? What show of right? If there be a higher law than civil law—if there
be another standard of moral justice and right than the inspired gospel
which they pretend to preach and practice—then they may have some show
of claim; not without.
“For nearly twenty years that property has been held by trustees,
regularly appointed, for the use and benefit of the M. E. Church, South,
and no one questioned their legal right or sought to disturb their
peaceable possession.
“But during the reign of terror, in 1862, ’63 and ’64, under which so
many people in Jackson county lost their lives, and so many more their
property, and under the oft-reiterated threats of Northern Methodists
and their hirelings, with no inconsiderable military pressure, this
property passed out of our hands without the formalities and fogyism of
bargain and sale, or legal transfer of title.
“* * * When the war closed, and President Johnson had ordered the return
of the property taken from us in the South under the notorious
Stanton-Ames order, the trustees of our church made a civil demand for
the restoration of this property also, which was refused by these loyal
(?) property-lovers.
“The ladies, believing that they had the first and best right to the
property, and chagrined at this refusal, entered the church one day with
their knitting and sewing, to the number of thirty, and disposed of
themselves in a peaceable, quiet, orderly way, to spend the day in the
house of worship built and paid for by their husbands, fathers and
brothers. The Northern Methodist preacher, soon apprised of the fact,
hastened to a civil magistrate and made affidavit that these ladies were
‘disturbing the peace,’ procured a peace warrant and a constable and
proceeded to the church, where he found these orderly ladies ‘assembled,
neither with multitude or tumult,’ and had them arrested and dragged
before the civil officer for trial. With all of their ‘false witnesses’
nothing was found in them ‘worthy of prison or of death,’ and after
binding them over to keep the peace they were released.
“* * * President Johnson was applied to personally for the restoration
of this property to its rightful owners, as it had been taken under
military authority and order. He referred the matter to General Pope,
commanding the Department. Gen. Pope put the case, with instructions, in
the hands of a subordinate officer, and he buried it so deep in his
pocket that it never came to light afterward.”
These are only some of the circumstances that seem necessary to develop
the whole transaction, but they must suffice. The case is on record,
with many others of like character, to go down to posterity as a part of
the history made during those dark days. The Northern Methodist papers
have repeatedly denied that their Church ever seized, held or
appropriated the property of the M. E. Church, South. One more fact will
be a positive confirmation of their appropriation of this property. It
is this:
In the official statistics of the “Missouri and Arkansas Annual
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church for 1865” this church and
parsonage are reported and valued, the church at $17,000 and the
parsonage at $3,000. The same property is again reported in the
statistics for 1866; and then, without any note of explanation,
disappears from the annual statistical report of Church property in
Missouri.
To show that this action, with all similar efforts to gain possession of
the property of others, was encouraged and sanctioned by the Church in
Missouri, and was only a part of their programme of Church extension, in
the minutes of the “Missouri and Arkansas Annual Conference” for 1865
the following record is made:
“The following resolution was read and referred to the Committee on the
State of the Church:
“_Resolved_, That the preachers of the Conference be, and they are
hereby, requested to take all necessary steps in order to repossess the
Church property belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church in
Missouri.”
That the above committee did most fully meet the intent of that
resolution the report which was unanimously adopted will show. It is as
follows:
“Your committee beg to record our devout gratitude to the great Head of
the Church for the rich and glorious manifestations of his power in the
extension of his kingdom within the bounds of the Conference. At such a
time and in such an age as this every friend of the truth and every
lover of extension should be vigilant and hopeful, and more especially
as the ministers and members of the ever loyal Methodist Episcopal
Church of the United States, to whom are constantly presenting new and
extensive fields of extension, labors and usefulness. Advantages of no
ordinary character are presented at this time. The action of the
Missouri State Convention, by bill of rights, secures to any loyal
trustee or trustees the right to control any church or educational
property by application to the Circuit Court for the appointment of such
other trustees of recognized and established loyalty; and we deem it
proper to direct the attention of the ministers of the Conference to the
fact that much of such property now held in this State is under the
control of the disloyal and treasonable, property which was originally
deeded to the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States, and we
advise our ministers that, whenever practicable, immediate steps be
taken to possess and retain the same according to the forms of law
secured by Bill of Rights. It further appears to your committee as of
great importance, in the present state of the Church, that all persons
of undoubted and established loyalty and holding the Methodist doctrine
should, as far as possible, be in communion with us, that we may strive
together for the advancement of our common cause in the earth. In view
of these facts it is hereby
“_Resolved_, 1. That a committee of five be appointed whose duty it
shall be to draw up a brief address to the ministers and members of the
M. E. Church, South, inviting to unite with our Church all who are truly
loyal to the Government of the United States, as a common government
over all the United States, as recognized in its constitution and laws,
and assuring them of an affectionate and hearty welcome to this fold.
“_Resolved_ 2, That the ministers of this Conference are hereby
requested to take all necessary steps in order to re-obtain possession
of the Church property belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church in
Missouri, agreeable to the provisions of the Bill of Rights enacted by
the Missouri State Convention.”
Let it be observed that the same State Convention that adopted the New
Constitution with its notorious “Test Oath” ordained also the “Bill of
Rights,” over which the Conference indulged such extravagant
gratulations.
How many Northern Methodist ministers and members were in that State
Convention, and how far that Church influenced the action of the
Convention, and how far the said action was _intended_ by its authors to
restrict the liberty and expose to persecution the persons of Southern
Methodist ministers and affect the property of the M. E. Church, South,
in this State, others may determine from the facts upon record.
Many things are yet to be revealed upon the subject, and the fact can
not be escaped that the plan of persecution was well settled, thoroughly
digested, well understood and embraced this church-appropriating or
church-stealing business, under military orders and State Convention
ordinances.
CHAPTER XII.
CHURCH SEIZURES—CONTINUED.
_Church at Lexington_—Suit Brought for it by the Methodist
Church—Statement of Mr. Sawyer—Suit Dismissed—Salem, Arrow
Rock, California and other Churches—_Lagrange Church
History_—How the Church North Borrowed and then Seized
it—Notice Served—Colonel W. M. Redding the “Faithful
Guardian”—Rev. W. C. Stewart—Christian Charity—What a Southern
Methodist Says—_Central Advocate_—Mr. Stewart’s “Honor”
Transmitted—Suit for Possession—Arbitration—_Louisiana
Church_—Its History and how it was Seized—Civil Courts and
Church Trustees—Names Forged—Counter Petition—Decision of
Court of Common Pleas—Supreme Court of Missouri—History of the
Case—Opinion of the Supreme Court—S. S. Allen, Esq., on Church
and State—Rulings of the Court—The Case Reversed—Efforts to
Compromise—Five Years’ Possession—Reported in Church
Statistics—Supplement—Able Argument of Smith S. Allen, Esq.
CHURCH IN LEXINGTON.
In 1860 the old Methodist Church in Lexington, Mo., was torn down and a
new one erected on the same lot. The new edifice was modeled mainly
after that at Independence—a little larger, finer and costlier. Up to
the time of its completion, in 1862, the Northern Methodists had no
permanent organization in the city, except one improvised for the army
and other purposes the year before. Since the division of the Church
they had never had any hold in that section of the State, and but for
the presence and power of the army it is reasonable to suppose that no
claim upon that property would have ever been set up. They had a few
adherents, and about the last year of the war they instituted suit for
the recovery of that Church property. The following statement furnished
by Mr. Sawyer, the counsel for the M. E. Church, South, will explain the
nature of the suit:
“The suit at Lexington, as you are probably aware, was instituted by
certain persons assuming to be the Trustees of the M. E. Church against
the Trustees of the M. E. Church, South. It was an action of ejectment
for the recovery of the possession on the ground of title. The answer
set up the action of the General Conference in New York in 1844,
embracing the whole Plan of Separation, as also the action of the
Southern Conferences in convention at Louisville in 1845, as well as the
action of the Missouri and St. Louis Conferences in reference to the
Plan of Separation; all of which action, it was insisted, was in effect
a contract between the parties, and valid and binding as such. This was
the main ground of defense to the action; and when I went to the court
last fall, expecting to try the case, I found the suit had been
dismissed and the M. E. Church, South, left in the undisturbed
possession of their property.”
Finding that they had no shadow of claim to the property, and no pretext
even for getting possession by military interference, they withdrew the
suit, paid the costs, and turned their attention to other places where
they had a better show of success.
SALEM CHURCH.
The Northern Methodists took possession of Salem Church, in Pettis
county, on the Georgetown circuit, held and used it for several months,
and finding that they were not sustained by the citizens, and too remote
from military posts, they abandoned it from very shame.
ARROW ROCK AND OTHER CHURCHES.
The Rev. M. M. Pugh writes:
“They made an unsuccessful effort to appropriate our church in Arrow
Rock. The Rev. Mr. Hagerty, one of the most active men in this
church-seizing business, made a visit to that place for the purpose of
making that church the property of his organization. Our friends
watched him closely, and he signally failed.
“They also tried to seize our church in California. I believe they
were persuaded to desist in this case. Our church in Warrensburg was
burned. I do not know the particulars. So, also, was our church in
Miami, but we do not know by whom it was set on fire.”
CHURCH IN LAGRANGE.
In 1838 two lots in the town of Lagrange, Lewis county, Mo., were deeded
to B. W. Stith, C. S. Skinner, John Lafon, Middleton Smoot and others,
trustees, for the use and benefit of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as
then constituted. In the following year a small brick house was erected
on the lots and used by the Church in an unfinished condition until
1844. It was then finished, and upon the division of the Church passed
into the hands and ownership of the M. E. Church, South. The membership
in 1845 voted to adhere South, with only three or four dissenting
voices, and they acquiesced in the will of the majority and remained in
the Southern Church until after the repudiation of the Plan of
Separation by the General Conference of 1848. Up to that time the
Northern Church attempted no organization in Lagrange. But soon after
that event the Church North sent a Rev. Mr. Chivington (the same who
made himself notorious a few years ago in the indiscriminate massacre of
Indians near Fort Union) to that place. He sought and obtained
permission to preach in the church. After sermon he organized a class of
seven members, and publicly thanked the members of the M. E. Church,
South, for the use of _their_ house.
The members of the Church North recognized the validity of the decisions
of the courts in the Maysville, Ky., and New York and Cincinnati church
property cases, and set up no claim whatever to the property in
Lagrange, or elsewhere in Missouri, until after the beginning of the
war.
In 1853 the old church was displaced by a new and a more commodious
structure, erected and paid for by the members and friends of the M. E.
Church, South, at a cost of over $6,000. In this the M. E. Church,
North, took no part, paid no money and claimed no interest. In 1863, ten
years thereafter, a Rev. Mr. Stewart was sent to Lagrange by the M. E.
Church, North. This man professed great friendship for Southern
Methodists, and made himself free and easy in their homes. The church
was only occupied two Sabbaths in the month, and Mr. Stewart applied for
the use of it when it was unoccupied. To this the owners objected at
first. Mr. Stewart was offered the use of the German Methodist Church,
but it did not suit his purpose, and he urged his application for the
Southern Methodist Church. It was objected to by a large number of the
members upon the ground that other churches in the State had been seized
and possessed by them, some in one way and some in another, and they
feared this might be a _ruse de guerre_. Mr. Stewart finally pledged his
honor as a Christian gentleman and minister to return the key every week
to the trustees. This he did regularly until January, 1865, when his
quarterly meeting was held in the Church, and the Quarterly Conference
appointed a board of trustees and authorized them to hold possession of
the property. Upon this action Rev. Mr. Stewart went out in town,
purchased a lock, employed a carpenter and had it put on in place of the
old one. He could then return both lock and key with impunity.
The trustees thus raised and authorized to act for the M. E. Church
served the following notice on the trustees of the M. E. Church, South:
“LAGRANGE, LEWIS COUNTY, MO., Feb. 13, 1865.
“_To John Munn, J. C. Goodrich and others, Trustees of M. E. Church,
South_:
“GENTLEMEN: Having a just and legal claim to the property of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in Lagrange, as trustees of said church, we
hereby notify you that we intend to hold said property for the use and
benefit of the ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in the United States of America, according to the Discipline and Rules
of said Church, and the provisions of deed recorded in Book C, page
341, Lewis county Records. We have accordingly taken possession of the
herein mentioned property.
“Done by order of the Board of Trustees of Lagrange M. E. Church.
W. M. REDDING,
“President Board of Trustees.
“W. C. STEWART, Sect’ry pro tem. and Preacher in charge.”
They had either been waiting a suitable opportunity or a new light had
suddenly dawned upon them from some Episcopal, military or other throne
of light and power, that they had been using, by gracious privilege and
courtesy, property to which they had “a just and legal claim,” and they
acted accordingly. It may be characterized as at least very cool.
Possession is said to be nine points of the law; and, if the adage is
true, the manner of gaining possession will not necessarily raise any
curious questions of casuistry. The how will not vitiate the nine
points, when a new lock and key with an extra share of loyalty can make
up and meet every other point in the legal decalogue. It only remained
for them to serve the usual notification, to save the form of the thing,
and appoint Col. W. M. Redding President of the Board, and Colonel of a
regiment of Lewis county militia—not a member of any church—to hold the
property in peaceable possession. This duty he performed faithfully; for
which service he received, in the _Central Advocate_ of Dec. 20, 1865,
the title of “the faithful guardian of the interests of the M. E. Church
in LaGrange, Mo.”
A member of the LaGrange Quarterly Conference, M. E. Church, South, from
whom much of the above information was obtained, writes as follows:
“The next step,” after taking possession and serving notice, “was the
exhibition of Christian charity (?) to us of the M. E. Church, South, by
a polite offer to loan us the use of their (?) house for our religious
worship. But we ‘had not so learned Christ.’ How could we be partakers
with thieves and robbers? ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,
but ye have made it a den of thieves.’
“Our house had been solemnly dedicated to the worship of Almighty God by
Bishop Marvin when there was no name or membership of the M. E. Church,
North, in the place; we say, let that consecration abide, and let God
defend the right. We can worship there no more until the law, with the
whip of justice, shall drive those who trouble us to their own place.”
A letter in the _Central Christian Advocate_, of Dec. 20, 1865, from
Rev. W. C. Stewart, contains the following paragraph:
“When I was in LaGrange I had the honor to organize a Board of Trustees
of the M. E. Church, and by their authority to take possession of the
valuable house of worship there, previously in the hands of the Church,
South. In this movement Col. W. M. Redding took a most prominent and
efficient part. He is still the faithful guardian of our Church property
in LaGrange.”
This Col. Redding was once a member of the M. E. Church, South, but
withdrew some time before this transaction, declaring when he did so
that the time would come when a Southern Methodist could not live in
that county. He was a prepared instrument of the M. E. Church, North,
and well fitted for their special work, as he had once been a negro
trader to the South, and had the price of that human chattel in his
pocket. A little power makes good Radical leaders and instruments of
such men.
Mr. Stewart exults in “the honor of organizing a Board of Trustees, and
by their authority taking possession of the valuable house of worship
formerly in the hands of the Church, South.” The said “honor” is now
made permanent and transmitted to posterity. Some honors burst like the
bubble, others are as enduring as marble. “Some men’s sins are open
beforehand, going before to judgment, and some men they follow after.”
This same Stewart went over to the Congregationalists.
The trustees of the M. E. Church, South, brought suit for possession in
a civil magistrate’s court. It was appealed to the Circuit Court for
Lewis county by defendants, and then by same party, upon a change of
venue, taken to Shelby county. When called in the Circuit Court in
Shelbyville they were not ready for trial. But they had brought suit in
the same court to test or recover the title, to which a demurrer was
filed on the ground that they had not kept up a perpetual Board of
Trustees from the date of deed in 1838. They had a Board whose history
and authority dated back only to January 30, 1865. To prevent a non-suit
they asked a continuance, which was granted. Before the session of the
Court in November, 1866, they asked the Church, South, to compromise, by
referring the whole case to three men for arbitration. When this was
agreed to both parties gave bond in the sum of $500 to abide the
decision. February 1, 1867, was set for hearing by the arbitrators. When
the case was stated by the Church, South, the other party asked leave to
withdraw the bond. To this objections were made, and they wrangled over
it till four o’clock P. M. The Church, North, asked a continuance till
nine o’clock the next morning. This was granted, and at the appointed
time they appeared and revoked their bond, saying that they preferred to
have the case tried by the Supreme Court of the United States, and would
make it a precedent for Missouri. Whether this course was intended only
for delay their subsequent declaration—that they did not expect to be
ready for trial for ten years—is the best interpretation.
Wearied out of all patience with such miserable tergiversation, the
trustees of the M. E. Church, South, headed by their pastor, Rev. T. J.
Starr, prepared to bring suit again, believing that their only hope was
in the civil courts. As soon as Col. Redding and those who acted with
him found that they would have to meet the case in the civil courts they
proposed a compromise, which, during the absence of the preacher in
charge, was accepted. This compromise gave the M. E. Church, South, a
quit-claim deed to less than half the two lots with the new church, and
the M. E. Church, North, a similar deed to the old church with the rest
of the two lots. The old church was just back of the new, and within a
few feet of it. To settle the difficulty and have peace, the rightful
owners of the whole property had to quit-claim half of it to their
enemies, and pay more than half the costs of suits, for the gracious
favor of a quit-claim deed to the other half of their own property, and
the peaceful possession of their own house of worship in a greatly
damaged condition. But, then, our people have so long been inured to
privation, wrong and persecution, that they will purchase peace and the
privileges of unmolested worship at almost any price but that of honor
and integrity. What are houses and lands and earthly possessions to the
integrity and purity of the “Kingdom of Heaven” and its unperverted
institutions?
In the statistics of the Missouri and Arkansas Conference of the M. E.
Church this Church property at LaGrange is returned as the property of
that Church, at an estimated value of $12,000.
The Conference session of 1866 adopted the following:
“_Resolved_, That the pastor of LaGrange be authorized to go outside the
Conference limits to procure funds to meet the expenses of defending the
title to the Church property of the Methodist Episcopal Church at
LaGrange.
(Signed) “W. C. Stewart.
“T. B. Bratton.
“T. J. Williams.”
Comment is unnecessary.
CHURCH IN LOUISIANA.
The history of the Church property case in Louisiana, Missouri,
furnishes peculiarities of a nature that will bear a little attention to
the details. It is about as follows:
In 1853 a deed to a lot of ground in the city was made by Edward G.
McQuie and wife to Edwin Draper, John S. Markley, John W. Allen, Samuel
O. Minor, John Shurmur, Joseph Charleville, Ivey Zumwalt, David Watson
and Thomas T. Stokes, as trustees of the M. E. Church, South, to hold in
trust for the use and benefit of said Church. Consideration, $500. Soon
thereafter a commodious church edifice was erected on the lot and
dedicated to the worship of God in the name and for the benefit of the
M. E. Church, South. It was occupied and used by them unmolested until
1862.
In the meantime vacancies had occurred in the original Board of Trustees
by the death of David Watson and the removal from the State of Thos. T.
Stokes.
These vacancies had been filled by the regular authority of the Church,
and according to law, by the appointment and election of Samuel S. Allen
and Wm. A. Gunn, as seen in the records of the Quarterly Conference for
Louisiana Station. But this fact did not prevent the tools of the M. E.
Church, North, from devising a bold scheme that would put them in
possession of the Church property. They could not claim that the
property was originally deeded to the M. E. Church and afterward wrested
from the rightful owners, as in the cases at Lexington, Independence,
LaGrange, Boonville, etc. That plea could not serve them in this case,
and to accomplish their purpose they devised another. It was this. An
_ex parte_ petition was filed in the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas,
setting forth the fact of the above mentioned vacancies in the Board of
Trustees, and praying the Court to fill the vacancy occasioned by the
death of David Watson by the appointment of Charles Hunter, and to
appoint Robt. S. Strother to fill the vacancy occasioned by the removal
of T. T. Stokes. This petition, as it now stands on the records of the
Court, was signed by Edwin Draper, John S. Markley, John W. Allen, Ivey
Zumwalt, Samuel O. Minor, Jos. Charleville and John Shurmur, and was
granted July 21, 1862.
On the second day thereafter (July 23, ’62,) Samuel O. Minor, John W.
Allen, Ivey Zumwalt, W. A. Gunn and S. S. Allen filed a petition asking
the court to vacate the order appointing Hunter and Strother, and set
forth the following facts why the order should be set aside: They
admitted the vacancies occasioned by the death of Watson and the removal
of Stokes, but set forth from the Church records that on the 21st day of
January, 1861, Rev. W. M. Newland, then preacher in charge, nominated,
and the Quarterly Conference elected, W. A. Gunn to fill the vacancy
occasioned by the death of said Watson, and that the other vacancy was
filled by the nomination and election of Samuel S. Allen, April 23,
1862, Rev. W. G. Miller then being preacher in charge. They, therefore,
allege that at the time of the appointment by the court of Hunter and
Strother no vacancy existed, the same having been filled according to
the law of the Church made and provided, and therefore the order of the
court ought to be vacated.
They further represented that the names of John W. Allen, Samuel O.
Minor and Ivey Zumwalt were used in the original petition without their
knowledge or consent, and insisted that the order should be set aside
for that reason.
Both the petitioners and community were astonished when the court
refused to vacate the order, and the only recourse was an appeal to the
Supreme Court of Missouri on a writ of error. It may not be improper to
state in this place that Judge Gilchrist Porter, then on the bench of
that Judicial District, presided; and Thos. J. C. Fagg, then Judge of
the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas, was counsel for the M. E. Church,
North, in his own court.
The cause was argued July 24, ’62, and the petition overruled. The
petitioners filed a bill of exceptions and the case went up to the
Supreme Court.
The case was not heard in the Supreme Court until January 10, 1866, when
the judgment of the court below was reversed and the case dismissed upon
the ground of irregularity and informality.
As this case may involve several legal points of importance to the
Church, it may be proper to transfer so much of the decision and rulings
of the court to these pages as will be of general application.
_S. S. Allen, Esq._, for plaintiffs in error, submitted the following
points of law, and the court ruled accordingly:
“1. The Church, by means of its preacher in charge and Quarterly
Conference, had full and ample power to fill vacancies in its board of
trustees (see ‘Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal
Church,’ p. 254).
“2. Over the Church, as such, the temporal courts of this country most
clearly have no jurisdiction, except to protect them, and to protect the
civil rights of others, and to preserve the public peace, none of which
were necessary in this case (see Baptist Church in Hartford, vs.
Wittnell, 3 Paige, Ch. 301; Sawyer vs. Cipperly, 7 Paige, 281 etc.)
“3. There were no vacancies in the board when the court below acted,
said vacancies having been duly filled by the preacher and Conference
long before the court acted. (See ‘Minutes of the Conference.’)
“Dyer & Campbell for defendants in error.
“Lovelace, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.”
In this opinion the court holds the following language, after a
statement of the case:
“The case is not free from difficulties. The court below seemed to be
acting under the statute concerning ‘Trusts and Trustees.’ But this case
does not fall within the statute, for that only provides for appointing
trustees in deeds of trust made to secure the payment of a debt or other
liability. (R. C. 1855, p. 1554, §1.) So in this case, it would seem
that the parties must resort to their equitable remedy to prevent the
trust from being defeated for want of a trustee.
“There are more informalities than appear upon the record, but they are
not alluded to by either party. The question presented by the parties
is, whether there are vacancies in the Board of Trustees to be filled.
Both parties admit that there have been vacancies, but the defendants
contend that the vacancies have been filled by the Church according to
the rule and discipline of that Church, and the evidence proves
conclusively that the board of trustees for church purposes, under the
rules and discipline of the Church, had been filled; but whether, under
the peculiarities of this deed, the legal title to the property
described in the deed will descend to the trustees thus appointed seems
doubtful.
“The uses and purposes for which the property is to be used is not
expressed in the deed, but the property is merely deeded to the
petitioners, naming them, together with Watson and Stokes, describing
them as ‘Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ and to them
and their successors in office, lawfully appointed, forever, for a
consideration of five hundred dollars. It is not stated, except as
mentioned in the deed, though it may perhaps be inferred that the
petitioners at the time of the conveyance were in fact trustees of the
Church, appointed by the Church under its rules and discipline; nor does
it appear who furnished the money to purchase the property. If it was
furnished by the Church, then, most certainly, the court, upon proper
application, would order these plaintiffs to convey it to such person or
persons as the Church might name, to hold it for their use and benefit;
but if, on the contrary, the money was furnished by these plaintiffs,
the naked fact that the grantors in the deed have described them as
‘Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ would not of itself
operate to destroy their interest in the property. In the former case
they would hold the property in trust for the Church, and would be
compelled to convey to any persons the Church might nominate to receive
it; but this could only be done upon proof of the fact that the Church
furnished the money with which the property was purchased.
“3. Upon the face of this deed the property belongs to the grantees in
the deed; and to divest them of the title it must be shown _aliunde_
that the purchase money was furnished by the Church. The legal title is
in the grantees; but in case somebody else furnished the purchase money,
then the grantees will be regarded as holding the property for
whomsoever furnished the purchase money.
“If, then, the above views be correct, there can be no question of
vacancy in the Board of Trustees as respects this property until the
question of the title is first settled. If it belongs to the grantees,
no trustees are necessary; they can manage it for themselves. If the
Church is entitled to it, then the grantees must first be divested of
their title, and the title vested in some person or persons for the use
of the Church. The proceedings here are irregular and premature. The
judgment must be reversed and the cause dismissed. The other judges
concur.”
Pending this case Mr. Allen, counsel for plaintiffs in error, made a
very able argument upon the relation of the Church to the civil
government. He took high ground upon the separate and distinct
jurisdictions of Church and State, as understood by our fathers and as
developed in this country under the genius of our government. He
characterized severely the efforts made by partisan fanatics to confound
in fact what was distinct in law, and to unite the Church with the State
for purposes of ecclesiastical power and political corruption. His
argument was well worth preserving.
The decision of the Supreme Court in effect sent the case back for a
trial of the rights of property, for which suit was immediately brought
in the Circuit Court. But under the operation of the order of the Court
of Common Pleas of June 31, 1862, the church property passed out of the
possession of the M. E. Church, South, to whom it was originally deeded,
and into the possession of the self and court-constituted Board of
Trustees, for the use and benefit of the M. E. Church, North. The
property was used by them from July 21, 1862, to some time in the spring
of 1867. In March, 1867, a letter was addressed by a number of the
trustees to the presiding elder and preacher in charge of Louisiana
Station, who were supposed to have influence with the authorities of the
Church then holding and using the property, asking their kindly offices
and services in an honorable and amicable adjustment of the difficulty
and the return of the property to the rightful owners.
The following answer was elicited:
“LOUISIANA, MO., March 21, 1867.
_“Messrs. Sam. S. Allen, W A. Gunn and others, members of the M. E.
Church, South, Louisiana, Mo._:
“GENTLEMEN: Your communication of the 4th instant is received and
would have been answered sooner but we have not had time since its
reception for consultation until yesterday. We would gladly do
anything in our power to bring about an honorable adjustment of the
matter of which you write, but as the controversy is between you and
the trustees of the church, we are wholly without authority in the
premises, and therefore have no right to advise the board of trustees
how they shall settle the matter. If we had the power to act, our
action would fully recognize the asserted rights of the trustees until
the proper legal tribunal decides the question. We will not, however,
be in the way of any compromise which the parties may be able to make.
With assurances of personal regard, we are, gentlemen,
“Yours very truly,
“NAT. SHUMATE.
“J. S. BARWICK.”
They declined to interfere in the matter as long as they could hold and
use the Church property. But, as in other cases, when they found that
they had no shadow of title, and could not even frame another pretext
for holding on to the property, they were magnanimous enough to propose
or accept a compromise by which the property could go back into the
hands of the rightful owners without the humiliation of being forced by
law to pay damages and rents, which a common honesty demanded.
The suit for title was stricken from the docket without being heard, and
those who bought the lot and built and paid for the church are again in
possession of their own; albeit they were kept out of the use of it for
nearly five years, and then received it in a condition that required
extensive repairs, for which those who had used and damaged it had no
disposition to pay a single dollar. Thus one by one the property that
was taken from the Church, South, was restored, after being used and
abused by “our friends, the enemy.”
It does not add any thing to the credit of the Northern Church to record
the fact that this church, also, was reported in the statistics of the
Conference, valued at $5,000.
To those who have believed the reiterated statements of the Northern
Methodist preachers and press, that they never seized, possessed or used
any property that belonged to the M. E. Church, South, these facts,
furnished by reliable men and taken from official records, are
commended. The facts are humiliating enough without the reflections
suggested by them.
SUPPLEMENT.
The following able argument in the Louisiana Church property case,
before the Supreme Court of the State, made by Smith S. Allen, Esq., of
Hannibal, Mo., counsel for plaintiffs in error, is not only a part of
the history of the case, but too valuable and vital to the great
questions at issue to be lost. It may very properly supplement this
chapter, as its merits demand a more permanent form than the newspaper
columns. It will be perused with interest, especially by the legal
profession, and will not be without interest and profit to the general
reader.
Edwin Draper and others, }
_ex parte_ petitioners and }
defendants in error. } _Error from the Louisiana_
} _Court of Common Pleas._
Sam’l O. Minor and others, }
plaintiffs in error. }
_If the Court please_: The extraordinary conduct of part of the _ex
parte_ petitioners and defendants in error in this case is perhaps
sufficiently disclosed in the written statement of facts filed by
plaintiffs, which I have already drawn up and placed on the files of the
Court. This part of my subject I will, however, with the indulgence of
the Court, consider more fully hereafter.
This case, on the face of the _ex parte_ petition, appears to be an
application by seven of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, at Louisiana, Missouri, made to the Louisiana Court of Common
Pleas, to have two pretended vacancies in that Board of Trustees filled
by appointment of that Court. These seven _ex parte_ petitioners on the
face of the petition are Edwin Draper, John S. Markley, John W. Allen,
Samuel O. Minor, John Shurmur, Joseph Charleville and Ivy Zumwalt.
But in fact this is not the application of three of the pretended
petitioners, to-wit, Samuel O. Minor, Ivy Zumwalt and John W. Allen; on
the contrary, these three gentlemen are indignant at the proceedings. As
evidence of this I will here state that they became, and are, parties to
the motion to set aside the order of the Court below appointing Strother
and Hunter to fill the pretended vacancies. By their affidavit, appended
to said motion, they and each of them solemnly swear that said _ex
parte_ petition was gotten up, and their names used therein as
petitioners, without their knowledge or consent and against their will;
and that the same was filed and the unjust and illegal action of the
Court below had thereon without their knowledge or consent.
These gentlemen must not, therefore, be considered as acting in concert
with Draper, Markley and others, but must, in justice to them and to
their action in the premises, and to their said affidavits, be regarded
as honest and candid objectors to the petition and to the action of the
Court thereon.
These three gentlemen stood before the court below on the hearing of the
motion to set aside its illegal order and made known these facts and
verified them by their affidavits, and asked the court to revoke and set
aside its order. And they, with Minor and Gunn, now stand before this
court in the person of their counsel and ask that said order may be set
aside. And in this they simply ask that that justice may be done to them
which was strangely and wrongfully denied by the court below.
Here we have the strange spectacle of three men, on whose petition this
order seems to have been made, coming in and disclaiming the whole thing
and asking this court to set it aside.
As a legal proposition I maintain: First, that in this country the
widest latitude is given by law to religious sentiment; and second, that
the temporal courts have no jurisdiction over churches or church
judicatories or church members, as such, except simply to protect them,
to protect the civil rights of others, and to preserve the public peace.
In the case of the Baptist Church in Hartford vs. Witherell, in the
Court of Chancery in the State of New York, Chancellor Walworth, in
delivering the opinion of the court, says:
“Over the Church, as such, the legal or temporal tribunals of this
country do not profess to have any jurisdiction whatever, except so far
as is necessary to protect the civil rights of others and to preserve
the public peace.” (See 3 Paige Reports, 301.)
So in the case of Lawyer vs. Cepperly, the same court decides
substantially the same thing. (7 Paige Chancery Reports, 281; see also
Angel & Ames on Corporations, sec. 58, page 28, note 1, page 29;
Stebbins vs. Jennings, 10 Pickering Rep., 172; Gable vs. Miller, 10
Paige Rep., 627.)
I am fully aware that courts of chancery have ample jurisdiction to
determine questions touching the legal title to church property, real or
personal; and that in order to protect a Church in the enjoyment of its
corporate property that court might appoint trustees.
But even this is to be understood with some limitation. Suppose, for
example, that a church has full and ample power by its own church laws,
church courts and judicatories to protect itself or to put itself in a
condition where it will not need the action of the temporal court,
_ought the temporal court to interfere_? _Most clearly not._
And more particularly the temporal court ought not to interfere in this
case, for the following six plain and sufficient reasons: _First_,
because there is no contest in this case about property; _second_,
because no title is involved; _third_, because no possession is asked
for; _fourth_, because no obedience to rightful authority or authority
of any kind is sought to be enforced; _fifth_, because no wrong is
sought to be prevented; and _sixth_, because no injury to the church is
sought to be avoided.
If protection to church property required that Hunter and Strother
should be put into this Board of Trustees, the Church, by means of its
preacher in charge and Quarterly Conference, had full power to put them
there to fill vacancies without action of the court below, _provided
vacancies existed_. The church law on the subject of appointing a Board
of Church Trustees and filling vacancies therein is found on page 254 of
a book entitled “The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South.” It is a book of universal authority in that Church, as
we all know, and was largely referred to by all parties to this contest
on the trial in the court below, as is fully shown by the Bill of
Exceptions. At page 254 I find the following plain and simple provision:
“In the appointment of Trustees, except where the laws of the State or
Territory provide differently, the preacher in charge, or in his absence
the Presiding Elder, shall have the right of nomination, subject to the
confirmation or rejection of the Quarterly Conference. All vacancies in
the Board of Trustees occasioned by death, separation from our Church,
or otherwise, shall be filled without delay.”
This, then, is full and clear, and confers ample authority upon the
preacher in charge and Quarterly Conference to appoint trustees for the
Church and to fill vacancies without the aid or interference of the
temporal courts. It is the identical same provision of the “discipline”
under and by virtue of which Draper, Markley and all the other trustees
of that church were themselves appointed. They were appointed under and
by force of this provision long before the date of the deed of McQuie
and wife to them in trust for the Church. McQuie and wife did not
appoint them. They—McQuie and wife—had agreed to convey to the Church at
Louisiana certain ground for a certain money consideration paid to them
by the Church, and were directed by the Church to convey, and did
convey, to its board of trustees then existing. As the ground was
purchased from McQuie and wife, and full value received for the same,
therefore McQuie and wife had no right to appoint the trustees, as they
would have had if they had donated and given the lots. The Church having
purchased and paid for this ground, had the sole right to say to whom it
should be conveyed. If the Church had the exclusive right then to say
who should hold its property in trust for it, surely it has that right
now. But the Court below has destroyed that right by placing in the
Board of Trustees two men—Hunter and Strother—whom the Church did not
select in its appointed way, or in any other way, and by vesting in them
the legal title to its property without its consent, and perhaps against
its will. Against Messrs. Hunter and Strother I have nothing to say; but
there is not the slightest evidence on the record, or anywhere else, to
show that the Church at Louisiana is pleased with them or desired their
services in the Board.
But the Church, through its preacher in charge and Quarterly Conference,
as we have seen, not only had power to appoint trustees and to fill
vacancies in the Board when vacancies existed, but I now proceed to show
that it actually did fill said vacancies—the identical same vacancies
stated in this _ex parte_ petition to have existed at the time of the
filing thereof—by appointing said William A. Gunn to fill the vacancy
created by the death of said Watson, and by appointing said Samuel S.
Allen to fill the vacancy created by said Stokes ceasing to be a member
of the Church and leaving the State. To prove this fact I beg to be
permitted to read to this Court so much of the minutes of said Quarterly
Conference as may be necessary, and which was copied into the bill of
exceptions from the minutes themselves, and proves the fact beyond all
doubt, and is as follows:
“On motion of Brother Newland, preacher in charge of this (Louisiana)
Station, Brother W. A. Gunn was nominated and confirmed as trustee in
place of Bro. David Watson, deceased.”
Immediately following the above evidence in the bill of exceptions I
will read further evidence in these words:
“The proceedings of said Quarterly Conference, of which the above is
part, was had on the 21st day of January, A. D., 1861, and are signed by
B. H. Spencer, presiding elder, and attested by William A. Gunn,
secretary.”
Surely the minutes of the Quarterly Conference is the best evidence of
what it did. The minutes thus authenticated by Spencer and Gunn are as
conclusive in fact as they are valid in law, and do show that the Watson
vacancy was duly filled by said preacher and Conference just one year,
five months and fifteen days before the filing of the _ex parte_
petition herein. With this evidence before him can any man believe, or
can any court decide, that the Watson vacancy existed in the Board of
Trustees when the petition of Draper & Co. was filed? Surely not. Then
what right had the Court below to fill a pretended vacancy that in fact
and law did not exist? _Certainly none at all._
I now proceed to show that the Stokes vacancy was also a mere pretense,
and did not exist in the Board when this petition was filed, having been
filled by the preacher in charge and Quarterly Conference in like manner
long before this petition was filed by Draper and others in the court
below. The evidence to prove this fact is equally clear and conclusive.
I will read to the court from the Bill of Exceptions, in these words:
“The petitioners also offered and read in evidence another portion of
said minutes, proving that on the 23d day of April, A. D. 1862, and at
said Conference, the Rev. G. W. Miller, then preacher in charge of said
Louisiana Station, nominated Bro. Samuel S. Allen as trustee, to fill
the vacancy created by the withdrawal from the church of Thomas T.
Stokes; and proving, also, that said nomination was confirmed by said
Quarterly Conference on the same day.”
Thus the court will readily see that the Stokes vacancy was duly filled
on the 23d day of April, A. D. 1862, just two months and twelve days
before this petition was filed. To say, therefore, that the Stokes
vacancy existed in this Board at the time of the filing of this _ex
parte_ petition is to make sport of language, and is, in my humble
opinion, wholly untrue. To say that the Watson and Stokes vacancies
existed in this Board when this petition was filed is to deny that Gunn
and Samuel S. Allen were members of it. And to deny that Gunn and said
Allen were members at that time, is to deny that the petitioners
themselves were members of it; for they were all, as we have already
seen, appointed by the same power and in the same way—that is by the
Church, through its preacher and Conference. In short, to deny that Gunn
and said Allen were members of said Board when this petition was filed
is to deny that the Church had any trustees whatever.
The Board, in fact, when this petition was filed, consisted of nine
members, namely, Draper, Markley, the two Allens—John W. and Samuel
S.—Minor, Shurmur, Charleville, Zumwalt and Gunn, nine in number, and it
could not lawfully contain any greater number. (See Discipline, page
254.) There is, therefore, no room in the Board for Strother and Hunter.
