CHAPTER III

DECLINE OF HOLINESS IN METHODISM 1830 TO 1865

     As early as the 1784 inception of American Methodism, rules were drafter into the discipline which governed the institution of slavery.  Accordingly, any Methodist who refused to free his slaves, unless the state in which he lived forbade it, was to be denied the elements of the Lord's supper and expelled from the church.¹  This rule or ecclesiastical law was established in accordance with the views of John Wesley on the subject.  He believed that slavery was one of the greatest evils a Christian could fight.  Wesley, in his 1774 book, Thoughts Upon Slavery, denounced utterly men who argued for the necessity of continuing so evil an institution and described American slavery as "the vilest that ever saw the sun."²

     The actions of the 1784 Conference reflected the ideological impact of the American Revolution which asserted the "unalienable rights" of all men, and was also in accordance with the stated purpose of American Methodism to "reform the Continent and to spread scriptural holiness [freedom] over these lands."³  Rev. Jesse Lee, the first historian of the Methodist Episcopal Church and a strong advocate of Christian perfection, said the language of the early conference was "too strong and calculated to irritate our people and not convince them of their mistakes."⁴

     The first two bishops, Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke, along with the other leaders of early Methodism, were as strictly opposed to human bondage as they were in favor of Bible holiness.  Bishop Asbury as early as 1780, however, "spoke to some select friends about [opposing] slave-keeping, but they could not bear it."  Immediately following the "Christmas Conference" of 1784, Asbury recorded that he "found the minds of the people greatly agitated with our rules against slavery."  By 1798 Asbury came to the conclusion that "slavery will exist in the [south] perhaps for ages."⁵  Thus, he showed his awareness of the impossibility of doing away with slavery without antagonizing the slave-holders.  Asbury was convinced that slavery should be regulated and finally destroyed.  However, as an ardent defender of Christian holiness, he was determined not to allow the actions of the early conferences to hinder the preaching of the Gospel.  The bishop felt that Christianity would "soften" the masters and "sweeten the bitter cup" of slavery for the Negro.  Over a period of years, therefore, the Methodist Episcopal Church eased its initial stand against slavery.⁶

     In direct proportion to their laxity on the South's peculiar institution" Methodism gradually stopped stressing the importance of Christian perfection.  This was because the doctrine of holiness emphasized the conceptional idea of spiritual freedom and as such was contrary to both the intellectual and physical bondage of slavery.  Southern Methodism, as a result, was never as strong as the Northern branch of the church on the subject of Bible holiness; few southerners, therefore, professed "perfect love toward God and man" while holding their fellow human beings in bondage.⁷

     The numerical strength of Methodism in North American prior to 1810, nonetheless, was confined largely south of the Mason-Dixon line and the Ohio River.  This was evidenced by the fact that in 1776, out of a total of 4,922 members eighty-nine percent lived in the Southern colonies.  The main reason for this was that when the American Revolution took place, the Congregionalists of the New England Colonies and the Presbyterians of the middle colonies cast their loyalty with the revolutionaries.  In the South where the Anglican Church was predominant, these two groups had few supporters, and when the war went against the English, the Anglican clergy pulled out.  This created a vacuum which the Methodists filled successfully.⁸  By 1818, however, it was obvious to most Methodists in the South, based on comparative statistics (114, 569--South and 115, 058--North), that they had lost their numerical superiority.⁹

     The stagnated lack of growth of Southern Methodism compared to the supporters of Wesleyan theology in the free states of the North resulted largely from a steady migration of Virginia and Carolina residents to the Northwest Territory.  These Methodists left their homes to resettle in the Ohio and Indiana Territories because, they, as strong advocates of Christian holiness, were ardently opposed to slavery.  John Sale, a president elder of the Ohio district and one of the founders of Methodism in the Cincinnati area, substantiated this in a February 20, 1807, letter to his brother, a resident of Virginia.  Rev. Sale asserted: The purity [holiness] of our doctrines is to our prosperity as the main spring of a watch is to its constant runing [sic]."  He continued by saying that the residents of Ohio did not have to contend with the contamination of slavery and as such "live as well as those of Virginia and better as it respects...peace and tranquility."  Another Methodist, Frederick Bonner, who moved from Virginia to Ohio during the first decade of the nineteenth-century, praised the virtues of his new home in July, 1807.  He said, "When once planted here our children are saved from the harmful practice of trading their fellow creatures in the manner I understand some of our friends have done in [Virginia],..."¹⁰

