xt71zc7rnc18 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt71zc7rnc18/data/mets.xml Bascom, H. B. (Henry Bidleman), 1796-1850. 1845  books b92326b292009 English Hodges, Todd & Pruett : Frankfort, Ky. Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Andrew, James O. (James Osgood), 1794-1871. Slavery --United States --Controversial literature --1845. Slavery and the church --Methodist Episcopal Church. Methodism and slavery: with other matters in controversy between the North and the South; being a review of the manifesto of the majority, in reply to the protest of the minority, of the late General conference of the Methodist E. Church, in the case of Bishop Andrew. text Methodism and slavery: with other matters in controversy between the North and the South; being a review of the manifesto of the majority, in reply to the protest of the minority, of the late General conference of the Methodist E. Church, in the case of Bishop Andrew. 1845 2009 true xt71zc7rnc18 section xt71zc7rnc18 
METHODISM A N D S L A V E R Y :
WITH OTHER MATTERS IN

CONTROVERSY B E T W E E N T H E NORTH AND T H E SOUTH;
BEING A

OF

THE

MANIFESTO

OF

THE

MAJORITY,

IN

REPLY

TO

THE

PROTEST OF T H E MINORITY, OF T H E L A T E G E N E R A L CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST E. C H U R C H , I N T H E CASE OF BISHOP A N D R E W .
G

BY
PRESIDENT

H . B. BASCOM, D. D.
OF TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY.

" T h e unjust J u d g e is the capital remover o f l a u d - m a r k s . "

LonD BACOW. a rbitrary

" T h e r e is no medium between the power of the Law a nd the arbitrary power of m e n ; and thep ower of m e n , i n whatever form, is despotism" BAXTER. "An

a uthentic k i n d of falsehood, that w i t h authority belies o u r good name, to nil nations and posterity. If the substantial subject be w e l l forged out, we need not examine the sparks, w h i c h i r r e g u l a r l y ily
SIR THOMAS MOORE.

f rom i t . "

FRANKFORT,

KY.

*V

HODGES, TODD & FRUK'JT, 1 845.

PRINTERS.

  
  
KEVIEW,

&c

T h e m ore o stensible merits of the controversy, i n the c ase o f Bishop

Andrew,

h ave

r eceived a d egree o f p u b l i c i t y , through the medium of the P r e s s , which s eems to supercede t he necessity of any great extent or minuteness of p r e l i m i n a r y statement, in order t o approach the s ubject f airly a nd without disadvantage, i n an attempt to understand i t a nd estimate its merits, whether as it regards the parties in controversy, a t large. or the C h u r c h A l l the material facts and principles, involved i n the controversy, pro and of

c on, stand out w ith s ufficient prominence, i n the Protest of the M i n o r i t y a nd R e p l y of t he M a j o r i t y ; and the facts and reasonings, or rather assumptions and conclusions a nd the true text of the discussion, upon which we enter. t hese D ocuments, may be considered, as f u r n i s h i n g the proper issue b etween t he parties, A n d as the s ubject o f separ a t i o n , a s i t regards the N o r t h and South of the M e t h o d i s t E p i s c o p a l C h u r c h , turns m a i n l y , u pon the question of s l a v e r y , not as c onnected w i t h t he c ase o f Bishop A n d r e w , but i n i ts broader and m ore g eneral a spects, I s hall p r i n c i p a l l y c onfine m y s e l f to the appropriate topics, indicated by such l i m i t a t i o n . A p p e a l to other matters, such as the proceedings i n the c ase o f Bishop A n d r e w , and kindred developernents, w i l l be resorted to b y the way, as legitimate m ethods o f p roof a nd i l l u s t r a t i o n , i n relation to the facts and p rinciples involved in the discussion. B e l i e v i n g that a careful a n a l y s i s o f the whole m ovement, o n the part of the late General Conference, i n the c ase o f Bishop A n d r e w ,

w i l l s how t hat the assault upon h i m , was but a masked battery, intended to c onceal t he r eal p oint and o bject o f attack, I s hall r ely less upon the extra-legal p roceedings i n his c ase, t han upon other a spects a nd relations, i n which the s ubject p resents itself. t o settle a principle In the i nstance of the struggle alluded to, i t was obviously, on the part of the N o r t h , a c ontest u nknown to the constitution and l a w s of the C h u r c h , and the c ase o f The B ishop A n d r e w was m ade t he o ccasion a nd pretext, to b r i n g the matter to t r i a l .

p rosecution of Bishop A n d r e w was a m oot c ase, t he determination of w h i c h , not according to l a w , but i n the chancery of party tactics, was to lead to the ulterior results o f additional legislative action, on the s ubject o f slavery. T h e whole c ourse o f the with m ajority s hows c l e a r l y , that they did not consider Bishop A n d r e w ' s connection fence. plish i t .