Samuel S. Allen and William A. Gunn must first be ejected from it, and
this can not be _lawfully_ done without first giving them reasonable
notice and a chance to be heard in the court below. In this case there
was no notice until after the court below had acted; and of course no
defense was made. The action of the court below, taken without notice to
these parties, is void; and this court ought, for that reason (if for no
other), to reverse and set it aside. Draper, Markley, Shurmur and
Charleville well knew when they filed this petition that Gunn and Samuel
S. Allen had been appointed by the preacher and Conference to fill the
only vacancies mentioned in the petition. These gentlemen—Draper &
Co.—were both attending and attentive members of the Board. They took a
lively interest in whatever affected the welfare of the Church. They had
acted in the Board with Gunn and Samuel S. Allen, and knew when they
filed this petition that said Gunn and Allen had been appointed to fill
said vacancies and claimed to be members of the Board. But why they
desired to ignore their authority and purposely avoided disclosing the
fact to the court below in their petition, we are left to conjecture.
A few more words and I close. The very aims and objects of the Churches
in this country constitute a powerful reason why the courts should
refuse to interfere with their affairs. No man can reflect upon these
aims and objects for one moment without rejoicing that he lives in a
land of Bibles and Churches. These Churches, including the one in
question, aim at nothing less than the promulgation of the doctrines of
the Gospel among all men; the due administration of scriptural
ordinances; the promotion of works of piety and benevolence; the revival
and spread of scriptural holiness, and, in short, the conversion of the
whole world to the faith and practice of Christianity.
An organization of men and women for these high and holy purposes ought
to be permitted to choose its own officers and to manage its own affairs
in its own way. Whenever the courts of the country have interfered to
settle Church difficulties, they have in almost every instance created
new and more serious difficulty in the Church. In this very case the
action of the court below has already produced discord and alienation in
the Church, which perhaps will never be cured. It has in that way,
beyond all question, done the Church ten times more harm than good.
When there were vacancies in the Board the Church filled them, as we
have seen, by its own laws and in its own way, and there were no
complaints, no law-suits, no alienations, no withdrawals from the
Church. But when this petition was filed in the court below, and acted
upon by that court without notice to anybody, and the names of trustees
used without their consent, a large portion of the Church was
uncharitable enough to suppose that advantage was sought and wrong
intended. Besides, this court having large experience in the affairs of
men will readily see that action by our courts in church cases gives
great encouragement to discontented and litigious persons to annoy the
Church with fruitless legal proceedings, and thus retard its progress in
its great work of mercy and benevolence. Better, far better, is it for
all parties, and for the cause of Christianity itself, to leave these
difficulties to be settled in the Church where they originate.
Thanking this Court for the patient hearing which it has given me in
this case, and hoping your Honors will give to the case that
consideration which its importance requires, I now take my leave of it.
CHAPTER XIII.
CHURCH SEIZURES—CONTINUED.
Church in Boonville—One of the Oldest Religious Centers—Rev. J. N.
Pierce and his Exploits—“An Honest Looker On” in the St. Louis
_Christian Advocate_—Circuit Court vs. County Court and J. N.
Pierce—Supreme Court—Howard et al. vs. Pierce—Report and
Opinion—Circuit Court Sustained—John N. Pierce et al. Exhibited in
no Enviable Light—Legal History of the Case—Decision—Points to be
Noted—Moral Travestie—Judgment of Posterity—_Church in
Springfield_—How Obtained—How Long Used—How Released—Particulars
Reported by a Committee of the St. Louis Conference—_Church in
Potosi_—Statement of W. S. Woodard—Plattsburg, Fillmore, Macon,
Glasgow and other Churches—Strange Assertion—Statistical Value of
Churches Seized over $100,000—How Restored—Property Rights Secured
to the M. E. Church, South—Great Moral Courage or “Hard
Cheek”—“Making History”—Martyrdom of Principle.
CHURCH IN BOONVILLE.
The church in Boonville is one of the oldest and most honored houses of
worship in the State. Far back in the history of Methodism in Missouri
the Church in Boonville became quite a center of religious influence and
power in the rich and fast-filling counties south of the Missouri river
and near the geographical center of the State. It was for many years a
strong base of operations for the hardy moral pioneers who first
penetrated that part of the State, planted the first standard of
Christianity and laid broad and deep the foundations of Methodism in the
wilderness made famous by the exploits of the illustrious hunter and
pioneer, Daniel Boone.
Bishops and other distinguished men of the Church have stood in its
pulpit and preached life and salvation to the multitudes. Conferences
have been held, and ministers ordained, and sacraments administered in
its sacred walls, and for long years it had been a solid, substantial
station, supporting some of the finest talent in the pulpit. No one ever
thought of disturbing the rights of property. Before the division in
1844 it belonged to the M. E. Church. After that event, to the M. E.
Church, South; and for over twenty years the latter had been in
undisturbed possession. If the M. E. Church, North, had an organization
in Boonville at all before the war, it was very feeble, and never set up
any show of claim to the old church until after the war had come and
gone.
In February, 1866, a Rev. J. N. Pierce, of the M. E. Church, North,
obtained an order from the County Court of Cooper county putting him in
possession of the church in Boonville. The first notice or information
the Trustees of the M. E. Church, South, had of the proceedings was a
demand upon them for the key of the church by said Pierce, by the
authority of the order of the County Court. The trustees promptly
refused to give up the key, and denied the jurisdiction of the County
Court over such matters. But Mr. Pierce was not to be defeated in that
way. He soon obtained skillful and corrupt help, went to the church,
forced an entrance, removed the lock, put on a new one and took formal
possession in the name of his Church.
The following account of the affair was furnished at the time for the
St. Louis _Christian Advocate_ by one who subscribed himself “_An Honest
Looker on_,” and who was fully endorsed by the editor:
“MR. EDITOR: It affords the people of this community pleasure to hear
from other quarters: perhaps others would be equally interested to hear
from us. I write more especially for the Church which I believe your
paper represents.
“The pastor of the Southern Methodist Church, appointed by the last
session of the Annual Conference, took charge of his congregation a few
weeks ago. He had not been here more than two or three weeks before he
and his congregation were turned out of doors by the Methodist Episcopal
preacher in this city. First, under pretense of an order from the County
Court, he demanded the key, with all the authority usually exhibited by
his class on such occasions. Failing in this, he secured the
co-operation of a few kindred spirits, and having secured the services
of one skilled in such matters, proceeded to the church about the going
down of the sun, effected an entrance, removed the locks, replaced them
with new ones, and took possession in the name of the Lord. It was not
the last of the old year, but it is said they kept watch-night, it
being, as they supposed, the last of the old church. Whether their
devotions kept pace with their watchfulness we are not informed. We are
told that they affected an exercise of the sort, at least for a time.
Meanwhile, in strict conformity to the Scriptures, they watched, also
having their sentries, armed it is supposed, stationed at the door; and,
not knowing at what hour the thief would come, they watched, it is said,
until the morning. If they expected any interference from the owners and
former occupants, they have yet to learn that it will not do in every
case to judge others by themselves. No Judas came to betray the Master,
with his disciples, into the hands of the chief rulers, for it is said
that some of the latter joined that night the worshipers and watchers.
For the first time in many years their hearts inclined them to go to the
house of prayer.
“The eyes of the community have since regarded some of these with
peculiar solicitude, looking for further indications of a continued and
growing concern; but the proverb is verified: ‘The dog is returned to
his vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing.’ Alas for
Ephraim! his goodness was transient as the morning cloud and early dew.
“The day of their calamity did not overtake the poor Southern Methodists
unprepared. They were found with their lamps trimmed and oil in their
vessels. There was a good supply of fuel, also, properly prepared;
carpets, Sunday school library, etc. The house itself they found swept
and garnished. The ladies, only a day or two before, had given it a
thorough cleansing. Poor souls! their labor was not in vain in the
Lord. * * * *
“Southern Methodism in this city, though cast down, has not been
destroyed. Sister churches felt and manifested sympathy. The
Presbyterians kindly offered the use of their church on the following
Sabbath, and a gentleman, who makes no pretensions to religion,
generously tendered the use of a hall, which at present they occupy. The
varied character of the seats—chairs, boxes, rough planks, old sofas,
etc., might excite a smile, but, under the circumstances, they are
regarded as very comfortable. The attendance on the services of the
sanctuary has doubled since this wholesale excommunication. The same is
true of the Sabbath School; and on every hand there are manifestations
of increasing interest. The Church is said to manifest a very good state
of feeling, exhibiting very little of that bitterness and malice which
such injuries are apt to engender. They forgive and commit their cause
to the Lord, exhibiting much of that ‘charity that suffereth long and is
kind.’
“A writ prohibiting the interference of the Methodist Episcopal Church
with the property and rights of the Southern Methodists was granted by
proper authority and sustained by the Circuit Court last week. The
former occupants patiently wait for the officers of the law to execute
their trusts. When this shall be done you may expect to hear from us
again.
“AN HONEST LOOKER ON.
“_Boonville, March 10, 1866._”
The Circuit Court granted a writ of prohibition, and the defendant, J.
N. Pierce, appealed to the Supreme Court, and made a motion by his
attorney that all proceedings be stayed till the decision of the Supreme
Court could be had, which would leave him in possession of the Church
until the slow ploddings of law could be made. The court would not grant
his motion, but ordered a writ of restitution to issue _instanter_, to
which defendant excepted.
The legal history of the case can better be seen in the “Missouri
reports,” vol. 38, p. 296, a part of which may well be transferred to
these pages.
“This case was commenced in the Cooper Circuit Court by filing a
petition praying for a writ of prohibition to issue against the County
Court and John N. Pierce, stating that the plaintiffs were trustees of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, situate in the city of Boonville,
on the south half of lot 238 on the plat of said city, and that they, as
such trustees, were in the actual and rightful possession of said Church
property, and that they and the persons under whom they claim have had
the actual and adverse possession of said church for more than twenty
years, claiming the same as the property of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South; and that the defendant, John N. Pierce, applied by
petition to the County Court of Cooper county at the February term,
1866, and in said petition asked the said court to put him, the said
Pierce, in possession of said church; and further stating in said
petition that said County Court, or a majority of the members of said
court, assumed to act on said petition, and did in fact entertain said
petition, and made an order and caused the same to be entered upon its
records, declaring in said order who are the owners and entitled to the
possession of said church. The petition further stated that said court,
in assuming to act on said petition, exceeded its powers; that said
court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in said petition, and
praying a writ of prohibition to the said County Court and John N.
Pierce to prohibit them from proceeding to enforce said order, &c.
“Upon this petition a writ of prohibition issued, returnable to the
Circuit Court on the 19th day of February, 1866, and upon the return
thereof the defendants moved to quash the writ of prohibition, which
motion was overruled, and judgment was entered by the court making the
writ of prohibition absolute, and ordering a return of said Church
property to the plaintiffs. The court adjourned till the fourth Monday
of May, 1866. Upon the fourth Monday of May, at a session of the Circuit
Court, the defendants, by their attorney, filed and argued a motion to
vacate and set aside the judgment. The motion was overruled, to which
defendant excepted.
“The defendant, John N. Pierce, at the session of said court made and
filed an affidavit and recognizance for an appeal to the Supreme Court,
which was approved by said Circuit Court and an appeal allowed. The
defendant, Pierce, then made a motion that all proceedings be stayed
till the decision of the Supreme Court be had, which was refused by the
court, and a writ of restitution was thereupon ordered to issue
_instanter_, to which the defendant excepted.”
A portion of the opinion of the court throws additional light on the
subject, and will be sufficient to place all the material facts in the
case before the reader. For the questions of law involving the powers
and jurisdiction of the courts respectively the reader is referred to
the case as reported in “Missouri Reports,” vol. 38, pp. 296–302.—Howard
_et al._ vs. Pierce.
“Holmes, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. This was a writ of
prohibition against the defendant, Pierce, and the Justices of the
County Court of Cooper county, upon a suggestion, supported by
affidavit, but without an exemplification of the record of the
proceedings being filed therewith. The suggestion, or petition, contains
but a very vague and imperfect statement of the facts, but we are
enabled to gather from it that the defendant, Pierce, had filed a
petition in the County Court praying to have the plaintiffs ejected from
the possession of a lot of ground and a church building situated
thereon, in the city of Boonville.
“The plaintiffs do not appear to have been made parties to the
proceeding, whatever it may have been, and had no notice thereof; but it
appears that the County Court proceeded to entertain jurisdiction of the
matter, and made certain orders, the effect of which would be to put the
petitioner in possession of the premises in question, ejecting the
plaintiffs. This was certainly a very summary process of ejectment. We
can only say that it is clear for one thing—that the County Court had
not jurisdiction to entertain such proceeding.
“It was said in the argument that the title to the property was vested
in the county, and that the defendant’s application was only to have the
liberty of taking possession of the church; but nothing of all this
appears on this record. So far as we can see by the record before us,
the prohibition was properly granted.
“It further appears that, in the judgment which was entered, an
additional order was made, upon facts made to appear to the court,
directing the clerk to issue a writ of restitution to restore to the
plaintiffs the possession of the premises which (we may infer) had been
taken from them by virtue of the orders which had been made by the
County Court in disobedience to the prohibition. We find no warrant in
any authority for such a proceeding. The proper remedy for a contempt
would seem to be an attachment, to be enforced by fine and imprisonment.
The sheriff’s execution shows that he had made restitution by putting
the plaintiffs in possession of the church from which they had been thus
unlawfully ejected. The defendant, Pierce, moved to set aside the
judgment, for the reason, among others, that this order of restitution
was irregular, and his motion was overruled. The Justices of the County
Court appear to have acquiesced in the action of the court below, and
refused to join with the defendant, Pierce, in this appeal. * *
“We see no better way than to affirm the judgment, and it is accordingly
affirmed.
“Judge Wagner concurs; Judge Lovelace absent.”
The following points should be noted in making up the public verdict
upon the action of Mr. Pierce and the Church which he represents.
1. Mr. Pierce obtained from the County Court an order putting him in
possession of the church upon a false plea—that the property belonged to
the county—without notifying the trustees or any other parties, and
without making them parties to the proceeding.
2. Mr. Pierce acted as his own sheriff, and executed the unlawful order
of the court in an unlawful manner, by forcing an entrance to the
church, removing the lock, substituting another, and, with a
self-organized posse, guarded the church all night with arms in his
hands and the order of the County Court in his pocket.
3. He tried to quash the writ of prohibition issued by the Circuit
Court, failing in which he tried to stay its execution by his appeal to
the Supreme Court until that decision could be had—to keep possession of
the property and use it in the interest of his Church.
4. The M. E. Church, North, of which Mr. Pierce was a minister in good
standing, indorsed the proceedings as a part of her policy—announced by
her Conference—to get possession of the property of the M. E. Church,
South.
5. The unlawful means used in this case was fully sanctioned, if not
instigated, by the Rev. Mr. Haggerty, presiding elder of the district,
who was present and aided in nearly all the proceedings in the church
and in the courts.
6. The act has never been disavowed, disowned, disclaimed or condemned
by any Bishop, Quarterly, Annual or General Conference of that Church;
nor was Mr. Pierce’s character ever arrested in an Annual Conference for
his conduct in this Boonville church affair.
The same may be affirmed of each and every instance of church seizure
and appropriation in Missouri.
If they can escape the judgment of Conferences and Courts while party
blood is still bounding and burning, they may not escape the just
verdict of posterity after the passions have cooled down, and when the
names and character of men will be judged by the history they have made
and the shadows they have thrown forward upon the world.
CHURCH IN SPRINGFIELD.
Just before the war the members and friends of the M. E. Church, South,
erected in the town of Springfield, Green county, Mo., one of the
largest and most elegant churches in Missouri outside of St. Louis. It
was the religious centre and pride of the southwest. That part of the
State was fearfully desolated by the war, and Springfield was an
important base of army operations. It was a depot of supplies, and a
rallying centre for all the large armies, the scouting parties and
marauding bands that operated against the rebels of the South and the
citizens of that portion of the State. While the torch was applied to
nearly every church in the whole of southwest Missouri it is a little
singular that this one should be spared. But so it was.
At what time it passed into the actual possession and use of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, and precisely how long it remained in their
possession, the subjoined report made to the St. Louis Conference sets
forth. Many things are assumed to be of such general knowledge that no
particular and definite information is necessary. The authentic
information upon the subject is a follows:
1. A copy of a deed of conveyance of a lot or parcel of ground in the
city of Springfield, made by Daniel Polk and E. A. Polk, his wife, to
Daniel D. Berry, Jas. R. Danforth, Robt. J. McElhany, Warren H. Graves
and John S. Waddill, trustees of the M. E. Church, South, for the use
and benefit of said Church, to erect thereon a house of worship, &c.
Consideration, $350. Dated October 11, 1856.
2. A statement of the debt incurred in the erection of said house of
worship, amounting in the aggregate to $4,695.
3. A copy of deed of conveyance of October 22, 1866, made by “Robt. J.
McElheny, Warren H. Graves and John S. Waddill, as trustees of the
county of Green and State of Missouri,” to Richard Gott, John Demitt, J.
D. Perkins, James Baker and E. S. Gott, trustees, in trust for the use
and benefit of the Methodist Episcopal Church, &c. Consideration,
$4,700. One thousand of which was paid to them in cash, and the balance
to go to the creditors of the M. E. Church, South.
Suit was brought by the Church, South, to recover the property upon the
ground that the remaining members of the original Board of Trustees had
no legal right to sell and convey the property for their own benefit.
The case, like nearly all others, was compromised, and both the church
and parsonage were given up and turned over to the trustees of the M. E.
Church, South.
The history of the case, as gathered and reported by the committee
appointed by the St. Louis Annual Conference, M. E. Church, South, will
be found sufficiently full in the following statement of facts and
report made by the committee to the Conference in 1868. The reader will
appreciate the irony scattered here and there through the report if he
can not excuse it. The material facts will be found without the
publication of the correspondence to which the report refers. It should
not be overlooked that the Northern Methodists took possession of the
church at the same time they seized the parsonage, viz., in 1863.
“_To the Bishop and Members of the St. Louis Conference_:
“The committee to whom was referred the subject of your church property
at Springfield, Mo., instructed to ‘take such measures as they may deem
proper to recover the property,’ beg leave to submit the following
“REPORT.
“One member of your committee, R. P. Faulkner, residing at Arlington,
Mo., and two members in St. Louis, and the property in question and
parties holding it being at Springfield, Mo., we have had to labor at
considerable disadvantage and loss of time owing to these distances.
“Yet we have endeavored to give the matter all the attention so
important a trust deserved; and for the sake of common justice and our
sacred Christianity we regret to state that our house of worship at
Springfield is not yet in our possession.
“But we are happy to state that we have reason to believe we shall soon
regain that which is justly our own.
“A part of your action on this subject at your last session was ‘that
the Presiding Elder of the Springfield District should see that the
Board of Trustees of our property at Springfield be immediately filled
according to Discipline.’
“We take pleasure in stating that your instructions in this matter have
been complied with by Rev. G. M. Winton, P. E., and the following named
gentlemen appointed trustees: Lawson Fulbright, Elisha Headlee, Thomas
W. Cunningham, Adam C. Mitchell and William Montgomery.
“_Parsonage Property._—In the examination of this question we found that
the house was taken possession of about the middle of the year 1863 by
the authorities of the M. E. Church, under an idea that it would be
destroyed as an enemy of the National Government if not protected by
them; and subsequently held and used by them under the discovery that it
was deeded to the M. E. Church—a Church without representative or
existence in that part of Missouri at the date of said deed.
“The facts in regard to the title to this property are best explained by
reference to a letter herewith submitted, marked A, from Rev. B. R.
Johnson, formerly a member of your Conference, now of California.
“Thus it appears that the title of the M. E. Church to this property is
from a clerical mistake and a strong desire to protect our interests
from destruction.
“We would further state on this point that our examinations satisfy us
that the rental for the use of this property should be at least $25 per
month for the whole time—four and one half years—it has been saved from
destruction by our friends (?). As will be seen in a subsequent part of
this report, a claim, equal to the sum of the rental, is made by those
who have possessed and protected this property for ‘needed repairs.’ We
will recur to this subject again in its place.
“_House of Worship._—We regret exceedingly to have to report a sad
disappointment to our friends, the occupants, who were deprived of the
use of this house, after great preparations had been made for a fair,
festival and feast of fat things, by a thunder storm, whose lightning
struck the church and well nigh settled the controversy in regard to it.
“As soon as practicable your committee convened at the St. Nicholas
Hotel, St. Louis, and among other things determined that it was
necessary for one or more of the committee to visit Springfield.
“Shortly thereafter R. P. Faulkner went to Springfield, and on an
inquiry into the matter, elicited from the authorities of the M. E.
Church a proposition for settlement, which will be presented presently.
“Just previous to this Wm. C. Jamison, a member of your committee,
received the following letter from Judge Baker, of Springfield (marked
B).
“We here present the propositions referred to above (marked C), with a
letter from R. P. Faulkner to the committee (marked ‘_one_’).
“On receiving this communication your committee convened at Arlington
(Wm. C. Jamison absent, being at that time in Wisconsin), and on due
consideration of the propositions, made to them the following answer
herewith submitted (marked D).
“This, our answer to the committee on the part of the M. E. Church, we
enclosed to the Hon. Jno. S. Phelps, of Springfield, with the following
letter of instructions (marked E).
“Immediately after closing its session at Arlington your committee
received the following letter from Rev. J. J. Bently, P. E. of
Springfield District M. E. Church, North, relating to the parsonage
(marked F).
“This communication was immediately sent to Hon. Jno. S. Phelps, our
counsel.
“Thus we have given you all that we have been able to do in this matter,
simply adding our opinion that we will ultimately recover our property.
“The condition of the church at Springfield, as will be seen by
reference to the letter of R. P. Faulkner, who examined it, requires
immediate attention.
“The damage done to the house on the occasion of the _defeat of the
religious fair_ is thus reported on by R. P. Faulkner:
“Though seriously damaged, yet it can be repaired for much less than I
had any idea of until I visited it. I had a builder go and examine and
make a rough estimate of the cost to repair the damage, including
everything but seats, pulpit, &c., who reported to me that, if a
thousand dollars would not do it, twelve hundred would.’
“From a careful survey of all the interests of our Church in
Springfield, we recommend to the Conference that measures be immediately
taken to secure for that station a man of experience, who shall take the
charge of the society and the oversight of the repairs of the church.
And to this end we submit the following resolutions:
“1. _Resolved_, That the Bishop be requested to station one of the most
efficient pulpit and business men at Springfield.
“2. That the Missionary Society be requested to make as liberal
appropriations as they are able for the support of the preacher
stationed at Springfield.
“3. That with the approval of our counsel at Springfield and the
recommendation of the Board of Trustees, the preacher in charge be
authorized and requested to visit such places as he may see proper to
raise means to pay debts and repairs on the Church.
“4. That the whole matter pertaining to the church and parsonage at
Springfield be referred to the Presiding Elder of Springfield District,
the Preacher in Charge of the Station and the trustees of the church.
“Respectfully submitted,
“W. M. PROTTSMAN,
“W. C. JAMISON.”
CHURCH IN POTOSI.
The worthy Presiding Elder of the Potosi District, St. Louis Conference
M. E. Church, South, makes the following statement of the attempt to
seize and hold the church in Potosi. It furnishes at least an
illustration of the fertility of resources possessed by these church
seizers, to use a soft term, and the facility with which they could take
advantage of circumstances.
“MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, Feb. 6, 1867.
“BRO. M‘ANALLY: I send you, for the benefit of your correspondent—a
member of the Missouri Conference—some statements of an attempt of ‘our
brethren, the enemy,’ to take, hold and possess our church in Potosi.
“Some time during the year 1865 a Mr. or Major Miller came to Potosi and
reported himself a minister of the ‘Old Wesleyan Methodist Church;’ that
he was neither North nor South, but belonged to the good old Mother
Church.
“As our people had no pastor, they permitted him to preach in our
church, and attended his ministry. He made an earnest effort to
proselyte our members, but failed. Rumor said he intended to take
possession of our church, but he denied it.
“Early in 1866 Mr. Sorin, his Presiding Elder, announced publicly from
the pulpit on the Sabbath that the house belonged to them, and
henceforth they intended to hold and possess the same.
“That week Bro. Wallace, one of the trustees of the church, who had been
a member for two score years, locked the door, took possession of the
key and notified Mr. Miller that he could not preach there any more.
“Mr. Miller then notified Bro. Wallace that he would bring suit for the
church. Bro. Wallace assured him that when the law gave him the house he
would give him the key.
“In the meantime the Radicals of the town rented a hall for Mr. Miller,
in which they put an organ to help him make music.
“I held a quarterly meeting in Potosi in January, 1867, and while there
I learned that the Rev. Major had sold his friends’ organ, pocketed the
money and gone on a long journey toward the north pole. So Madam Rumor
reports.
“Our people are in quiet possession of our church house, have an
excellent Sabbath school, an organ to help the children sing, a very
gratifying increase in the membership of the Church, and no fears of
being disturbed by Messrs. Sorin, Miller and company, unless they do as
their confederates did on Castor—burn the church.
“Several of our church houses at other points have been quietly occupied
by them, but I believe they have run their race and are not likely to
trouble us much more.
W. S. WOODARD.”
This case, as it exists in the above statement, ought to be sufficient
for all the purposes of history.
In Plattsburg, Clinton county, they purchased an old debt and in that
way obtained a kind of title to half the church. They also purchased an
old debt and got a title to the Plattsburg High School property, and
retain it to this day.
The property of the Southern Methodists in nearly every part of the
State suffered one way or another, and many houses of worship were
seized and used by the Northern Methodists that were not reported in the
public prints, adjudicated in the civil courts or published in their
Conference statistics.
Amongst the latter may be mentioned the churches at Plattsburg, Macon
City, Fillmore, and a church at Glasgow, built and owned by the Southern
Methodists for the use of the colored people. They purchased the other
half of the Plattsburg church, gave up the Fillmore church after using
it about five years, and never gave up the churches at Macon City and
Glasgow.
In the presence of these facts the statement so often made from the
pulpit and through the press, that the ministers and members of the M.
E. Church never at any time engaged in seizing and appropriating to
their use the property of the M. E. Church, South, sounds very strangely
in the ears of candid, honest people. They evidently did not foresee the
necessity for such a denial, and consequently were not very careful to
cover up their tracks. They so far gloried in the history they were
making as to report the property they had seized and appropriated in
their Church statistics, which they published to the world.
The following list of property is taken from the published Statistics of
the Missouri and Arkansas Conference M. E. Church for 1865–6, and which
_disappeared_ as fast as the suits were decided or the cases
compromised:
Independence church $17,000
Independence parsonage 3,000
Lagrange church 12,000
Springfield church 12,000
Springfield parsonage (not reported) 3,000
Boonville church 10,000
Plattsburg church 5,000
Fillmore church 500
Louisiana church 5,000
Glasgow colored church 3,000
Macon church 2,500
———————
Total $73,000
To this may be added the churches seized and held by them for a short
time only, and given up before they could be reported to the Conference,
the property obtained for “less than half its value,” by buying up old
debts and forcing sales, where that course was necessary, and the
furniture and fixtures destroyed and damaged in the use and abuse of the
property held by them for so long, and which was assessed upon the
lawful owners in the claims of restored decency and comfort, and the
grand total would reach over $100,000, to say nothing of rentals, costs
of suits, the damage of deprivation, etc.
In the face of all these facts, it must require no ordinary degree of
moral courage for men in high position to affirm that the ministers and
members of the M. E. Church never stole, seized, pressed, appropriated
or possessed themselves of property that did not belong to them. Only
the moral abrasion of civil war could produce the requisite “hard
cheek.”
The civil war has passed away. Missouri is no longer ruled by shoulder
straps and bayonets—the civil law is supreme—and even by judges who
“neither fear God nor regard man,” except of their own party, the M. E.
Church, South, has been reinstated and secured in her property rights.
Those who figured conspicuously in this church-seizing business often
and loudly proclaimed that they were “making history.” True, they made
history, and now they should not complain if they stand before the world
in the light of the history they have made.
If they could afford to make the history and then boast of it, we can
certainly afford to record it, especially when it is a record of the
martyrdom of those sacred Christian principles for which a
discriminating, righteous charity has no mantle.
CHAPTER XIV.
CHURCH SEIZURES CONTINUED AND MADE GENERAL.
War Claims of Northern Methodists Settled by Ecclesiastical
Black-Mail—Military Mitres and Episcopal Shoulder-Straps—The
Difference—The “Stanton-Ames Order”—“The Great Episcopal
Raid”—“Special Order, No. 15,” from Major-General Banks—Official
Board of Carondelet Street Church, New Orleans, and Bishop
Ames—Episcopal Power then and Ecclesiastical Criticism now—Popular
Verdict—Abandoned (?) and Embarrassed Churches and Ecclesiastical
“Bummers”—Church Extension in the South—Letters and Extracts—Bishop
Clark and “Church Extension Meetings”—Does the End Justify the
Means, or Success Satisfy the Demands of Modern Ethics?—Property
Acquired by the M. E. Church in the South in a few Years—Four
Hundred and Eight Churches, Eighteen Parsonages and Eight Literary
Institutions in two Years, worth $446,659.00, all in Five
Conferences—Opinions of their Leading Men and Journals—Hon. John
Hogan, of St. Louis, Scuttles the Episcopal Ram—Order from the War
Department, with President Lincoln’s Endorsement—Possible
Deception—Rev. Dr. Keener, of New Orleans, Sues for the Churches of
Louisiana four Months—McKendree Church, Nashville, Vacated, “by
Order from Bishop Simpson”—Memorial of the Holston Conference M. E.
Church, South, to the Chicago General Conference, and How it was
Treated—Action of Chicago General Conference—“Stanton-Ames Order”
Duplicated for the Baptists—Conclusion—Sensible Warning from the St.
Louis _Anzeiger_.
Both the purpose and plan for the seizure and appropriation of the
property of the M. E. Church, South, contemplated a much wider range of
territory than the State of Missouri. The M. E. Church, North, had done
too much to put down rebellion; had entered too heartily into the
struggle, sent too many men to the front, put too many orators on the
stump, offered too many prayers from her pulpits and altars for the
success of the Union armies and the destruction of all rebels, and had
supplied too liberally the moral and material sinews of war, to lose a
golden opportunity. The M. E. Church, South, had many fine churches,
with costly furniture and garniture, in the chief cities of the South;
and were they not rebels—all rebels? What rights have rebels that loyal
men are bound to respect? Were not Southern Methodists traitors above
all others? The Federal Government, as represented in Generals Grant,
Sherman, Butler and Banks, could confiscate, seize and appropriate the
property of chief rebels in the South, and especially that which had
been, or could be, used in the interest of treason or rebellion; and why
could not the Federal Government, as represented in Bishops Simpson,
Ames, Clark, Kingsley and the great body of the M. E. Church,
confiscate, seize and appropriate the church property that had been, or
could be, used in the interest of treason and rebellion? Rebel chaplains
might preach in them, rebel soldiers might be quartered in them, rebel
hospitals might be made of them, and in them the great rebellion might
receive moral support. What reward for loyalty had been specially set
apart for the M. E. Church? What the price of her prayers, her sermons,
her money, her men? Another, and that the smallest Protestant Church in
the land, had the best army and navy chaplains—had the lion’s share of
appointments. Did not the M. E. Church, South, inaugurate rebellion in
1844? And when the force of the Southern Church is broken by the
military arm—when her great centres are broken up and her property
confiscated or destroyed, and loyal men preach a loyal gospel from her
pulpits, and teach loyalty in her halls and institutions of learning,
then may it be hoped that the moral and political heresy will be
exterminated with the heretics. Make the M. E. Church a part of the
military arm of the Government; invest the Bishops with
ecclesiastico-military authority; supply them with transportation,
supplies and military escorts; make Department Commanders subject unto
them, and if the great rebellion is not put down, the great national
Church will be put up, and the property of traitors will be converted to
loyal uses. The centres of population and power in the South will be put
under loyal training and discipline, and a moral result will be reached
which “military necessity” demands. All moral questions down in the
presence of a war measure so manifestly right and proper. Military
necessity has no conscience in the presence of a gigantic rebellion.
What religious difference between a military and an ecclesiastical raid
upon the property of rebels? Will the Government and the Church ever
quarrel over the spoils of conquest, whether gained by an Episcopal
General or a Military Bishop? Episcopal shoulder-straps and military
mitres may well lose their distinction in a common cause against a
common enemy.
The appropriateness and force of these reflections will appear in the
following well authenticated facts.
What has been called, by way of distinction, the “Great Episcopal Raid,”
had its announcement and authority in the following order, issued from
the War Department of the Federal Government, and known as the
“STANTON-AMES ORDER.”
“WAR DEPARTMENT, }
WASHINGTON, D. C., Nov. 30, 1863. }
“_To the Generals Commanding the Military Departments of Mississippi,
the Gulf, the South, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, etc.,
etc._:
“You are hereby directed to place at the disposal of Rev. Bishop Ames
all houses of worship belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, in which a loyal minister who has been appointed by a loyal
Bishop of said Church does not officiate. It is a matter of great
importance to the Government, in its efforts to restore tranquillity to
the community and peace to the nation, that Christian ministers should,
by precept and example, support and foster the loyal sentiments of the
people.”
“(Signed) E. M. STANTON, _Sec’y of War_.
Thus armed, Bishop Ames started on his Episcopal raid upon the Southern
Methodist Churches, taking with him and picking up along the route down
the Mississippi a goodly number of “loyal ministers.” The details of his
exploits in the South, seizing and appropriating to the uses of a “loyal
religion” the churches of others would not be appropriate to this work,
but will be left to the history of these strange times in their
appropriate localities.
In Memphis, Tenn., Vicksburg and Jackson, Miss., Baton Rouge and New
Orleans, La., the Episcopal General found and possessed himself of fine
and costly churches. In the latter city he called the Official Board of
Carondelet street Church together—the largest, finest and wealthiest
Southern Methodist church in the city—and formally demanded the
surrender of that and the other Southern Methodist churches in the city
to him.
They objected, and in their objection set forth that “Bishop Ames, as an
officer of another Church, had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over
them.” He replied that he “claimed no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over
them any more than over the Catholic or Episcopal Churches, but that he
came with an order from the United States Secretary of War, and an order
from General Banks, Department Commander at New Orleans, and by that
authority he demanded the surrender of the churches.”
They replied that, as they “held the property in trust for the use and
benefit of the M. E. Church, South, they could not voluntarily give up
that trust. If they did so it must be under the stress of a compulsion
they had no power, civil or military, to resist—the Bishop would have to
compel them.”
Whereupon the Bishop obtained a military force, and the churches were
taken, just as Memphis, Vicksburg, New Orleans and Richmond were taken.
An extract from the Special Order of Major-General Banks, then
commanding the “Department of the Gulf,” will show the light in which
this church-seizing business was viewed by the military authorities as a
moral “war measure.”
“HEADQUARTERS DEP’T OF THE GULF, }
NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 18, 1864. }
“Special Order, No. 15.]
“V. In accordance with instructions contained in a letter from the
Secretary of War, under date of Nov. 30, 1863, all houses of worship
within this Department belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, in which a loyal minister, who has been appointed by a loyal
Bishop of said Church, does not now officiate, are hereby placed at the
disposal of the Rev. Bishop Ames.
“Commanding officers at the various points where such houses of worship
may be located are directed to extend to the ministers that may be
appointed by Bishop Ames, to conduct divine service in said houses of
worship, all the aid, countenance and support practicable in the
execution of their mission.
“Officers of the quartermaster’s and commissary departments are
authorized and directed to furnish Bishop Ames and his clerk with
transportation and subsistence, when it can be done without prejudice to
the service; and all officers will afford them courtesy, assistance and
protection.
“By command of Major-General Banks.
“GEORGE B. DRAKE,
Ass’t-Adj’t-General.”
Under this “Special Order No. 15” the Bishop was put in possession of
many churches, his ministers protected, and this general superintendent
and representative of the M. E. Church and his clerk were furnished
transportation and subsistence by the Government as a “war measure.”
This involves more than that Church will admit, now that military
protection from the judgment of enlightened Christendom will not avail,
and now that ecclesiastical criticism is as unsparing as ecclesiastical
presumption was then reckless. The corollary that the M. E. Church made
distinct and aggressive war upon the M. E. Church, South, and hence
claimed belligerent rights to capture and hold the property of the enemy
in perpetuity, or until formally given up under treaty stipulations, is
a very unwelcome and uncomfortable position to those whose religious
consciences were not destroyed by a “military necessity.” Strenuous
efforts are required of the pulpit and press to break the force of the
popular verdict of the people upon the religious and ecclesiastical
aspects of this “Episcopal Raid.”
The authority thus given to Bishop Ames had a much wider and a more
general application than his personal operations. This gave the sanction
to the church seizures in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, East Tennessee,
and all through the South. The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church
and their ministers penetrated the South in every direction, and were
keen on the scent of abandoned (?) churches and other property of the M.
E. Church, South. They went to the large cities and railroad centres;
got possession of churches by military order or otherwise—“honestly, if
they could, but”—_they got them_, and then went out in every direction
in search of abandoned, embarrassed and libelled property which they
could seize and appropriate to the uses of a “loyal Methodism.”
While this plan was being executed in the South the “Church Extension
Society” in the Northern States and the “Missionary Society” were
furnishing the material aid necessary to support the preachers, buy up
old church debts, force sales and bid in the property for the amount of
the debt, and thus possess themselves of property for “less than half
its value.”
To show how the business was carried on, see the following extracts from
a letter of one of their missionaries in Alabama—Rev. W. P. Miller—to
the Corresponding Secretary of the Church Extension Society of the M. E.
Church, published in the _Western Christian Advocate_ of Jan. 1, 1868:
“There are two churches that I could secure with a little ready money.
Can you help us in time of need?
“1. A church, 45 by 55, a plain frame, covered with shingles, good
floor, with seats and pulpit, but not ceiled; built during the war, but
has never been paid for.
“Last year I raised two hundred and fifty dollars, leaving one hundred
and fifty unpaid. The man who owns the land and built the house says if
we pay him the hundred and fifty dollars he will give us a deed, but we
are so prostrated that we can not do it now. If we fail others will do
it, and we will be shut out of doors.
“Another church, 40 by 50, in general description like the first. * * *
This house was also built during the war and partly paid for. The
builder built on his own land, and was to convey the title when paid
for. He died in the war, but his widow says she will give us a deed if
we will pay her the balance, one hundred dollars. Please help us, if
possible, in this case also.”