     Even though most Methodists who lived in the free states of the North opposed human bondage, they were by no means united on a suitable method for its destruction.  During the first three decades of the nineteenth-century, the majority of such individuals, especially those who advocated Christian holiness favored the gradual emancipation of the Negroes and their removal to Liberia in Northern Africa.¹¹  There was nevertheless, in the New England states a small but determined group who opposed gradual emancipation and advocated immediate freedom for the slaves.  The fundamental declaration of this group proclaimed:

Slavery is a sinful and criminal institution for which the nation aught immediately to repent; second, that the slaves 'ought instantly to be set free, and brought under the protection of the law'; third, that colonization could be no substitute for the immediate and total abolition of slavery,...¹²

Such individuals, because of their unbending support for the immediate abolition or destruction of Southern slavery found very little encouragement among the Methodists prior to 1830.  This was particularly true among those person who favored the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian perfection.¹³  Many advocates of Bible holiness by the early 1830's, nonetheless, became convinced of the inadequacies of gradual emancipation and converted accordingly in growing numbers to the abolitionist ideology.  Such a development split the perfectionists' ranks within American Methodism.¹⁴

     The fundamental principles of abolitionism as a normal protest against the evils of Southern slavery were dramatized by such individuals as Theodore Dwight Weld, the Tappan Brothers, and William Lloyd Garrison.  By the late 1830's Garrison became the leading spokesman for the radical abolitionist element through the pages of his increasingly influential newspaper, The Liberator.  This publication which first appeared in 1831 on a weekly basis was almost singularly responsible for winning many prominent Methodists, who supported the doctrine of "perfect love," to the point of view of the abolitionist.¹⁵

     The most prominent Methodists won to extreme Garrisonian abolitionism were the Revs. LaRoy Sunderland and Orange Scott.  These men in 1831 openly opposed colonization or the removal of Negroes to Africa.  Sunderland, the more aggressive of the two, all but severed his affiliation with the conservative holiness faction by 1833 when he took an active part in the organization of the American Anti-Slavery Society.  The leaders of this movement, including Garrison, supported the doctrine of perfect love.  Garrison revealed his strong perfectionists leanings in 1837 through a poem entitled "Christian Rest."

        The majority of Methodist leaders, however, looked on the American Anti-Slavery Society as nothing more than a puppet organization which Garrison and his extremist colleagues founded in order to create discord within the established church.  The bishops or episcopal leaders distrusted Sunderland and his Methodist associates, because of their ties with the radicals of the National Anti-Slavery Society.  Consequently, the gulf between the ultra and conservative holiness factions within the Methodist Church continued to widen.¹⁷

     Four Methodist ministers, along with Sunderland, assailed the church publicly in 1835 for ignoring the "unjust, violent, and oppressive" system of slavery.  Their accusations appeared in the February 4, 1835, issue of the Methodist publication, Zion's herald.  This open assault marked the inception of a long and bitter conflict between the Methodist episcopacy, supported by official church magazines and the leaders of Wesleyan abolitionism.¹⁸  Such antagonists, in order to attach the Methodist bishops, accused the editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal, Nathan Bangs, of "apologizing for the enslavers of the human species and attempting to justify the system."  Dr. Bangs denied that he justified slavery and explained he hated the "disease but could not approve the prescription of the physicians."  The "physicians" or abolitionists did not limit their assault on Methodist officials to official church publications but also relied on pamphleteering and independent magazines.¹⁹

     Rev. Orange Scott, as one of the prominent Wesleyan advocates of immediate Negro emancipation, issued an anti-slavery pamphlet in 1836 which drew an immediate response from the conservative group.  The 1836 Methodist General Conference censured the pamphlet as containing many "palpable falsehoods."  While the delegates at the conference condemned "the great evils of slavery" by a vote of 123 to 15, they also "disclaimed any right, wish or intention, to interfere with slavery as it exists in this country."²⁰

     It was in response to such attitudes that the first radical Wesleyan abolitionist periodical, Zion's Watchman, appeared on January l, 1836, in New York City.  The basic perfectionist nature of this paper was revealed in the first issue when its editor, LaRoy Sunderland, stated, "we shall never speak or write what we believe to be true, but 'in love!'"  Rev. Sunderland made this statement as he called for an open and "peaceful" discussion of the complicated issue (slavery) that confronted Methodism.²¹ By November, 1839, the editor of the Watchman reported that the magazine was accomplishing the work for which it was intended.  "The Methodist Episcopal Church no longer sleeps over the condition of nearly three millions of slaves in the Christian land.  The attention of her ministry and members, East, West, North, and South has been aroused and directed to the consideration of this great evil."²²  According to Rev. Orange Scott, the Watchman which had a circulation of about six-thousand in 1839, was responsible for "abolitionizing  the Maine Conference and regenerating others mainly in new England."²³