They held “Church Extension” meetings in all the Methodist churches in
the Northern States to raise funds to meet just such emergencies. An
account of a “Church Extension Meeting,” held in Indianapolis, Ind., is
given in the _Western Christian Advocate_ of February 19, 1868, soon
after Mr. Miller’s letter appeared. The following is an extract:
“At Ashbury chapel Bishop Clarke preached with great power, and in
conclusion set forth the claims of the Society. He presented the wants
of three Churches in Alabama—one could be _saved_ for fifty dollars,
another for one hundred, and a third for one hundred and fifty. The
Bishop asked the Church to aid these societies of loyal Christians
struggling for an existence, and Asbury most cheerfully responded in a
contribution of three hundred dollars.”
Upon the same subject the _Northwestern Christian Advocate_ of March 18,
1868, says:
“When the Church Extension Society was first organized, in commending
the new cause to our people, the Bishops in their address said ‘We know
of no agency in which the contribution of our people can accomplish a
greater amount of good.’ At a later date Bishop Clarke, after a careful
survey of the field, and especially of the South, put the case in
stronger terms, and said: ‘I do not know where else a man’s money can be
used with such certainty of sure and large returns.’”
He then mentions as an illustration the churches reported by Rev. W. P.
Miller, and says: “The money was forwarded to Bro. Miller and he has
written to the Corresponding Secretary the results, as follows: ‘I have
invested the means you sent me, and have secured the two churches of
which I wrote; title all right. The churches are frame, and are worth
here about $1,000.’”
The Missouri and Arkansas Conference, held in Louisiana, Mo., March 7,
1866, adopted the following:
“_Resolved_, That the preachers be urged to exercise personal
supervision over such church property not yet secured to trustees, urge
the churches to select trustees, and when this can not be done, to
petition the County Court to appoint such officers.” (Pub. Minutes, p.
36.)
The Louisiana and Boonville Church property cases are in illustration.
All the Bishops and all the Conferences of the M. E. Church endorsed the
work of Church Extension in the South, just as it was carried on by Mr.
Miller, Mr. Drake, Mr. Pearne, Dr. Newman and their associates, and the
plan was successful.
In the philosophy of some men the end justifies the means, and success
satisfies all the demands of modern ethics. It will not do to question
every wealthy man or wealthy Church too closely as to how their property
was acquired during the war. It is enough for the curious to know that
they have property, and to hope that they have consciences as well.
That the M. E. Church has property in the Southern States in churches,
parsonages and literary institutions is an admitted fact. That nearly
all, if not all, of this property has been acquired in a very few years,
and years, too, of great poverty and destitution through the South, will
not be denied. Now, take the following facts and figures:
The Tennessee Conference was organized Oct. 11, 1866, with thirteen
churches valued at $59,100. At its second session it reported thirty
houses of worship and one parsonage. The Georgia Conference, at its
organization, Oct. 10, 1867, reported forty-nine churches. The
Mississippi Conference was organized in 1866 with five churches, and at
its session held in December, 1867, reported forty-seven churches, five
parsonages and eight institutions of learning. In 1866 the South
Carolina Conference reports no churches, but at its session in
Charleston, February, 1868, reported forty-nine churches and six
parsonages. The Holston Conference was organized by Bishop Clarke in
1865 with 100 churches, valued at $31,250. At its session in October,
1867, just two years after, it reported 203 churches and six parsonages.
These five Conferences, with an average existence of two years, report
408 churches, eighteen parsonages and eight institutions of learning, at
an estimated aggregate value of $446,659. The increase up to 1868 will
reach largely over half a million.
Others may ask where and how they acquired so much property in so short
a time, and amongst a people desolated and torn by war and impoverished
even to beggary and want by the sword, the torch, the pestilence, the
famine, the floods, the drouth, the Bureau and the reconstruction.
The policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as announced in their
great official organ, the New York _Christian Advocate_, and carried out
as far as could be by their emissaries in the South, was to
“_disintegrate and absorb the M. E. Church, South_.”
Dr. Newman, editor of the New Orleans _Advocate_, said in the New York
_Methodist_, of May 23, 1868:
* * * “And we solemnly hold that it would be of incalculable advantage
to the South, and the cause of Christianity therein, if the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, should cease to be.”
Upon the reunion of the two Churches, Dr. N. E. Cobleigh, of Athens,
Tenn., in an article in the _Northern Christian Advocate_, of April 1,
1868, says:
“The Church property, too, of which we have taken possession in the
South, must be given back to them (the M. E. Church, South,) before they
will consent to treat upon the subject.”
Dr. Daniel Curry, editor of the New York _Christian Advocate_, said
before the Preachers’ Meeting of New York, in May, 1866:
“Wherever we have taken churches the policy has proved bad. The first
act of the Church, South, toward us, after this, was a charge of church
stealing—a high crime before the law. We did not mean to do wrong, but
it has put us in a bad position.”
The New Orleans _Advocate_, of Feb. 10, 1866, says:
“We have seen a letter from Bishop Ames, which was dated Baltimore, Md.,
Jan. 20, 1866, and which contained this glorious news: ‘The President
has issued an order putting us in possession of 210 churches and 32
parsonages, which the Rebel Methodists in Virginia have occupied during
the war.’”
This was “glorious news” to Dr. Newman, himself occupying at the time a
church obtained from “Rebel Methodists” by this same Bishop Ames upon an
order from Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War. These Bishops had a summary
way of getting possession of other people’s property. The cry of “Rebel
Methodists” and treason against the Government from them and their tools
could always move the Government officials to issue such orders as would
put them in possession of the property of rebels. But whether the rebels
themselves were crushed out or made better by the transaction, are
matters about which little was said.
There is yet another aspect of this general question worthy of note.
While Bishop Ames was in the South prosecuting under War Department
orders his great scheme of ecclesiastical piracy, and the many smaller
ecclesiastics were similarly engaged in other portions of the conquered
provinces, steps were being taken to forestall the Bishop when his
ecclesiastical ram should be directed against the “Rebel Methodists” of
St. Louis. Hon. John Hogan, member of Congress from St. Louis, went to
Washington and made representations to the President of the facts in the
case, and when the good Bishop reached St. Louis he was met by an order
from the War Department, with an endorsement from the President of the
United States, repealing his Stanton order and putting an estoppel upon
his proceedings, especially in Missouri.
The following order was obtained by Mr. Hogan from the War Department,
with President Lincoln’s endorsement exempting the churches of Missouri
from seizure under Mr. Stanton’s order:
“WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL’S OFFICE, }
“WASHINGTON, February 13, 1864. }
Order.]
“_Major-General Rosecrans, U.S. Volunteers, Commanding Department of
the Missouri, St. Louis, Mo._:
“SIR: I am directed by the Secretary of War to say that the orders
from the Department placing at the disposal of the constituted Church
authorities in the Northern States houses of worship in other States
is designed to apply only to such States as are designated by the
President’s Proclamation as being in rebellion, and is not designed to
operate in loyal States, nor in cases where loyal congregations in
rebel States shall be organized and worship upon the terms prescribed
by the President’s Amnesty Proclamation.
“I am, sir, very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
“JAS. A. HARDIE,
“Assistant Adjutant-General.”
This order bears the following endorsement in Mr. Lincoln’s own proper
hand:
“As you see within, the Secretary of War modifies his order so as to
exempt Missouri from it. Kentucky was never within it; nor, as I learn
from the Secretary, was it ever intended for any more than a means of
rallying the Methodist people in favor of the Union in localities
where the rebellion had disorganized and scattered them. Even in that
view I fear it is liable to some abuses; but it is not quite easy to
withdraw it entirely, and at once.
A. LINCOLN.
“_February 13, 1864._”
That is a damaging disclosure. Were Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War, and
Mr. Lincoln, President of the United States, imposed upon and deceived
by these high Church dignitaries? The famous Stanton-Ames order “never
intended for any more than a means of rallying the Methodist people in
favor of the Union in localities where the rebellion had disorganized
and scattered them!” Was it ever used for other purposes? How about the
Churches seized and appropriated by authority of this same order in
cities and communities where the Methodist people had never been
disorganized and scattered, and where “the Methodist people” intended to
be “rallied” had never been organized—never even had an existence?
It did not require Mr. Lincoln’s sagacity to see that such an order was
“liable to some abuse,” but it does require a good deal of effort to
believe that even Northern Methodist Bishops could deceive the
Government, and then pervert and “abuse” an order from the War
Department. But we are forced to accept the facts in the case.
The action of Mr. Hogan and his success in defeating the purposes of
Bishop Ames gave hope and courage to others, and in June, 1865, Dr.
Keener, of New Orleans, went to Washington and made a formal and most
earnest application to the President and Secretary of War for the
restoration of the churches in Louisiana to their rightful owners.
He remained in Washington prosecuting his almost hopeless mission for
four long, weary months. After this wearisome prosecution of what seemed
to be a forlorn hope, the President (Mr. Johnson) gave the order and
restored the property, which the Northern Bishops could have restored
with the stroke of a pen. This gracious favor was obtained from the
President much upon the principle of the widow and the unjust judge:
“And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him and said,
avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for awhile; but afterward
he said within himself, though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet
because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her
continual coming she weary me.”
So it was the Churches, at least some of them, were restored. “And will
not God avenge his own elect which cry day and night unto him? I tell
you, he will avenge them speedily.”
Enboldened by success, others made application to the President for the
restoration of their churches. Upon such application the churches in
Vicksburg, Miss., Memphis and Nashville, Tenn., were given up.
In regard to the latter a Nashville (Tenn.) correspondent of a Northern
Methodist paper says:
“Things are moving slowly, as far as our church is concerned. Upon an
order from Bishop Simpson, we vacated McKendree last week, and are now
holding services in Masonic Hall. Our congregations are small, but we
hope for better times. * * * * Our dear Southern brethren of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, persuasion are flocking back to their
old haunts, and hold up their heads as if they were not guilty of the
blood and suffering of the past four years.”
“Upon an order from Bishop Simpson” they vacated McKendree, after they
had been put into it and occupied it so long upon an order from Bishop
or General somebody else. But who “ordered” Bishop Simpson? Why did he
require his brethren to “vacate McKendree?” For the same reason that Dr.
Newman vacated Carondelet street Church, New Orleans, and the churches
in Memphis, Vicksburg and other places were vacated.
Others may detail the “pious fraud” upon the churches at Knoxville, and
Athens, and other places in Tennessee, while the general subject only
requires here a notice of the Memorial of the Holston Conference, M. E.
Church, South, to the General Conference of the M. E. Church at Chicago,
in the spring of 1868, and the notice taken of it by that General
Conference. The following is the
MEMORIAL OF THE HOLSTON CONFERENCE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH.
“_To the Bishops and Members of the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, at Chicago, Ills., May, 1868_:
“The undersigned were appointed a committee at the session of the
Holston Conference of the M. E. Church, South, held at Cleveland, East
Tennessee, in October last, to memorialize your reverend body, and to
set forth distinctly the wrongs which we are suffering at the hands of
agents of the M. E. Church within our bounds; and also to entreat you to
devise some means by which an end may be made to these outrages, for the
honor of Methodism and for the sake of our common Christianity.
“Our churches have been seized by ministers and members of the M. E.
Church, and are still held and used by them as houses of worship.
“To give the semblance of legality to these acts and of right to this
property, trustees have been appointed by the authorities of the M. E.
Church; and these churches are annually reported by your ministers in
their Conference statistics.
“From these churches our ministers are either excluded and driven, or
allowed only a joint occupancy with your ministers. From some of them
our ministers in their regular rounds of district and circuit work are
excluded by locks and bars, or by armed men meeting them at the doors;
from others they are driven by mobs, and threatened with death should
they attempt a return; at one a presiding elder and a preacher in charge
of the circuit, at a quarterly meeting appointment, were arrested and
marched fifteen miles amidst indignities and insults; at another, an
aged and godly minister was ridden upon a rail; at another, the same man
found at the door bundles of rods and nails, and also a written notice
prohibiting him from preaching at the risk of torture; at another, a
notice was handed to our preacher, signed by a class leader in the M. E.
Church, in which was the following language: ‘If you come back here
again we will handle you;’ and, true to the threat, on a subsequent
round, not two miles from the place, this worthy minister, as he was
passing to his appointment on the second Sabbath in February last, was
taken from his horse, struck a severe blow upon the head, blindfolded,
tied to a tree, scourged to laceration, and then ordered to lie with his
face to the ground until his scourgers should withdraw, with the threat
of death for disobedience. All this he was told, too, was for traveling
that circuit and preaching the gospel as a Southern Methodist preacher;
from another, the children and teachers of our Sabbath School were
ejected while in session by a company of men, who were led by a minister
of the M. E. Church.
“Our parsonages, also, have been seized and occupied by ministers of the
M. E. Church, no rent having been paid to us for their use.
“Thirty-six hundred dollars, appropriated upon our application to the
United States Government for damages done to our church at Knoxville
during the war, were, by some sleight-of-hand movement, passed into the
hands of a minister of the M. E. Church. This money is still, held from
us.
“In other cases, school and church property of our’s on which debts were
resting has been forced upon the market by agents in your interests, and
thereby wrested from our poverty and added to your abundance.
“Members of the M. E. Church constitute, in part, the mobs that insult
and maltreat our preachers, while ministers of the same Church, by words
and acts, either countenance or encourage our persecutors. In no
instance, so far as we are advised, has any one for such conduct been
arraigned, or censured even, by those administering the discipline of
your Church.
“We could specify the name of each of these churches, and the locality,
were it necessary, in which our ministers and people are either
permitted sometimes to worship, or from which they are excluded and
driven by locks, threats, mobs and bloody persecutions. Their names are
in our possession, and at your disposal. About one hundred church
edifices are held in one or another of these ways, with a value of not
less than seventy-five thousand dollars.
“Of this property, it should be added, some was deeded to the M. E.
Church before 1844, and the rest, since that time, to the M. E. Church,
South. That it is all claimed by the M. E. Church in East Tennessee we
suppose to be true, or it would not be reported and received in their
Annual Conference statistics. That it belongs to the M. E. Church,
South, we suppose also to be true, inasmuch as all deeds since 1844 have
been made to us, and all the remainder were granted to us by the
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Church suit;
unless the ground be assumed by your reverend body that when Lee
surrendered to Grant the M. E. Church, South, surrendered also to the M.
E. Church all her property rights. Surely if the United States
Government does not confiscate the property of those who are called
rebels, the M. E. Church, in her highest legislative assembly, will
hardly set a precedent by claiming the property of their Southern
brethren.
“But it may, perhaps, be said that we have been sinners, rebels,
traitors, touching our civil and political relations to the Government.
If this be so, we are unable to comprehend by what authority we are to
be punished by the M. E. Church, since for our moral obliquities we are
responsible alone to God, and for our political crimes only to the
United States Government.
“It may also be asked, what jurisdiction has your General Conference
over these deeds of injustice? No civil jurisdiction, we are aware; but
your reverend body does possess a moral power of such weight that, if
brought to bear in East Tennessee, there would be an end to these acts
of oppression and cruelty. A word of disapproval, even, from your Board
of Bishops, or the publication in your Church papers of some of the
above cited facts, with editorial condemnation, would have done much to
mitigate, if not entirely to remove, the cause of our complaints; but we
have neither heard the one nor seen the other. Why this has not been
done is believed by us to be a want of knowledge of these facts, of
which we now put you in possession. Familiar as we are with the
condition of things in East Tennessee, and with the workings of the two
Methodisms there, we are satisfied that your body could, by judicious
action, remove most, if not all, of the causes which now occasion
strife, degrade Methodism, and scandalize our holy religion. We,
therefore, ask—
“1st. That you will ascertain the grounds upon which the M. E. Church
claims and holds the property in church buildings and parsonages within
her bonds in East Tennessee, as reported in her Holston Mission
Conference statistics.
“2d. If in the investigation any property so reported shall be adjudged
by you to belong of right to the M. E. Church, South, that you will
designate what that property is, and where; and also instruct your
ministers and people to relinquish their claims upon the same, repossess
us, and leave us in the undisturbed occupancy thereof.
“3d. Inasmuch as your words of wisdom and of justice will be words of
power, that you earnestly advise all your ministers laboring in this
field to abstain from every word and act the tendency of which would be
the subversion of good order and peace in the communities in which they
move.
“In conclusion, allow us to add, that in presenting this memorial to
your reverend body we are moved thereto by no other spirit than that of
ardent desire to promote the interests of our common Redeemer by
‘spreading scriptural holiness over these lands.’
“E. E. WILEY,
“W. G. E. CUNNYNGHAM,
“WM. ROBESON,
“B. ARBOGAST,
“C. LONG,
“J. M. MCTEER,
“GEORGE STEWART,
“Members of the Holston Conference of the M. E. Church, South.
“_April, 1868._”
This memorial, so respectful and dignified, and upon so grave a matter,
was referred, without being read or printed, to a select committee of
seven. And though presented and referred early in the session, no
further notice was taken of the it, and the committee did not bring in a
report until the very last day of the session and just before the final
adjournment. The report of the select committee was read amid great
confusion, and passed without debate by a very small vote, but few of
the members of the General Conference feeling interested enough either
to listen or vote.
The _Daily Advocate_, of June 3, 1868, contains the following account of
the affair, with the report of the special committee as adopted:
“The report of the committee on the memorial of the Holston Conference
was presented and read, and, on motion, adopted.
“The report as adopted, is as follows:
“Your committee have had before them a memorial from a committee of
seven appointed by the Holston Conference, of the M. E. Church, South,
stating that our ministers and people within that region have seized the
churches and parsonages belonging to said Church, South, and maltreated
their ministers. The statements of the paper are all indefinite, both as
to places, times and persons, and no one has appeared to explain or
defend the charges. On the contrary, we have also before us, referred to
our consideration, numerous affidavits from ministers and members of our
Church, in various parts of this country, evidently designed to refute
any charges that might be presented by this committee of seven. It seems
from these papers that as soon as the federal power was re-established
in East Tennessee whole congregations came over to the M. E. Church,
bringing with them their churches and parsonages, that they might
continue to use them for worship. It also seems that much of the
property in question is deeded to the M. E. Church, it being so held
before the secession of the Church, South. We have no proof that any in
contest is held otherwise. The General Conference possesses no power, if
it would, to divest the occupants of this property of the use or
ownership of it, paid for by their means, and would be guilty of great
impropriety in interfering at all at this time when test cases are
already before the courts. If, however, we should proceed so to do, with
the evidence before us largely _ex parte_, it is true, but all that, we
have, the presentation of the memorialists can not be sustained. By
personal examinations we have endeavored in vain to ascertain what
foundation there is for the affirmation that our ministers and people
encourage violence toward the ministers of the M. E. Church, South. We
believe and trust there is no foundation for the charge, for if true, it
could but meet our unqualified disapprobation. Our own ministers and
people in the South suffer severely in this way, and sometimes, we
apprehend, at the hands of our Southern brethren, but neither the spirit
of our Master, the genius of our people, nor our denominational interest
could allow us to approbate in any parties the practice. We are glad to
know that our brethren laboring in that region had their attention early
called to these matters, and we content ourself with repeating the
sentiments of their address to the people. It was in effect as published
in the Knoxville _Whig_, by authority of at least four presiding elders;
and several other members of the Holston Conference, as well as often
stated from our pulpits in the South, and through our Church papers in
the North, that violence toward the preachers and people of the Church,
South, is unwise, unchristian and dangerous. Our preachers and people in
the South, so far as we are apprised and believe, have all and ever held
this position on the subject. We recommend the following:
“_Resolved_, That all the papers connected with this matter be referred
to the Holston Conference, believing as we do that this Conference, in
the future as in the past, will be careful to do justly, and, as much as
lieth in them, to live peaceably with all men.
“Your committee have also had before them a letter, published in various
Southern journals, and signed by S. F. Waldro, being dated from Chicago,
and presuming to state the objects and intentions of the Methodist
Episcopal Conference in the prosecution of its Southern work. We are
also informed that several similar letters have been published in the
South. No effort that we have been able to make has enabled us to
discover any such person in this city. Certainly no such person has a
right to speak in our behalf or declare our purposes, much less does he
declare them correctly. We recommend that the paper be dismissed as
anonymous and unworthy of our further consideration.
“L. HITCHCOCK, Chairman.
“J. M. REID, Secretary.”
The War Department at Washington issued an order similar to the
“Stanton-Ames Order,” in the interests of the “American Baptist Home
Mission Society,” requiring all houses of worship belonging to the
Baptists in the military departments of the South, in which a loyal
minister did not officiate, to be turned over to the agents or officers
of the American Baptist Home Mission Society, and ordering Government
transportation and subsistence to be furnished such agents and their
clerks. Dated Jan. 14, 1864.
This was a new mode of warfare, and will ever stand upon the historic
page as humiliating to enlightened Christian sentiment, as it is forever
damaging to the spirit and genius of American institutions and the true
interests of Messiah’s kingdom on earth.
While American citizens are generally unwilling to be instructed in the
higher civil and religious interests of this country by foreigners, yet
it will not be denied that many of the finest, shrewdest and wisest
journalists of the country are from foreign lands.
As a befitting close to this part of the subject, and a wise warning to
the politico-religious fanatics who think little of the effect of their
reckless disregard of the sacred relations of Church and State, an
extract from the St. Louis _Anzeiger_, a German paper of much character
and influence, will be appropriate.
It is upon the general subject of the Administration running the
Churches, as developed in the order from the War Department creating
Bishop Ames Bishop of a Military Department, and authorizing him to take
possession of the Methodist churches of Missouri, Tennessee and the Gulf
States. It says:
“Here we have, in _optima forma_, the commencement of Federal
interference with religious affairs; and this interference occurs in
cities and districts where war has ceased, and even in States, like
Missouri, which have never joined the secession movement.
“Doubtless the Federal Government has the right to exercise the utmost
rigor of the law against rebel clergymen, as well as against all other
criminal citizens; nay, it may oven close churches in districts under
military law when these churches are abused for political purposes; but
this is the utmost limit to which military power may go. Every step
beyond this is an arbitrary attack upon the constitutionally guaranteed
right of religious freedom, and upon the fundamental law of the American
Republican Government—separation of Church and State. The violation of
the Constitution committed in the appointment of a Military Bishop—one
would be forced to laugh if the affair were not so serious in
principle—is so much the more outrageous and wicked, as it is attempted
in States which, like Missouri, have never separated from the Union, and
in which all the departments of civil administration are in regular
activity.
“This order of the War Department is the commencement of State and
Federal interference in the affairs of the Churches. It is not a single
military suspension or banishment order, which might be exceptional and
for a temporary purpose. It is not the act of a General who, sword in
hand, commands the priest to pray for him, as we read of in times long
ago. It is far more. It is an administrative decree of the Federal
Government, appropriating Church property, regulating Church
communities, and installing Bishops. A similar order has been issued for
the Baptist Church of the South.
“If this is the commencement, where will the end be? The pretense that
it is merely a proceeding against disloyal clergymen will deceive
nobody. Bad actions have never wanted good pretenses. With the same
right with which the Secretary of War makes Bishop Ames chief of a
Church in the South he may also interfere in the affairs of all other
Churches, or even dissolve any Church at pleasure. We ask again, Where
is the end to be? and what principle of American constitutional law will
remain if freedom of religion and of conscience is at the mercy of any
commander of a military post?”
CHAPTER XV.
MARTYRDOM—REVS. J. M. PROCTOR, M. ARRINGTON, J. M’GLOTHLIN AND JAMES
PENN.
Philosophy of Martyrdom—Living Martyrs—Names Made Immortal by
Persecution—Martyrs of Missouri—Difference Between Martyrs for the
Testimony of Jesus, only Questions of Time and Place—The Spirit the
Same Everywhere—Causes—Explanatory Remarks—_Rev. James M. Proctor_
Arrested Coming out of the Pulpit—Connection with the M. E. Church,
South, his only Offense—Kept in Prison for Weeks, then
Released—_Rev. Marcus Arrington_—Chaplain—Insulted—Kept in Alton
Prison—_Rev. John McGlothlin_—Petty Persecution and Tyranny—_Rev.
James Penn_—Meeting Broken Up—Driven from His own Churches by a
Northern Methodist Preacher Leading an Armed Mob—Persecution—Prayer.
Men die, but truth is immortal. The workmen are buried, but the work
goes on. Institutions pass away, but the principles of which they were
the incarnation live forever. The Way, the Truth and the Life “was
manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into
glory.”
Incarnate Innocence was “despised and rejected of men.” The Manger, the
Garden, the Cross, are but different aspects of the life and light of
men, and illustrate the history of the “Man of Sorrows.” The disciple is
not above his Lord, nor the servant better than his Master, and if such
things were done in the green tree, what hope is there for the dry?
There are many living martyrs. Death is not necessary condition of
martyrdom. The souls of man martyrs have not yet reached their resting
place “under the altar.” They have met the conditions of martyrdom in
the garden of agony without reaching the cross. Some men, who still
live, have suffered more for Christ and his Church than many who have
ended their sufferings with their lives. Not the nature but the cause of
suffering imparts to it the moral quality and the virtues of martyrdom.
“Blessed are they which are persecuted for _righteousness’ sake_, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Many suffer and die, but not “for
righteousness’ sake,” and very many “are persecuted for righteousness’
sake” who still live. The grave does not limit the roll of martyrs.
Robinson and Headlee, and Glanville and Wollard may have suffered less
for righteousness’ sake than Cleavland, Breeding, M‘Anally, Penn,
Duvall, Spencer, Rush and many others who still live to bear witness to
the truth. True, it is something to sacrifice life for a principle and a
cause—to seal the testimony with the blood. Moral heroism can reach no
higher form, nor express itself in a more exalted type. Its purest fire
goes out and its sublimest consecration culminates in the life blood of
the martyr. Many a noble spirit has been offered up in the sacrifice and
service of faith, and, like Isaac, bound hand and foot upon the altar,
with the fatal knife glittering and gleaming in the upraised hand of the
executioner, yet has been rescued by the interposing voice, when perfect
faith stood vindicated in the complete consecration. “Was not Abraham,
our father, justified by works when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon
the altar?” As much so as if the knife had been driven to his heart and
the fires had consumed his body. Yet Abraham’s faith was vindicated by
his works, and Isaac lived to perpetuate the story of his offering. St.
Paul says: “For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are
accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” And again: “I protest by your
rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, _I die daily_.” He was
a living martyr, and many Apostles and righteous men have, like him,
been “killed all the day long” and “die daily.”
Historical facts in support of the position taken are neither wanting
nor few, and the roll of living and dead martyrs in Missouri, now to be
recorded in these pages, will vindicate the position and illustrate the
annals of religious persecution with a chapter but little removed from
the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition, and the persecutions of the
Vaudois Christians and Waldenses under Francis I., Henry II., Catherine
De Medicis and other notable instruments of power in France, which
culminated in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew.
Many names have been given a fame as enduring as the virtues they were
made to illustrate, by the force and fire and fact of persecution, which
otherwise would have perished from the earth. And the cause for which
they were persecuted has been given a sanctity in the hearts and a power
over the lives of men which otherwise it could not have received. A name
however obscure, and a character however humble, become illustrious
despite of history when associated with persecution, suffering and
death, for a principle and a cause which invest humanity with the purer
and higher types of intellectual, moral and religious life. Around such
names the divinest principles crystallize, and by such characters the
deepest and purest fountains of humanity are touched. Hampden, and
Russell, and Howard, and Sidney, and Eliot, and Brainard, and
Wilberforce, and Martin, and others who sacrificed all for the
political, mental and moral enfranchisement of their race, have made
themselves immortal, as their names are enshrined in the deepest heart
of our nature. They will live forever in the cause for which they
suffered. So, too, many of less note have been given a fame as enduring
as columns of brass, and they will be handed down to posterity without
the factitious aid of monuments of marble or pyramids of granite.
Profane history, philosophy and poetry may treat the martyr for the
truth cavalierly or ignore his claims altogether, while they panegyrize
his executioner. Yet he will live in the hearts of men, ennoble the
virtues of men, illustrate the heroism of men, and thrill the purest
souls of men with life and immortality after the names of those who
despised and rejected him have perished in eternal forgetfulness.
The sweet-spirited Cowper has anticipated this fact and put his more
than poetic conception into the most expressive and poetic language:
“A patriot’s blood may earn indeed,
And for a time insure to his loved land
The sweets of liberty and equal laws;
But martyrs struggle for a brighter prize,
And win it with more pain. Their blood is shed
In confirmation of the noblest claim—
Our claim to feed upon immortal truth,
To walk with God, to be divinely free,
To soar and to anticipate the skies.”
The martyrs of Missouri, though unknown to fame and unambitious of
distinction, have, in their humble, unostentatious, quiet way, suffered
as keenly and as severely as any others. They have taken the spoiling of
their goods as joyfully, “counted all things but loss for the excellency
of the knowledge of Christ Jesus the Lord,” “counted not their lives
dear unto themselves so that they might finish their course with joy and
the ministry which they have received of the Lord Jesus to testify the
gospel of the grace of God,” and in all their sufferings for
righteousness’ sake have entered as fully into the spirit of the Master,
even in sealing their testimony with their blood, as did John Calos,
Nicholas Burton, Paul Clement, John Huss, Jerome of Prague, Bishops
Latimer and Ridley, Archbishop Cramner, or any other of the long roll of
distinguished martyrs.
The martyrs of Missouri may not occupy a place as high as others on the
scrolls of fame, yet it is only a difference of time and country. It is
the meridian of the nineteenth, instead of the fifteenth, sixteenth or
seventeenth century. We are in Missouri, one of the United States of
America, instead of Madrid, the valleys of Piedmont and Savoy, or Paris,
or Italy, or Bohemia, or Turin, or London, or any other country or place
where the blood of the martyrs has been shed for the testimony of Jesus.
The spirit of persecution is the same, and the high sense of
consecration to God and fidelity to Jesus that led the old martyrs to
the rack and the stake have not been wanting in the ministers of the
gospel in Missouri. The spirit, the heroism, the faith, the zeal, the
devotion, were all here; and but for the remaining sense of enlightened
Christianity that had been so long fostered by the genius of our free
institutions, and the power it still exercised upon the public mind, the
rack, the stake and all the horrible fires of the Inquisition would have
been here also. The absence of these and other instruments of torture
from the history of martyrdom in Missouri is due to other causes than
the spirit and design of the authors and agents of religious
persecution. The spirit was willing, but the cause and the occasion were
wanting. Mobocracy sometimes invented a cause and made an occasion. The
victim was found and offered without an altar. In such cases brutal
cruelty was scarcely softened by religious refinement.
Some suffered for intermeddling with party politics; some for declining
to take the oath of loyalty to the Government, as ministers; others for
refusing to preach under a flag; others because they did not pray for
the destruction of all rebels; others for expressing sympathy for one
side or the other; others because they were born and brought up in the
South; others, still, for declining to sanction the wrongs and outrages
committed upon defenseless citizens, and helpless women and children,
and still others because they were ministers and belonged to a certain
ecclesiastical body.
How far these various considerations were only pretexts or occasions can
not now be determined, other than by the analysis of the state of
society heretofore given and the real _animus_ of these persecutions.
The following instances of persecution are furnished, in substance, as
they came into the hands of the author. Nothing is added, and nothing
material to the facts is omitted. In some instances the phraseology is a
little changed, more to secure a uniform tone and spirit throughout the
work than to alter the sense; but material are nowhere sacrificed in the
narratives of others, even to the author’s taste. Where it can be done,
the language of each one’s own history is retained; but where only the
facts and dates have been furnished, they are put up with the strictest
regard for truth and consistency. The reader will see from the
narratives themselves that it is impossible to observe chronological
order. And, indeed, the classification of subjects makes it necessary to
break the narrative of individual persecutions where it can be done,
that each individual may illustrate the several stages of this
remarkable history. For instance, some men were persecuted during the
continuance of the war, and then again under the application of the
“test oath” of the new Constitution. These, it is true, are but
different aspects and stages of the same system of proscription and
persecution, yet the nature and bearing of events require separate
treatment where it can be done. The purposes of history can only be
served by proper classifications and distinctions. The following
narratives of persecution are fully authenticated by official records
and responsible names.
The trials and persecutions of ministers of the gospel varied somewhat
with the locality. In some parts of the State ministers were partially
exempt from the influence and power of lawless men, while in other
sections property, liberty and life were all at the mercy of
irresponsible mobs.
The following statement is furnished by the minister himself. He has
long been a faithful, earnest, exemplary member of the St. Louis Annual
Conference, M. E. Church, South. Few men have stood higher in the ranks
of the itinerant ministry in Missouri or done more faithful service than
THE REV. JAMES M. PROCTOR.
He says: “I was arrested by W. Hall, at Darby’s chapel, on Sabbath, July
6, 1862. Hall, with his company, reached the chapel before me, and had
the ‘stars and stripes’ placed just above the church door. He said that
he had been informed that I would not preach under the Union flag. After
preaching, and just as I was coming out at the door, near which he had
taken his position, he accosted me and said, ‘You are my prisoner.’ He
trembled like an aspen leaf. I said to him, ‘Why this emotion, sir? Show
yourself a man, and do your duty.’ He replied, ‘I hate to arrest you,
but I am bound to do my duty.’ He said I must go with him to his
father’s then, and the following morning he would take me to
headquarters at Cape Girardeau. I could not well go with him that night,
as I had been caught in the rain that morning, and had to borrow a dry
suit on the road, which I was under obligations to return that evening.
“After some parley, he granted me permission to report at the Cape in a
few days, which I did promptly, to Col. Ogden, then Provost-Marshal.
Col. Ogden paroled me to report at his headquarters every two or three
weeks. On the 29th of September, 1862, I reported to him the fifth and
last time, when I was tongue-lashed at a fearful rate by Lieut.-Col.
Peckham of the 29th Mo. regiment, and by him sent to the guard-house.
“I asked this irate Colonel if the front of my offending was not my
connection with the M. E. Church, South. He replied, ‘Yes, sir; and the
man who will belong to that Church, after she has done the way she has,
ought to be in prison during the war; and I will imprison you, sir,
during the war.’ ‘It is a hard sentence for such an offense,’ I said. He
replied, ‘I can’t help it, sir; all such men as you are must be confined
so that they can do no harm.’
“I remained in the guard-house at the Cape until Thursday, October 2,
1862, when—in company with thirteen other prisoners, three of whom died
in a few weeks—I was sent to Gratiot street military prison, St. Louis.
In this prison I met several very worthy ministers of different
denominations, and also Brother J. S. Boogher and two of his brothers,
nobler men than whom I have not found any where in the world.
“October 20, 1862, I was released on parole, there being no crime
alleged against me. The little man who first arrested me was a Northern
Methodist. He wrote out and preferred two charges against me, which were
so frivolous that the officers in St. Louis would not investigate them.
I furnish them here as items of curiosity, as follows:
“’1. He, the said J. M. Proctor, threatened to hang Mr. Lincoln.
“’2. He said that the Federal soldiers were horse thieves.’
“After my release from Gratiot street prison, St. Louis, I went to the
town of Jackson, where I was again arrested at the special instigation
of a Northern Methodist preacher named Liming. I continued to preach
during and after my imprisonment. When the notorious test oath was
inaugurated I continued to preach, and was indicted three times before
Judge Albert Jackson, of Cape Girardeau county. Revs. D. H. Murphy and
A. Munson were also indicted for the same offense.
“I never took the test oath, nor any oath of allegiance during the war.
It was plain to all that the Northern Methodists were our worst enemies
during that long and cruel war.”
It is only necessary to add that Mr. Proctor remained at home when
permitted, attending to his legitimate calling during the war as a
minister, and was no partisan in the strife—a peaceable, law-abiding
citizen, and an humble, inoffensive minister of the gospel. As he was
informed, “the front of his offending was his connection with the M. E.
Church, South,” while it seems that both the instigators and instruments
of his arrest and imprisonment were members of the M. E. Church, North.
Proscription and persecution do not always hesitate in the presence of
opportunity.
REV. MARCUS ARRINGTON.
It is sad to record the following details of suffering inflicted upon
one of the oldest, most useful and honored members of the St. Louis
Conference, M. E. Church, South; a man who for many years has been an
humble, exemplary and influential member of the Conference, who occupied
a high position in the confidence of the Church, and has been intrusted
with high and responsible positions in her courts and councils. No man,
perhaps, of any Church has stood higher in the esteem of all men of all
Churches in Southwest Missouri, where he has so long lived and labored,
than Marcus Arrington. Let him tell in his own way the story of his
sufferings:
“When the troubles commenced, in the spring of 1861, I was traveling the
Springfield Circuit, St. Louis Conference. I was very particular not to
say anything, either publicly or privately, that would indicate that I
was a partisan in the strife. I tried to attend to my legitimate work as
a traveling preacher.
“But after the war commenced, because I did not advocate the policy of
the party in power, I was reported as a secessionist, and in the midst
of the public excitement it was vain to attempt to counteract the
report.
“At the earnest solicitation of divers persons, I took the oath of
loyalty to the Government. This, it was thought, would be sufficient.
But we were mistaken.
“Soon after this, my life was threatened by those who were in the employ
of the Federal Government. But they were, as I verily believe,
providentially prevented from executing their threat.
“After the battle of Oak Hills, or Wilson’s Creek, July 10, 1861, it
became my duty to do all I could for the relief of the sick and wounded,
and because I did this I was assured that I had violated my oath of
allegiance. I was advised by Union men, so-called, that it would be
unsafe for me to fall into the hands of Federal soldiers. Believing this
to be true, when General Fremont came to Springfield, I went to
Arkansas, as I think almost any man would have done under the
circumstances.
“While in Arkansas, I met Bro. W. G. Caples, who was acting Chaplain to
General Price. He requested me to take a chaplaincy in the army,
informing me at the time that, by an agreement between Generals Fremont
and Price, all men who had taken the oath of loyalty as I did were
released from its obligations.
“In December, 1861, I was appointed by Gen. McBride Chaplain of the 7th
Brigade, Missouri State Guard. In this capacity I remained with the army
until the battle of Pea Ridge, March 7 and 8, 1862. On the second day of
this battle, while in the discharge of my duty as Chaplain, I was taken
prisoner. Several Chaplains taken at the same time were released on the
field, but I was retained. I was made to walk to Springfield, a distance
of 80 miles. We remained in Springfield one day and two nights, and
whilst many prisoners who had previously taken the oath as I had were
paroled to visit their families, I was denied the privilege.
“We were then started off to Rolla, and although I had been assured that
I would be furnished transportation, it was a sad mistake, and I had to
walk until I literally gave out. What I suffered on that trip I can not
describe. When we reached Rolla I was publicly insulted by the Commander
of the Post.
“From Rolla we were sent to St. Louis on the cars, lodged one night in
the old McDowell College, and the next day sent to Alton, Ill.
“Whilst I was in Alton prison a correspondent of the _Republican_,
writing over the name of ‘Leon,’ represented me as a ‘thief and a
perjured villain!’
“I was kept in Alton prison until Aug. 2, 1862, when I was released by a
General Order for the release of all Chaplains.
“I then went to St. Louis, and thence South, by way of Memphis, Tenn.,
into exile. I would have returned to Missouri after the war closed but
for the restrictions put upon ministers of the gospel by the new
Constitution.