     As a result of the increased trend toward abolitionism in the Northern Church, Southern Methodist, even though they were not openly in favor of slavery, adopted the stand that the church should not discuss or interfere with the "peculiar institution."  This was reflected in a resolution passed by the Georgia Annual Conference of 1838.  It resolved: "1....that slavery as it exists in the United States is not a moral evil.  2.  That we view slavery as a civil and domestic institution and one with which, as ministers of Christ, we have nothing to do, further than to ameliorate the condition of the slave by endeavoring to impart to him and his master the benign influences of the religion of Christ,..."²⁴

     The Methodist episcopacy supported the Southern view by admonishing all members, and especially the ministers of the church, not to be drawn into the slavery controversy.  In many of the Northern annual conferences during the years 1836 to 1842, the Methodist bishops employed their ecclesiastical position and prestige to effectively avoid the question of slavery and preserve the unity of the church.²⁵

     Ministers like Orange Scott and LaRoy Sunderland refused to abandon their abolitionist stand which they believed was grounded in Biblical principles and in Wesleyan doctrine.  Because of this, these men were tried at least six times prior to 1840 by different Methodist annual conferences on charges ranging from "immoral and unchristian conduct" to "falsehoods, defamations, and misrepresentation."²⁶

     The seventh and last trial charge Rev. Sunderland with slandering Bishop Joshua Soule, who said reportedly that he never advised the "liberation of any slaves, and thought he never would."  The editor of the Zion's Watchman responded to the supposed statement of the bishop by publishing a poem which reflected the highly electrified state of the controversy.

Rev. Sunderland's adversaries, within the church, brought this last verse of the poem to the attention of the New York Annual Conference.  As a result, that body preferred charges of slander against the editor at the New England Annual Conference of which Sunderland was a member.²⁸

      Bishop Soule presided at the trial in which he allowed Rev. C.A. Davis, prosecutor, to present slanderous articles written by Sunderland.  At the same time, the Bishop, refused to allow Sunderland in his own defense to read a letter published in the New York Weekly Messenger in which Davis reportedly called Sunderland an UNPRINCIPLED LIAR."  When the defendant tried publicly to present the Weekly Messenger article, the bishop ordered him to stop.  To this Sunderland retorted that he would read publicly the controversial letter "in spite of all the bishops in the land."  Soule then rebuked him severely by saying:  "In all my experience and in all my intercourse with my fellowmen, I have this to say, that LaRoy Sunderland is the first man that ever dared to speak to me in that manner."  Sunderland shouted back, "I thank God, Sir, that you have lived long enough to find one man who will tell you to your face what many others say of you behind your back."²⁹

     Years later (1881) Lucius Matlack confirmed that the arraignment of abolitionists before the annual conferences "clothed them with the sacredness of martyrdom, and awakened misgivings," on the part of the average Northern Methodist.³⁰  The manner in which charges were preferred against the leaders of Methodist abolitionism combined with the lack of positive action on the part of the church was instrumental in leading Orange Scott, LaRoy Sunderland, and Jotham Horton to withdraw from the Methodist Episcopal Church in November, 1842.³¹

     A new and separate ecclesiastical organization known as the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America was formed as a result in May 1843, in Utica, New York.  This new church was subdivided into six conferences covering a geographical area extending from Maine to Michigan.  At its inception it had six-thousand members; eight months later the number had grown to fifteen-thousand.  The Wesleyan leaders asserted they were not withdrawing from anything essentially pure Wesleyan holiness, but from the episcopacy and slavery, both of which they believed to be anti-scriptural.³²

     The official periodical of the new church, The True Wesleyan,  first appeared on January 7, 1843.  Rev. Orange Scott published the periodical on a weekly basis and charged an annual subscription price of two dollars.³³  The magazine condemned the moral evils of slavery which Scott asserted were contrary to the Christian "law of love" (holiness).  Furthermore, the editor emphasized the importance of Christian perfection when he said:  "We have taken high ground on the moral questions [slavery] of the day.  Our lives will be critically examined, our motives scanned.  Our only recourse is to live down opposition.  This we cannot do without personal holiness."³⁴