“Eternity alone will reveal what I have suffered in exile. The St. Louis
Conference is properly my home, and her preachers have a warm place in
my affections. They are very near my heart. May they ever be
successful.”
Rev. Mr. Arrington pines for his old home and friends, and few men have
a deeper hold upon the hearts of the people in Missouri. Thousands would
welcome him to warm hearts and homes after these calamities are
overpast.
REV. JOHN MCGLOTHLIN.
As a specimen of petty local persecution the case of Rev. J. McGlothlin,
a worthy local preacher of the M. E. Church, South, who has long stood
high in that part of the State where he resides, will be sufficient for
this place.
It was with some reluctance that he yielded to the demands of history
enough to furnish the following facts. He is a modest man and shrinks
from notoriety.
In 1862 he was residing in Ray county, Mo., when Major Biggers, the
Commander of the Post at Richmond, issued an order that no minister of
the gospel should preach who did not carry with him the Union flag. A
few days after the order came out Mr. McGlothlin was called upon to go
to Knoxville, Caldwell county, to procure suitable burial clothing for a
Mrs. Tilford, a widow, who died in his neighborhood, as he was the only
man available for that service. After the purchases were made and he was
ready to return, a Captain Tiffin, of Knoxville, stepped up and asked if
he had “reported.” He answered in the negative, and convinced the
Captain that there was no order requiring him to report, as he had
license to preach. Tho officer then asked him if he had a “flag.” He
told him he had not. “Will you get one?” “No,” said he, “I will
recognize no State or military authority to prescribe qualifications for
the work of the ministry.” The officer at once arrested him. Mr.
McGlothlin acquainted Capt. Tiffin at once with the peculiar character
of his business in Knoxville, and the necessity of his speedy return,
offering at the same time his parole of honor to report to him at any
time and place he might designate. This he promptly refused, and the
officer said that he would ride out a part of the way with him. When
they arrived within a few miles of the house where the dead lay waiting
interment, the officer pressed a boy into service and sent the burial
clothes to their destination, after detaining them three or four hours
on the way.
The minister was not released, even to attend the funeral service, but
was kept in close confinement, dinnerless, supperless, bedless and
comfortless.
The next day, with over twenty others, he was taken to Richmond and
confined in the Fair Grounds and in the old College building for five
weeks, and then unconditionally released. The only charge they could
bring against him was that he would not take the oath of allegiance,
give bond in the sum of $1,000 for his good behavior, and buy a flag to
carry about with him as an evidence of his loyalty and a symbol of
authority to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Few instances of petty persecution in the exercise of a little brief
authority can surpass this. It needs no comment, except to add that the
minister who was thus made a victim of the narrowest and meanest
spitefulness was a high-toned gentleman of unblemished character,
against whom even the petty military officers and their spies could
never raise an accusation.
REV. JAMES PENN.
This venerable minister and member of the Missouri Annual Conference, M.
E. Church, South, was the subject of a peculiar class of trials during
the war. Mr. Penn is one of the oldest and one of the best men in the
itinerant ministry in Missouri.
He has furnished to the ministry four sons, all of whom are worthy and
useful men. While the father has given his life and his children to the
work of the ministry, it is peculiarly gratifying to the Church and
their co-laborers of the Missouri Conference that, up to this time, no
moral taint has ever rested upon a single member of the family.
So long known and so highly esteemed by the people of the State
generally, it was hoped—vainly hoped—that at least he would escape the
fiery ordeal. No one at all acquainted with his spirit and character can
ever believe aught against him of harm to any human government or human
being. During a long, eventful life he has been a man eminently pure in
spirit, and singularly devoted to his one work. In that work he has had
no divided heart, or head, or life.
His sons follow in his footsteps—worthy sons of an honored sire—and as
such it is not altogether an unmeaning pun which has so generally
designated them “Gold Penns.”
But it is still true that “they that would live godly in Christ Jesus
shall suffer persecution.” It would be wrong not to let this honored
servant of God tell his own story.
“First. I was arrested in August, 1862, and carried to Keokuk, Iowa, and
there detained for about a week. There being no well founded charges
against me I was released.
“Second. In August, 1863, I held a meeting in Williamstown, Mo. There
was present at that meeting a minister of the M. E. Church, whose name I
believe was Moody. On Sunday morning, during prayer meeting, this man,
while we were kneeling in prayer, arose and began to read in a very loud
tone of voice. The people got off their knees. The man who had thus
disturbed an unoffending company of praying men and women was armed, as
were some fifteen others whom he had brought with him. I walked toward
the door and the people followed me and took a position in the street. I
then preached to a large concourse of people, the armed minister and his
valiant company retaining possession of the house. I continued the
meeting until the next Sabbath, when this preacher with his armed band
came again and drove us out of the house the second time. I preached out
of doors, as on the preceding Sabbath. The meeting resulted in much
good, there being about forty accessions to the M. E. Church, South.
“On another occasion flags were brought and placed on and around the
pulpit, and a company of armed men sat near to prevent any one from
taking them down. Seeing that this would not deter us from a discharge
of Christian duty, a lot of wicked women raised a fight and fought like
savages, so we were compelled to leave the house and ceased to preach at
that place. Moody was asked why he did so, and his reply was: “Because I
can.” He is now, I believe, a minister in good standing in the M. E.
Church, but many responsible people regard him as a very bad man.
“At Winchester, Mo., we had a very good house of worship, but they ran
us out, as they did at Williamstown, until our own people were unwilling
to attend divine service in the town. Then the house was almost
destroyed, so that there we had no place in which to worship.
“They seized our house at Lagrange, a Mr. Stewart and others of the M.
E. Church being the chief actors in this matter. After three years they
relinquished their hold upon this splendid house.
“In addition to all this, I have suffered personal wrongs, in various
ways, at the hands of these people. But I have tried to keep a
conscience void of offense toward God and men. Their wrong-doing is upon
themselves. I leave them to be judged by him who is too wise to err and
too good to do wrong. May he forgive the wrong done.”
This simple narrative speaks volumes, and needs neither note nor
comment. The Rev. Colonel Moody, who figured so conspicuously in the
persecutions above detailed, it is said, read on the occasion of the
first disturbance of Mr. Penn’s prayer meeting from Gal. iii. 1: “O
foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the
truth?” &c.
It is a singular fact that the ministers of the M. E. Church, North,
were conspicuous from first to last in the persecutions of the ministers
of the M. E. Church, South; and, indeed, all other ministers who were
under the ban of the Federal authorities. There was not only a bold
scheme devised by Bishops Simpson and Ames to possess themselves of the
property of the M. E. Church, South, through military authority, as the
rightful booty of Northern Methodist conquest, but every minister and
member who had position and power in the army, or who could evoke the
military power, seemed to consider themselves specially commissioned to
seize the property and exterminate the very existence of Southern
Methodism.
CHAPTER XVI.
REVS. W. CLEAVELAND AND JESSE BIRD.
Ministers of other Churches in the Fellowship of Suffering and on the
Rolls of Martyrdom—_Rev. Wm. Cleaveland_ Arrested for Preaching in a
Rebel Camp—Imprisoned and Insulted—Made to Pray for Mr. Lincoln on a
Loyal Cannon—Rev. Captain Cox, a Northern Methodist Preacher, his
Persecutor—Other Indignities—Indicted, Arrested and Arraigned as a
Common Felon for Preaching without taking the “Test Oath”—_Rev.
Jesse Bird_ Arrested, Silenced and Banished—Losses, Exposure and
Hardships of his Family—Returns—Arrested and put in Jail for
Preaching without taking the “Test Oath”—Public Indignation—The Most
Virulent Persecutors Subsequently Elevated to the Highest Civil
Offices.
The ministers of the M. E. Church, South, were not the only sufferers.
Persecution may sometimes be exclusive and exceptional, but oftener it
is indiscriminate. The class of persons marked, or “spotted,” for
proscription and persecution was not confined to any one Church.
Religious creeds were not so much involved as sectarian domination and
sectional hatred. To exterminate, or expel from the State, that class of
men who had not received their tone and type from New England, or had
not fallen in heartily with the loyal religion and the religious
loyalty, seemed to be a settled purpose.
It will be conceded that the ministers of the Methodist Church, South,
were the greater sufferers, for reasons heretofore given; but to deny
others who sacrificed and suffered nobly in the same cause a conspicuous
place in the history of those stirring times would be both ungenerous
and unjust. Many of the noblest martyrs of this period were connected
with other Churches, and heroically and grandly sustained the moral
heroism of the Missouri ministry. Common sufferings have sanctified the
common fellowship and softened the asperities of sectarian feeling. It
has measurably fused the religious heart and diffused the religious
charity. Such men as Cleaveland, Duval, McPheeters, Wollard and others,
are welcomed to the fellowship of suffering and the rolls of martyrdom.
The following statement is inserted as written. The language might be
softened and the spirit toned down to advantage, but a prohibition only
secures the facts; they can not be left out.
CASE OF THE REV. WM. CLEAVELAND, A MISSIONARY BAPTIST.
“I write as a witness for God and his Church, without fee or reward, to
vindicate truth and to furnish a correct history of facts concerning
myself and my acts which can neither be denied nor gainsaid.
“‘Nothing shall I extenuate,
Nor aught set down in malice.’
“I am a minister of the gospel of the Missionary Baptist order, and
pastor of the churches at Emerson, in Marion county, and Monticello and
Mount Gilead, in Lewis county, Missouri; and nearly sixty years of age.
In 1862, whilst attending as a member of an Association of the Baptist
churches of ——, Col. Martin A. Green, commanding a detachment of
Missouri troops in sympathy with the Southern cause, encamped a mile or
two off, and despatched a messenger requesting the Association to
appoint a minister to hold religious services and preach to his regiment
on the Sabbath day. I was assigned to this duty by the Association, and
performed it to the best of my humble ability. Perfect order prevailed,
much feeling was exhibited, and I received compliments and other
expressions of gratitude above measure.
“Returning to my home from the Association, after its close, I was
arrested in the presence of my family by an armed force commanded by an
officer in Federal uniform, marched off hurriedly to ‘headquarters’ in
the city of Hannibal, and there confined a close prisoner in a filthy,
cheerless hovel denominated a ‘guard-house,’ without fire to warm me, a
bed to lie upon, or food to sustain nature, until my masters chose to
permit my friends to furnish me supplies. Repeated efforts were made by
my relations, brethren of the Church and others, to communicate with me
and furnish me necessaries, but all in vain. The subalterns dressed in
uniform, who, in the character of sentinels, haunted me like spectres,
appeared much gratified to have jurisdiction around, and haughtily
domineered, ridiculed, sneered and blustered as if to torture me into
submission and humble me as in the dust. Meantime I put my trust in God,
and continued ‘instant in prayer.’ Somehow I felt an extraordinary
assurance that He whose right arm brought deliverance to Daniel, and to
Paul and Silas, would rescue me from the snare of the enemy. About nine
o’clock on the succeeding Monday morning a Northern Methodist preacher
calling himself ‘Captain Cox,’ with a squad of armed men, entered my
miserable and filthy prison, and, with an air of much authority,
commanded me to march forthwith into the presence of Col. David Moore,
who demanded that I immediately appear before him as commander of the
garrison.
“Glad of any change in my gloomy situation, I arose and started, closely
followed by my reverend persecutor, ‘Captain Cox,’ and his insolent
myrmidons, until ordered to ‘halt’ in front of the quarters of the
commanding officer. Being ushered in, I found Colonel Moore surrounded
by an ill-mannered, ruffian-like multitude, who stared and sneered as if
I were a curiosity on exhibition. The salutation of the commander was,
‘Are you a rebel?’ I answered that I had rebelled against the empire of
Satan many years before and intended to continue in that warfare while
life should last. ‘The hell and damnation you have!’ exclaimed the
gentlemanly commander, in a loud tone of voice. I then said, ‘I am a
minister of the gospel, sir, and it is my business to make war against
the kingdom of Satan. This, and this alone, is my occupation and my
daily employment, and this alone I expect to do.’ ‘Are you a Southern
man?’ asked he. ‘I was born in the South, raised and educated there, and
my sympathies irresistibly lead me in that direction. Custom, tradition,
my construction of the teachings of the Bible and ancient and modern
history convinced me and established my belief to the effect that the
institutions of the South were morally, socially, politically and
religiously right, and I could not conscientiously say that I was not a
Southern man.’ ‘Other men control their sympathies,’ said he, ‘why can
you not do the same and harmonize with the North as well as the South?’
I frankly replied that I would not believe the man that would tell me
so. Habit and education made a man’s opinions, and the convictions of a
lifetime of three score years could not be changed in an hour. ‘How do
you like old Abe?’ said he. ‘In some respects well enough; in others not
so well. On the whole, I don’t endorse him as a President.’ ‘The hell
you don’t!’ said he, whilst his surrounding admirers screamed with
laughter. ‘Did you pray for _them_ rebels?’ said he. ‘Yes, sir.’ ‘Did
you preach to them?’ ‘Yes, sir.’ ‘How long were you in Green’s camp?’
‘Two or three hours, perhaps.’ ‘Why did you go there and pray and preach
to _them_ damned rebels?’ said he. ‘Colonel Green sent a request to our
Association, then in session near his camping ground, for a minister to
be sent to preach to his men on the Sabbath day, and the Association
deputized me to the task, all of which facts would appear in our
published proceedings.’ ‘Damned glad you were to go, no doubt; and since
you love praying for rebels so well, I will make you do a little _loyal_
praying.’ ‘As to _loyal_ or _disloyal_ praying, I have no knowledge, but
being commanded to pray for all men I endeavor to do so everywhere,
lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting.’ I then demanded to
know why I was there a prisoner; what was my offense, and who was my
accuser. He answered in a violent and spiteful manner, that ‘for
preaching and praying for rebels in a rebel camp he had ordered my
arrest, and that as a punishment for treason I should remain in the
guard-house a prisoner, on coarse fare, for nine days, and should offer
each day a public prayer for Old Abe.’ Having grown impatient at the
abuse and insults of which I had been the subject so long, I replied:
‘Col. Moore, I am told you have a praying wife; and I thank God this day
that I am counted worthy to be punished for preaching the gospel of
Jesus Christ and praying for sinners. Sir, I esteem it a privilege and
an honor, and shall not only pray, as my penance requires, for ‘Mr.
Lincoln,’ but shall pray with all my heart for all other sinners,
especially such as are associated in authority with him.’ Springing
suddenly to his feet, ‘take him,’ said he, and with much coarse abuse
added, ‘convey him under guard back to the guard-house, imprison him,
give him prisoner’s rations, keep sentinels around him; and Captain Cox,
I shall look to you to see this order executed.’ Hurried buck to the
stench and filth of my prison house, accompanied by my armed guard, I
remained until the next morning, when I was summoned to march out, and
followed by several armed men with fixed bayonets and was conducted to a
spot where the cannon were stationed. The regiment had been drawn up and
formed into an irregular hollow square, in mockery. Many of the officers
slunk away, while others stood and incited the men to giggle and perform
antics to make the scene ludicrous and mortifying. As my divine Master,
like a lamb before its shearers, was dumb, so I opened not my mouth. In
an exultant and authoritative manner, the Rev. Capt. Cox, my loving
Christian brother, a preacher of the Northern Methodist Church, as
before stated, commanded me to ‘mount that cannon and offer prayer for
Mr. Lincoln, in obedience to orders, as a penance for praying in a rebel
camp.’
“Being an old man, and weighing between two and three hundred pounds;
having had scarcely an hour’s rest for several days and nights; having
had no change of clothing and no privilege of ablutions of any kind, I
felt very badly, and with difficulty climbed to the top of the
cannon-carriage, and there lifted up my heart and hands and voice to
Jehovah in humble, fervent prayer. I felt greatly lifted up, much
revived and encouraged, and my faith seemed as it were to grasp the very
horns of the altar. The glory of the Lord shone forth, the Shekinah
appeared to come down and rest upon the camp, and fear came upon the
men. The pious rejoiced, the wicked were ashamed, and astonishment
pervaded the scene. At the conclusion of my prayer, still standing in
the ridiculous attitude I was made to occupy upon the cannon, I opened
my eyes and looking around upon what had been my fun-making and
pleasure-seeking audience of soldiers and citizens, I discovered many
weeping, others hurrying away in disorder, and even the blasphemous
Colonel Moore was said to have shed tears. Knowing I had committed no
offense against the laws of God or man, and that my blessed Master had
been stoned, spit upon, whipped with cords, dressed in mock royalty,
crowned with thorns and driven through the public streets in derision
for the sport of the mob, I took courage and hoped for the best. ‘If
they did those things in the green tree, what might they not do in the
dry?’ The weapons of my warfare were not carnal. Yet these wicked men,
actuated by the same malignant spirit which prompted their prototypes to
lay violent hands on the Son of God, seized me, an humble and obscure
preacher of righteousness, guilty of no offense, and to gratify their
malignity, dragged me around, followed by soldiers with muskets and
bayonets, exposed me to ridicule and attempted to force me to make a
mockery of religion, and thus (as they hoped) bring the Church into
dishonor and disgrace. ‘But the ways of the Lord are marvelous in our
eyes,’ for
“‘Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never failing skill,
He treasures up his bright designs
And works his sovereign will.’
“Hastened from this scene by the peremptory order of my Rev. Brother,
Capt. Cox, I was conducted by an armed guard back to the filth and
stench of the guard-house, and there remained, each day going through
the same blasphemous exhibition, except that I was allowed to stand on
the ground instead of the cannon to offer up my prayer. Many of the
soldiers professed repentance, and whilst stationed as sentinels around
me tendered me their sympathies, extended many kindnesses, and pledged
me that, dying in battle, or when or where they might, they would try to
meet me in heaven. Verily and of a truth ‘the Lord maketh the wrath of
man to praise him.’
“Shortly after these events Col. Moore and his command were ordered
South, where they participated in the battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg
Landing, as it is sometimes called. The regiment was cut to pieces,
Colonel Moore lost a leg by a _shot from a cannon_, and his Major,
Barnabas Sing, to whose instigation my friends attributed much of my
suffering, was killed. The Rev. ‘Captain Cox’ seems to have kept out of
harm’s way on that fearful day, for—now that our homes are made a ruin,
our land shrouded in mourning, and our dwellings sad and sorrowful on
account of the absence of the loved ones who were cruelly murdered in
the presence and amid the cries and shrieks of wives, mothers and babes,
as well as the brave who fell in battle—he comes again. Not bedecked
with the tinsel and trappings of authority, to shut up old gray-headed
men in loathsome prisons, march them around surrounded by bayonets, and
force them to mount cannons and pray for the amusement and sport of the
soldiery and the mob for preaching the gospel to sinners. Lo! he comes
again in the lowly habiliments of Christianity, commissioned by the
Bishops of the Northern Methodist Church, as an accredited minister of
that Church, to teach religion and preach the gospel amongst us, for
which purpose the _Rev. ‘Captain’_ is now perambulating Marion and
adjoining counties. ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.’
“One would suppose that malignity had exhausted itself in the deeds of
the foregoing recital. Not so. While on business in Hannibal one day,
after the foregoing had occurred, word came that Col. McDaniel and his
battalion of the advance guard of the Confederate army under General
Price was marching in that direction; and, having left my wife and
daughter at home alone, I called upon Col. J. T. K. Hayward, then in
command of the post, for a permit to pass out of the city and go to my
family, who would necessarily be much alarmed, and explained my
situation. Being a member of the Church, a Presbyterian elder, I
expected, of course, Christianlike courtesy. But, to my surprise, I was
insolently repelled, vindictively insulted, and peremptorily ordered to
remain where I was. Stung with disappointment and burning with
indignation, I submitted as patiently as I could, and implored
commiseration in the name of my unprotected family. Remorseless as a
bloodhound and pitiless as a hyena, he was inexorable, and forced me to
remain until McDaniel retired and his scare subsided. At the
solicitation of leading citizens, he then granted me a permit to go, but
accompanied the paper with a gruff intimation that the issues of life
and death were in his grasp, and by the nod of his head he ‘could have
me shot.’ Perhaps this violence of feeling may have resulted from the
fact that the brave Colonel Hayward had, at a recent period, been
captured by a Confederate officer, relieved of his watch, his spurs, his
purse, his pistols, sword, epaulets, horse and equipments, and paroled
on his oath and pledge of honor, both of which he had violated, and was
again in arms wreaking vengeance on unarmed and innocent persons. I make
no mention of the particulars of the murder of a friendless stranger,
laboring under _delirium tremens_, who had just landed from a steamer,
and was by his order shot to death upon the wharf at the city of
Hannibal.
“Circumstances indicated that my life and my property were eager objects
of the pursuit of this class of men. By day or by night, at all hours,
and in different ways, my family were often disturbed and interrupted by
them. My wife and daughter were made to perform menial service for any
number who chose to demand it; whilst the filthy vagabonds, in the
uniform of Federal soldiers, would ransack the premises and deface,
destroy and steal anything of value they could find in the house or out
of it. One night myself and family were aroused about twelve o’clock by
the heavy tread of swift-moving horses, and a loud yell at the door
informed us that soldiers—two of whom, calling themselves ‘Tabor and
Watson, of Capt. John D. Meredith’s company of the 39th Missouri
regiment,’ (which Meredith is now sheriff of Marion county)—had come
with orders from their superiors to demand my horse and saddle. They
said they were in rapid pursuit of the noted Confederate scout, Bill
Anderson, and his command; were directed to press into service whatever
they needed; must have my horse, and intended to give no quarter until
the last officer and man of the enemy were slain. When this was
accomplished they should next turn their attention to those who
sympathized with the rebels, and would clean out every man, woman and
child, until they had made their lands a desolation and their homes a
solitude. Intermingling these threats with vulgar epithets and bitter
denunciation, they dashed off; and, as their receding forms faded away
in the darkness carrying off my fine young horse, my only means of
reaching my appointments at the different churches to preach and perform
other ministerial duties, a strange and fearful sensation crept over me,
as if sad events lay buried in the future. The curtain was soon lifted.
A few days brought the mournful intelligence that ‘Johnson’s battalion
had encountered the foe and was annihilated.’ On the plain, and in full
view of the city of Centralia, in Boone county, the conflict transpired,
and of all the ‘bloody 39th,’ as its commander boastfully called it, who
entered the field that day, not a platoon of officers, horses and men
escaped death, including my poor horse, which, being ridden by a
subaltern officer, is said to have sunk down with his rider in the midst
of the battle to rise no more.
“In the order of divine providence friends came to my relief, and I was
enabled, with some difficulty, to pursue my work, although much
harassed, sorely vexed and often cast down by fears without and cares
within, for my life was often threatened.
“In common with other brethren who feared God rather than Cæsar, I was
in due time indicted by the grand jury of Marion county for preaching
the gospel to lost sinners without first committing perjury by taking a
false oath. Arraigned as a felon on my blessed Lord’s account, I felt
honored, for the servant is not above his master. I stood at the bar of
justice, as he stood before Pontius Pilate; and, although surrounded by
murderers, burglars, horse thieves and others of the baser sort, I there
remained, attending their calls from court to court, until for very
shame the disgraceful and blasphemous scene was closed by the
prosecuting lawyer, Walter M. Boulware, Esq., dismissing the suit; and
the Hon. William P. Harrison, now acting as Judge of the Court,
discharged me and released my securities, who had entered into bond for
a large amount to keep me out of jail. Glory be to God! I am still
alive; and, unless sooner taken hence, I feel that there are still some
years of service in me, which shall be given with a willing heart to
that cause for which I have suffered, and am still willing, if need be,
to suffer on.
“‘God moves in a mysterious way,
His wonders to perform;
He plants his footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.’
“WILLIAM CLEAVELAND.
“_Marion County, Mo., May 8, 1869._”
The Rev. Mr. Cleaveland has for many years stood high in the part of
Missouri where he resides, as an orderly, quiet, earnest minister of the
gospel, and now looks back on the scene of his persecutions with
feelings that he can scarcely control. His only offense—that he preached
in a camp of rebel soldiers in obedience to the authority of the
Association; and for this he was not only arrested and imprisoned, but
grossly insulted and rudely maligned by the permission and authority of
one who styled himself a minister of the gospel. But he told his own
story, and it is better without note or comment.
REV. JESSE BIRD.
This able and useful minister of the gospel has long been a member of
the Missouri Annual Conference, M. E. Church, South. Few men have stood
higher in the estimation of his brethren in the ministry or the
communities where his labors have been bestowed. The positions filled by
him in the pastoral, educational and judicial departments of the Church
for many years, and the ability and fidelity with which he met every
responsibility, attest the confidence of the Church and the high
appreciation of the Conference of which he is an honored member. The
spirit that will prompt men to the exercise of such petty tyranny as
that detailed in Mr. Cleaveland’s case, and now to be narrated by Mr.
Bird, must be the spirit of Antichrist. Neither of the gentlemen was
guilty of any civil, political, military or moral offense. But hear him:
“Dear Brother—I see in the _Advocate_ a notice requesting persons to
give information of the persecutions of ministers of the gospel in
Missouri. I send you the following very concise statement of facts in my
own case.
In the fall of 1861 I was appointed by the President of the Missouri
Conference to the St. Joseph District. On my first round I went to my
Quarterly Meeting for Rockport Circuit, at Spencer’s Chapel, in Atchison
county. Arriving at the chapel at 11 o’clock Nov. 9, I found a pole had
been raised by the door with rope fastened to it for the purpose of
hoisting a flag. There was no one present. I waited a little and saw two
men approaching. They informed me that a burial was going on in the
neighborhood, and the preaching was postponed till 3 o’clock.
“In the evening I returned to the church in company with a few persons.
As we approached the house I saw two men hoisting a flag in great haste.
Fastening the rope as quickly as possible, they ran and hid themselves
inside a field. Coming up to the house and seeing what had been done, I
declined going in, stating that I would preach under no political flag;
that I should not mix my religion with politics. I was invited to preach
at a private house and did so. I was not interrupted again until on my
second round.
“On the 6th of Feb., 1862, I commenced a Quarterly Meeting at Oregon,
Holt county. The meeting went on quietly and prosperously until Monday
morning, when the flag was hoisted over the door of the church. I again
declined going in for the same reasons. In the course of two or three
hours I was arrested, cursed and abused in various ways and threatened
by some men who styled themselves solders. I was then sent in charge of
two young men to Forest City and requested to ‘take the oath,’ which I
also declined. But in order to get off and out of the hands of the law,
I agreed to go before a magistrate and take a civil oath to observe the
Constitution and laws. From Oregon I returned home and found a notice in
my postoffice at Rochester from Ben. Loan, the commander at St. Joseph,
requiring me to appear before him immediately. I went down and inquired
for what purpose he had sent for me, when he replied: ‘You are not to
preach any more in this district.’ ‘Is this all?’ I inquired. ‘You must
go and take the oath,’ he replied. I informed him that I should not take
the oath; that he could put me in prison or banish me from the State, as
he had done others. He immediately made out an order for me to leave the
State within thirty days. This was done in the city of St. Joseph, Feb.
14, 1862. I was not restricted to any particular bounds. The ground was
then covered with snow and ice to the depth of six or eight inches. I
had no money to bear expenses, save about fifty dollars. I gave about
two prices for a wagon, put what I could in it, and leaving my house and
crop of corn in the prairie, I started on a cold, stormy day (the 20th
day of Feb., 1862,) with my wife in feeble health, to go I knew not
whither, and that for no other reason than that I was a Southern
Methodist preacher and would not swear falsely.
“This move made it necessary to sacrifice the grain and stock my little
boys had worked for, together with our furniture and a good portion of
my library. I was accompanied by my daughter and two little sons, and
also by Benjamin Bird, his wife and two young children. We started South
and traveled four days, reaching the river opposite Lexington, and
finding the ice giving way, and there being no boat, we turned up the
river to Camden, Ray county, stopping at Brother Menefee’s, a most
excellent family, where we remained some three or four days. Leaving
Camden we went up the bottom to a point opposite Napoleon, in Lafayette
county, where we remained in camp two or three days, when, the ice
clearing away, we crossed the Missouri river and proceeded through cold
and storm until we had passed the town of Clinton, in Henry county.
“Here we met some men who told us, as others had the day before, that we
could not proceed beyond the Osage. The Jayhawkers and Home Guards were
robbing all who attempted to go through. We turned round and came back
to Lafayette county, and finding an empty house near Greenton, stopped
and spent the spring and summer there.
“In a few days I went down to Lexington, saw the commander of that post
and got a sound cursing for my trouble. Returning to my family and
finding the people of the neighborhood very kind and generous, we
remained until the last of August, when we returned to our home in
Andrew county.
“I will say nothing of my trials from that time till the close of the
war, except that I preached but little. A part of this time I was
nominally the Presiding Elder of St. Joseph District.
“About Christmas, 1865, I was employed by the Presiding Elder, H. H.
Hedgepeth, to take charge of the Savannah Circuit. I commenced my work
immediately, and continued preaching regularly until my last appointment
at Savannah, in August, 1866. I had been threatened at different times
during the summer by mobs, and sometimes I thought it quite likely I
should be put to death by the lawless rabble, but I was left unmolested
until I was about to finish my work on the circuit. On Sunday the people
expected an interruption while I was preaching, but all continued quiet
till night. While in the pulpit I noticed some men come in and whisper
to each other and go out, and presently return. When the services closed
I heard a lady say: ‘They are at the door.’ I quietly walked out and
went to my room, nobody disturbing me. Next morning I was told they were
preparing to arrest me.
“After I had adjusted my affairs, about 10 o’clock, I went home. Having
proceeded about two hundred yards I saw the Deputy Sheriff coming at
full speed after me. Knowing what it meant, I stopped till he came up.
He said he was authorized to arrest me. I was taken before a justice of
the peace, who had issued the warrant for my arrest upon the affidavit
of one of the party that came into the church on Sunday night. The said
justice inquired if I pleaded _guilty or not guilty to the crime of
preaching the gospel to the people, in violation of the Fundamental Law
of the State of Missouri_. I pleaded _guilty_. Whereupon the said
officer required me to give bond for my appearance at the next session
of the court, which I declined; consequently I was taken by the Sheriff
of Andrew county and lodged in the jail of Buchanan county, in the city
of St. Joseph, there being no jail in Andrew county. This was done the
27th of August, 1866. I remained in prison about three hours, when the
Sheriff of Buchanan county, accompanied by Judge Woodson and others of
St. Joseph, came and opened the door of the jail and let me out. On
Monday following the Circuit Court of Buchanan county came on, and the
judge declining to try the case I gave bond for my appearance at the
next term of the Circuit Court for Andrew county, at which time and
place I was indicted for preaching the gospel. I took a change of venue
to Buchanan county, and before the sitting of the court the decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States had set aside the Test Oath, and
that ended the matter with me.
“You can make what use of these statements you please in the forthcoming
history of the persecution in Missouri. I should have given names, but I
have forgotten most of them.
“Yours, very truly, JESSE BIRD.
“_Plattsburg, Mo., Feb. 8, 1869._”
The account of Mr. Bird’s arrest and imprisonment, and subsequent
indictment for preaching the gospel without taking the oath prescribed
in the New Constitution, could not well be separated from the narrative
of his other persecutions.
The author was in St. Joseph when he was brought down from Andrew county
and lodged in the jail with common felons. He had many friends in the
community, and to see him through the heavy iron grates, classed with
horse thieves, burglars, murderers and other criminals, caused no little
popular indignation. Men hurried to and fro after attorneys, judges,
officers and friends, and stood on the corners in animated conversation
until the public excitement boded no peace. The Sheriff of Buchanan
county acted prudently and wisely in releasing him on his verbal parole.
No other course would have appeased the public indignation or allayed
the ever-widening and deepening excitement. No threats of violence were
heard, and yet the indications in the public mind could not be mistaken.
Mr. Bird and the Church will ever be under obligations to Hon. Silas
Woodson, of St. Joseph, for his prompt and efficient attention to the
case. He made an earnest but ineffectual effort to get the case before
Judge Heron, then on the Circuit Court bench, on a writ of _habeas
corpus_. But the Judge was a little weak-kneed and did not wish to
damage his prospects for a seat in the U. S. Congress, and refused
informally to grant a writ or have anything to do with the case.
More will be said on this subject at another time and in another
connection.
It may as well be stated here, however, as a noteworthy fact, that the
military officers and others who were the most officious and efficient
in the persecution of ministers of the gospel, during the war and since,
have subsequently been elevated to the most honorable and lucrative
offices in the gift of the people. While the people have professed the
strongest disapprobation of these persecutions, it can not be denied
that for some reasons the perpetrators of the grossest outrages upon
ministers of the gospel have filled and are now filling the highest
civil offices.
CHAPTER XVII.
ELDERS J. DUVAL, ISAAC ODELL AND ALLEN SISK.
_Elder James Duval_—His Own Statement—Endorsement—Minister of the
Regular Baptist Church—Arrested at Midnight—Suffered Much—Passes and
Permits—Assessment for Military Purposes—Arrest of Elder G. W.
Stout—Elder Duval again Arrested—Sent to Chillicothe—Charge, Trial
and Acquittal—Making History—Re-arrested at New Garden—Heavy Bond—In
Court for not Taking the Oath—Met others in the Same
Condemnation—_Isaac Odell_ and _Allen Sisk_ under Indictment with
Elder Duval—Estebb, the Prosecuting Attorney—Dunn & Garver for the
Defense—Baptist Church at New Garden—Trial of their Pastor, Elder
Isaac Odell, for not taking the Oath—Acquitted—Then
Convicted—Division of the Church—Troubles—Non-Fellowship.
ELDER JAMES DUVAL.
The following sketch, furnished by this venerable servant of God, will
be read with thrilling interest by the people of the State where he has
been so long and so favorably known. It is unnecessary to present, for
the people of Missouri, any endorsement of his character, but for the
benefit of others, and because his statement, herewith submitted in his
own style, involves the names and details the persecutions of others, it
may not be out of place to insert here the following paper:
“RICHMOND, RAY CO., MO., May 22, 1869.
“Elder James Duval, of this county, is a minister of the gospel of the
regular Baptist Church, and bears an unblemished character as a preacher
and a Christian gentleman.
(Signed) “GEORGE W. DUNN,
“AUSTIN A. KING,
“A. W. DONIPHAN.”
These gentlemen are all widely known, even beyond the State, and their
endorsement is sufficient to give force to every word of the following
statement. The author does not feel at liberty to either divide or
abridge the document, lest the peculiar force of the narrative, told in
his own language and style, should be marred, and the characteristics of
the persecution should be deprived of their richness of detail. Besides,
a variety of style is always pleasing to the reader.
“RICHMOND, RAY CO., MO., May, 1869.
“REV. P. M. PINCKARD: _Dear Sir_—You have asked through the _Advocate_
for information concerning the ‘persecution of ministers of the gospel
in Missouri,’ and being myself one of the unfortunately proscribed ones
by the ‘powers that be,’ I thought it just and proper that I should
contribute my mite of information, which I shall do partly from memory
and partly from records.
“I will just here state that I have now been in constant connection with
the old regular Baptist Church more than forty-five years. I joined that
people upon a profession of faith in Christ, and was baptized, April
18th, 1824, into the fellowship of the Gourdvine church, Culpepper
county, Va., by Elder James Garnet, who was then pastor of that church.
From Hardy county, Va., in the fall of 1848, I moved and settled in Ray
county, near Richmond, Mo., where I now reside, as all the old settlers
know. Since then my acts and deeds, both private and public, as a
citizen and a minister of Christ’s word, are before the public.
“I will here endeavor to give a brief detail of the troubles and
perplexities I have had with the Federal authorities.
“About the 15th of February, 1862, Captain Kelsaw, then commanding a
company of men at Knoxville, Ray county, sent a squad of soldiers at
twelve o’clock at night—as cold a night as well could be, heavy snow on
the ground—and had me arrested and taken that night to Knoxville. These
men also took from me a wagon and a pair of mules, and afterward two
good horses; still later the Federals took loads of corn and hay, for
which I have received no compensation. I arrived in Knoxville some time
before day, very much chilled, almost frozen, and had to lie the rest of
the night on the counter of an old store-room which the soldiers
occupied. The next morning, with a guard at my heels, I was allowed the
privilege of calling on a friend (Mrs. Mary Stone), when I was kindly
furnished with my breakfast.
“I was then put in charge of J. N. Henry, who was acting in some
military capacity, who safely, but in a rude and domineering manner,
conducted me to Cameron, Col. Catherwood’s headquarters. I was then held
there as a prisoner, as you will presently see, for near two weeks. It
is true that I had the privilege of boarding at the hotel and paying my
bill.
“I inquired of Colonel Catherwood what were the charges against me. He
never exhibited any. But he finally told me that I would have to give
bond to keep the peace, or something to that effect. He then allowed me
a certain number of days to return home and get security, which I did in
the given time.
“I then got my friend and neighbor, Christopher Trigg, who went with me
to Cameron, and entered into bond with me in the sum of two thousand
dollars to do certain things therein specified. Upon which I received
the following:
“‘HEADQUARTERS AT CAMERON, }
February 27th, 1862. }
“‘This is to certify that James Duval has this day subscribed to oath of
allegiance to the United States, and filed a bond, as prescribed by the
Commanding General.
E. C. CATHERWOOD,
“‘Col. Commanding M. S. M.’
“‘HEADQUARTERS AT CAMERON, }
February 27th, 1862. }
“‘This is to certify that James Duval has been released by giving bond
and taking the oath of allegiance to the United States of America, and
is entitled to citizenship and protection as such by all United States
forces, so long as he regards the same. By order.
“‘M. L. JAMES, Major Com’dg.
“I afterward obtained the following passes:
“‘RICHMOND, May 1st, 1862.
“‘Mr. James Duval has permission to go to Caldwell county to fill an
appointment of the gospel, and to Lafayette for the same purpose.
ABRAHAM ALLEN,
“‘Capt. and Provost-Marshal at Richmond, Mo.’
“‘Office Provost-Marshal, }
RICHMOND, MO., September 30th, 1862. }
“‘Permission is hereby granted to James Duval to go to Clinton and
Caldwell counties, Mo. He being exempt from military duty. Federal
soldiers will respect this pass.
W. ELLIOTT,
“‘By E. G. LOWE, Dept. Provost-Marshal.’
“Some short time after this I was assessed by a committee appointed for
that purpose a tax of eighty-eight dollars. Upon what basis or principle
this tax was levied I never learned. I failed to pay in time, and I had
a notice served on me to pay within five days or property double the
amount would be taken to satisfy this claim. This notice I failed to
save, or can not just now put my hand on it. However, I paid thirty
dollars, and have the following to show for it:
“‘RAY COUNTY, MO., Dec. 22, 1862.
“‘Received thirty dollars and — cents of James Duval, for the use of the
Ray county Enrolled Militia. Same being _in part_ the amount assessed
against him for that purpose by the committee appointed under Special
Order No. 30, dated Oct. 27, A. D. 1862, Headquarters Ray county E. M.