     The withdrawal from Episcopal Methodism by many Northern members, and their formation of the Wesleyan Connection had a profound effect on the parent body.  As a result when the next Methodist General Conference convened in New York City on May 1, 1844, many Northern delegates, especially those representing the New England Area Annual Conferences, were determined to censure the slave-holding Methodists of the South.³⁵

     James O. Andrew, a bishop from Georgia, provided the abolitionist faction at the General Conference their desired issue when it was revealed that he owned two Negro slaves.  Therefore, the Methodist leadership, could no longer push the issue of human bondage aside as not being relevant to the church.  The majority at the conference, by a vote of 116 to 60, refused to accept the Southern argument that Bishop Andrew, as a resident of Georgia, was not required to emancipate his slaves.  The conference, as a result, instructed Rev. Andrew to "desist from the exercise of his office so long as the impediment [slave-holding] remains."³⁶  The investigation which resulted in the public censuring of Bishop Andrew lasted from May 20 to June 8, 1844, and culminated in what was referred to as the Plan of Separation.  According to this plan, the Methodist Episcopal Church along with its properties was to be divided North and South of the Mason-Dixon line and the Ohio River.  When the majority of the Northern annual conferences met, they refused to endorse this plan.  Their vote was sustained by the 1848 General Conference which also rejected the 1844 Plan of Separation.³⁷

     The predominant attitude of most Northern Methodists after the formation of the Wesleyan Connection and the Schism which split the church was well stated in 1852 by Daniel Wise, editor of Zion's Herald.  "We are for peace and purity," he asserted, "but towards slavery we cannot show aught but undisguised abhorrence.  Our only business with it, shall be to seek its 'extirpation' by all judicious and prudent means; especially from the Church of Christ."³⁸  This position, over the years, reflected the increased outcry for immediate emancipation and thus a progressive polarization between the peoples of the north and south.³⁹

     The leaders of the Church, south, felt they had no other alternative but to turn to the civil courts because the Northern Church would not recognize the Plan of Separation.  In August, 1849, judicial action was initiated in the United States Circuit Court of New York against the New York branch of the Methodist Book Concern, and in June, 1852, another suit was filed in Cincinnati against the Ohio Book Concern.  The New York case was decided in favor of the Church, South,⁴⁰ but the Ohio case had to be carried all the way to the United States Supreme Court (William A. Smith v. LaRoy Swarmstedt) which in 1853 reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered the Book Concern property divided.⁴¹  The bitterness stimulated by the Methodist schism of 1844 and the Book Concern controversy that ensued were hardly  conducive to the fostering of the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian holiness or "perfect love".

     There was, however, a small group of holiness advocates who refused to become entangled in the slavery controversy.  The leading figures within this group included Dr. Walter C. and Phoebe Palmer who played a primary role in perpetuating the doctrine of Christian perfection during the turbulent years when the slavery controversy was so hotly debated.  The many writings of Mrs. Palmer on the subject of "perfect love" proved very popular.  The Way of Holiness (1845) appeared in as many as thirty-six different editions and by 1851 had sold twenty-four thousand copies.  It was translated into the French and German languages, while Faith and Its Effects (24th ed., 1859) was translated into the German.  Other popular works distributed abroad included:  Entire Devotion (20th ed., 1859), The Promise of the Father (1859),  Incidental Illustrations  (1855), and Four Years in The Old World  (1867).  In addition to her writings Mrs. Palmer and her husband conducted revivals and camp meetings along with the Tuesday prayer meetings they had held in their New York City home since the summer of 1836.⁴²

     This remarkable couple in 1859 demonstrated their dedication to the cause of Christian holiness in foreign lands as well as at home by beginning a four-year tour of Great Britain and Europe.  During their stay in the "Old World" the Palmers held religious services in most of the major cities of England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland.  The reported count of conversions at Sunderland, England, alone numbered 1,011 with 200 receiving "heart purity."  These results typified the acceptance of the Gospel as presented by Dr. and Mrs. Palmer.  When the couple returned home in 1863, they found the doctrine of "perfect love" neglected generally, even among the Methodists, because of the hatred stimulated by the Civil War.⁴³  A correspondent from the war  front confirmed that "The Church is not [spiritually] at present in a very prosperous condition.  It has been and is distracted by 'the irrepressible conflict.'"⁴⁴