M.
“‘D. P. WHITMER,
“‘E. RIGGS,
“‘A. K. REYBURN,
“‘Collecting Committee.’
“Thus you see some of the unjust restrictions laid on the ministers of
Christ. When Christ says, Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel
to every creature,’ the party in power say, first obtain leave of us.
Judge ye whether it is right to obey _man_ or _God_.
“Do you not think that we have great need of faithful gospel ministers,
who will cry aloud and spare not; shew Israel his sins and Jacob his
transgression? Are not these living evidences in this day of boasted
light and knowledge of man’s blindness and corruption?
“I will here notice another evidence of blinded Christianity that came
under my personal observation. In September, 1862, when our Association
met at Crooked river, Ray county, the introductory sermon was preached,
by previous appointment, by Elder G. W. Stout, a man of most exemplary
Christian character, and held as such by his brethren, and even the
world itself honors him as such; and after the Association had
transacted its business and finally adjourned, and Elder Stout was on
his horse for home, at somebody’s instance Capt. John Hawkins arrested
Elder Stout for traveling and preaching without first obtaining a
_pass_.
“Elder Stout’s _friends_ interfered in his behalf and vouched for him
that he would report himself to Col. J. H. Moss, in command at Liberty,
which he did; and I reported the case back to Captain Hawkins. Colonel
Moss gave Elder Stout a permit to go to Nodaway Association, and where
his business called him.
“Who of Elder Stout’s former brethren and friends stood by and witnessed
this thing but did not interfere? You who were present and in the
confidence of Captain Hawkins answer: ‘We ought to lay down our lives
_for_ our brethren,’ but not arrest them and put them in jail.
“In February, 1864, I was reported to Captain Tiffin, then holding the
post at Richmond. There being no Provost-Marshal there then, I was sent
to Chillicothe, and kept there a prisoner for near two weeks.
“I was placed in the hands of Baker Wilson and two others as a guard to
take me to Chillicothe. Baker Wilson treated me kindly and
respectfully—very different from J. N. Henry.
“He took me to Mr. Herrick, the Provost-Marshal, who placed me in the
hands of John Gant, with directions to go to the jail and get my
breakfast, which I did, and then report at his office. I then made a
plain statement of facts as they had occurred in this matter, and told
him I could prove my assertions if he would allow me time to take a few
depositions, which he kindly did. The Marshal then gave me the limits of
the town for my boundary.
“I was now kindly invited to the house of Charles H. Mansur, who, with
his kind lady, did all in his power to make my situation as comfortable
as possible under the circumstances, for which I feel under lasting
obligations. I formed some other acquaintances who seemed deeply to
sympathize with me, but were actually afraid to let it be known. I
occasionally, as directed, reported to the Marshal, who, when not
engaged in business, was free and frank to talk, and I think is a just
man. He said he was there to punish the guilty, not innocent men. I
asked him with what I was charged in this case. He at first refused to
tell me. I then told him what Captain Tiffin had told me. He then showed
me the affidavit of Mrs. Herod, stating that I had passed her house
piloting bushwhackers, and that she heard me say some things to Mr.
Jeremiah McDonald. I satisfied the Marshal that these men, who had taken
me that day and compelled me to pilot them a few miles, were not
bushwhackers, but some of Shelby’s men, under Col. Lewis Bohanon, who
the day before had taken Carrollton.
“The conversation said to have been had with Mr. McDonald was all
satisfactorily settled by his deposition and a few letters from
gentlemen at Richmond. So, when the day of trial arrived, there were no
other charges against me and I was acquitted. I felt humiliated and
mortified to think that I, as a minister of Christ’s Word, should bring
disgrace on the cause of my Master. But what could I do. All this was
forced upon me, without my consent in any wise. It has caused me a great
deal of sober reflection and deep searching of heart to know whether I
was in fault.
“But upon more mature reflection, considering the excitement of the
times and the apparent hue and cry against every man that would not join
in the fanaticisms of the day, Paul, the Apostle, in the 2 Timothy iii.
12, came to my relief: ‘Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ
Jesus _shall_ suffer persecution.’
“These statements I have made, and they are well known to be strictly
true by many citizens now living in this community; and as we are now
making history for the generations who shall live after us, let us pen
them down for the benefit of those who may survive us, so that all may
clearly see that men are now, as in other days, wicked, and that nothing
short of the love of God shed abroad in their _hearts_ will make men
either love or fear God aright.
“I will now mention some of the troubles that I have had with the State
authorities.
“The first trouble, as a minister of Jesus Christ, that I ever had with
the State authorities occurred at New Garden church, Ray county, on the
third day of November, 1865. I will detail, as near as I can, exactly
what happened on this occasion.
“Elder Joseph Warder had an appointment to preach at New Garden on
Thursday, the third day of November, 1865, and I promised to meet him
there on our way to Little Shoal, Clay county. Elder Warder failed to
come, so I had to occupy the pulpit, and tried to preach to the people
then assembled from the Acts of the Apostles, v. 38: ‘Refrain from these
men and let them alone: for if this counsel, or this work be of men, it
will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye can not overthrow it, lest
haply ye be found even to fight against God.’
“Nothing unusual took place during the services. After the congregation
was dismissed, I came out of the house and went where my horse was
hitched. There I was pursued by Charles Perkins, with pistols buckled on
him, and he told me that he was authorized to arrest me. I asked him for
what? He then presented me a paper, which I read, which stated in
substance, if not _verbatim_, that, upon information furnished by Andrew
Cleavinger, Joseph Warder and James Duval had, on this 3d day of
November, 1865, preached at New Garden meeting house without first
having taken the oath of loyalty.
“Upon this charge Charles Perkins was commanded to forthwith arrest the
said Joseph Warder and James Duval, and bring them before Hiram Enlow, a
Justice of the Peace, to answer the aforesaid charges. And this you
shall in no wise omit, &c., &c. Signed, Hiram Enlow, J. P.
“Elder Warder was not present, notwithstanding the aforesaid affidavit.
I was taken in custody by the said Charles Perkins, who was deputized
for the purpose, Allan Sisk, the legal constable of the township,
refusing to serve this process.
“So I was held in custody by Charles Perkins, and that evening taken
before his honor, Hiram Enlow, J. P., and there bound in a bond of one
thousand dollars to again appear before said Enlow on the 17th inst.
John Welton was my security for my appearance. I was then released for
the present, and went on to Little Shoal, Clay county, to attend my
regular appointments.
“While in the ’Squire’s custody, I asked him if he believed in the
Christian religion? He said he did, and that he liked to hear the gospel
preached. I then asked him if he went to New Garden _to-day_ to hear the
gospel preached? He made no reply.
“On the 17th of November I again appeared before his honor, Hiram Enlow,
J. P. Several neighbors and friends were now present.
“B. J. Waters, the present Radical representative from Ray county, was
present, acting as prosecuting attorney. When called up for trial, I
asked leave to examine the papers, and found they were not the same
papers on which I was arrested, and told them so. Elder Warder’s name
was not on these papers at all. The ’Squire told me that I must answer
to the charges on the papers before me. I told the ’Squire that this was
all a new business to me, and I did not know exactly how to proceed. I
asked him what provisions the law made for me under these circumstances?
He told me I could swear that I could not get justice in his court; and
that I could appeal to the Circuit Court. I told him that was the thing
exactly. I appealed to the Circuit Court. B. J. Waters then asked him
for what amount he should take the bond. I replied to him, ‘Sir,
remember you are not bonding a felon.’ The ’Squire said, fill the bond
for two thousand dollars. John Cleavinger and John Welton entered as
bondsmen for my appearance at the next Circuit Court, the first Monday
in March following, where I again appeared.
“At Court I met Elder Isaac Odell and Allan Sisk, regular Baptist
ministers; Rev. Samuel Alexander, D. M. Proctor and Dr. Moses F.
Rainwater, Methodist ministers, and Rev. Hardy Holman, Kellyite
Methodist—all charged with violating the law, because we could not, and
would not, allow them to be conscience keepers for us, in taking an oath
that made us bow to their god. By so doing we would acknowledge that men
have rights over their fellow-men to make them worship God after a
prescribed form of law. We read that ‘God is a Spirit; and they that
worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.’—John iv, 24.
“After the convention oath came in force, prohibiting ministers from
solemnizing marriages, I acknowledged their right to prohibit in this
case; so I did not, while the law was in force, attempt to marry any
one. But preaching the gospel to sinners was another thing. Christ said,
‘My kingdom is not of this world;’ therefore men are not authorized to
make laws to govern his kingdom. Christ has given us all necessary laws
to govern his kingdom. Let all his followers obey them.
“At the March term of the Court we had no trial, but were all severally
bound again to appear at the next term of the Court; Jacob Seek vouching
for me in this case in the sum of _four hundred_ dollars. Judge Walter
King presiding.
“At that March Court two indictments were found against me, for
preaching the gospel without first taking the oath of loyalty. Simon E.
Odell was summoned before the following grand jury and gave information,
viz.: George W. Sargeant, foreman, George W. Foster, John Bogart, H. E.
Owens, James T. Lamar, David Conner, Charles B. Bacon, Holland
Vanderpool, Jeremiah Campbell, Wm. Vanhobber, James Hughes, Joseph
Gossage, Daniel Cramer, Edwin Odell, Sam’l Clevinger, John Query, Daniel
Parker and Isaiah Mansur.
“I will now relate another case that came under my notice.
“About the first of February, 1866, Aaron Cleavinger gave information to
Elisha Riggs, Esq., that Elder Isaac Odell had preached without first
having taken the oath of loyalty. About the same time Aaron Cleavinger
gave information to Elisha Riggs, Esq., that Allan Sisk had also
violated the law by ‘performing the functions’ of a minister in like
manner. Wherefore, the said Elisha Riggs, Justice of the Peace, did
authorize and require one Charles Perkins to arrest the said Isaac Odell
and Allan Sisk, and bring them before him, the said Elisha Riggs, J. P.,
which he did about the 11th or 12th of February; and because they
refused to give bail in the case, did actually send them to Richmond and
put them in the county jail.
“Friends interfered, and Judge Walter King granted a _habeas corpus_,
and had them brought before him in Judge Bannister’s office. Allan Sisk
was now bound in the sum of two thousand dollars to appear at the next
Circuit Court; Lawson Sisk, John Seek and Simon E. Odell, securities.
Elder Isaac Odell was bound in the sum of two thousand dollars to appear
at the next Circuit Court; Lawson Sisk, John Seek and S. E. Odell,
securities.
“These bonds and fetters, and this species of tyranny and persecution,
did not yet satisfy the enemies of the cross of Christ; their malicious
hatred and fiendish propensities were not yet satisfied; they must show
the spirit of their master yet a little farther—‘Ye are of your father
the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do.—John viii. 44. So
about the last of May or the first of June, 1866, Nathan W. Perkins
informed Elisha Riggs, J. P., that James Duval had again, at some place,
or at some time (for the information did not state when nor where the
misdemeanor was done), violate the law by preaching without first having
taken the oath of loyalty.
“Near about the same time, Alfred Nelson informed Elisha Riggs, J. P.,
that Elder Isaac Odell had violated the law by preaching without first
having taken the oath of loyalty. But he, too, like Nathan W. Perkins,
failed to set forth the time or place.
“The warrants to arrest and bring before him or some _other_ justice of
the peace the said Duval and Odell were placed in Constable Sisk’s hands
to execute, so he deputized Joshua Smart to execute them. Deputy Smart
arrested Elder Odell, and came to my house June 12th and arrested me in
like manner, and took us to Richmond, before D. H. Quesenberry, J. P.
Here we were, like criminals, arraigned in open court to answer the
charge—_for preaching_.
Mr. E. F. Estebb, Prosecuting Attorney, appeared against us. Our mutual
friends, Hon. G. W. Dunn and C. F. Garner, Esq., appeared in our behalf
before the court without charge. We had quite a contest over the case.
Several speeches for and against were made, but as the charges were not
very criminal and the information very indefinite upon the allegation—a
poor thing at best—the prosecuting attorney failed to convict us, and
the unfortunate informers had the costs to pay.
“After the decision of the ‘Cummings case’ we were all discharged from
custody, and are still engaged in trying to preach Christ—the Way, the
Truth, the Life—to sinners. ‘But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them
that are lost.’
“Only think of the age of the world in which we live, with all the
teaching and preaching, and laws to restrain men from doing violence and
wrong to their fellow-men. Yet if men are so wicked and demoralized, and
are living in our midst, is it not right and just to hold them to strict
responsibility for what they have done? ‘Let us not be weary in well
doing, for in due season we shall reap if we faint not.’
“Before I close I will mention one other case that took place under
these stringent laws of the State that required ministers of the gospel
to take a prescribed conventional oath, or they could not perform their
ministerial functions without laying themselves liable to law.
“In the county of Ray there is a regular Baptist Church called New
Garden. This Church had erected a comfortable building for a place of
worship. There were, and had been for some time, political differences
of opinion among the brethren, and finally, in the summer of 1866, the
Radical or law-abiding party, as they styled themselves, arraigned their
pastor, Elder Isaac Odell, a man of exemplary Christian character, as
they themselves then admitted, before the Church for ‘violating the new
Constitution.’ Elder Odell denied the charge. This was at their June
meeting for business. The case was now brought before the Church, Judge
Joseph Thorp, Moderator. The case was argued before the Church for some
time, both for and against the charge, and finally the Moderator put the
question to the Church, and the Church sustained their pastor.
“The Church considered the question now settled and were remiss in
prompt attention at the next monthly meeting; so those who brought the
charge took advantage of the absentees and again raised the question,
and, having the majority then present, moved to _rescind_ what was done
at the last Church meeting.
“The Church assumed the right and jurisdiction of a court, and sat in
the capacity of a jury, and found, in their way of deciding things,
Elder Odell _guilty_ of the charge, and excluded him from their pulpit.
“The opposite party, or those who remained with the Association, tried
to convince the complainers that this was a political offense, and that
they should have nothing to do with it until the courts of the State,
which alone had jurisdiction of the case, had convicted Elder Odell of a
misdemeanor, and then it would be time enough for them to take
cognizance of the case.
“These complainers admitted to the Church while the case was pending
that they had no charges whatever against Elder Odell; that his practice
was good as a Christian, his faith correct, he observed their Church
rules properly, but he must obey the laws of his State.
“Elder Odell, with others, as I have already stated, was at that time,
upon information furnished, under an indictment by the grand jury for
preaching without first taking the oath prescribed. But these Radical
friends would not wait until a conviction was had in open court, but
must now execute judgment, which they did, with the following
consequences:
“The Church now divided upon the propriety and legality of such
procedure, and each party appealed to the Association by sending letters
and messengers. The party that remained with the Association sent up the
following question: ‘Is it wise or scriptural to arraign a brother and
exercise Church discipline when the offense is purely political?’ To
which the Association answered negatively—‘neither wise nor scriptural.’
So the Radical party was now dropped from the fellowship of the Church
and the Association. The former clerk went with the Radicals and kept,
by force, the Church records.
“The Radicals locked the church doors and still keep it, and unkindly
refuse to allow their former brethren a day in the house, although the
latter had paid most in building the house. Each party remains separate
and has no Christian fellowship or intercourse whatever, religiously,
with each other.
“The indictment against Elder Odell in court failed, consequently the
charge was false; and now who is to acknowledge the wrong done in the
case?
“I have here stated that this division was political, and not religious,
for there was no question concerning the faith ever involved in the
controversy. As proof in the case, every Radical member that cried,
‘obey the law,’ left the Church proper and went with the disaffected
ones. Every Conservative member remained with the Church. It is,
therefore, apparent to all that this division was on a political
question—a thing heretofore not known in our Churches.
“The Regular Baptists have never introduced in their Churches any
political tests as terms of membership or Christian communion. Not so
with some who have separated from us; ‘they went out from us because
they were not of us; for if they had been of us they would, no doubt,
have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made
manifest that they were not all of us.’ 1 John ii. 19.
“We allow our brethren to hold whatever political opinions they may
think are right and just, provided they do not introduce them into the
Church, to the annoyance and disturbance of the peace and fellowship of
the brethren. We have always, as a religious body of people, carefully
avoided the mixing of Church and State together in our religious
devotions.
“Christ says, ‘My kingdom is not of this world.’ We consider that Christ
has given us in his Word a sufficient code of laws to govern us here in
this world: ‘If ye love me keep my commandments.’ And whensoever we
disregard the written Word of God and attempt to supply _supposed_
deficiencies by the legislation of men, we greatly err to our own hurt.
This is a reflection upon the wisdom of God and denies the doctrine of
inspiration; from which may God deliver his people.
“I have written these sketches mostly from memory, but I know in the
main they are true, and submit them to your discretion and farther
disposal, hoping that whatever may be done may tend to the glory of God
and the instruction of his people in establishing them in the truth.
“Respectfully, I hope, your brother in gospel bonds for the truth’s
sake,
JAMES DUVAL.”
CHAPTER XVIII.
WOOLDRIDGE, MARQUIS, PUGH AND BREEDING.
Exceptional Distinction—_Revs._ _J. B. H. Wooldrige_, _D. J. Marquis_
and _Geo. W. Johnson_ Arrested, Abused and Imprisoned for
Associating Together—_Rev. M. M. Pugh_ Arrested and
Imprisoned—Arrested Three Times—Indicted—Northern Methodists
Implicated in his Persecutions—Flags over Pulpits by Military
Orders—Efforts to Force the Consciences of Ministers—A Caustic
Note—“Der Union Vlag on Der Secesh Church”—A Minister’s Wife Ordered
to Make a Shroud for a Dead Union Soldier—Keen Retort—An Old
Minister in a Rebel Camp—How he “Went Dead” and “Saved his Bacon”
and Potatoes—_Rev. J. M. Breeding_—Armed Men Visit him at
Midnight—Order him to Leave the Country in Six Days because he was a
Southern Methodist Preacher—Arrested at Church by Lieutenant Combs—A
Parley—Men said if They were not Permitted to Shoot They would Egg
Him—Waylaid by Soldiers to Assassinate Him—Providential
Escape—Waylaid the Second Time, and Providential Escape—Move to
Macon County—Further Troubles—Reflections.
If to suffer for righteousness’ sake entitles men to exclusive
privileges in the kingdom of heaven, the ministers of Missouri will have
pre-eminence among those who suffer for the word of God and the
testimony of Jesus. Exceptional honors among the sanctified will
distinguish many of the humblest ministers of this State. And if the
instigators of persecution are to be put in the category of the
excluded, some of the most notorious ministers of the State will, in the
final award, be rejected, disowned and dishonored.
REV. GEO. W. JOHNSON, REV. D. J. MARQUIS AND REV. J. B. H. WOOLDRIDGE.
Among the first to feel the crushing power of the persecutor were Revs.
D. J. Marquis and J. B. H. Wooldridge, of the St. Louis Conference, M.
E. Church, South, and Rev. George W. Johnson, of the Baptist Church.
The first two have for many years been zealous, earnest and successful
itinerant ministers, and Mr. Johnson is a Baptist minister of high
standing and unblemished character, and Principal of the Tipton High
School.
In 1861, soon after the occupation of Jefferson City by the Federal
forces, these three men were arrested by Col. Boernstein’s order, or by
his officers, at Tipton, in Moniteau county, taken to Jefferson City,
abused by the officers, kept in the dungeon under the State Capitol over
twenty-four hours without a mouthful of food, taken out, abused, put on
board a steamer and sent up to Boonville. They fell into the hands of
Col. Stevenson, who had them closely guarded in the fair grounds for ten
days, and then sent to St. Louis. Here they were kept for two days in
the guard-house, in the old arsenal, and then released unconditionally,
by order of Major-General Fremont.
The only charge against Marquis was that he was a minister of the
Southern Methodist Church, and kept company with Wooldridge. They
charged Wooldridge with keeping company with Southern Methodist
Ministers who were known to be disloyal; and Johnson had associated with
Marquis and Wooldridge, and had even aided them in a protracted meeting.
The old adage, that “evil communications corrupt good manners,” is
scarcely a criminal law, and the associations of ministers of the gospel
in their legitimate work can hardly be considered a criminal offense
involving the safety of the Federal Government. And yet these humble
ministers were subjected to arrest, insult, imprisonment, hunger, abuse
and various tortures of mind and body, for no other reason than their
ecclesiastical connection and ministerial association.
While Mr. Marquis was attending the Warrensburg-Arrow Rock-Waverly
Conference, in the fall of 1861, his home was taken and used for a
hospital, and literally stripped of everything of any value—even the
clothing of himself and family—leaving not a single change of raiment
for any of them. A suit of thin summer cloth which Mr. Marquis had on at
the time was everything he had to wear, and with which to start again in
life. This act of plunder and robbery was done by General Fremont’s men,
upon the charge that Marquis was a Southern Methodist minister and had
no rights.
Believing that his life was not safe in Moniteau, he removed to
Jefferson county, where he was still subject to persecution during the
war, and where he had the honor of an indictment from the grand jury,
after the war closed, for preaching the gospel without taking the oath
proscribed by the new Constitution of the State.
REV. M. M. PUGH.
The St. Louis Conference of the M. E. Church, South, has few better men
than the Rev. M. M. Pugh, at this time (1869) Presiding Elder of the
Boonville district.
He is a faithful, zealous, able minister of the gospel, and well
reported of in all the Churches for his amiable spirit, ardent zeal,
self-denying consecration to his work, and successful labors in the
pulpit.
In 1861 the Conference appointed him to Kansas City station. The war had
then been raging fiercely along the Missouri-Kansas border for several
months, and the ministers of the M. E. Church, South, had come in for a
large share of persecution, and a number of them had already fled for
safety. Mr. Pugh was placed by this appointment in the lines of some of
the meanest men who wore the Federal uniform during the war. He had but
a few years before left the Northern Methodist Church for the Southern,
and he appreciated fully the delicacy of the situation and the danger of
the surroundings. He was prudent, cautious and circumspect in the pulpit
and out of it; gave utterance to no sentiment that would afford even a
pretext for his arrest and punishment. He could not approve of the
outrages committed in the name of the Union on the innocent and
defenseless, but kept his disapprobation to himself. His extreme
caution, however, did not long exempt him from annoyance and trouble. He
modestly writes:
“I was first arrested in Kansas City, in the latter part of 1861, at the
instance of a Northern Methodist, and confined in Fort Union for a short
time, perhaps not more than one hour, then released on parole and
granted city limits.
“In the summer of 1862 I was greatly annoyed and frequently threatened
by a Northern Methodist preacher who had command of a company in Kansas
City at that time.
“To avoid the relentless opposition and persecution of this man, I left
home two or three weeks. He said his Church was largely represented in
the Federal army, and to a considerable extent influenced the U. S.
forces, and that Southern Methodist preachers should be hunted and
punished. I mention this to show that we were not persecuted for
evil-doing, but simply because we were Southern Methodists. This, in
their eyes, was a crime of the greatest magnitude.
“In the fall of 1862 I was ordered to pray for the President of the
United States by name, for the U. S. Congress, and for the success of
the Union army, ‘so-called.’ This I refused to do; and said, among other
things, that no man, or class of men, should dictate my prayers.
“In the winter of 1863 I was assessed as a Southern sympathizer. I
refused to pay the unjust assessment. For this refusal I was arrested
and put in the guard-house in Kansas City. Here I was kept in close
confinement about twenty-four hours, when, in company with nine others
imprisoned for the same offense, I was sent to Independence in a greasy
wagon guarded by twenty men and lodged in an exceedingly filthy prison.
Col. W. R. Penick, then in command, refused to let us have our meals
from the hotel or from our friends. We were kept in this filthy place
about twenty-four hours, when we were unconditionally released by order
of Governor Gamble.
“Believing that I could do no good, opposed as we were, and that cruel
men were seeking my life, I left Kansas City in April, 1863. Soon after
I left the Northern Methodists took possession of our church.
“In March, 1866, I was indicted in Independence for preaching without
taking the oath of the new Constitution.
“I was arrested by the Deputy Sheriff, a man who before the war would
not have been thought of in connection with that office. I gave bond for
my appearance at the next term of the court. W. L. Bone and J. B. Henry,
Esqs., went on my bond. Judge Tutt was on the bench, and Mr.——Johnson,
State’s Attorney.
“In the fall I appeared in court, when the case was continued. The next
spring, the U. S. Supreme Court having decided the so-called ‘test oath’
unconstitutional my case was dismissed.
“I was an ordained Elder in the Church, and had been preaching ten years
when I went to Kansas City.”
Before Mr. Pugh left Kansas City he was not only informed that his life
was in danger, but the Northern Methodist preacher, of whom he speaks,
informed him and others that such was the feeling of his men toward Mr.
Pugh that he feared assassination every night—that Mr. Pugh could not
walk the streets any time, day or night, in safety.
It was no uncommon thing for military commanders to send special orders
to ministers of the Southern Methodist Church, ordering prayers for
specific persons or things, and requiring flags to be displayed from the
pulpit or church door.
It will answer the purposes of history merely to sample these orders.
Petty tyranny no where surpasses it:
“[Special Orders, No. 10.]
“HEADQUARTERS, WESTPORT, MO., }
“January 31, 1863. }
“I. It being proper that in all our supplications for the blessings of
Deity the condition of our beloved but distracted country should not be
overlooked; therefore, it is ordered—to the end that should any prove
forgetful they may be reminded that they have a government to pray
for—that during the quarterly meeting of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, now in session in this city, the Stars and Stripes be
conspicuously displayed in front of the pulpit of the church where said
meeting is held.
“II. The pastor of said church will cause this order to be published
from the pulpit of his church.
“By order of W. C. Ransom, Major, commanding U. S. forces at Westport,
Mo.”
Rev. John A. Murphy was pastor, and Messrs. H. Houck and A. P. Warfield
“executed the order to save the property.”
The following note explains the following order. The order gave rise to
many reflections, doubtless, that are not in the note. The note is given
_verbatim_:
“BRO. P.—On the opposite page you will observe an item of history which
_may_ be worthy a place in your forthcoming book. The _occasion_ of this
order was the anniversary of the ‘Camp Jackson Victory,’ which was
celebrated _hugely_ by the St. Charles ‘Loilists,’ especially by the
_Teutonic_ portion of them.
“Ours was the only Church in the city honored (?) by Colonel Emmons with
an official order to display the National colors. The order was obeyed,
of course; and on the return of our ‘_Super Stupid Union Savers_’ from
their day of bacchanalian revelry in the suburbs of the city, our church
was again honored (?) by a _halt_ in front of it, and ‘three cheers for
_der yunion_ flag on der _Secesh Church_.’
“Col. Emmons and his ‘Home Guards’ ought to be immortalized. Could you
not help it on? They will certainly _live_ while St. Charles Methodism
can _remember_
“Truly, —— ——.”
The order is as follows:
“HEADQUARTERS, ST. CHARLES, MO., }
“May 9, 1863. }
“Messrs. Dennis McDonald, Benjamin R. Shores, Dr. Evans and John S.
McDowell, Trustees M. E. Church, South, at St. Charles, Mo., will cause
the National Flag to be raised over their church in this city without
delay.
“BEN. EMMONS, JR.,
“Colonel and Provost-Marshal.”
At Kansas City, St. Joseph, Jefferson City and many other places similar
orders were issued, and in some instances orders were sent up to the
pulpit commanding special and public prayers to be offered for specific
persons and things, either to test the loyalty of ministers, or, more
truthfully, to trifle with the consciences of men in the solemn matters
of divine worship.
In some instances military commanders would order the strongest Southern
sympathizers to make Union flags, or shrouds for dead Union soldiers.
Not a few amusing incidents occurred from this cause, only one of which
must suffice now, as it occurred with a minister’s wife, and is a fine
specimen of ready retort and genuine wit upon a solemn subject.
In the winter of 1862 Major Oliver, in command of about four companies
of U. S. troops, entered Independence, Mo., and established his winter
quarters in the Female College buildings. When his command had
approached within two miles of the city they were fired on from the
brush by Quantrell’s “bushwhackers.” One man was killed and several
severely wounded.
Major Oliver was much exasperated, and made many threats that were never
carried into execution. Amongst other things he made inquiry for the
strongest female secessionist, or as he termed it, “she-rebel,” in the
city, vowing that he would order her to make a shroud for the dead
soldier. Several ladies were mentioned whose sympathies with the South
were very strong, and, amongst the number, Mrs. Wallace, the wife of the
Rev. T. Wallace, a Southern Methodist preacher. The fact that she was a
minister’s wife gave her Southern proclivities pre-eminence in his mind,
and he sent his orderly with the goods and about the following message:
“Madam, Major Oliver, commanding this post, has learned that you are the
strongest secesh woman in this city, and has sent me with these goods
and an order that you make forthwith a shroud for a Union soldier killed
by the bushwhackers this morning. He hopes that you will in this way
compensate, in part, for the work of your bushwhacker friends.”
This last sentence was uttered in a tone and with an emphasis that did
not permit her to doubt its import. She instantly and politely replied:
“Present my respects to Major Oliver, and tell him the shroud will be
ready in two hours; and say to him that it would afford me the greatest
pleasure to make shrouds for his whole command.”
It is needless to say that Mrs. Wallace was not troubled with any more
shroud making for Maj. Oliver’s command.
During this same winter, and while Major Oliver was in command at
Independence, in the many skirmishes and fights between the Federal
soldiers and “Quantrell’s bushwhackers,” as they were called, many rich
incidents occurred, amongst them the following, in which one of the
oldest ministers in the State was the hero:
Rev. S. S. Colburn, for many long years a traveling preacher in the
itinerant ranks of the M. E. Church, South, and then living in Cass
county, in a superannuated condition, had been so much annoyed, so often
robbed, and his life so repeatedly threatened, that he concluded to
leave his home and place himself under the protection of friendly
bayonets as his only means of safety. He happened one day upon the camp
of Quantrell and his men, some of whom he knew very well as his
“neighbor boys.” They prevailed on him to remain with them a few days
and they would protect him. He was too old to bear arms and do the kind
of fighting they had to do, but he could keep camp for them and stay
with his old friends sometimes at night. They offered the best they had,
with their most vigilant protection, which the old man concluded to
accept for a few days.
He had not been long with them when their supplies were about to give
out, and a consultation was had as to the best method of replenishing
the stock. It was soon agreed that Mr. Colburn should go to the house of
an old friend not far off, stay all night, and bring in a sack of
potatoes the next morning. With this intent he left the camp late in the
evening, and soon found himself in the comfortable home of his friend,
and in the most agreeable family intercourse around a cheerful fire. Old
times were talked over and present events canvassed till a late hour,
when the “family Bible,” the worship, the good night and the downy bed
closed the scene. A refreshing sleep brought the old man to an early
start, and the friendship of other years filled his sack with fine
potatoes; and, as the sun arose upon the world, he hailed the smoke of
the early camp fire, and pressed on toward his hungry protectors.
Just at daylight the camp had been surprised and attacked by a squad of
Federal soldiers. The rebels fled in confusion, leaving the camp in
possession of the enemy, while they formed in the adjacent brush and
prepared to re-take the camp. Just as Mr. Colburn rode into camp, all
ignorant of what had occurred, Quantrell opened fire on the enemy, which
was promptly returned. The preacher comprehended the situation in an
instant, and, wheeling his horse, started to retreat. He was followed by
a volley of whistling minnie balls from the new occupants of the camp,
and fell from his horse instantly, by his sack of potatoes, and “went
dead.” The rebels re-took their camp, and in the precipitate retreat of
the enemy they rode over the sack of potatoes and the body of the
preacher, the horses every time clearing both at a bound. When the
preacher was assured of safety, he got up, shouldered his potatoes and
walked into camp with a broad smile on his face, to the great joy of his
friends. By a timely _ruse_ he saved both his bacon and potatoes.
REV. J. M. BREEDING.
The following account of the persecution of this excellent and faithful
local preacher of the M. E. Church, South, is quite an abridgement of
the statement furnished, but is amply sufficient to show that very few
men in these perilous times suffered more, and escaped more frequently,
as “with the skin of his teeth.” How wonderful that special Providence
which so often interposes to save the lives of his chosen servants!
In March, 1863, Mr. Breeding was residing on Barker’s creek, in Henry
county, Mo. His wife was very ill—not able to raise her head from her
pillow. When they were alone, and at midnight, three armed men opened
the yard gate, rode rapidly up to the house, and called for Mr. B. to
come out. This he declined to do, telling them that he could hear what
they had to say where he was. He saw from the door, which he held ajar,
that they held their pistols well in hand, as if awaiting an object to
shoot. They ordered him to come out a second time, and in no genteel
language. He refused, saying to them that if they would come to see him
in the day time he would see and talk with them like neighbors.
They asked him if he was armed. He told them that he was a civil man,
and had some plows with which he expected to cultivate the ground in the
summer; and did not let them know that he was wholly unarmed. They asked
his politics, and were informed that he never meddled with the politics
of the country; that his only platform was “Repentance toward God, and
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
“You are a preacher, then?”
“Yes, I try to preach sometimes.”
“A Southern Methodist preacher?”
“Yes, I belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South?”
“Well, that is just what we have understood, and we don’t intend to let
any such man live in this country. We have come with authority to order
you to leave in six days, and if you are here at the expiration of that
time it will not be well with you. We want to know whether you intend to
leave or not.”
Mr. B. asked for their authority, which they declined to give; whereupon
he told them as he had not meddled in any way with their political
strife he did not think any sane officer would send them at such a time
on such business. They remarked that he could either obey or risk the
consequences, and turned and rode off.
The excitement and alarm of this midnight interview proved well nigh
fatal to his wife. As soon as they were gone, and he could renew his
attentions to his wife, he thought that she was already passing down
into the shadow of death. The anxiety and agony of the remaining part of
that dreadful night no tongue can tell, no pen describe. About daylight
she began to revive, and then to rest. On his knees, at her bedside, he
determined that he would not leave her, though they should kill him.
A few days after this occurrence, Mr. B. learned from the nearest
military post, through a friend, that no such order had been issued; but
that the commander of the post, Captain Gallihar, would not be
responsible for what his men did from under his eye.
During the following summer there were very few nights when one or more
of these lawless men was not seen prowling about the premises and
keeping the preacher in constant dread of arson or assassination. He had
no peace and felt no security.
They, doubtless, meditated midnight mischief, but had not the courage to
attempt it. They changed their plans, and began to report to the
military officers various things on Mr. Breeding, to influence them to
interfere for them and have him put out of the way.
In July his appointment in Calhoun was attended one Sabbath by a Lieut.
Combs, with his company of men, whom he stationed at convenient places
about the church and along the road near the church, as though they
expected to encounter a desperate enemy.
As he approached the church and began to comprehend the situation, he
discovered what he afterward learned were signals. When these signals
were made the whole force moved out to the road and advanced rapidly
toward the preacher; he was halted and his name demanded.
“You pray for ‘Bushwhackers,’ I learn,” said the officer.
“No more than for other sinners,” the preacher answered.
“But,” said the officer, “some of the boys tell me they have heard you
pray for the success of Bushwhackers. They say they have known you long,
and that you are an original secessionist; that you have always believed
in secession,” &c.
The preacher appealed to those who had known him the longest, if they
ever heard him utter disloyal sentiments or knew him to attend a
political meeting of any kind. He was no political partisan, and never
had been. They finally told him that he was a Southern Methodist
preacher and that was enough, as they were all rebels.
While this conversation was going on and the most of the company were in
disorder, a squad of men were drawn up in line in front of the preacher
with their guns ready for use. Lieut. Combs stepped up in front of these
men, when the conversation closed with the preacher, and talked to them
for some time in a subdued tone of voice. At the close of the interview
one of the men said, in a low voice: “Well, if you will not let us shoot
him, we will egg him,” and started off to a barn near by from which he
soon returned with his hands full of eggs. The officer would not let him
use the eggs, and after some further conversation he dismissed the
preacher and took his company back to headquarters.
A few days after this Mr. Breeding had occasion to go to Windsor for
medicine for his afflicted wife. There he again met these Calhoun
soldiers. They were very annoying and insulting. A mounted squad of them
started off before Mr. B. was ready and took the road leading to his
house. When the preacher started home and had reached the forks of the
road, he was minded to take the plainest and best road, but his horse
pulled so obstinately for the other that he finally yielded and reached
his home in safety. The next day a friend came to see if he was safe,
and informed him that the squad of soldiers that left Windsor before
him, waylaid the road to assassinate him. What a providential
deliverance!
The next Sabbath Mr. Breeding had a regular appointment to preach at
Windsor. With the Sabbath morning came a foraging party to his house
demanding breakfast. They stayed and detained the preacher until it was
too late to reach his appointment, and he had to remain at home. This
detention saved him further trouble, and probably his life. He afterward
learned that a band of twenty men were all that morning on the road that
he was expected to pass. When it became so late that they supposed he
had gone by some other way, they went to the church, surrounded it and
entered, but to discover again their disappointment. The preacher was
nowhere to be found; and in consultation some wanted to go immediately
to his house and inflict summary punishment, but other counsels
prevailed, and they determined to try him again the next Sabbath at his
appointment at Moffat’s School house.
The Sabbath came, and with its earliest rays came a messenger from a Mr.
Owen, a Baptist friend, requesting Mr. Breeding to come to his house
immediately as his son was at the point of death. Mr. B. went without
delay several miles in a direction from the church. After detaining him
as long as he could, Mr. Owen informed him of a trap set for him that
day, and that he must remain at his house all day. The preacher was not
aware of any evil designs, and only yielded to much earnest solicitation
to keep out of harm’s way.
After having so often and so narrowly escaped, Mr. Breeding thought it
best to seek greater safety elsewhere. Accordingly he disposed of his
effects, packed up and journeyed to Macon county, in North Missouri, and
settled down near the old Hebron Church. This move was attended with
much privation, suffering, danger and pecuniary loss. He found at his
new home a faithful little band of men and women who met every Sabbath
where prayer was wont to be made. To these he gladly joined himself.
By this time religious privileges were few and religious liberty greatly
abridged by the operation of the “new Constitution.” Ministers were
afraid to preach, and the membership discouraged and depressed. The
party in power were very vigilant in hunting out and dragging before the
civil courts all non-juring ministers.
Mr. Breeding could not take the oath, and he contented himself for some
time with an occasional exhortation to the faithful few who still kept
the altar fires burning in a quiet way.
The meetings for prayer began to attract the attention of those in
authority. They concluded that Mr. B. must be preaching, as the meetings
were so regular and so well attended. The super-loyalists determined if
such was the case they would take the law into their own hands and see
what virtue there was in powder and ball.
The next Sabbath found eight armed men on the front seat to enforce the
authority of the new Constitution. There appeared an equal number of
orderly citizens prepared to protect the peaceful worship of the
congregation. For a time matters wore quite a menacing aspect.
The usual prayer meeting exercises were had, and Mr. Breeding closed up
with a warm and an earnest exhortation. The services were somewhat
abbreviated, that the unfriendly parties might the sooner be separated.