     Bible holiness, however, was not altogether extinct during the war years.  Wesleyan teachings were emphasized at times even among the men in the armies, especially those of the Union.  This was witnessed in May, 1864, among soldiers in the Third Division of the XIV Corps.  These soldiers reported that as many as 450 sought and found Christ and 150 received baptism.  Those converted were organized into interdenominational associations by the ministers of the Christian Commission and Chaplains of the 10th Kentucky and 17th Ohio Regiments.  Among such "bands" entire sanctification or "holiness of heart" was thought of as being indispensable to the Christian life.  A July, 1865, account in the Guide stated that several men of the 18th Illinois Regiment had bound themselves together in order "to worship God in 'perfect love'  and to sound the Gospel trumpet of holiness."  Because of the devotion of this small Christian band (eleven members), there was a general awakening in their detachment, and many of their comrades found Christ.⁴⁵  Furthermore, one eyewitness confirmed that these religious services were times of spiritual power.  He stated at the close of one such service "the whole regiment joined in singing the Doxology....All were deeply affected.  Strong men wept as they thought of home."⁴⁶  But the war-time revivals acted only as a prelude to when the soldiers returned home.⁴⁷

     The tragedies of war impressed upon the people of the North the necessity for a spiritual awakening.  This need was voiced during the Methodist General Conference of 1864 when the bishops said:

It becomes us, dear Brethren, to humble ourselves in the dust in view of our manifold sins, individual and national.  We are yet, it may be feared, a haughty people; and God will humble us.... Let God, our heavenly Father behold us in tears and confidence before his throne, pleading night and day, through the Redeemer, for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon the church, the nation, and the world.⁴⁸   

     The religious awakening called for by the bishops was not long in coming and was reported by such Wesleyan periodicals as the Guide to Holiness.  Dr. Palmer purchased this independent magazine in July, 1864 from the Rev. Henry V. Degen.  Within two years the subscriptions increased from 16,000 to an estimated 30,000.  These figures were not indicative of the total outreach the  Guide enjoyed, because it generally was read by the members of one family who then passed it around to neighbors and friends.  Revivals and camp meetings received much attention especially those in which entire sanctification was emphasized.⁴⁹

     Such emphasis was the exception rather than the rule at Methodist camp meetings immediately following the Civil War.  Therefore, when "heart purity" was stressed at the Seaville Camp Meeting (Cape May County, New Jersey) in 1865, it received wide coverage in many of the church periodicals.  In 1866, at the same camp meeting, the main emphasis was placed again on the experience of entire sanctification.  Furthermore, according to the Rev. George Hughes, the grounds were literally "swept clean of sin by holy fire from heaven."⁵⁰  Following the Civil War, many Methodists felt the need for holding camp meetings dedicated completely to the promotion of Christian perfection.  The results reported at the Seaville Camp Meeting in 1865 and 1866 only strengthened this desire.  In fact, the Rev. John A. Wood received credit as the first individual who proposed publicly such a camp meeting.  The suggestion by Rev. Wood was picked up by the Rev. William B. Osborn and presented to Rev. John S. Inskip as a matter for prayer on April 16, 1867.  Inskip recorded in his diary the important points of his meeting with Rev. Osborn:  "We knelt together, and in all Godly sincerity, implored divine guidance and help.  We prayed, waited, wept, and believed, and the heavenly glory came upon us; and, therefore, it was no longer a question of doubt as to whether a camp meeting for the promotion of holiness should be held."  A call signed by thirteen Methodist ministers including John Inskip, was issued through the prominent Wesleyan periodicals for an organizational meeting to be held on June 13, 1867, at the Methodist Book Room in Philadelphia.⁵¹

     ^lDonald G. Mathews, Slavery and Methodism, A Chapter in American Morality 1780-1845, 10.  Cited hereafter, Mathews, Slavery.     BACK

     ²John Wesley, Thoughts Upon Slavery, 35.    BACK

    ³Lee, Methodists, 91.     BACK

    ⁴History of The Organization of The Methodist Episcopal Church, South: Comprehending All The Official Proceedings of The General Conference; The Southern Annual Conferences, and The General Convention; With Such Other Matters as Are Necessary to a Right Understanding of The Case, intro., III-IV.     BACK

    ⁵Methodist Quarterly Review, 1876, o.s. LVIII, D.D. Whedon, ed., 294.     BACK

    ⁶Asbury, Journal, III, 160.  Francis Asbury to George Roberts, February 11, 1797.  Conference rules regarding slavery appeared in Thoughts on Slavery by John Wesley written in 1774 and republished in tract form by the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1839, 85-89.  The following typified the language used by official Methodism to describe its changing stand on the issue of slavery:       

1780

"'The Conference acknowledges that slavery is contrary to the laws of God, man and nature, and  hurtful to society:  CONTRARY TO THE DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE AND TRUE RELIGION  and doing what we would others should do unto us; and they pass their disapprobation upon all our friends who keep slaves and advise their freedom.'