The next Sabbath the same armed super-loyalists were present, but the
friends of peace and order were absent. The preacher had great liberty
in the service, and felt in no way intimidated by the presence of armed
men on the front bench. During his earnest exhortation, founded upon a
favorite text, the men became somewhat excited, but they had either not
chosen a leader or the leader showed the white feather. They kept
calling one upon the other to start—“You start, and I will follow.” “No,
you start, and I will follow,” were expressions, though whispered, that
could be distinctly heard by those near them. Such things did not deter
the preacher. They could not browbeat him down, and finally, in their
shame, they vented their _pique_ on a luckless dog that lay stretched
out on the floor near them.
After this fruitless attempt to frighten these faithful and devout men
and women, and to get some pretext for adding another name to the list
of Missouri Martyrs, they surceased their persecutions, modified their
prejudices, toned down their spirit, and from enemies some of them have
become the fast friends and even the zealous converts of the sect that
was “everywhere spoken against.”
Such scenes of suffering, trial and danger, _simply_ because the victim
was a minister of the gospel, recalls the persecutions of other times,
and re-enacts a history which we had vainly hoped would not darken the
annals of the nineteenth century.
While the details of these dark scenes are stripped of all extra
coloring that the naked facts may appear, the ever active imagination
will, despite our soberest efforts, supply the want, and memory will be
busy with the history of other times and other countries until Missouri
is forgotten; the finest model of human government ever devised by man
crumbles into dust; the much vaunted religious liberty expires upon its
own desecrated altars; the light of a boasted civilization fades into
darkness; the noblest and freest institutions go down in hopeless
barbarism; a pure, non-political Christianity, with a non-juring
ministry, are called upon to reproduce the agony of the Garden and the
tragedy of Calvary without repeating the work and grace of atonement,
and in memory we are living over the times of Charles the Fifth,
Montmorenci and the Duke of Alva. The spirits of the French Huguenots,
the Waldenses, Vaudois Martyrs and Bohemian Protestants have been
reproduced in the ministry of Missouri. “Why do the heathen rage and the
people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and
the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his
annointed, saying, ‘Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their
cords from us.’”
CHAPTER XIX.
REVS. R. N. T. HOLLIDAY AND GREEN WOODS.
_Rev. R. N. T. Holliday_—Statement of his Persecutions Furnished by
Dr. Richmond, a Federal Officer—Could not War upon the Institutions
of Heaven—Mr. Holliday aloof from Politics—Misconstrued—General W.
P. Hall and his Militia Proclamation—General Hall and Mr.
Holliday—General Bassett—Rev. Wm. Toole, Provost-Marshal, and Mr.
Holliday—A Renegade—Platte City Burned by Jennison and Mr. H.
Ordered to be Shot on Sight—He Escapes—Is Arrested in Clinton
County—Again Ordered to be Shot—Escapes to Illinois—Returns in
1865—Goes to Shelbyville and is Indicted for Preaching
Without Taking the Oath—Crimes of the War—Common Law Maxim
Reversed—Prominent Ministers of the M. E. Church, South, Assumed to
be Guilty of Treason—Murder of _Rev. Green Woods_—Birth, Early
Ministry and General Character—Gives up his District—Retires to his
Farm in Dent County—Affecting Account of his Murder given by his
Daughter—Extract from a Letter Written by his Wife—Details Published
in the St. Louis _Advocate_ of June 13, 1866—Reflections.
REV. R. N. T. HOLLIDAY.
The following account of the persecutions of this good and useful
minister of the gospel is furnished by Dr. Oregon Richmond, “who was an
officer in the Federal army, and always anxious for the triumph of the
Union forces.” Upon that ground he properly claims the absence of undue
bias from his statement. The whole case is so fully and minutely
reported that it needs neither introduction nor comment to aid in a due
appreciation of the facts:
“CANTON, MO., March 8, 1869.
“At the request of Rev. R. N. T. Holliday, I have consented to put
together and transmit the somewhat remarkable events of that period of
his life connected with the late war troubles. This request is the
result of an antipathy on his part to acting the part of a
self-eulogist. In my judgment no greater eulogy can be written of a
minister of the gospel than that of a calm, unvarnished recital of the
persecution to which that class of our citizens was subjected during the
prevalence of, and immediately subsequent to, the late war.
“And perhaps, after all, it is but simple justice that these facts
should be written by one who was an officer in the Federal army, and
always anxious for the triumph of the Union forces. Though an officer in
the Union army, he can thank God that his military life is unstained by
a single act of cruelty or persecution; and, above all, is he thankful
that he never made use of his military power to war against the
institutions of Heaven or the chosen instruments ordained for their
establishment amongst men. In other words, he was not attached to a
Missouri regiment, is not a son of Missouri, and hence has never been
instructed in the mysteries of that department of military tactics that
teaches the wonderful doctrine that the truest patriotism consists in
the abuse of defenseless women and children, and the subversion of the
sublimest precepts of religion by the persecution and murder of its
chosen apostles.
“In September, 1860, Rev. R. N. T. Holliday, the subject of this sketch,
was appointed by the Missouri Conference of the M. E. Church, South, of
which he has long been a member, to Rushville, in Buchanan county, Mo.
In the ensuing spring the war commenced, but it was not until May, 1861,
that he received the first intimation of the approaching trouble that
would draw him into its clutches, and ultimately make him a wanderer and
an exile from his chosen field of usefulness.
“About that time a Union meeting was held near Rushville, and addressed
by Hon. Willard P. Hall and others from St. Joseph. Mr. Holliday was
urged to be present and reply on behalf of the South; this he declined
to do. He was not even present at the meeting, believing that ministers
of the gospel should keep themselves unspotted from the political
strifes of men. Yet his enemies said that he stayed away through
personal fear, and he was henceforth the subject of various kinds of
annoyances and petty persecutions.
“The Conference of September, 1861, returned Mr. Holliday to Rushville.
He was not molested until March, 1862, when Brig.-General W. P. Hall
issued a proclamation requiring all men subject to military duty to
enroll themselves in the State militia. Mr. Holliday refused to enroll,
upon the ground that ministers were exempt from military duty. Gen. Hall
sent him word at once, that if he did not enroll he would have him
arrested. Mr. Holliday replied that, being exempt from military duty by
the laws of the State, he could but consider the demand extra-official,
and if an arrest must be the result of non-compliance with an illegal
demand, he preferred to be arrested. Upon this General Hall addressed a
note to Mr. H. in the politest terms, requesting an interview to arrange
the difficulty. Trusting the General’s honor, Mr. Holliday complied;
but, upon presenting himself at headquarters, the General refused to see
him, and ordered him taken to the Provost-Marshal’s office for
enrollment. Gen. Bassett, the Provost-Marshal, had the entrance to his
office securely guarded after Mr. H. was admitted, and informed him that
he must enroll under Order 19, as a Union man, and submit to a physical
examination, or under Order 24, as a rebel sympathize; and pay a
commutation fee of $30. Finding submission inevitable, or something
worse, Mr. H. registered under Order 24, but refused to pay the
commutation as an unlawful and an unauthorized exaction, and demanded
his exemption papers as a minister of the gospel, at the same time
producing his ordination parchments. General Bassett, after some delay,
gave him exemption papers, and, after considerable annoyance, he gave
him a pass also, which enabled him to travel back and forth and fill his
appointments without further molestation than an occasional petty
persecution, the instigation of malice, and an occasional threat of
being shot.
“During the summer of 1862 Mr. Bassett was superseded in the office of
Provost-Marshal by a Mr. W. Tool, who had been up to that period a
minister in the M. E. Church, South. He had, however, apostatized, and
joined the M. E. Church, North.
“Mr. Bassett’s brief apprenticeship in villainy fitted him for, and he
was appointed to, a higher office. Mr. Holliday was requested to fill
the pulpit made vacant by the military prohibition upon Rev. W. M. Rush,
of St. Joseph, and the ladies of the church in which Mr. Rush had been
silenced waited on Provost-Marshal Tool and requested permission for Mr.
Holliday to fill the silent pulpit. Mr. Tool, who was acting in the
interest of the North Methodists, refused to permit Mr. H. to come to
St. Joseph to preach the gospel.
“In September, 1862, Mr. Holliday was sent to Platte City, and there
remained unmolested until the following June, when soldiers from Kansas
took his horse, which he never saw afterward. He borrowed another, which
was also stolen and carried off. He thus lost two horses in as many
weeks.
“About the middle of July, 1863, Col. Jennison, of Kansas, went to
Platte City and burned the town. His men were ordered to shoot Mr.
Holliday down at sight. Knowing the character of Jennison’s men, and
being apprised of the order by a Union man, Mr. H. made good his escape,
leaving his family at Mr. Redman’s. On the evening of his flight his
house, containing all that he had in the world, except what the family
had on, was given to the flames. His family were thus made destitute and
reduced to beggary.
“The next day, at 3 P. M., Mr. Holliday was arrested, by order of a
Clinton county militia captain, and taken to Plattsburg. He was there
subject to some indignities, until Mr. Cockrell informed Captain Irvine,
commander of the post, of the facts, who, being a gentleman and a Mason,
ordered the instant release of Mr. Holliday.
“The next day Capt. Irvine was killed in an engagement with the rebels.
This very much enraged the militia, and an order was issued again to
shoot Mr. H. on sight. He again made his escape by flight and
concealment. He remained ten days at the residence of Mr. Powell, of
Clinton county, but upon hearing of the order to shoot him, he, with two
other ministers, Messrs. Tarwater and Jones, took refuge in the woods,
and made their way on foot to Osborn, where Mr. Holliday met his family,
and all took the train to Quincy, Ill. They remained in Illinois until
the war closed, in 1864, doing the best he could as a minister of the
gospel. Returning to Missouri in 1865, he met the Conference at
Hannibal, and was appointed to the Shelbyville circuit.
“By this time the New Constitution had been declared the fundamental law
of the State, and under it all ministers of the gospel were required to
take the iron-clad ‘test oath’ as a qualification for the work of the
ministry, or subject themselves to arrest, indictment, fine or
imprisonment.
“Actuated by the same motives of conscience that impelled all true
ministers of the gospel, he promptly refused to take and subscribe said
oath. He was, therefore, arrested and indicted by the grand jury of
Shelby county for preaching and teaching as a minister of the gospel
without having, under oath, attested his past and present loyalty to the
Government of the United States. The said indictment bore the signatures
of Wm. M. Boulware, Circuit Attorney, E. S. Holliday, Foreman of Grand
Jury, and James Ralph, C. R. Colton and Wm. Colton as witnesses. A copy
of the indictment is in Mr. Holliday’s possession, to be handed down to
his children as a memento of his sufferings and triumphs in the cause of
his Master. It will doubtless make their faith doubly strong in the
principles of that holy religion for which he endured so much privation,
persecution and personal danger.
“Mr. Holliday was subsequently indicted for the same offense, and held
in a bond of $500 for appearance at the November term of the Shelby
Court. Mr. M. C. Hawkins, a lawyer of Canton, made an able argument on a
motion to quash the indictment, which motion was not sustained, and the
case was continued to the ensuing May term, when a _nolle pros equi_ was
entered and Mr. Holliday released.
“The facts above narrated I have received from Mr. Holliday’s own lips.
He was so reticent of matters concerning himself personally that I can
not but regard this as a very meagre epitome of all that he was required
to do and to suffer in the performance of the work his Master gave him
to do. He evidently is already richly rewarded in the depths of his own
consciousness, and justly decided that nothing man may say for him can
serve in the smallest degree to increase that reward.
“[Signed] OREGON RICHMOND.”
The persecutions in the early part of the war were not without a sharp
discrimination in favor of the prominent ministers of the M. E. Church,
South. Few were exempt. The exceptional cases were either in the large
cities or under the protection of partisan loyalty. For some reason the
leading ministers of the Church, South, were looked upon as the very
ringleaders of the Southern revolt against the Government. So general
was this belief amongst the officers of the Union army, that whoever
escaped their surveillance had to prove a negative in the face of the
most unwarranted and unfounded presumptions of guilt, supported and
flanked by the deepest rooted prejudices and the most blinded passion.
Nor is this putting the case too strongly. It is not in excess of the
facts.
No matter how guarded, how prudent, how cautious in public or private
life, the tongue of the accuser always reached the official ear before
the accused was aware of his summons to the official bar.
That good old maxim of the English common law, that assumed a man to be
innocent until he was proven to be guilty, was reversed. Men were
assumed to be guilty, and they had to prove their innocence if they
could, or suffer the penalty of assumed guilt.
And, indeed, the right of trial was granted to but few. Many, very many,
suffered imprisonment and death without ever being so much as informed
of the crime for which they suffered.
The day of eternity alone will reveal the nameless crimes which men in
authority, and men without authority, committed during the late civil
war. May a merciful Providence forever spare the country a repetition of
the horrible scenes through which it has so recently passed. These
reflections are suggested by the murder of the
REV. GREEN WOODS.
The subject of this sketch was born in Bellevue, Washington county,
Missouri, Feb. 27, 1814, where he grew up on a farm in sight of
Caledonia.
He was received on trial in the Missouri Annual Conference M. E. Church
in the fall of 1836, when the Conference was held in St. Louis, and was
appointed by Bishop Roberts, junior preacher on the Farmington Circuit,
with George Smith as his senior.
The next year he was returned by Bishop Soule to Farmington, with Alvin
Baird as his senior.
The next year his name does not appear in the minutes, nor does it
appear again until the year 1853, when he rejoined the St. Louis
Conference and was appointed by Bishop Andrew to Cape Girardeau and
Jackson.
In 1854 he was appointed to Ste. Genevieve Circuit, and at the
Conference of 1855, at Springfield, he was received into full
connection, and returned to Ste. Genevieve Circuit, with J. H. Cumming
as junior preacher.
It is needless to follow his appointments in the Conference further than
to say that everywhere he was well received and always well reported of
for good works. He was a diligent and faithful laborer in his Master’s
vineyard, and few men stood higher in the estimation of the people or
was more securely enthroned in their affections. He was a man of
unblemished character, unswerving integrity, unwavering fidelity, deep
and fervent piety, and of good preaching ability. He was unobtrusive,
unostentatious, civil, courteous, gentle and kind to all; had many
friends and few enemies—lived for his work, and attended strictly to his
own business. The last man who would ever intermeddle with politics or
make himself officious or offensive to any man or party of men. He had
charity for all, and malice for none. This is written by one who knew
him well, and loved him much, and was a member of the same class of
undergraduates in the Conference.
When the war broke out Mr. Woods was Presiding Elder on the Greenville
District, St. Louis Conference; was extensively known in Southern and
Southeastern Missouri, and had been just as extensively useful. But the
troubles thickened so fast and the country was so generally disturbed
and distracted that with a heavy heart he gave up his regular work on
the district and contented himself with such preaching as he could do
near his home in Dent county, while he attended to the cultivation of
his little farm.
The following account of the events of 1862, furnished by his eldest
daughter, will be read with deep interest, as they culminate in the
awful tragedy of his murder:
“In the spring of 1862 the excitement in the country became so intense
that my father could no longer travel his district, so he thought he
would stay at home and try to make enough to support his family on his
farm. As the people in the neighborhood desired him to preach to them,
he made an appointment to preach, about three miles from home, the
second Sunday in May. He filled this appointment, and announced another
at the same place for the second Sunday in June. Before that time
arrived he was advised by some of his friends not to go to his
appointment, as they believed that he would be taken prisoner, and
perhaps killed, that day by the soldiers if he attempted to preach. But
he told them that he would go and preach, and if the soldiers wished to
arrest him they could do so; that if necessary he could go to jail. He
said that he did not believe that they would kill him, as he had not
done anything to be killed for.
A man by the name of Silas Hamby, a member of the Methodist Church,
North, had said some time before that no Southern Methodist preacher
should preach at Mount Pleasant again. But my father thought it was an
idle threat, as he had heard of no preacher being killed because he was
a preacher.
“When Sunday morning came, father and my sister, younger than myself,
went to Mount Pleasant, and he preached to a small congregation—the
people being afraid to turn out on account of the soldiers—and returned
home the same evening unmolested. The next morning he took my
sister—just thirteen—and two little boys he had hired, and went out to a
field one mile from home to finish planting corn. While they were at
work the mother of the boys came by the field on her way to our house.
She saw that they were nearly done, so she thought she would wait till
they finished and come along with them. By this means there was one
grown person present to witness his arrest. I think it was about the
middle of the forenoon of that Monday, June 9, 1862, when sixteen men,
armed and uniformed as Federal soldiers, came to our house and
surrounded it. They inquired for father. Mother told them that he was
not at home, but out in the field (father told her if they came and
called for him, to tell them where he was). They made a general search,
and then huddled up out in the yard and held a council a few minutes.
Five of them were sent to the field, and while they were gone those at
the house were stealing everything they could get their hands on that
belonged to father, leaving very few things behind.
“When the five soldiers got to the field father was not quite done
planting. They rode up and asked if his name was Green Woods; he told
them it was. They told him that he was the man they were after, and
ordered him to alight over the fence. He asked them if they would not
wait until he could finish planting, as he had then but a few short
rows; but they told him, with an oath, that they were in a hurry, and
kept hurrying him while he was getting his horse ready to start. When
they started from the field my sister asked them what they intended to
do with father. They told her, with an oath, that it was uncertain where
he would get to before he came back. They brought him to the house and
allowed him to eat his dinner. But when he went to dress himself, he
could not find a change of clothes, as the soldiers had taken all that
he had, and would not even give him his pants and hat. They took him
about three miles from home, to a man’s house by the name of Jones, and
pretended to get evidence against him. (This was northwest from where we
live). They then took him about three miles from home, to where a man
lived named Peter Skiles, who kept a blacksmith’s shop. They stopped and
staid there awhile, and searched the house, as Skiles was a Southern
man. They then took father about half a mile and killed him, and left
him lying out in the woods away from the road—no one knew where except
those who placed him there. Two guns were heard after the soldiers left
Skiles’.
“This was done on Monday, and his body was not found till the next
Monday. We did not know that he was killed until his body was found.
When found he was lying on his back with his overcoat spread on the
ground under him; one arm was stretched out one way, and the other
stretched out the other way, his hat drawn down over his face, his coat
and vest and left glove lying on the ground near him, his right glove
on, his left shirt sleeve torn off, and his left hand off and gone. He
seemed to have been dragged some two or three hundred yards before he
was shot, as there was but little blood along the trail, and was found
as above described near a large tree and among some low bushes.
“We have heard several times that the Northern Methodist presiding
elder, by the name of Ing, sent the men to kill my father. I have given
you the substance of what we know of father’s death.
(Signed) “JOSEPHINE M. A. M. WOODS,
“Eldest Daughter,
“E. A. WOODS, Wife, and
“MARY LOUISA, Daughter of
“Rev. Green Woods.”
Mrs. Woods furnishes the following additional particulars:
“While eating his dinner the soldiers asked him if he did not think he
ought to have taken the oath—meaning the oath of allegiance which all
citizens were required to take. He replied that he would be candid with
them, as he tried to be with all men; that it afforded no protection, as
only the day before the soldiers had been taking the property and
breaking the guns of those who had taken the oath, and he could not see
that the oath had profited them any. They hurried him much to finish his
dinner. He asked them for his hat, which they refused to give him. He
said that he would then wear his old one, and be with his equals—meaning
that he was about as near worn out as his hat.
“Thinking that it might have some good effect upon the soldiers, I
reminded him, in their presence, that the meal was out, and asked what I
must do, now that he was going away. He replied, ‘the Lord will
provide.’ And, so far, it is literally true; the Lord has been merciful
to give us our daily bread, as we have never had a single meal without
bread.
“When he started he told me to do the best I could, and seemed to have a
presentment that he would never return.
“On the way that evening he was stopped at the house of Dr. Boyd. While
there he said to Mrs. Boyd, ‘Tell Mrs. Woods that you saw me here.’ Mrs.
Boyd also heard him tell the soldiers to hurry up and take him wherever
they intended to take him; that they would keep him in the hot sun till
he would be down sick. They replied that they had a good doctor. He had
been very sick only a short time before. It was his custom to hold
family worship night and morning, no matter what else was to do. The
last day of his life he read for the morning lesson the thirty-seventh
Psalm.”
Strenuous efforts have been made to obtain the names of the guilty
parties, with but little success. The following statement is the latest
and most reliable:
“A man by the name of Dennis was the pilot, and it is said helped do the
shooting. A man named Wells was in the company. We can not give the
first names of either of these men now, but have the promise of them.
“A young man named Bill Fudge, the son of North Methodists who were once
members of the Southern Methodist Church, and another named Harrison
Ratliff, it is said, helped commit the murder.”
To the question, “What evidence have you that Ing, the North Methodist
presiding elder, sent the men to commit the murder?” the following reply
was furnished:
“All the evidence we have that Ing sent the men is, that he was their
commander at the time; and it has been told, by those who said they saw
it, that father’s hand was carried to Ing as proof that they had killed
him, and that he still had it in his possession a year or two ago.
“Respectfully, JOSIE M. A. M. WOODS.”
When Mr. Woods’ dead body was found, “his left hand was off and gone.”
Common rumor in the community, and the statement of several reliable
gentlemen—which may hereafter be given—go to confirm this horrible and
savage report about the hand.
The following account of the affair was published in the _St. Louis
Christian Advocate_, of June 18, 1866, and signed “R.,” of Crawford
county:
“REV. GREEN WOODS.—_Mr. Editor_: In the letter of your California
correspondent, in last week’s _Advocate_, the names of several ministers
formerly connected with the St. Louis Conference are mentioned with that
of the lamented Green Woods, who the writer too truly mentions as having
been cruelly murdered in the summer of 1862. And, as the writer of this
sketch had known the deceased for many years, and was living in an
adjoining county at the time the cruel murder was committed, he may be
able to furnish some facts relative thereto that would interest his many
friends and acquaintances of by-gone days. He was at the time (1862)
living at his home, in Dent county, Mo., on a little farm that he was
quietly cultivating with his own hands, and had been guilty of no other
offense that that of preaching through the county in which he lived
every Sunday, and oftener as he found opportunity. And, at the time he
was torn from his weeping wife and little ones, he was at home plowing
in his field, when suddenly he was surrounded by men wearing the uniform
of soldiers, and hailing from Kansas—regular ‘Jayhawkers.’ How many
broken-hearted wives and mothers, and destitute orphan children,
throughout Missouri will have cause to remember these cruel ‘Kansas
Jayhawkers!’ The cruel assassination of loved husbands and fathers; the
burnt and blasted homesteads, where lonely chimneys only are left to
tell the tale of once happy and contented households now scattered and
torn by the ruthless storm of war in the wake of these Kansas
desperadoes. Truly the fate of Missouri has been hard; and of many it
may be said they are strangers in their own land.
“When informed by them that he must go with them as a prisoner, and
probably knowing from the fate of others what he might expect of them,
he told them that he had violated no law, that he was a minister of the
Methodist Church, South, and that if they intended to kill him, he was
not afraid to die. Then taking, as he well believed, a sad and final
farewell of his wife and little children, he started with his captors to
the town of Salem, as he thought. But, alas! what must have been the
agony of the fond wife when she learned, several days afterward, that he
had not been taken to Salem at all! Diligent search but confirmed her
worst fears. He had been taken about two miles from home by the road
side and shot. There the mortal remains of Green Woods were found—a cold
and lifeless corpse—with the fatal bullet shot through the head.
“In contemplating such a scene as this, how the heart saddens and
sickens to know that humble and devoted ministers of the cross are put
to death for no other cause than that of being ministers of the M. E.
Church, South. Is it because that Church has been, and still is, in the
way of those who profess to have all the piety, loyalty and religion in
the land, that its members and ministers are specially denounced,
proscribed and persecuted, and are the marks of special vengeance for
every gang of raiding soldiers that chance to come into Missouri?
“I am credibly informed that the deceased had never taken any part in
the excitement growing out of the war up to that time; that he had never
mentioned politics in the pulpit, and had never left home on account of
the troubles during all the dark days of ’61 and ’62.
“Rev. Green Woods was a native of Missouri, and through many portions of
Southern and Southeastern Missouri will he be remembered, as his
powerful and eloquent voice echoed and died away upon the gently
murmuring breezes of his native hills and vales in calling sinners to
repentance. But he now sleeps the long sleep of death. That clarion
voice is now silent, and will no more be heard on earth proclaiming the
good news and glad tidings of salvation which shall be unto all people.
But we close, and drop a silent tear to his memory; knowing that He who
holdeth the earth in the hollow of his hand, and who numbereth the very
hairs of our heads, doeth all things well.
“We have good reason to believe that the religion he so long and
faithfully preached to others sustained him in the last trying hour; and
in the great day, when all mankind shall stand forth to be judged
according to the deeds done in the body, many will rise up and call him
blessed.
R.”
Thus passed away, by the hand of violence, one of the excellent of the
earth, “of whom the world was not worthy.” A faithful witness for the
word of God and the testimony of Jesus, having committed no offense
against the laws of God or man, he fell a martyr to the truth; gave his
life for a principle and a cause, and offered himself upon the service
and sacrifice of his chosen Church, and the faith she vindicates in his
death, and ascended the thrones of martyrdom, to await, with the martyrs
of all ages, the final and glorious triumph of the Kingdom of Messiah,
in whose service he counted not his life dear unto himself. It is a
grand thought that Infinite Goodness and Power has ordained that “Christ
must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” “Then cometh
the end.” “Even so: come Lord Jesus.”
CHAPTER XX.
REVS. A. MONROE, W. M. RUSH, NATHANIEL WOLLARD.
_Rev. A. Monroe_, the Patriarch of Missouri Methodism—Age, Honor and
Sanctity not Exempt from Profanation—Mr. Monroe and his Wife
Arrested in Fayette—Mrs. Monroe’s Trials and Witty Retorts—How Mr.
Monroe Escaped the Bond—Robbed of Everything by Kansas Soldiers in
1864—An Old Man Without his Mittens—A Tower of Strength—“Our
Moses”—Calls the Palmyra Convention—_Rev. W. M. Rush_—The Character
of Missouri Preachers—A Native Missourian—Settles in Chillicothe—In
St. Joseph the First Year of the War—Caution in Public Worship—An
Offensive Prayer by Rev. W. C. Toole—General Loan Closes the Church
and Deposes Mr. Rush from the Ministry by Military Order—General W.
P. Hall vs. Mr. Rush—Hall Publishes a Letter that Denies Mr. Rush
Protection, and Exposes him to Assassination—Mr. Rush Returns to
Chillicothe—His House a Stable and his Home a Desolation—Bold
Attempt to Assassinate him—Correspondence with General Hall—Goes to
St. Louis—Masonic Endorsement—In Charge of the Mound Church—Will
Hear of Him Again—_Rev. Nathaniel Wollard_ Murdered in Dallas
County—Horrible Details—Particulars—Reflections.
REV. ANDREW MONROE.
Even this venerable and honored servant of God—now the Patriarch of
Missouri Methodism—was not exempt from trials and troubles during the
late war. If a venerable form, erect and majestic; grey locks, long and
flowing; lofty mien, benign and saintly; a pure life, long and useful;
an honored name, associated with the history of the good and pure in the
State; saintly beneficence, sanctified to the highest purposes of the
gospel, and a meek and quiet spirit diffused through the toil, and
suffering, and labor, and triumphs of half a century in the ministry
could disarm malice, awe the passions into reverence, break the force of
prejudice and shield the person and property, the home and happiness,
the liberty and life from vicious violation and petty profanation, then
Andrew Monroe had lived in peace unmolested, and his humble house, a
freeman’s sacred castle, been secure from the tread of vandalism and the
hand of plunder. But no altar was too sacred, no home too pure, no name
too greatly reverenced and no life too pure and holy to deter the
invader or wither the sacrilegious hand of the spoiler. Meanness was not
an incident of the war, and sacrilege was not confined to Mexican
guerrillas. Men are naturally mean, and depravity is a fact of human
nature. Nor did the war make thieves, and robbers, and murderers, and
highwaymen; they were such before, the occasion only was wanting. The
sunbeam does not create, it only reveals the motes in the atmosphere.
The war furnished the occasion and unveiled the meanness of men; the
pure gospel ministry rebuked it, and, naturally enough, provoked its
malice and became its victim. Even Andrew Monroe, the noble old Roman,
could not escape.
In the winter of 1862 the Rev. A. Monroe was traveling the Fayette
Circuit, Missouri Conference M. E. Church, South, and living in the town
of Fayette, Howard county. Fayette, like all other towns of importance
in the State, was a military post, with one Major Hubbard in command.
One day of that winter Mr. Monroe and his family were surprised by the
appearance of a Federal officer and a squad of men entering his humble
home, placing him and his wife under arrest, and marching them off to
headquarters, for what offense they never knew.
The soldiers had arrested many other ladies and gentlemen at the same
time, and they had plenty of company when they reached headquarters,
amongst whom was the Rev. Dr. W. H. Anderson, then President of Central
College.
When Major Hubbard came in and saw the number of ladies present under
arrest he affected surprise, and said that he had not ordered their
arrest; that his subalterns had transcended his orders, and at once
informed the ladies that they were released, remarking at the same time
that when he wished to see them he would not send for them, but do
himself the pleasure of calling at their homes. To which Mrs. Monroe
promptly replied that she was obliged to him for releasing them so
early, but as for seeing him, she had no desire whatever to see him at
her house or anywhere else.
Many a true and modest woman had occasion during those troublous times
to call upon her ready wit to reply to the various impertinent inquiries
and demands of a ruffian soldiery; and while Mrs. Monroe was surprised
at her own courage, her indignation was somewhat appeased when she
observed the cutting effect of her retort. Not many days afterward she
had occasion again for her ready wit and her Christian fortitude and
forbearance. Very early in the morning five soldiers called and demanded
breakfast. Mr. Monroe was at home, but he soon retreated from the front
door and called upon his wife to meet the issue. She had no help, and
the idea of cooking for so many, and these, too, whom she believed to be
her enemies, and who would not hesitate to do her any injury, was very
repulsive. But to get rid of them was a difficult question, as many
ladies know. By the time she reached the front door and heard their
request her answer was ready. She replied, “My Bible teaches me, ‘If
thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;’ upon these
terms and no other you can get breakfast.” To her surprise one of them
said, “Madam, we will accept breakfast upon those terms, for I profess
to be somewhat acquainted with the Bible.” She thought they would turn
and go away in a rage, but, on the contrary, she had to turn and get
breakfast for “her enemies” with the best grace she could.
It turned out that the spokesman was a local preacher in the Northern
Methodist Church, and at the table he remarked to Mrs. Monroe that his
father was as great a rebel as she was. To which she replied, that it
was a thousand pities that he had so far departed from the ways of his
father as to be a degenerate son of an honored sire. Whereupon he said,
“As a loyal man, I would hate awfully to have to live with such a rebel.
Gen. Price could well afford to issue a commission to you, madam.”
Not many days after this Mr. Monroe was just ready to mount his horse
one morning for a tour of appointments in the country, when a soldier
appeared with orders to arrest him and take him to the headquarters of
Capt. Hale, then commanding the post. The venerable man of God was then
marched up to headquarters at the point of the bayonet and required to
take the military oath, (so-called), and give bond, with good security,
for his future loyalty to the Government, and for the loyalty and good
order of his family, the Captain remarking that “the secesh talk of the
women of his family should be stopped.” Mr. Monroe replied that he could
take the oath if he would then let him go about his Master’s work, but
as for the bond, he must excuse him, as he did not wish to involve his
friends and he had but little property. If it was his little property he
was after, he might as well go and take charge of that at once and let
him go about his business. The Captain saw the point and told him to
take the oath then and “go preach the gospel to every creature.”
“In 1864 Mr. Monroe was living on a farm about eight miles from Glasgow,
in Howard county, when General Price made his famous raid into Central
Missouri, and took Glasgow amongst other places. The day before the
battle of Glasgow Mr. Monroe was out in a field on his little farm, and
his family all away from home except a servant, when a company of Kansas
soldiers passing along the road halted, entered the house and robbed it
of everything of value they could find. The house was literally
pillaged. Mr. Monroe’s watch, a fine cloth coat, several pairs of
bed-blankets, quilts, comforts, and, indeed, everything of any value to
them. While thus engaged they saw a young man who lived near approaching
the house, all unconscious of what was going on. He was arrested and
relieved of all his money, $75. One rough-looking Dutch soldier rode out
to the field and accosted the venerable man with an imperative demand
for his money. When he found that he had but two dollars in the world,
he would not take it, but rode back in disgust. A young man—Mr. Monroe’s
nephew—was met near the house on his uncle’s only riding horse, with his
only saddle and bridle. The young man was arrested, and the horse and
equipments taken to Glasgow and never heard from afterward.
Thus, in one single hour, the venerable servant of God stood alone in
his field, stripped of everything he had—horse, watch, clothes,
blankets, bedding—everything of value. What must have been the feelings
of Mrs. Monroe on returning home, after an absence of just one hour, to
find her house plundered by a ruffian soldiery, and her husband
beggared. To complete the work, a small squad of soldiers passed along
soon afterward, and when they could find nothing else to steal or
appropriate, a rough, drunken Dutchman demanded of the old man his
woolen mittens, which a lady had but recently given him. He gave them
up, and considered himself fortunate to get off so easy.
With such petty annoyances, involving privation and suffering, this
faithful minister of the gospel—this pioneer and patriarch of Missouri
Methodism—passed through the dark and trying scenes of the late civil
war, always hopeful and joyful, and ready to rejoice that he was counted
worthy to suffer for a cause of which himself was the finest type, and a
principle to maintain which he was willing to go even to prison and to
death. To the struggling cause of Christ and his suffering friends he
was a tower of strength, to the discomfited and disheartened hosts of
the Methodist Israel, he was “our Moses.” When “these calamities were
overpassed,” and the shock of war had expended its fire and force—when
the smoke of battle cleared away, and the stormcloud hung low upon the
horizon, he surveyed the field, marked the desolation, measured the
extent of the wreck, discovered some remains of Zion’s former beauty,
while others, with indecent haste, sounded her funeral knell; and his
voice, like that of a mighty chieftain, was heard over the prairies,
along the railroads and in the cities of Missouri, calling the faithful
to duty, and rallying the scattered forces for counsel. Upon his call a
few ministers and friends convened in Palmyra, in June, 1865, and
decreed the life of the Church, the resuscitation of her vital powers,
the recovery of her lost ground, and the rehabilitation of her
distinctive institutions and organs. (See the particulars of this
Palmyra meeting in its appropriate place.)
REV. W. M. RUSH.
Few men suffered earlier, or more, than the subject of this notice. For
many years the name of the Rev. W. M. Rush has been conspicuous on the
rolls of Missouri Methodism. Prominent amongst her ablest and truest
ministers and foremost in her aggressive evangelism, he has stood
through many years of her history. Identified with her early struggles
and a faithful laborer upon her broad foundations, he has grown with her
growth and strengthened with her strength, until his life and her
history are one. Few men have been more conspicuous in her councils or
more distinguished in her fields of labor and conflict. The class-mate
of Marvin, the senior and compeer of Caples, the companion of Monroe,
and Jordan, and Smith, and Eads, and Johnson, and Redman, and the noble
band of Methodist pioneers and patriots, his name will adorn the early
annals of the Church, as it will illustrate her later persecutions.
Mr. Rush does not care to conceal the fact that he is a native of
Missouri. He was converted to God July 8th, 1838, and united with the
Methodist Church the following August. He was licensed to preach in
Sept., 1841, and was admitted on trial in the Conference the following
October, at Palmyra, Bishop Morris presiding and W. W. Redman acting as
Secretary. He has ever been, since that date, an effective itinerant
preacher—never sustained any other relation to the Conference.
While traveling the Brunswick district, in 1856, and by the advice of
Bishop Pierce, he made arrangements to settle his family in a permanent
home, and selected Chillicothe, Livingston county, as the most central
and suitable location. He purchased eligible lots, with land adjoining
the town, and erected an excellent and commodious residence for his
large family. He also improved, furnished and stocked his adjoining
lands to make them productive. Here he settled his family and remained
until 1860, when he was appointed to St. Joseph station, and it became
necessary for him to lease out his property in Chillicothe and move his
family to St. Joseph, where he was living when the war broke out in
1861. He was deeply impressed with the necessity of caution and prudence
in the conduct of his pulpit and public services, as the people to whom
he ministered were divided on the questions at issue in the war. He was
so careful not to give offense to any that he framed a somewhat formal
prayer to be used in public services touching the troubles of the
country.
It was about as follows: “O Thou, who art infinite in wisdom, in
goodness and in power, we pray thee so to direct in the affairs of this
country, that the events that are now transpiring may all result for thy
glory and the well-being of humanity. We pray that those in authority
may have wisdom to direct them in adopting such measures as shall be
promotive of the best interests of all the people.”
To this form of prayer and the sentiments it contained he thought all
good citizens of either party could say, Amen. He carefully abstained
from every expression that would be offensive to the sectional feelings
and views of any of his congregation. In this he was particular, and, he
thought, successful. Matters passed on well enough until early in
February, 1862, when, after preaching on Sabbath, he called on the Rev.
W. C. Toole, a local preacher, to close the service with prayer. He was
a strong partisan, and his language in the prayer was extremely bitter
toward those in rebellion against the Government. Though the
congregation was much divided in sentiment, they were at peace among
themselves. This prayer was like a firebrand. It excited a good deal of
feeling, and people of opposite views thought it much out of place. Upon
reflection and consultation with his leading brethren, he determined
thereafter to close his own services with prayer, which ministers should
always do unless other ministers are present and in the pulpit. He
pursued this course but one Sabbath afterward, and then a brother
minister, the Rev. S. W. Cope, preached for him, when, during the week
following, Brigadier-General B. F. Loan, then in command, sent for Mr.
Rush to report himself at his headquarters. This he did, and Gen. Loan
told him that he had concluded to close his church. Mr. Rush asked him
on what account. He replied, “Because of disloyalty.” He was then asked
in what respects they were disloyal, and answered that he was informed
that a prayer for the Government could not be offered in that church
without giving offense.
The whole matter of the prayer of Mr. Toole and the general character of
the service were then explained to Gen. Loan. Mr. Rush was careful to
give the reasons for avoiding the introduction of anything savoring of
sectional views into the public service; that they could not settle the
troubles of the country in the church service; that such an effort would
only destroy the peace of the church without in the least benefiting the
country; that no prayer savoring of secession had ever been offered in
the church or would be tolerated on any account; that the course pursued
was the only proper one; and that if all the churches in the land would
attend to their appropriate work and let politics alone it would be far
better for the country. To all of this the General replied that the time
had come when there must be a distinction in the churches between
patriots and traitors. Mr. Rush told him that he could not discriminate
in his church on account of political opinions; that he had been in the
ministry more than twenty-five years, and in all that time he had not in
a single instance, in prayer or sermon, given utterance to a word or
sentence by which his opinions could be known upon any political
questions at issue before the country, and that he did not expect in the
future to depart from that course. He replied that his mind was made up
to close the church. The interview ended, and the church was closed.
Soon afterward the General directed a special order to be issued
forbidding Mr. Rush from preaching or conducting any kind of religious
service within the bounds of his military district. Thus he was
silenced—deposed from the ministry, and his ordination credentials
revoked by a military satrap. An ambassador for God stricken down by one
stroke of a pen to which bayonets imparted power! A messenger of
salvation to dying men silenced by the caprice of shoulder-straps, and
one to whom the risen Messiah by his spirit said, “Go into all the world
and preach the gospel to every creature,” suspended from his divine
commission by the decree of human power! A “legate of the skies” at the
feet of a miserable specimen of human weakness clothed with a little
brief authority! Impious presumption! equaled only by sacrilegious
contumely and prurient vanity.
After Gen. Loan was dismissed from the military service by Gov. Gamble,
and Gen. W. P. Hall had succeeded him in command of the district, Mr.
Rush addressed a note to Gen. Hall, calling his attention to the order
of Gen. Loan, and asking its revocation. Mr. Rush hoped for much
consideration at the hands of Gen. Hall from a somewhat intimate
acquaintance of sixteen years, and the further fact that at the
beginning of the troubles their views were in perfect harmony. He had no
doubt whatever but that the silencing order of Gen. Loan would at once
be revoked. But for once he had mistaken the man. Mr. R. did not then
properly estimate the power of the German Radicals of the district nor
the ambition of Gen. Hall—the necessity for him to manufacture a
character for extreme loyalty, in doing which he would sacrifice any man
or any principle that stood in the way of his personal promotion.
Gen. Hall not only refused to revoke the order of Gen. Loan, but
published in the St. Joseph _Herald_, a paper that circulated
extensively in the military camps, his letter to Mr. Rush, in which the
latter was denounced as a traitor and unworthy the protection of the
Government. While Gen. Loan, in his personal intercourse with Mr. Rush,
was courteous and gentlemanly, Gen. Hall was abusive, ungentlemanly and
tyrannical. His published letter unveiled his true character, while it
subjected its helpless victim to suspicion, insult and attempts at
brutal assassination.
Mr. Rush, in the midst of such trials and dangers, had to give up his
charge and return to Chillicothe. Here he found his beautiful home laid
waste; the fencing destroyed, the house broken up, horses stabled in
three rooms on the first floor, and soldiers quartered on the second
floor, and the fruit and shrubbery all destroyed.
He rented a house for his family, and while the officers of the post
always treated him with courtesy and kindness, Gen. Hall’s letter had
stirred up the common soldiery until his life and the lives of his
family were in constant peril. When he discovered this state of things,
he wrote Gen. Hall a polite letter, protesting against his published
letter, representing the injustice he had done him, and the danger to
his person and life caused by it. Gen. Hall returned his letter, and in
reply threatened him with a military commission.
About the 1st of May, 1863, a bold attempt was made to assassinate him
in his own house. His house was first assailed with stones and
brick-bats, by which the windows were crushed in and the door battered.
Pistol shots were then fired through the doors and windows; but a kind
Providence protected him and his family from serious injury.
Upon reporting the facts to the officers in command, protection was
promptly furnished, and a guard stationed at the house. But, at the same
time, the officers advised him to seek safety elsewhere; that with all
their efforts to protect him the assassin’s missile might any moment put
an end to his life.
The week after this occurrence he went to St. Louis to attend the
sessions of the Grand Masonic bodies of the State. These grand bodies
gave to his ministerial and personal character their highest
endorsement, by electing him Grand Chaplain of the Grand Lodge, also of
the Grand Chapter, and also of the Convention of High Priests for the
State of Missouri.
The following is the written order which Gen. Loan directed Col. King,
his subordinate, to issue deposing Mr. Rush from the functions of the
ministry in his military district:
“HEADQUARTERS REG’T M. S. M., }
CHILLICOTHE, MO., April 24, 1862. }
“_Rev. W. M. Rush, Chillicothe, Mo._:
“Dear Sir—I am directed by the Brigadier-General commanding the district
to notify you that it is deemed advisable and necessary to suspend you
from the performance of your duties as a minister, or preacher, within
this military district, so far as they relate to any of the public
services in the church. This will, you observe, include all preaching,
the conducting of prayer meetings, &c., &c. Of said suspension you are
hereby notified.
“This, I will add, results from information, deemed entirely reliable,
of your disloyal sentiments, and of your very great desire to actively
promote the cause of the traitors.
“I am, sir, very respectfully,
“WALTER KING, Col. M. S. M.,
“Commanding Chillicothe Post.”
Mr. Rush had been prohibited by verbal order from preaching in St.
Joseph. After he left St. Joseph he preached once in Plattsburg and once
in Chillicothe, whereupon General Loan ordered Colonel King to issue the
above order. It was this order which Mr. Rush requested Gen. Hall to
revoke.
The reply to the letter asking the revocation of Gen. Loan’s order,
besides being published, was sent as a private note also, and is as
follows:
“HEADQUARTERS N. W. DIS., }
ST. JOSEPH, MO., February 17, 1863. }
“_Rev. W. M. Rush, Chillicothe, Mo._:
“My Dear Sir—I am in receipt of yours of the 16th inst. I regret that I
am not able to comply with your request. According to my views, a
religious congregation that can not endure prayers for its Government is
disloyal; and a minister that encourages such a congregation in its
course is also disloyal.
“I agree with you, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal. But
allegiance requires the citizen to protect the Government against all
enemies. This you not only refuse to do, but you are not willing to pray
for the success of your Government over traitors. You claim to be
neutral. A citizen has no right to be neutral when enemies are assailing
his Government.
“I can not relieve you from Gen. Loan’s order.
“Very respectfully,
“WILLARD P. HALL,
“Brig.-Gen. Com’dg.”
The following letter was written to General Hall after Mr. Rush had
suffered long and much from the effects of his published letter. It
explains itself:
“CHILLICOTHE, MO., April 30, 1863.
“_Gen. W. P. Hall_:
“DEAR SIR: Some months ago I requested you to relieve me from Gen.
Loan’s order. This you declined to do, and at the same time
(unintentionally, I hope,) inflicted upon me a severe injury. Your
letter was published in the _Herald_, and was made the basis of various
actions against me. Dr. Hughs, who classified those who were exempt from
military duty as loyal and disloyal, enrolled me disloyal. I asked him
on what ground he so enrolled me, and told him that I claimed to be as
loyal as any man in the Government, and that I challenged any man to
show the contrary. He told me that he acted upon your letter and did not
feel himself authorized to go behind it. He assigned no other reason.
Dr. Hughs, you may know, is an _extreme Radical_ man.
“On the 1st of January Capt. Moore, Provost-Marshal of this post, gave
what are called free passes to my negro woman and girl, and they are now
in Kansas. I called on him to know on what ground he based his action.
He said he concluded from your letter that I was rebellious, and,
therefore, gave the passes without any charge or proof.
“On the first Monday of April, at our municipal election, my vote was
challenged by a Lieutenant from St. Joseph, I believe. I asked on what
ground. He said my name was on the disloyal list. I told him I did not
put it there. Capt. Moore said it was put there by order of Gen. Loan.
“Such are some of the open effects of your published letter, and, as a
lawyer, you doubtless know the extent of your legal responsibility for
such publication.
“In your published letter to me you regarded me as disloyal because, as
you say, I encouraged a congregation that could not endure prayers for
its Government. If by the _Government_ you mean the country and the
Constitution, I beg to inform you that prayers are regularly offered for
the country, in the public congregation as well as in my private family;
and in private I pray to Him who is infinite in wisdom, in goodness and
in power, that he would so direct in the affairs of the nation, and so
control the events that are now transpiring as that all things might yet
result for his glory and the well-being of humanity; that he would grant
unto our rulers wisdom to adopt such measures as would speedily bring
peace and prosperity to our distracted country.
“If by the Government you mean the measures of the _Administration_, I
must say that I do not pray for the success of the President’s
Proclamation liberating the slaves of the South.
“Since these troubles began, I have claimed to be, and I believe I am,
as loyal a man as there is in the country, and the Constitution does not
permit you, nor any body of men, to prescribe a form of prayer as a test
of my loyalty. Since the commencement of these troubles I have been a
man of peace. I believed that war would be disastrous to the country,
and that if persevered in it would tear down the fair fabric which my
fathers helped to rear, and that my children would be left without a
country.
“Sir, I boast not of family, but an ancestral name stands on the
Declaration of Independence, and the family has represented the
Government at Paris and at London. Sir, I can pray for peace, but I can
not pray for war. I never in public or in private prayed for the success
of the sword as wielded by any power on earth.
“What was my offense? I labored to preserve the peace of my
congregation. I thought that the Church was not the proper arena for the
strife of those contending opinions that were convulsing the nation.
“Why did not Colhoun and Lyon of the Presbyterian Church offer such
prayers as that offered by W. C. Toole? I will answer. They had too high
a sense of religious propriety. Sir, political preaching has sown the
seeds that are bringing forth the death of the nation. In more than
twenty years in the ministry I have never given utterance to a political
sentiment in the pulpit. But now these political preachers are heroes,
and I am without a pulpit.
“You have, also, published to the world that I have no claim upon the
Government for protection. Thus I am published by you as an outlaw, to
be slain by any one who may be so disposed. And this, notwithstanding I
have constantly performed every duty enjoined upon me by the
Constitution and laws of the country.
“On last Wednesday evening, just at dark, my son William, while feeding,
was shot at by some one who had secreted himself but a few yards from
him. The bullet entered his cap just over his forehead and passed out
behind. An inch lower would have killed him. The shot was, no doubt,
intended for me.
“When I wrote to you before, I did it that you might make your own
record in my case. You had the opportunity of revoking Gen. Loan’s order
or of sustaining it. You saw proper to _exceed_ very much the order of
Gen. Loan.
“One word more. I had a financial interest of $1200 a year in my pulpit
so long as my pastoral relation to the Church should continue. That
relation still continues, but my financial interest in the pulpit has
been confiscated, without the authority of law and contrary to a general
order issued by the General commanding the department. I am advised by
eminent legal counsel that yourself and General Loan are financially
responsible to me.
“General, I have thus written to you _candidly_, as I think a man of
conscious integrity has a right to write to one to whom he is willing to
accord equal integrity. _If you think that order should still remain in
force, so let it be_.
“Your obedient servant,
“W. M. RUSH.”
To this letter General Hall made the following reply:
“HEADQ’RS SEVENTH MILITARY DIS’T OF MO., }
ST. JOSEPH, MO., May 2, 1863. }
“_Rev. Wm. Rush, Chillicothe, Mo._:
“Sir—I return herewith your very extraordinary letter of the 30th ult.
Notwithstanding the threats contained in it against myself, you surely
did not consider what you were writing. My opinion was, and is, that it
would do a serious injury to the public for me to rescind Gen. Loan’s
order with reference to yourself. To threaten an officer for the
discharge of his duties, especially in times like these, is a serious
offense, which a Military Commission would promptly punish. I bear you
no malice. I have done what I have done in your case because I believed
my duty required it. My advice to you is, to make no more threats.
“Very respectfully,
“WILLARD P. HALL,
“Brig.-Gen’l E. M. M.”
Neither explanation nor comment is necessary to the full meaning of this
instance of heartless cruelty and wanton oppression. The fact that
General Hall’s mother-in-law, with whom he lived, was at the time one of
the most devoted, pious and prominent members of Mr. Rush’s Church, only
shades the deeper and darker the character of this Missouri Nero.
General Hall’s skepticism and political ambition made him a ready and a
cruel instrument of religious persecution. Without the moral courage to
avow his skepticism, and denied the force of character necessary to meet
and master opposition, he was just the man to use the authority of
shoulder-straps to make war upon the institutions of heaven and
persecute God’s chosen ministers of salvation; and he will feel very
uncomfortable in the history he has made.
Mr. Rush found it necessary for his own safety to remove his family to
St. Louis, and remain there until the close of the war. He found the
Mound Church without a pastor, and by the appointment of the Presiding
Elder took charge of that Church, and there remained until the quiet and
safety that succeeded the war was restored to the State. Mr. Rush will
appear again as a victim of the New Constitution, and a noble champion
of the liberty of conscience and the supremacy of Christ in his Church,
which the infidel provisions of that instrument endeavored to strike
down.
It will be appropriate to close this chapter with an account of the
murder of the
REV. NATHANIEL WOLLARD,
A minister of the Calvinistic, or, as generally termed, “Hard-Shell”
Baptist Church.
Elder Wollard, or “Uncle Natty,” as he was familiarly called, was an
aged man, in his _seventy-second_ year. He had lived a long time in
Dallas county, Mo., where he was extensively known and very highly
appreciated as a true man, a good neighbor, a kind father, an
affectionate husband, a peaceable citizen and an acceptable
minister—highly esteemed in love by his denomination for his character
and work. He could not, nor did he desire to, take any part in the
strifes, excitements and dangers of the war. He craved the boon of
living at home unmolested, and spending the evening of his life in peace
in the bosom of his family.
He had grown up in the olden times, and under the old _regime_, when men
were outspoken, candid and fearless in the utterance of their
sentiments; and, hence, be expressed himself in opposition to the
“abolitionists,” as he called the Union men, and in sympathy with the
South. He did not make himself officious or offensive in the expression
of his Southern sympathies. He was not a secessionist _per se_, but a
Southern man, deeply impressed with the conviction that the Northern
fanatics intended to break up the Government and destroy the foundations
of republican liberty. He honestly believed that the success of the
South in the struggle would vindicate the wisdom of the fathers of the
Republic, and establish firmly and forever the vital principles of civil
and religious liberty for which “Washington fought and freemen died.”
The fact that he entertained such sentiments, however prudent and
cautious in their utterance, “was sufficient to call forth the vengeful
feelings and murderous purposes of the militia of this State.”
A detailed account of his murder has been furnished by one acquainted
with all the facts, in the following language:
“The murder was committed on the evening of Sept. 1, 1863—that dark and
bloody year. A cheerful fire had been made in his sitting room, and he
was peacefully enjoying an evening with his family, all unconscious of
the approach of danger—not dreaming that his peace would so soon be
disturbed, or that his long life was so near its end. While thus in
domestic tranquillity, and unconscious of danger, a squad of militia
scouts rode up to the door, dismounted and walked in without any
ceremony. They addressed the old man in a very rough manner, ordering
him out of his house, as they wished to speak with him. Father Wollard
told them that they could talk to him where he was; that he was not
going to leave his house.
“The intention of the militia was evidently to get him out of his house,
feign that he made an effort to escape, and shoot him. If this was their
intention they were defeated by the fact that Father Wollard supposed
that if he left the house, one or two men would guard him and his family
while the rest of them would pillage and then burn the house.
“When they found that they could not get him out of the house, one of
the militia raised his pistol and shot him, the ball taking effect in
the face and inflicting a mortal wound. He was removed from the house
into the yard and laid on a bed prepared for him, his head resting on
the bosom of his heart-broken companion, while his son, a youth of
sixteen, was wiping the blood from his face, and keeping it from his
mouth, as it flowed so freely from the wound that he feared it would
strangle his father. In the meantime the militia had set the house on
fire and committed everything they had to the flames.
“Having finished their work of destruction, one of them came to where
the dying old man was lying, and, finding that he was not yet dead, shot
him again, the ball taking effect in his forehead. He instantly expired.
“The only charge they made against him was that he fed ‘bushwhackers,’
which was not true. He had fed Southern and Federal soldiers alike when
they came to his house, and some of these very men had been recently fed
at his table who now turned upon him and brutally and barbarously
murdered him.
“The men who committed this fatal and foul deed belonged to Capt. Morgan
Kelly’s company of militia. They were never punished, but are now living
in Dallas county undisturbed, except by an accusing conscience. Capt.
Kelly himself professes to be a minister of the gospel, of the
Christian, or Campbellite, Church, yet he seems to live in peace, with
this and many other crimes staring him in the face.”
The heart sickens at such a recital of cold-blooded murder; and the
evidence of savage, not to say inhuman, barbarity that characterized the
horrible crime is sufficient to humiliate the whole race of men and send
our much vaunted Christian civilization reeling back into the dark ages.
The shadow on the dial of Ahaz went back ten degrees—it was a wonderful
miracle—but here, in the noon of the nineteenth century, the shadow on
the dial of human progress and Christian civilization has gone down
forty degrees without a miracle, and reaches the grosser, the darker and
the baser passions of our fallen nature, which instigate and then
execute deeds of horror at which all Christendom revolts.
CHAPTER XXI.
REV. B. H. SPENCER.
His Character and Position as a Minister—Order of Banishment—Interview
with General Merrill—Note to Colonel Kettle—Cause of
Banishment—Letter to A. C. Stewart—Provost-Marshal at
Danville—Frank, Manly Reply—Second Letter to Mr. Stewart, and
Petition to General McKean—The Latter Treated with Silent
Contempt—Strong Loyal Petition Endorsed by H. S. Lane, U. S.
Senator, and O. P. Morton; Governor of Indiana—“Red Tape”—Petition
Returned—Hon. S. C. Wilson Counsel for the Exiles—General
Schofield Finally and Unconditionally Revokes the Order of
Banishment—Indictment for Preaching Without Taking the “Test
Oath.”—Why he Declined to Take the Oath—Prayer for his Persecutors.
REV. B. H. SPENCER.
Neither goodness, kindness, humility nor usefulness in a minister of the
gospel could disarm malice or shield the servant of God from the
persecutions of wicked men. It is truly astonishing how many and how
diverse the pretexts framed for the arrest, robbery, banishment,
imprisonment or murder of those whose only crime was that they were
ministers of the gospel in connection with the M. E. Church, South.
Infidelity was never at a loss for expedients and Antichrist was never
without efficient agents.
The Rev. B. H. Spencer is almost a native of Missouri, being only six
months of age when his parents came to Missouri from North Carolina, and
has received regular appointments from the Missouri Annual Conference,
M. E. Church, South, consecutively since 1843, when he was first
admitted on trial. No man has a cleaner and purer record in the Church,
both in his personal and ministerial character; and few men have
occupied so many places of high trust and responsibility. He is one of
the old Presiding Elders, and has often been called to represent his
Conference on the floor of the General Conference, and has always proved
himself to be prudent in council, wise in legislation, correct in
administration and eminently useful in the pulpit; distinguished,
perhaps, for his scriptural, practical and forcible expositions of the
distinctive doctrines and duties of Bible Christianity. He is zealous,
humble, earnest, energetic and Methodistic in all his ministerial work;
extensively known and highly esteemed in love for his works’ sake all
over the State.
Long associated with the honored names that will live in the annals of
Missouri Methodism, and taking a high rank with them, the sentiments
that introduced the Rev. W. M. Rush to these pages, and the reader, may,
with but little alteration, introduce Mr. Spencer.
Mr. Spencer is a representative man in his character and position in
Missouri, and while his persecutions were severe and protracted, his was
not an isolated case. He represents in his cruel and wanton exile a
large class of Missourians, and especially of Missouri ministers, some
of whom will, perhaps, never return to this State. B. T. Kavanaugh, L.
M. Lewis, E. K. Miller, B. R. Baxter and many others are possibly lost
to the State forever. They may have gone out for different causes, but
the peculiar proscription and persecutions to which ministers in
Missouri have been subjected kept them out.
Few if any cases of persecution in Missouri present more deliberate
meditation, cooler cruelty and more heartless inhumanity than the one
disclosed in the following narrative, made in Mr. Spencer’s own quiet,
clear and forcible style. His letters to the various military officials,
written in exile, and while all the finer sentiments and feelings of his
manly, Christian heart were writhing under the cruel injustice he had to
bear without the means of vindication or the hope of redress, are worthy
the pen of Cranmer, and would have given a higher tone and temper to the
moral courage of Latimore.
The reader must, however, measure the man and his persecutors by the
following paper:
“ORDER OF BANISHMENT.
“DEAR DOCTOR: The first item that I send you is in regard to my
_banishment_, as an act of _ecclesiastical persecution_.
“In the town of High Hill, Mo., on the 16th January, 1863, I received
from the hands of a Federal soldier the following order, viz.:
“‘HEADQUARTERS N. E. DISTRICT MISSOURI, }
“‘WARRENTON, MO., Jan. 13, 1863. }
“‘_Provost-Marshal, or Commanding Officer, Danville, Mo._:
“‘SIR: You will cause the following persons to leave the State of
Missouri, within a reasonable time after the receipt of this order, and
reside, during the war or until permitted to return, at some place north
of Indianapolis, Indiana, and east of Illinois. They will be required to
report to you, by letter, once a month, and are not permitted to leave
the State by way of St. Louis, but directed to go by Macon City and
Hannibal, Missouri. Rev. B. H. Spencer, * * * * * * *.
“‘By command of Brigadier-General Merrill.
“‘GEO. M. HOUSTON, A. A. G.’
“The above order was accompanied by the following:
“‘HEADQUARTERS 67TH REGIMENT E. M. M., }
“‘DANVILLE, MO., Jan. 16, 1863. }
“‘_Rev. B. H. Spencer_:
“‘SIR: The above is a true copy of Gen. Merrill’s order to me. You will
obey said order within six days from this date. You will report to these
headquarters on the day of departure.
“‘By order of J. G. Kettle, Col. Commanding.
“‘J. F. ANDERSON, Adjutant.’
“On the day of receiving this order I went to Warrenton, being Gen.
Merrill’s headquarters, to see if I could not induce him to revoke it. I
found him at the supper table, and unwilling to give me a hearing
anywhere else, when the following conversation took place between us:
“‘Gen. Merrill, I have received from you an order of banishment from the
State, and wish to see you in regard to it.’
“‘Then what is your name and place of residence?’
“‘My name is B. H. Spencer, High Hill, Mo.’
“General (in a passion)—‘I can do nothing for you!’
“I replied—‘It seems that the tongue of slander has reached you
concerning me; will you hear evidence in my favor?’
“His reply was peremptorily, ‘_No, sir!_’
“I inquired, ‘Will you then read documents?’
“Answer in same manner—‘_No, sir!_’
“He then inquired—‘Does the order allow you to go by St. Louis?’
“I answered, ‘No, sir.’
“‘Then,’ said he, ‘see that you _don’t go that way_!’
“I replied, ‘I don’t expect to.’
“He said, ‘_see that you don’t!_’ And then added, ‘You may think
yourself very fortunate that you are not hung, and should feel that you
are _very mercifully dealt by_!’
So the conversation ended, and I returned home and wrote the following
note to Colonel Kettle:
“‘HIGH HILL, MO., Jan. 19, 1863.
“‘_Col. J. G. Kettle, Danville, Mo._:
“‘HONORED SIR: Some time ago I promised to marry a couple in this
vicinity on to-morrow night, and as it will not be in violation of Gen.
Merrill’s order, and will furnish me some means with which to carry out
that order, _will you permit me to do so_?
“‘I am, very respectfully, B. H. SPENCER.’
“The following is his reply:
“‘HEADQUARTERS 67TH REGIMENT E. M. M., }
“‘DANVILLE, MO., Jan. 19, 1863. }
“‘_Rev. B. H. Spencer_:
“‘SIR: Your request to marry the couple and to preach is granted. I
would say that you had better not speak of your banishment in your
sermon.
“‘Yours, &c., J. G. KETTLE, Colonel.’
“On the 25th of January, 1863, I preached the sermon alluded to; and
then, in company with four others, made my report to military
headquarters at Danville, Mo. But, in consequence of an accident on the
railroad, I was permitted to remain with my family until the 28th of
that month, when, with a sad heart, I was compelled to leave my
distressed wife and six little children and go into a land of strangers,
and remain in exile for ten long months.
“Dr. H. W. Pitman, Rev. D. W. Nowlin, Rev. J. D. Gregory and Rev. Wm. A.
Taylor were banished in company with me. We had no trial, either civil
or military, nor would they condescend to tell us what were the charges
against us, or whether, indeed, there were any. Nor to this
day—September 7th, 1869—have we found out why it was done, except
through private and unofficial sources. The information thus received as
to the cause of my banishment was as I expected—_I was banished because
I was a Southern Methodist preacher!_ One of the officers was asked by
one of my friends: ‘What are the charges against Spencer?’ He answered,
‘_I never heard that there are any; but he is a man of influence, and,
if disposed, can do a great deal of harm!_’ Another officer was asked by
another friend, and he replied, ‘The fact that he is a _Southern
Methodist preacher is all I want to know_!’ There never was a more clear
case of ecclesiastical persecution than was my banishment. Certain men
sought to produce secession, treason and rebellion in the M. E. Church,
South, by way of showing how they professed to hate these things in the
nation; I opposed them, and they became my enemies and had me banished.
If any one doubts this let him attend to the following documents:
“‘ASHBY’S MILLS, IND., April 22, 1863.
“‘_Mr. A. C. Stewart, Provost-Marshal, Danville, Mo._:
“‘SIR—There are reasons which induce me to believe that my case is
wholly at the disposal of the officers and Union men of Danville and
vicinity. If this be so, I wish to solicit your attention to a few
considerations in regard to my case. And, first, I was banished from my
home and family _without a trial or a knowledge of the charges against
me_, or who preferred them. Now, sir, is this right? Is there any law,
civil or military, that will punish an _innocent_ man? How could the
officer who banished me know that I was guilty of any crime without
giving me a trial and hearing evidence in the case? Have I ever had such
a trial? When? Where? Who were the judge, jury, witnesses _pro_ and
_con_? Where was the prisoner during the trial? And where was my legal
counsel to see that justice was done me? With what was I charged, and
who were my accusers? Three months have passed since my banishment, and
I am still left in ignorance of why it was done. Was it done merely to
gratify official ambition? or rather, was it not done to gratify the
malice of _secret enemies_? Can the interests of the Government be
secured or protected or its dignity increased by such treatment of one
of its citizens? Do you say that I am a great rebel, and therefore such
treatment is good enough for me? How do you know that I am a rebel at
all, much less a great one? Did you learn it from mere _rumor_, or from
a trustworthy witness, sworn to tell the truth before a proper tribunal
and in the presence of the accused? In the absence of such evidence how
can an intelligent gentleman make such a charge, if, indeed, any one
does make it? If it be stated, or insinuated, that I have been, or am,
disloyal or disobedient to the Constitution of the United States, or to
any of the laws made in pursuance thereof, or to the constitution and
laws of any State where I have ever lived, or to any military order or
edict—_this most unjust and oppressive one banishing me from my home and
family not excepted—I deny the allegation and defy proof by competent
testimony_! Have I not silently borne injustice and oppression long
enough? Can you blame me for entering my earnest protest against such
treatment? Has it not been said by officers who ought to know, ‘_that
there are no charges against me, but that I am a man of influence, and,
if disposed, could do a great deal of harm_?’ Now, if there are no
charges against me, in the name of everything that an American citizen
holds dear, why suffer me to be thus persecuted and oppressed without an
effort to prevent it? Are you not a sworn officer—sworn to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States? and does that Constitution
allow such treatment of an American citizen against whom there are no
charges? and can you allow it to be done without an effort to prevent it
and be innocent? And suppose I have _influence_, is that a crime? and
what reason has any one to fear that I would use it for evil? Is it
proposed to banish men of character and influence from the State for
fear they will exert their influence for evil? If not, why send off, and
keep off, so humble a person as myself? Is this the way an officer
should fulfill his oath of office? Was he clothed with authority for
this purpose? Is this the only protection I am to expect from the
officers of my native State? Is not my banishment, under the
circumstances, an unmitigated outrage upon civil and military order, as
well as upon my liberties as a citizen? I love and almost venerate the
Government of the United States as established by our patriotic
ancestors! Among earthly institutions I expect and want nothing better.
With _it_ I find no fault. My complaint is against certain of its
_officers_ for the injustice and oppression with which they treat me. If
you were in my place and I in your’s, what course would you wish me to
pursue? If a peaceable and quiet citizen, such as I have always been, is
not free from imprisonment or banishment, _who is safe_? Has justice
forsaken the land? And is there no place where the oppressed may find
redress? If there be any place where justice may be had, will you tell
me where it is, and how to approach it? I must candidly believe that my
banishment was caused by _ecclesiastical persecution_—that I am banished
for an _ecclesiastical_ and not for a _political_ reason! Certain
persons sought to produce secession, treason and rebellion in the M. E.
Church, South, by way of showing how they professed to hate these things
in the nation, and I opposed them, because I not only loved _union in
the nation_, but also _in the Church_—hence they became my enemies, and
for this cause _alone_, as I believe, they secured my banishment! I
believe the officer who did it was deceived, and induced to believe me
_a bad and dangerous man_, or surely he would not have acted so hastily
and rashly! But you know, and so do all my enemies, that such is not my
character. Who would be injured by my return to my family? Can anybody
tell? Does anybody fear it? Shall my secret enemies be allowed to
continue the gratification of their malignity at my expense under
pretense of friendship to the Government? Will my continued _religious_
persecution do the Government any good? Why, then, suffer its
continuance? Why keep a man in exile without just cause, who is in
feeble health, with limited means, and a wife and six dependent children
needing his attention? _Will you not then allow me to come home at
once?_ Do not even the instincts of humanity, to say nothing of the
higher obligations of justice and official duty, urge compliance with
this request? I honestly believe that you and the Union men of your
vicinity can get me home if you will—just as easily as to say the word.
I may be mistaken, but I honestly believe that my whole case is in your
hands, and that I remain in exile or return to my family, just as you
will the one or the other. I have reasons for this opinion, and if I am
mistaken would like to know it. I wish to say that in all that I have
written I have not _intentionally_ used a single word that was
_disrespectful_ toward those in authority. In all that I have said, I
have _aimed_ to speak plainly, candidly and _earnestly_, but also
_respectfully_. I respect you on account of the _authority_ with which
you are invested and the _Government_ which you _represent_. But I
protest against the way I am treated, and who can blame me for it? And
if this protest shall be disregarded now, perhaps it may live and speak
in vindication of my character when I am dead, and when the voice of
_injured justice_ shall be _heard_ and _respected_. If you can not
release me, will you tell me who can? And will you answer this at your
earliest possible convenience, and let me know what you intend to do in
my case.
I am, most respectfully,
“‘B. H. SPENCER.’
“The answer of the Provost-Marshal was _prompt_, _frank_ and _manly_,
and does honor to the head and heart of its author. Unlike every other
officer, civil or military, to whom I had applied for information or
redress, he did not treat me with silent contempt. _He answered._ And
the answer is important, because it shows clearly that he not only had
no hand in the banishment of myself and my companions in exile, but that
he also had been kept in ignorance of the intention to do it, as also
for the reasons why it was done. Surely there could have been no public
charges against us, or proper trial in our case, or the Provost-Marshal
in our immediate vicinity could not have thus been kept in ignorance of
such an intention till after it was done.
“It proves, furthermore, that by order of Gen. McKean, it was left to
the so-called loyal men of Montgomery county, Mo., to say whether we
should return or not. And we have the names of those who gave their
sworn opinions as to whether it was _proper_ for us to return or not,
and could give them, but in mercy we withhold them. And, finally, it
proves that our efforts to obtain a revocation of our order of
banishment, to be successful, had to be kept to _ourselves_. Why? Simply
because if our secret enemies found it out they would thwart our efforts
at the headquarters of the Commanding General of the district. But the
letter speaks for itself. It is as follows:
“‘OFFICE PROVOST-MARSHAL, DANVILLE, }
MONTGOMERY CO., MO., April 26, 1863. }
“‘_Rev. B. H. Spencer, Ashby’s Mills, Ind._:
“‘DEAR SIR—I have just received yours of 22d inst., and must acknowledge
I am utterly at a loss to comprehend it.
“‘I want to say, once for all, to yourself, as also to Doct. Pitman and
Judge Nowlin, that I had no hand in your banishment whatever, either as
a private citizen or as an officer; that I never had, either directly or
indirectly, an intimation that such a thing was contemplated. An order
was issued by General McKean, who is Commanding General of this
district, headquarters at Palmyra, to J. G. Lane, Provost-Marshal of
Wellsville district, to take the testimony of the loyal men of
Montgomery county in relation to the _propriety_ of your return home.
Lane was removed from office and his district thrown into mine, and the
order was sent to me by General McKean, which I executed by taking the
evidence of loyal men, both at High Hill and Montgomery City, as well as
Danville. The evidence was sworn to and sent by order of the commanding
General to his headquarters.
“‘Now, sir, I have given you the facts in regard to everything I have
had to do with this case. And, although you protest against any
intention to insult or offend in your communication, I must frankly
admit that the whole tenor of your letter seems to savor of both. ‘How
can you consent, without just cause, to keep one in exile who is in
feeble health,’ &c., is one extract from your letter. ‘_Will you not
then allow me to come home at once?_’ is another. Now, sir, you must
know that I have no direct control of this matter! Why ask me such
questions? Why not ask me, as a private citizen, to use my influence to
obtain a revocation of the order? The authorities that issued the order
of your banishment have never asked, neither have I _given_, my opinion
as to the propriety of the order. Notwithstanding I consider your letter
as invidious, and, as I understand it, full of insinuations against me,
yet, under the circumstances, I will allow humanity to step in, discard
all feeling that your letter may have excited, and give you the best
advice I am capable of.
“‘Judge Nowlin, Doct. Pitman and yourself get up a letter, directed to
Brig.-Gen. McKean, Palmyra, Mo., through me as Provost-Marshal of
Montgomery county. Take _humanity_ for your text; appeal to him through
the tears of your wife and helpless children; let Government officers
alone; agree to report to me once a week in person, if it should be
considered necessary; give every assurance that your lips will be sealed
in future as to the utterance of treason, directly or indirectly; send
the letter to me and I will forward it, with such recommendation as I
may deem proper and right, and, if that fails, I am at the end of my
row. The success of this thing will very much depend on keeping my
advice to yourselves. I may be mistaken, but I believe your liberation
may be effected in that way. Give my respects to Judge Nowlin and Doctor
Pitman.
“‘Yours, &c.,
“‘A. C. STEWART, Prov.-Marshal.’
“To the above noble letter I made the following reply:
“‘ASHBY’S MILLS, MONTGOMERY CO., INDIANA, }
‘May 4, 1863. }
“‘_Mr. A. C. Stewart, Provost-Marshal, Danville, Mo._:
“‘DEAR SIR: Yours of the 26th April is to hand, has been read and
contents noted. And in reply let me say, I regret that you considered my
letter in its whole tenor ‘invidious, offensive and insulting,’
notwithstanding my protest against such a construction. I knew the task
I had undertaken was difficult, for there seems to be something about
_official position_ which is always more or less _impatient of
contradiction_. And hence it was reasonable to conclude that this is
true of military officers, who feel that it is theirs to _command_ and
for others to _obey_ or _submit_, and not to _reason_ or _question_. The
difficulty was to so employ language as to convey some idea of my
_righteous indignation_ at the injustice of my treatment, and which
would at the same time be _respectful_ and _courteous_ toward those in
authority. And I question very much whether you yourself, in my
circumstances, would, if you could, have done better. I was, with only a
few days’ notice, forced away from the fellowship and pastoral oversight
of hundreds of beloved brethren; from a most dependent and afflicted
family; from my only means of their support; from the graves of my
kindred, and every thing of earth that was dear; was denied the
privilege of going by St. Louis, where I might have reached the ears of
power and have gained a revocation of my order of banishment; with
limited means, was compelled to travel a circuitous and expensive route
to my place of exile; was denied the privilege of living in the loyal
State of Illinois, where I had kindred, and it would have cost me
nothing; was denied the sympathy of friends who would have helped me
financially, but were afraid; was sent into a land of strangers, under
Government censure, where, without _sympathy_, if without _money_, a man
had better be dead; was not allowed to know the charges against me, who
were my accusers, or even the semblance of a trial, though I had sought
one of Gen. Merrill, of Gen. Curtis, of Gen. Halleck, of Gov. Gamble, of
Attorney-General Bates, of Secretary Stanton and of President Lincoln,
and had done this, directly and indirectly, through men of commanding
influence, whose loyalty was above suspicion, and all this without
success; felt, yea _knew_, that I was _innocent_; that there could be
_no truthful_ evidence of my being guilty of any crime; knew that I was
suffering all this to gratify the malignity of secret enemies who had
deceived the military commander and secured my banishment; enemies who,
like the midnight assassin, did their work and then slunk away to gloat
over the misery they had caused; felt satisfied that I was thus
persecuted for an _ecclesiastical_ and not for _a political_ reason; was
sure the Government could not be benefited by my persecution nor injured
by my return to my family; and, finally, became thoroughly convinced
that the _influence_ that controlled the action of those who had the
power to release me from the binding force of this order, or to keep me
in exile, was in or near Danville; and, in a word, was satisfied that I
had found out the _locality_ of the authors of my trouble and why they
persecuted me, but the identical names of my persecutors I did not know;
and hence, in view of the foregoing considerations, I wrote you in the
way I did. Now, interpret my letter in the light of my circumstances,
and imagine _yourself in my condition_, and you will be able to
‘comprehend it,’ and to _excuse_ anything that may _seem_ ‘discourteous
or insulting,’ especially when I _assure_ you nothing of the kind was
_intended_. You have my thanks for your _prompt_ and _manly_ reply to my
letter. There are times when I would rather a man would _abuse me a
little than not answer me at all_, and this is one of those times. You
are the only officer who had the condescension, kindness, humanity, or
whatever else you may please to call it, to answer a single one of my
numerous appeals for deliverance from oppression, or for instruction as
to where or how I might obtain it. To your praise be this spoken. It
affords me much pleasure, also, to learn from yourself that you had no
hand in securing my banishment, or knowledge of it until after it
occurred. I wish I could think the same of every other citizen of
Danville.
“And now that, in accordance with your wish, I am addressing you as _a
private_ citizen, may I ask, and confidently expect, that you will give
me the names of my accusers, and the nature of their accusations against
me, if there are any, together with the names of those loyal men whose
sworn testimony was sent to Gen. McKean in regard to the ‘_propriety_’
of allowing me to come home, and the substance of what each one said? As
that is the nearest a trial of anything else I have had, should not the
accused be allowed to know his accusers, the names of the witnesses and
the nature of their testimony against him? You reprehend me very
severely for insinuating that you have any ‘direct control of my case.’
Well, I did not suppose you had authority to _revoke_ the order of
banishment; but I did suppose, and do still suppose, that you and your
friends of that vicinity can influence Gen. McKean to revoke the order
or not, just as you wish; and that you have control of my case in _that
way_. And hence it is that I am so thankful to you, and so much
encouraged by your kind offer to use your influence with the commanding
officer to set aside this order and permit me to return home. And I am
sure if you do promptly and vigorously exert your influence in that
direction you are _certain_ of success.