   1784     

 At the time the church was organized 'every member who had slaves in those states where the state will admit freedom shall after notice given him by the preacher within twelve months (except in Virginia, and there within two years) legally free his slaves.'

Every person,...who will not comply...shall withdraw from our society within twelve months.  'Those who buy, sell, or give them away, unless on purpose to free them shall be expelled immediately.'

1836

The General Conference condemned 'all abolition movements.'  The Georgia and South Carolina Conferences declared that slavery is not a moral evil.'

1837

 The South Carolina Conference requested the publication of a sermon that maintained that God has 'institute,' 'authorized,' 'recognized," justified,' and sanctioned the principles and practice of slavery.'

That God now approves of the present enslavement of the Africans and their descendants.

That admitting slavery to be a sin 'ministers have no right to pronounce it to be so.'

Slavery may exist universally and forever, without any evil,...  BACK   

     ⁷Sweet, The Methodists, IV, 150, 160.     BACK

     ⁸Neve, Churches and Sects, 384.     BACK

     ⁹Emory Steven Bucke, ed., The History of American Methodism, 3 vols., II, 83.  Cited hereafter, Bucke, Methodism.     BACK

    ¹⁰Sweet, The Methodists, IV, 160, 184, 196, 260.     BACK

    ¹¹Mathews, Slavery, 91.     BACK

    ¹²H. Shelton Smith, In His Image, But...Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910, 74.     BACK

    ¹³Mathews, Slavery, 145.     BACK

    ¹⁴Norwood, Schism, 29, 30.     BACK

    ¹⁵William L. Garrison, "To The Public," The Liberator (Boston), I, January, 1, 1831, 1.     BACK

    ¹⁶Wendel Phillips Garrison and Francis Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison 1805-1879 The Story of His Life Told by His Children, 4 vols., II, 1835-1840, 153, 154.  Sunderland and Scott were awakened to the condition of the "Black bondsmen" in the Southern states through The Liberator combined with other writings which included Thoughts on African Colonization: Or an Impartial Exhibition of The Doctrines, Principles and Purposes of The American Colonization Society by Garrison; The Anti-Slavery Examiner No. 4 and Slavery and The Internal Slave Trade in The United States by Theodore Dwight Weld; and American Slavery as It Is: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses published by the American Anti-Slavery Society.  A graphic description related by Sarah M. Grimkee confirmed that while traveling in South Carolina she saw a human head stuck on a pole beside the road.  Upon inquiry, she learned that it was the head of a runaway slave who had been shot, his head severed, and put along the public highway to serve as a deterrent to other Blacks contemplating such action.  Such stories along with the general lack of visible action on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church stimulated Sunderland and Scott to adopt an extreme course of action.  Theodore Dwight Weld, comp., American Slavery as It Is: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses, 23, 77.     BACK

    ¹⁷Edward D. Jervey, "LaRoy Sunderland, Zion's Watchman, And Methodist Disunion 1830-1844," 17, 18.  In 1839 the American Anti-Slavery Society republished a small pocket-size edition Thoughts on Slavery  by John Wesley.  This tactic, no doubt, had a profound effect on many Northern Methodists.     BACK

    ¹⁸Abram D. Merrill et al., "An Appeal to The Members of The New England and New Hampshire Conferences of The M.E. Church," Zion's Herald (Boston), VI, February 4, 1835, 14.     BACK

    ¹⁹Nathan Bangs, "A Great Mistake," Christian Advocate and Journal (New York), IX, February 20, 1835, 102.     BACK

    ²⁰Lucious C. Matlack, The History of American Slavery and Methodism, From 1780 to 1849; And History of The Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America, 139-142.  Cited hereafter, Matlack, American Slavery and Methodism.     BACK

    ²¹LaRoy Sunderland, "Our Object," Zion's Watchman (New York), I, January 1, 1836, 1.     BACK

    ²²LaRoy Sunderland, "Prospectus," Ibid., IV, November 30, 1839, 190.     BACK

    ²³Lucius C. Matlack, The Life of Rev. Orange Scott: Compiled From His Personal Narrative, Correspondence, and Other Authentic Sources of Information, in two parts, 125, 126.  Cited hereafter, Matlack, Orange Scott.     BACK