“Among your items of advice you say, ‘Give every assurance that your
lips will be sealed in future as to the utterance of treason, directly
or indirectly.’ Now, as this is, to my mind, an intimation that some
one, or all three of us, are charged with having been guilty of
treasonable utterances, and hence are required to give assurance that we
will do so no more, I wish to say for myself that, if such be the
intimation, I deny the allegation _in toto_; for I have neither
_uttered_ nor _acted_ treason, nor do I expect to do either in future.
And if I am permitted to return, and you can protect me from the tongue
of slander, and the _secret enemies_ that with consummate mendacity
hound my steps and torture and misrepresent my language and conduct, you
will hear nothing of treason, either in _utterance_ or _action_. But, if
_that_ can not be done—if the tongue of slander and falsehood against me
can not be silenced in any other way—then give a _fair trial_, and make
these _secret liars_, who _whisper_ falsehoods into official ears
against those they hate, ‘_face the music_,’ and I will vindicate my
_innocence_. Upon that subject I can make no further promises. A mere
_charge of treason_, you know, is no _evidence of guilt_. The
_immaculate_ Son of Man was accused of _rebellion_, _sedition_ and
_treason_, with _blasphemy_, and with being the _agent_ of the _prince
of devils_! Of _Innocence itself_ they said, ‘_He is not fit to live;
away with him! crucify him! crucify him!_’ And ‘If they have done these
things in the _green tree_, what will they not do in the dry?’ And the
same divine authority has said, ‘If any man will live _godly in Christ
Jesus_, he must suffer _persecution_,’ and I have made my calculations
accordingly. As to your other suggestions, I wish to say that I will
herewith transmit to Gen. McKean, through you, a request, or petition,
for the revocation of this order in my case, accompanied with a few of
the reasons why I make it, which I will thank you to send to him, if you
please, together with such remarks and recommendations as you may think
proper to make. Please let me hear from you at an early day, and much
oblige,
“‘Most respectfully,
“‘B. H. SPENCER.’
“The petition was sent to General McKean, through the Provost-Marshal of
Montgomery county, Mo., together with the best appeal that he could make
in our favor. But the only notice he seems to have given it was to treat
it with silent contempt.
“The following is a copy of that petition:
“‘ASHBY’S MILLS, IND., May 7, 1863.
“‘_Brigadier-Gen. McKean, Com., Palmyra, Mo._:
“‘DEAR SIR—Will you please to revoke the order of Gen. Merrill, of the
13th January, 1863, banishing me from the State of Missouri? A few of
the reasons why I ask you to do this are—
“’1st. _The order was unjust._ The General who issued this order did not
_know_ me, was dependent upon _others_ for his information concerning
me, and was evidently _deceived_ by my _personal enemies_, or he never
would have issued it.
“’2d. I have never engaged in this rebellion in any way, nor violated
any law, civil or military; and, therefore, am _not deserving_ of this
punishment.
“’3d. I have a wife and six small, helpless children, whose ages range
from _two_ to _twelve_ years, from whom I have been forcibly separated
for more than _three months_, and who very much _need_ my attention,
and, therefore, _humanity_, to say nothing of the higher claims of
_truth_ and _justice_, demands compliance with this request.
“’4th. If permitted to return, _I expect to be, as I have ever been, a
law-abiding and good citizen_, and, therefore, the Government can not be
_benefited_ by my remaining in exile nor _injured_ by my return to my
family.
“’5th. As it is the duty and glory of a Government to protect its
citizens in the possession of all their _legitimate rights_, I ask, and
hope it will be your _pleasure_ to grant, that I may return to my family
in the enjoyment of the _untrammeled liberty_ that I had before my
banishment.
“‘This petition will be sent to your headquarters by Mr. A. C. Stewart,
Provost-Marshal, Danville, Mo., accompanied by such remarks and
recommendations as he may think proper to make.
“‘In the confident expectation that you will grant this just and
reasonable request at an early day,
“‘I am, most respectfully,
“‘B. H. SPENCER.’
“After being compelled to remain long enough in exile to form character
and make friends amongst strangers, at the end of nine months some of
the most prominent Union men of Indiana, on the 31st August, 1863, sent
the following petition to the Provost-Marshal General of the department
of the Missouri:
“‘_To Lieut.-Col. J. O. Broadhead, P. M. G. of Missouri, St. Louis,
Mo., or to whomsoever this petition should be addressed_:
“‘The undersigned petitioners beg leave respectfully to represent to the
proper authorities in the State of Missouri, that we are citizens of the
United States, residents of the counties of Montgomery and Putnam, in
the State of Indiana; that we are now and ever have been loyal and
devoted to the Government of the United States; that we are supporters
of the present Administration thereof, and that we are in favor of using
all lawful ways and means for suppressing the present rebellion and
preserving the Union established by our fathers; we, therefore,
cordially endorse all and every one of the measures of the Government
having these much desired objects in view.
“‘We beg leave further to represent that there have been residing in our
midst, in our immediate vicinity, for the past six or seven months,
three individuals, said to be citizens of Montgomery county, in the
State of Missouri, and to have been banished from that State by the
military authorities there, viz.: H. W. Pitman, B. H. Spencer and David
W. Nowlin. While we can not know the causes that led to the banishment
of these men, we would state that they came among us under the ban of
the Government, and we looked upon them as objects of suspicion. They
and their conduct have been closely observed and narrowly scrutinized,
not to say strictly watched by our party, and we deem it but sheer
justice to declare, candidly and emphatically, that after an observation
of the length of time indicated above we have seen nothing in these men
that in our judgment would require that they longer be kept in exile.’
“‘They are represented to us as men having families dependent greatly on
them for support, and every feeling of humanity is enlisted in their
behalf, if the interests of the Government do not imperatively require
their continuance in exile. With the lights before us, and in view of
the facts that these men have resided for the past six or seven months
in a population greatly excited on political issues, and among whom
sundry disloyal practices have been rife, in which they have had ample
opportunities to have partaken if they had been so inclined, and yet our
observation has not been sufficient to detect them as aiders or abettors
in these disloyal practices; we feel free, therefore, to declare
emphatically our convictions that the interests of the Government will
not be advanced by a longer continuance of their exile; but, on the
contrary, we are satisfied that those interests would be promoted by a
revocation of the order banishing them from Missouri. We, therefore, in
behalf of these exiles, pray the authorities in Missouri who are
empowered to do so to revoke the order banishing the said H. W. Pitman,
B. H. Spencer and David W. Nowlin from the said State of Missouri, and
to release them from further pains and penalties in the premises; and as
loyal citizens in duty bound, we will ever pray, &c.
(Signed) “‘JOHN W. HARRISON,
“‘DR. H. LABARRE,
“‘FRANKLIN M. MCMURRAY,
“‘DR. GEORGE W. MILLER,
“‘JAMES KNOX,
“‘J. J. BILLINGSLEY,
“‘A. D. BILLINGSLEY.’
“The undoubted loyalty of these petitioners, and their prominence in
social and political circles during Mr. Lincoln’s Administration,
received the following endorsement, which accompanied their petition and
formed a part of it:
“‘I have known the signers of this paper long and well; they are true
and loyal citizens of Indiana, and are all supporters of the
Administration. They are gentlemen of the highest character, and their
statements are entitled to full credit.
“‘H. S. LANE, U. S. Senator.’
“‘The gentlemen who signed the foregoing statement are of undoubted
loyalty, and their representations are worthy of credit.
“‘O. P. MORTON, Gov. of Indiana.’
“And now, by way of showing how difficult it was for those in prison or
exile to obtain a hearing at headquarters, in consequence of _official
routine_, _etiquette_, or what is technically called ‘_Red Tape_,’ I
give the following _inscription_, which was written on the outside of
the above petition before it was returned to the petitioners. It seems
first to have come into the hands of some _sub_-official, who read it
and then wrote on it a digest of its contents, as follows:
“‘_Petition._ Citizens of Indiana. _P. 102 (P. M. G.) 63._ That H. W.
Pitman, B. H. Spencer and D. W. Nowlin, exiles from Montgomery county,
Mo., be permitted to return to their families and homes, as they have
been closely watched while here and have always conducted themselves as
Union men. These petitioners are indorsed by the Governor of Indiana.’
“This sub-official then seems to have sent it to the P. M. General of
the Department, who, without granting or promising to grant the
petition, sent it back to Gov. Morton, with the following explanation
written on it:
“‘HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI, }
“‘OFFICE OF THE P. M. G., }
“‘ST. LOUIS, MO., Sept. 3, 1863. }
“Respectfully returned to his Excellency, O. P. Morton, Governor of
Indiana, with the information that there are no papers on the cases of
the persons named in the within petition in this office. Neither does
their names appear upon the records. They were probably banished by
order of some district commander.
“‘By order of Lieut.-Col. J. O. Broadhead.
“‘H. H. HAINE,
“‘Lieut. and A. P. M. G. Dept. of the Missouri.’
“Upon receiving it Governor Morton sent it to Senator Lane, who sent it
to the petitioners with the following explanation:
“This paper was to-day returned to me by Governor Morton, with the
indorsements on it. Sept. 7, 1863.
“‘H. S. LANE.’
“Just think of it! No trial, no charges, nothing for us or against us,
not on the records, no papers in our cases, and yet we in exile and
compelled to stay there! But we employed one of Indiana’s noblest
lawyers, the Hon. Samuel C. Wilson, of Crawfordsville, to take that
petition and go with it in person to Gen. Schofield’s headquarters. The
result was an unconditional revocation of the order of banishment, on
the 16th Sept., 1863, which is as follows:
“‘HEADQ’RS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI, }
ST. LOUIS, MO., Sept. 15th, 1863. }
“‘_Special Orders No. 252._]
“‘I. Dr. H. W. Pitman, David Nowlin and B. H. Spencer, citizens of
Montgomery county, Missouri, heretofore banished to Indiana, to remain
there during the war, are permitted to remain in any part of the United
States, outside of the limits of this Department. They will report their
places of residence the first of each month during the war to the
Provost-Marshal General of this Department.
“‘By command of Major-General Schofield.
“‘WM. W. ENO, Ass’t Adj’t-Gen’l.
“‘B. H. Spencer, per Maj. Dunn.’
“The foregoing facts and documents are a mere tithing of what might be
given to the same effect, and go to show most clearly that I was
persecuted in various ways, and banished from my helpless family for ten
long months, for no higher and _no other crime_ than that I was a
_Southern Methodist preacher_!
TEST OATH.
“The following is a mere sample of numerous other indictments against me
for preaching without taking the Missouri _test oath_:
“‘Know all men, by these presents, that we, B. H. Spencer, as principal,
and Thomas Kemble and A. Bigelow, as securities, are held and firmly
bound unto the State of Missouri in the sum of one thousand dollars, the
payment whereof, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our
heirs, administrators and executors, firmly by these presents. The
conditions of the above bond are, that whereas B. H. Spencer has been
indicted by the Grand Jury of Montgomery county for preaching without
taking the oath; Now, if the said B. H. Spencer shall personally appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court on the first day of the next term
of said Court, said term of said Court to be held at the court house in
the town of Danville, in and for said county, on the fourth Monday of
next May, and answer to said indictment, and not depart therefrom
without the leave of said Court, then said bond to be void, otherwise to
remain in full force and effect. Witness our signatures this the 18th
day of May, A. D. 1866.
“‘B. H. SPENCER,
“‘THOMAS KEMBLE,
“‘ABNER BIGELOW.’
“My refusing to take this oath was not the result of an unwillingness to
obey the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri, for I had
already taken the ‘Convention oath,’ the ‘Halleck oath’ and the
‘Rosecrans oath,’ and had sworn fealty to the State as often, and in as
many ways as _reason_, _conscience_ and _loyalty_ would allow. And
hence, when civil authority came between me and my Divine Master, and
virtually said, _I will allow you to obey your Master if you will swear
fealty to me first_, I believed it to be _wicked_ thus to surrender the
claims of Christ to the demands of Cæsar, and resolved, at the hazard of
fines and imprisonments, yea, even of life itself, that I would refuse
compliance with this unrighteous requirement. I believed they had as
much right to say _what should be preached_ as to say _who should preach
it_! Hence I refused, and numerous indictments were the result.
“Having scarcely commenced the recital of my persecutions as a Southern
Methodist preacher, I find this article already too long, and therefore
close, with the kindest wishes for all my persecutors, and an earnest
prayer for their salvation.
“I am, truly and fraternally,
“B. H. SPENCER.”
CHAPTER XXII.
REVS. D. B. COOPER, H. N. WATTS AND THOS. GLANVILLE.
_Rev. D. B. Cooper_—Attempt Made to Ride him on a Rail—Defeated by the
Timely Appearance of Soldiers—Particulars Furnished by Dr. N. W.
Harris—_Rev. H. N. Watts_—A Native of Missouri—Efforts Made to Place
the Old Ministers under Disability or Run them out of the State—Mr.
Watts Arrested—Silenced—Correspondence with Provost-Marshals Reid
and Sanderson—“Test Oath”—_Rev. Thos. Glanville_—An Englishman by
Birth—Early Life—Peculiar Trials—Manner of Life as a Citizen and a
Minister—Driven from Home in 1863—Returns and Obtains Written
Permission to Preach—Warned not to fill his Appointment on Sabbath,
September 20, 1863—Remains at Home—That Night he is Shot Through his
Window—Shot a Second and Third Time, and Expires Praying for his
Murderers—His Eldest Son Shot and Killed the Same Night—Details
Furnished by J. H. Ross and Rev. John Monroe—Conclusion.
REV. D. B. COOPER.
The following account of an attempt to mob and ride on a rail this
humble and worthy minister of the gospel will be perused with interest,
as it is furnished by an eye witness and an intelligent physician, whose
statements will not be called in question. But for the fact that he is
“not a professor of Christianity,” and authorizes the use of his name
with respectable references, the language would be somewhat toned down
and tempered to a milder moral zone. But it is thought best to give the
communication as received, as it details some important facts, and
throws light upon the _animus_ of others:
“PILOT GROVE, COOPER CO., MO., April 25, 1869.
“_Rev. P. M. Pinckard, St. Louis, Mo._:
“In the summer of 1863 Rev. D. B. Cooper, now of Mt. Sterling, Ky., was
on the circuit in Linn county, Mo. He is one of the purest men I have
ever known, and remarkably reticent. I knew him intimately and well,
being his physician and a personal friend. He never preached or talked
politics, even to his most intimate friends and acquaintances. If there
was but one man in Missouri during those wicked years of horror walking
humbly before God and acting uprightly toward his fellow-men, that man
was D. B. Cooper.
“On Sunday he was preaching in Laclede, my then residence; some one
whispered to me that some soldiers were outside intending to ride the
preacher on a _rail_. I went out and sure enough there were some
half-dozen soldiers who had come up from Brookfield, had gone into a
‘loyal’ doggery, imbibed freely, and meeting some ‘loyal Methodists,’
were told that a rebel was preaching. Under the _stimuli_ of bad whisky
and the worse hearts of the ‘God and morality’ Methodists, they had come
to the church with a fence-rail intending to commit an outrage upon this
gentleman. But ‘man proposes and God disposes.’
“I tried to dissuade them from their purpose, but could not, and went
back into church to a lieutenant of Col. McFerran’s regiment, then
stationed in Laclede, and told him to go to Col. McFerran and tell him
to send a file of soldiers immediately. I knew McFerran could be relied
on, as he was a Democrat and a gentleman. There was no time to lose;
service was nearly over, and neither Mr. Cooper nor his congregation
knew anything of the impending outrage. The upper floor of a ‘loyal’
Methodist’s house near by was full of ‘God’s elect’ to witness the fun.
Just before the service closed the braves crowded into the house, and
when the congregation was dismissed they, the soldiers, were so situated
that they had to leave the house last. When they came out and were about
to lift their rail at the side of the house and seize Mr. Cooper—who was
yet in ignorance of their designs—they, and all but myself, were
surprised to see two files of soldiers, with fixed bayonets, marching
down on us so as to encompass the entire crowd. As no violence had been
done, no arrests were made. The miserable tools of the bad-hearted
fanatics slunk away like whipped curs, leaving their pious (?)
instigators gnashing their teeth and calling down curses upon McFerran
and myself. I don’t think their prayers were ever answered.
“These maudlin soldiers were not to blame. They were mere tools in the
hands of the base-hearted men and women who instigated the outrage. This
act is only a type of the general conduct of this people during the war
who are now whining for union with you.
“I am no professor of Christianity, but if such people are Christians,
or your union with them would compose a Christian body, I pray the Giver
of all good to incline my heart to heathenism rather than such a mongrel
abomination.
“I was living in Boonville when they committed the theft of your church
there, and know all about it; but you will get the particulars of that
honest (?) act from others.
“I have given you the facts, but have taken no pains, as you see. You
may have to re-write it. You are at liberty to insert it in your book
over my signature if you wish.
“Your friend, N. W. HARRIS.”
References wore furnished amply sufficient to endorse the veracity of
Dr. Harris, had it needed such endorsement.
A complete history of those perilous times would unveil many similar
acts nipped in the bud, or plotted and projected, but defeated by the
timely interference of good men.
Many Southern Methodist preachers were threatened with a ride on a rail
and a coat of tar and feathers; but the presence of peaceable citizens
and the fear of military interference deterred the rabble in most cases
from committing the deeds to which they were instigated.
The Rev. B. R. Baxter, now in Montana, and the Rev. H. H. Hedgepeth, now
in heaven, and others, were forced to leave their work in Andrew, Holt
and adjoining counties in consequence of such threats. Even the persons
and lives of all Southern Methodist ministers were in constant peril in
that portion of the State until after the Supreme Court of the United
States had declared the test oath of the New Constitution
unconstitutional. Indeed, not until 1867 was it safe for one of the
proscribed and threatened of the M. E. Church, South, to be seen or
heard in that part of the State northwest of St. Joseph, as facts
hereafter to be narrated will show.
But for the present, and for the sake of some little chronological
order, events in Southeast Missouri claim attention; and, first,
REV. HENRY N. WATTS.
Why were native Missourians in the ministry marked as the special
objects of displeasure? Were they sinners above all the men who lived
and labored in this goodly State, that such exceptional notice should be
taken of them in the administration of pious loyalty? Possibly the
discrimination was made upon the ground of personal influence with the
people. That they had more influence with the people and stood higher in
public estimation than any imported men will not be questioned; but that
their influence was used for evil purposes, either political, social or
moral, is distinctly denied. That others were envious of their
well-earned position, and jealous of their power over the people and
consequent ability to control the moral forces of the State for
ecclesiastical advancement and distinction, is too true to escape the
notice of history; for upon this fact the only rational hypothesis can
rest that accounts for the noteworthy pre-eminence given to the old
native Missouri ministers in these persecutions. A man who had been so
long and so well known in the Missouri pulpit as the Rev. H. N. Watts
could not escape the heavy hand of the persecutor, and the distinction
in suffering he had gained in the ministry.
Mr. Watts was admitted on trial in the Missouri Conference, M. E.
Church, South, at St. Louis, in 1844, and appointed to Ripley Mission,
Cape Girardeau District.
From that time on he has been a faithful laborer in his Master’s
vineyard—always ready to go where the Bishop appointed him without
murmuring or gainsaying. At times he has been called to fill the chair
of Presiding Elder, and also to represent his Conference in the General
Conference. His fidelity to the sacred claims and obligations of the
gospel ministry has only been equaled by his loyalty to the Church of
his choice and his fidelity to her distinctive peculiarities. He was
always a man of one work, and never concerned himself particularly about
the civil and political affairs of the country.
The policy of the Church and the saving principles and power of the
gospel of grace were more to him than all “the things which belong unto
Cæsar.” He thought that there were men enough to attend to Cæsar’s
business, but none too many ministers to keep God’s business with men
and man’s interest in the “kingdom of heaven” from suffering. Hence he
kept himself free from political strifes and attended, with singleness
of heart and life, to his holy calling. Thus he was engaged when the war
broke out, and up to the summer of 1863 he had suffered very little
molestation. He had taken no part in the strife and committed no act of
treason against the Government; was a peaceable, orderly citizen.
In 1863 Mr. Watts was living in Charleston, Mississippi county, Mo., and
on the 23d of July was arrested at his house by a squad of soldiers,
accompanied by Meeker Thurman, Aaron W. and John Grigsby, and taken to
Columbus, Ky. He was charged with no crime, and no offense against the
laws or peace of the Government was ever alleged against him. In vain
did he plead the protection of the Constitution of the United States. He
was threatened with banishment or imprisonment during the war, unless he
would take and subscribe a military oath, which was as repugnant to his
feelings as it was oppressive to the rights of conscience. After taking
the oath to secure his liberty, and receiving some personal abuse as a
minister of the gospel, he was released and permitted to return to his
home after an absence of several days.
In the spring of 1864, and while Capt. Ewing’s company of militia were
stationed in Charleston, and Lieut. Jas. A. Reed was Ass’t
Provost-Marshal, Mr. Watts was prohibited from preaching the gospel for
several weeks by military authority. He continued, however, to travel
his circuit and hold religious services. He would read the word of God,
sing, pray and exhort the people to “flee from the wrath to come” and
“lead peaceable and quiet lives in all godliness and honesty.”
The following is the correspondence between the Assistant
Provost-Marshal and Mr. Watts. It will serve to develop the nature of
the persecutions he suffered in the light of the official records:
“OFFICE ASSISTANT PROVOST-MARSHAL, }
“CHARLESTON, MO., March 17, 1864. }
“_Parson Watts_:
“SIR: You will greatly oblige me, and at the same time not inconvenience
yourself, perhaps, by calling at this office on or before the 19th
inst., for the purpose of complying with ‘Special Order No. 61,’ issued
by the Provost-Marshal General, St. Louis, Mo., March 7, 1864, requiring
ministers of the gospel to take the oath of allegiance therein
prescribed.
“Your non-compliance with this notice will be taken as a refusal and
will be acted upon accordingly.
“JAMES A. REID,
“1st Lieut. and Ass’t Provost-Marshal.”
To which Mr. Watts returned the following reply:
“CHARLESTON, MO., March 18, 1864.
“_Lieut. James A. Reid, Ass’t Provost-Marshal_:
“SIR: Your note of the 17th inst. has been received, asking me to appear
at your office on or before the 19th inst., to comply with ‘Special
Order No. 61,’ concerning ‘convocations, conferences, councils,
assemblies,’ &c.
“1. I have written to St. Louis for certain information on this and
other subjects. I would greatly prefer getting said information before
taking action in this matter.
“2. I assure you I have not violated said order by attending any synod,
council, conference, or any such assembly under any other name, since
said order was issued.
“3. And as you think preaching would be a violation of said order, I
have ceased preaching since I have heard of this order. And a private
citizen is not required to take that oath, yourself being judge.
“4. As a private individual I have taken the oath of allegiance, a copy
of which I have; and,
“5. I have not at any time, and do not design violating that order, and
with this assurance I hope I shall not be hurried in this matter.
“Respectfully, H. N. WATTS.”
Mr. Watts addressed the following letter to the Provost-Marshal General,
St. Louis:
“CHARLESTON, MO., March 18, 1864.
“_J. P. Sanderson, Pro.-Marshal Gen’l, St. Louis, Mo._:
“DEAR SIR—Special Order No. 61, from your office, dated the 7th inst.,
‘concerning religious convocations, synods, councils, conferences, or
assemblies under any other name or title,’ not being understood as to
the extent of its application, will you be kind enough to answer the
following inquiries:
“1. Under these terms, ‘convocations, synods, &c., or assemblies _under
any other name or title_,’ does this include congregational worship, or
a congregation met in open church, with free seats, for preaching and
other public services? and will each one so assembled be required to
take the oath prescribed in Special Order No. 61?
“2. When an assembly of divines have met to transact the business of the
Church, and have taken the prescribed oath, are they expected then to
oppose secession and treason publicly from the pulpit, or only in
private circles?
“3. A minister who has within the past year taken the oath of allegiance
in another State, but is now traveling in this State, must he again take
the oath before he can meet his congregation for public worship?
“Answers to these inquiries will be gladly received, if you can find
time to answer
“Your obedient servant,
“H. N. WATTS.”
The Assistant Provost-Marshal at Charleston received the following
letter from the Provost-Marshal General in answer to the inquiries of
Mr. Watts:
“HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI,
OFFICE OF PROVOST-MARSHAL GENERAL.
ST. LOUIS, MO., March 24, 1864.
“SIR—I am in receipt of your letter of the 21st, enclosing your
correspondence with the Rev. Mr., Watts, and asking for further
instructions; and, also, I am in receipt of a letter from the same Rev.
gentleman, propounding to me the following questions:
(_See questions above._)
“It can not be necessary, either for your guidance or that of the Rev.
gentleman who has propounded these questions to me, to answer them
categorically.
“The order referred to is too plain and distinct to be misunderstood. It
applies, as the language used unmistakably indicates, to conferences and
all other representative assemblies convened to promote the cause of
religion and morality, and _not_ to the ordinary meetings of Christians
assembled for the business purposes of a congregation, or benevolent
society, or for the worship of God. All the objects of it are answered
when its enforcement is confined to the assemblies indicated in it, and,
as a matter of course, it forms no part of its purpose or requirements
that persons should take the prescribed oath before proceeding to
worship their Maker when assembled for that purpose.
“In case of the attendance at any assemblage of the character indicated
in said order of any one who has already taken the oath of allegiance
prescribed by the laws of this State for the clergy _to_ legalize
marriage, &c., any certificate or evidence of the fact will be
sufficient to render him eligible without again taking the prescribed
oath.
“But, while such is the liberal construction of the Order No. 61,
requiring no oath of those divines who have already taken the required
oath to enable them to perform all their functions, it is no less the
determination of the undersigned to enforce a rigid compliance with the
ordinance of the State Convention of June 10, 1862, requiring licensed
and ordained preachers of the gospel to take the oath of allegiance
therein prescribed before assuming to discharge the duties pertaining to
their avocations under the laws of this State.
“Those who have failed to do so, and who, under the pretense of
preaching or worshiping God, meet really for seditious purposes, and, in
truth, to desecrate and violate the laws of God and their country, can
not be allowed so to meet or carry on their seditious purposes, and will
be held to a strict accountability.
“I have no inclination, nor do I conceive it to be any part of my duty,
to answer the Rev. gentleman’s second interrogatory, and thus instruct
him in his ministerial duties. My respect for his profession obliges me
to presume that he is familiar with the Bible, and needs no such
instruction from me. For the information asked in that interrogatory he
will, therefore, have to refer to the Bible, whose expounder he
professes to be. He need but do so in the proper spirit, and with an
earnest desire to be guided by its teachings, to insure unto him a flood
of light as to his duty in the premises.
“You will furnish the Rev. Mr. Watts with a copy of this letter, and be
guided in your own actions by its instructions.
“Respectfully, J. P. SANDERSON,
“Prov.-Mar. Gen’l.
“Lt. Jas. A. Reid, Ass’t Pro.-Mar’l, Charleston, Mo.”
The letter of the Provost-Marshal General was forwarded to Mr. Watts,
through the Assistant Provost-Marshal’s office at Charleston,
accompanied by an order from the latter office requiring him to take the
Convention oath of ’62, or cease to preach, and report himself at
headquarters, St. Louis. He went to St. Louis, took what was called the
“Gamble oath,” returned home and resumed his ministerial labors.
The correspondence here given is specially valuable for the light it
throws upon the spirit and bearing of the military authorities in the
direct issue they made with the clergy of the State. Many ministers of
the gospel were more oppressed and persecuted, but all of them did not
so far yield to military authority on the one hand, nor so sharply
contend for the rights of conscience on the other.
The “Special Order, No. 61,” has a history of itself that will be
unveiled in due time, and the true nature of the proscription and
persecution under it will be better disclosed in another place.
This forcing the conscience of ministers by prescribing “test oaths” is
not a new thing. It is as old as the second great persecution under
Domitian, A. D. 81, and as cruel as the Spanish Inquisition.
When State Conventions and military commanders in Missouri prepared
political “test oaths” for ministers of the gospel as a class, and
ordered all non-juring ministers under disability, the object was not
doubtful in the minds of those acquainted with the history of religious
persecutions.
Another martyred minister of the gospel, the horrible murder of another
of God’s chosen messengers of salvation, and _scene first_ of the great
Missouri tragedy closes, the curtain falls, and both writer and reader
may seek temporary relief from what Dr. Summers, in a private note,
calls “a terrible narrative.” When the curtain rises again it will
unveil other scenes in this wonderful histrionic drama, of which those
already presented are but the preparation and prelude.
The trials and persecutions of the faithful men of God already narrated
are sufficient to present the moral and religious phases of the war in
Missouri to an intelligent public. Would to God the pall of oblivion
could settle down upon the whole history. But if the world still retains
its interest in truth; if the Church is still the repository of the
testimony of Jesus and the divinely accredited authority for works of
righteousness; if the ministers of the gospel are yet responsible for
the “faith once delivered unto the saints,” for the purity of the gospel
and the integrity of the kingdom of God on earth, and if history is
valuable for the lessons it teaches and the principles it vindicates,
then that truth, that righteousness, that faith, that history, all
demand the record here made, the lessons taught and the principles
vindicated in the trials and sufferings of God’s annointed servants
during the recent reign of terror.
The following shocking narrative of murder must, according to the
decision of the publisher, close the first volume.
REV. THOMAS GLANVILLE AND SON.
The subject of this sketch was long and favorably known to the Church in
Missouri, and was highly esteemed for his integrity, honesty and
fidelity to principle as well as for his general usefulness as a
minister.
Others who knew him better have furnished the following account of his
life and labors, together with the circumstantial details of the dark
and bloody tragedy which closed his career of usefulness on earth—one of
the most heartless and cruel assassinations in all the dark history of
martyrdom in Missouri.
The following sketch has been furnished by an intimate friend of the
martyred minister, and will be read with mournful interest:
“_Rev. Thomas Glanville and Son._—It was the privilege of the writer to
be intimately acquainted with the subjects of this sketch for more than
a score of years. Without reference to official documents or private
papers, I write mostly from memory, hoping thereby to preserve the
precious memory of two worthy men.
“Rev. Thomas Glanville was born in England about A. D. 1811, and came to
America when about sixteen years of age. He was converted to God in
early life, and after much mental agony yielded to the conviction that
it was his duty to preach.
“Soon after he began to preach, he joined the St. Louis Conference M. E.
Church, South, and traveled several years. But family afflictions came
upon him—his wife died and left him three children. He married again and
soon afterward located.
“Time rolled on and ever found him diligent in business, fervent in
spirit, serving the Lord; and laboring efficiently as a local preacher.
“In the fall of 1852 a camp-meeting was held in his neighborhood by the
lamented Leeper, Anthony and Bond. Bro. Glanville’s three children were
at the altar as penitents. All the tenderest sympathies of a father’s
heart went out after them. How pointed his instructions! and his prayers
O, how fervent!
“He told the writer that he had made a vow that if the Lord would accept
his three children at that meeting, he would rejoin the Conference and
travel and preach as long as his way seemed open. The Lord did
mercifully accept his three children; and, true to his vow, he rejoined
the Conference and remained an acceptable member till the day of his
death.
“When the late civil war commenced and the flock in Southwest Missouri
was left for the most part without a shepherd, he and the local
preachers a his neighborhood met in council and went out ‘two and two’
and held meetings in the most destitute neighborhoods.
“After a time he was ordered by a militia Captain to discontinue his
preaching. This grieved him much, but he yielded and remained silent for
almost a year.
“In February, 1863, a meeting was appointed in one of those destitute
neighborhoods, which he attended. The ‘fire was shut up in his bones,’
and in company with a friend he waited on the Captain then in command in
that vicinity and requested permission to resume his duties as a
minister. To his great joy he received a written permission, and the
next night he preached a sermon full of joy and comfort.
“In July or August following three men called at his gate one dark night
and ordered him to leave the country on pain of death. A few days after
he remarked to the writer that he would love to live to see peace
restored to the country, and he hoped he would, and then added, ‘Those
fellows may kill me, but I think not. Of one thing I am certain, they
can’t harm me; death has no terrors for me, and has not had _for fifteen
years_.’
“He was a bold and fearless man. ‘Conscious innocence knows no fear;’
but through the entreaties of friends he left home for a month or more;
and it is to be regretted that he made up his mind to return, and did
so, saying that he would ‘risk the consequences.’
“He published an appointment for preaching, and a few hours before the
time came, two militia soldiers waited on him and informed him that he
would not be permitted to hold the service. He remained at home that
Sabbath, and remarked to a neighbor, ‘Those fellows will kill me, I
believe; but they shall never have it to say that they shot me in the
back.’ That holy Sabbath was his last on earth.
“When night came on and good men laid them down to peaceful slumbers,
his murderers approached his quiet dwelling. A ball discharged from a
revolver passed through his window, entered his face and he fell to the
floor. To make sure of his victim the murderer raised the window and
reaching in shot him through the chest. They then went round, forced the
door and three men entered. After a few words with Bro. Glanville’s son,
one of them remarked that he had better finish the old man, and so
saying shot him again. Thus died the Rev. Thomas Glanville, in the
fifty-third year of his age.
“After threatening to burn the house and ordering the family to leave on
short time, they rode two miles to the residence of Bro. Glanville’s
eldest son, Mr. A. C. Glanville, a man of fine mind and respectable
literary attainments, with a meek and quiet spirit, and a member of the
M. E. Church, South. They called him up, and, all unconscious of his
father’s fate and his own danger, he made a light. No sooner was the
light made than a ball passed through his window, entered his head and
he fell lifeless on the hearth. Thus perished father and son in one
night.
“Since their death little has been said in reference to them; but they
still live in the hearts of many friends, and it is well known that they
bore the highest type of manhood.
“Bro. Glanville had for many years been an ordained elder in the M. E.
Church, South, and while as a preacher he was neither profound nor
brilliant, yet he possessed a sound mind, a good understanding in the
things of God, was a good sermonizer and improved every year, so that
his last days were his best. Peace to his memory.
“JOHN H. ROSS.”
The Rev. John Monroe, of the St. Louis Conference, one of the oldest
ministers in Missouri, furnishes the following sketch of the lamented
Glanville:
“The Rev. Thomas Glanville was born in England, May 15, A. D. 1811. Came
to this country about the year 1829 or 1830, and a short time afterward
was married to Miss Donnell, of Green county, Mo. Not long after this
event he embraced religion and united with the M. E. Church, and in 1841
was received on trial in the Missouri Conference.
“In 1843 he was appointed to Buffalo Circuit, where he endured much
affliction, both of body and mind. His wife died and he married again,
and the next year he located. For a time he traveled under the Presiding
Elder and was readmitted into the St. Louis Conference in 1855, and then
traveled regularly until the war came up. He did not cease to preach in
his neighborhood. He had an appointment the day he met his awful fate,
but dared not attend it, as his avowed enemies were watching his
movements. This was Sabbath, Sept. 20, 1863. At night three outlaws,
guided, no doubt, by another who was not responsible to any military
organization, approached his peaceful home and shot him. And what for?
No one knows. He, like all good men, was self-denying and made no
compromise with sin, wicked men or devils; reproving sin in all its
forms and in all places, he had enemies who threatened him years before,
and this was a good time to put their designs into execution.
“At first he was ordered from home; he went, remained some three weeks
and returned. Then they compelled him to take an oath and give bond, in
which he was bound to stay at home—just what he wanted to do. But in a
few days after giving bond there came a stripling of a boy, purporting
to have orders from a Lieutenant of the same family whence all his
troubles came, ordering him to again leave home forthwith, and be quick
about it. He then, as a law-abiding man, went to Captain Allen, then at
Hermitage, for protection to enable him to keep his obligation, and to
know how to act under the circumstances. But the Captain refused to
protect or instruct him, only to tell him that he had better leave
quickly, knowing at the same time that such a course would forfeit his
bond. He had made up his mind to leave the next morning, but, as stated,
three armed men came after dark and shot him some three or four times,
and he expired instantly. His last and dying words were, ‘Lord, have
mercy on my enemies.’
“He was buried without a song; not even a prayer was permitted to be
offered in behalf of his disconsolate wife and weeping children. But the
good man exchanged a world of woe for a land of rest.
“Thomas Glanville was always known to be a law-abiding man and a
peaceable citizen. He often boasted of the privileges he enjoyed under
this benign Government, and only claimed his rights under its
Constitution and laws. He was never known to violate any law, abhorred a
mean thing and would speak out against it. He strenuously opposed all
bushwhacking, stealing, murder, and any and all infringement upon the
rights of others. He stood up squarely for the rights of the M. E.
Church, South, and contended boldly for the principles of religious
liberty. In view of these things it is not difficult to account for his
shameful and brutal murder.
JOHN MONROE.”
It is quite a relief to turn away, for a time at least, from the
contemplation of such scenes of barbarity and more than savage cruelty
as the history of the terrible past presents to our faith and
philosophy.
Three long chapters, prepared for this volume, are laid over for the
second, by the decree of the publisher, to prevent the enlargement of
the present volume to an improper size. By it the next volume will be
enriched beyond measure. What is lost to this will be gained for that,
and neither the work, as a whole, nor the reader will be damaged.
The deferred chapters contain an account of the “Rosecrans oath,” in
“Special Order No. 61,” of March 7th, 1864, and its designs upon the
common laws and facts of religious liberty; the persecutions, trials,
banishment, etc., of the Rev. Drs. McPheeters and Farris, of the
Presbyterian Church, the Rev. Tyson Dynes, of the M. E. Church, South,
the long imprisonment and peculiar sufferings of the Rev. Dr. McAnally;
the effort to crush or confiscate the publishing house at St. Louis, and
its preservation and security by the agent, the Rev. P. M. Pinckard; and
a “Chapter of Martyrs,” detailing with careful minuteness the
cold-blooded murder of the Rev. John L. Wood, the Rev. George L. Sexton
and the Rev. Edwin Robinson.
The history of the indictments, trials, imprisonment and persecutions of
ministers under the “test oath” of the New Constitution will form a
prominent and extensive feature of the second volume, with due attention
to the particulars of the murder of the Rev. SAMUEL S. HEADLEE and
others, which will invest the work with thrilling interest. The future
historian will assign to these names a conspicuous place upon the long
roll of martyrs, and the future Church will reap a rich harvest of
souls, with multiplied agencies and resources, from the blood they shed
“for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God.”
“They lived unknown
Till persecution dragged them into fame,
And chased them up to heaven. Their ashes flew,
No marble tells us whither. With their names
No bard enbalms and sanctifies his song:
And history, so warm on meaner themes,
Is cold on this. She execrates, indeed,
The tyranny that doomed them to the fire,
But gives the glorious sufferers little praise.”
END OF VOLUME I.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in
spelling.
2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
4. Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume 1 (of 2) : A history of religious proscription, the seizure of churches, and the persecution of ministers of the Gospel, in the state of Missouri during the late Civil War, and under the "Test Oath" of the new Constitution." ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.