    ²⁴Bucke, Methodism, 27. Quoted from Orange Scott, "Appeal to the Methodist Episcopal Church," The Wesleyan Anti-Slavery Review, 1838, 17.     BACK

    ²⁵Sweet, Methodism, 237, 238, 240.    BACK

    ²⁶LaRoy Sunderland, "Editor's Trial," Zion's Watchman  (New York), V, April 11, 1840, 105.     BACK

    ²⁷"Poetry to Bishop Soule," Ibid., IV, September 21, 1839, 152.     BACK

    ²⁸LaRoy Sunderland Manuscript Statement, made April 22, 1872. LaRoy Sunderland Manuscript, New England Methodist Historical Library, Boston, Massachusetts.     BACK

    ²⁹Matlack, American Slavery and Methodism, 250-254; Jotham Horton and Orange Scott, "Seventh Trial of The Editor [LaRoy Sunderland] Of Zion's Watchman," American Wesleyan Observer (Lowell, Massachusetts), I, July 23, 1840, 97-100.  The defense of Sunderland before a full session of the New England Annual Conference lasted nearly four hours.  He was not forbidden by Bishop Soule to read the Davis letter as stated by L.C. Matlack, but was instructed by the Bishop at the end of four hours to conclude his defense.  This was, no doubt, the point and issue over which Sunderland and Soule quarreled openly not over the content of the defense of Sunderland.  Compare the Matlack account with the Horton and Scott account, Ibid.     BACK

    ³⁰Lucious C. Matlack, The Anti-slavery Struggle and Triumph in The Methodist Episcopal Church, 18, 19.  This statement of Matlack was supported in a letter in which one anti-slavery proponent bewailed the injustice of the proceedings of the annual conferences.  He concluded his statement by saying, "I have little hope of justice being awarded you or that favor will be shown you, when I think how strongly those are committed who are to act against you."  "Editor's Trial," Zion's Watchman  (New York), V, March 28, 1840, 51.     BACK

    ³¹Jotham Horton, Orange Scott, and LaRoy Sunderland, "Withdrawal from The M.E. Church," The True Wesleyan (Lowell, Massachusetts), I, January 7, 1843, 1.     BACK

    ³²Matlack, Orange Scott, 209-215.  According to Lucious C. Matlack as many as 105 stationed ministers along with approximately seventy-five hundred lay members withdrew from the Wesleyan Connection within a period eighteen months following the end of the Civil War and the consequent permanent abolition of American slavery.  Matlack and the majority of those who left the Wesleyan Connection reaffiliated themselves with the Methodist Episcopal Church where many became active participants in the National Camp Meeting Association and the holiness revival that swept across North American during the last half of the nineteenth-century.  Lucius Matlack, "American Wesleyans," The Methodist Home Journal (Philadelpha), I, October 26, 1867, 340.     BACK

    ³³John B. Hall, "Terms," The True Wesleyan (Boston), I, May 20, 1843, 77.  American Wesleyan Observer (Lowell, Massachusetts), January 2, 1840, along with the New England Christian Advocate (Lowell, Massachusetts), January, 1841-?, acted as the immediate predecessors to The True Wesleyan.  All three of these publications had strong perfectionist leanings, but because of the excited state of the slavery controversy, the Wesleyan doctrine of perfect love was seldom mentioned specifically in their columns.     BACK

    ³⁴Jotham Horton and LaRoy Sunderland, "Christian Holiness," The True Wesleyan (Boston), I, April 15, 1843, 59.     BACK

    ³⁵Norwood, Schism, 59-63.  Dr. William Capers, leader of the South Carolina delegation, confirmed the consequential importance of the Wesleyan secession when he asserted:  "It is not worth while to split the hair which divides the present 'conservatives,' as they call themselves, from the abolitionists of a few years ago.  Anything short of the most rabid and fanatical abolitionism is called conservative."  William Capers, "Letter From Dr. Capers," Southern Christian Advocate (Charleston, South Carolina), VII, May 24, 1844, 198.     BACK

    ³⁶Journal of The General Conference 1844, II, 75-78 (1800 Georgia legislation prohibited emancipation in any form except by legislative enactment).     BACK

    ³⁷Bucke, Methodism, 56-62.  For a contemporary account of events immediately prior to and during the 1844 General Conference see "The National Anti-Slavery Convention," Niles National Register (Baltimore, Maryland), o.s. LXIV, September 16, 1843, 47; "The Methodist Episcopal General Conference,"ibid., LXV, May 18, 1844, 192; William Davis, "The Southern Convention," ibid., LXVI, July 13, 1844, 311.     BACK

    ³⁸Daniel Wise, "The New Editors Greetings," Zion's Herald and Wesleyan Journal (Boston), XXIII, July 7, 1852, 2.     BACK

    ³⁹"Reasons for Immediate Emancipation," The Northern Independent (Auburn, New York), VI, October 10, 1861, 38.  Even once the Civil War started anti-slavery perfectionist periodicals continued to devote large amounts of time and space to advocating for the immediate emancipation of all the slaves.  The following reference documented the doctrinal stand taken by the editor.  J.F. Crawford, "The Work of Grace," ibid., V. December 20, 1860, 77.     BACK

     ⁴⁰Sweet,  Methodism, 256-267.     BACK

    ⁴¹William A. Smith v. LeRoy Swormstedt, 57 U.S. (16 Howard), 288-313 (1853).  The suit was filed by William A. Smith as the appointed representative of the Church, South against LeRoy Swormstedt and John H. Powers, agents of the Book Concern at Cincinnati.  Also see R. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case Henry B. Bascom and Others vs. George Lane and Others.     BACK

    ⁴²Hughes, Fragrant Memories, 4, 5, 10-15, 183; Hughes Beloved Physician, 243.     BACK

    ⁴³Ibid., 189-205.  Some of the cities the Palmers visited included: Belfast, Coleraine, Antirim, Bellaghy, Ireland; Sunderland, New-Castle-on-Tyne,Carlisle, London, Stroud, Lynn, Banbury, Oxford, Rochdale, Macclesfield, Sheffield, Liverpool, Madeley, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, England; Brigend, Cardiff, Merthrtydvil, Abergavenny, Blanina, Aberdare, Wales: Glasglow and Edinburg, Scotland.     BACK

    ⁴⁴"Armey Correspondence," The Northern Independent (Auburn), VI, January 16, 1862, 94.     BACK

    ⁴⁵"Revival in Camp,"  Guide to and Beauty of Holiness (Boston), o.s. XLV, June, 1864, 21; "How a Revival May Be Realized in Church Communities and in The Army," Ibid., XLVI, December, 1864, 137, 138; "Ernest Christian Band, Religion in the Army," Ibid., XLVIII, July, 1865, 30.  A tent for religious activities generally was set aside.  Many times "small bands of praying men could be heard encouraging one another to fight the good fight of faith."  Many men became Christians as a result of such meetings, and when they returned home they could recall with gratitude the sacred moments thus spent in the tent of the chaplain or under the soft sky of summer or around the camp-fires of winter.  "Camp Life at The Relay,"  Harpers New Monthly Magazine (New York), XXIV, December, 1861 to May, 1862, 628-633.     BACK

    ⁴⁶"Army Correspondence," The Northern Independent (Auburn, New York), VI, January 16, 1862, 94.     BACK

    ⁴⁷Donald W. Dayton and Lucille S. Dayton, "An Historical Survey of Attitudes Toward War and Peace Within The American Holiness Movement," 13, 14,  Holiness leaders serving as chaplains in the Union army included among others:  Alfred Cookman, John Inskip, Gilbert Haven, Lucious Matlack, Milton L. Haney.  Inskip later became the first President of the National Camp Meeting Association.  He said as a chaplin he "felt assured of Divine aid, and deemed it a privilege to sacrifice for his country and the glory of God."  William McDonald and John E. Searles, The Life of Rev. John S. Inskip, President of The National Association for The Promotion of Holiness, 136.  Cited hereafter, McDonald and Searles, Life of Inskip.     BACK

    ⁴⁸George Hughes, Days of Power in The Forest Temple.  A Review of The Wonderful Work of God at Fourteen National Camp-Meetings, From 1867 to 1872,  34.  Cited hereafter, Hughes, Days of Power.     BACK

    ⁴⁹Hughes, Fragrant Memories, 172-180.  Dr. Palmer acquired The Beauty of  Holiness  in 1864 about the same time he purchased the Guide. He consolidated these Wesleyan papers and made his wife editor.  The annual subscription raised $.25 to $1.25 because of economic inflation stimulated by the Civil War.     BACK

    ⁵⁰Hughes, Days of Power, 37-39.     BACK

    ⁵¹McDonald and Searles, Life of Inskip, 185-188.     BACK