s l a v e r y , as an o ffence i n the judgment o f l a w , but as something that o ught t o be an ofT h e y thought i t fit to constitute an o ffence, a nd labored l o n g and hard to a ccomIt was an extra-legal m ovement, t o accomplish a p urpose u nkno.vn to the l a w , It was s een

a nd an act, therefore, the manner of which was as u n l a w f u l as the matter.

a nd felt, that no statutable p rocess c ould be sustained against, the B i s h o p , and h ence a r esort to expost facto l e g i s l a t i o n , and by c onsequence, a n i n v a s i o n of constitutional right. I n the c ase o f Bishop A n d r e w , we have a j u d i c i a l s entence, i n the s hape o f a d eclaratory judgment, based not upon l a w , but upon opinion o v e r - r i d i n g l a w     t h e "sense" o f the General Conference, a s-to w hat law o ught t o b e   as t o what must b ecome l a w ; b efore t he N o r t h w i l l c ease to agitate tho s ubject o f s l a v e r y , and add to e x i s t i n g encroachments, upon the rights and p eace o f the South. T h e authority of the General But C onference to enquire into the c onduct o f Bishop A n d r e w , and deal w ith h i m according t o law and r u l e , no one questions ; it was the undoubted r i g h t of the Conference.

  
w hen a lawful authority, p roceeds to unlawful demands or action, and by means equally u n k n o w n to law and usage, the c l a i m o f a u t h o r i t y , by the trespass upon r i g h t , i s v i t i a ted, a nd the procedure b ecomes n u l l a nd void; and this we c onceive to have been the c ase i n t he instance of Bishop A n d r e w . N o t only was B i s h o p A n d r e w arraigned, but under the l a w i t s e l f was a r t he hallucination of the absolutism of the G e n e r a l Conference, r ule o f action and standard of r i g h t .

raigned, a nd apart f rom its arbitrament, the judgment of a majority b ecame t he only W e p ropose a n examination of the subject, h a v i n g f or its o bject, a s imple statement o f the reasons and facts, which compelled the South to assume the position and take the stand they d i d , w i t h r egard to a separation of the g eneral or federal j u r i s d i c t i o n of the C h u r c h , i n order to avoid the more serious e v i l o f u tter d ivision and d i s u n i o n , throughout the whole C h u r c h . W e may have conceived of t he c ase too strongly, and whether right or w r o n g , i n our convictions, i t s eems p roper t hat o ur conduct and the motives by which we were actuated, should be presented i n t heir t rue l i g h t . A s distinguished northern men, are as far from agreeing among t h e m selves, as the N o r t h and the South arc, w ith r egard to the real character of their own a ction, w e ought certainly to be judged, w i t h s ome s hare of the indulgence, c u r r e n t l y r eciprocated among the sub-divisions of the N o r t h e r n party. w as not j u d i c i a l i n any sense   was D r s . D u r b i n , P e c k , and D r . Bond E l l i o t t , i n the R e p l y to the Protest, say the action in Bishop A n d r e w ' s case, was no t r i a l     not intended or thought of as a t r i a l . a nd o thers, say this is a l l a m i s t a k e     a n utter misconception of the facts. judicial action. A t hird p arty make i t a mere executive " r e g u l a t i o n . " T h e y assure T h e Protest,

the Church and the w o r l d , that it was a trial, a nd exhibits a l l the essential elements of w ritten b efore t he l i g h t of these contradictions had been shed upon the South, assumes, t hat to charge w ith d elinquency and institute enquiry, i s a j u d i c i a l process, inasmuch a s there is the i m p l i c a t i o n of j u r i s d i c t i o n , l a w , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and judgment, and regards the procedure as e x t r a - j u d i c i a l , b ecause t he whole invoice of grievances, was u n k n o w n to e x i s t i n g l a w     d e s i g n e d to regulate the whole subject matter of complaint. T h e Protest was presented w i t h t he f ull c o n v i c t i o n , that under semblance of conformity t o the constitution and l a w , an u n l a w f u l use had been made of both, to accomplish w hat was not contemplated by either. T h e G e n e r a l Conference of 1836 say, i n their O f what was o fficial a ddress, i n a l l u s i o n to the subject i n question, " e v e r y man should be presumed t o be innocent, u n t i l p roved g u i l t y , b efore s ome c ompetent t r i b u n a l . " B ishop A n d r e w found g u i l t y , and i n view of what l a w ! T h e only law w h i c h could

p ossibly be invoked w ith a ny semblance of j u s t i c e , was k n o w n to protect h i m , and yet p arty o pinion triumphs over law and justice, and l i k e t he irresolute P i l a t e , t hey-first d eclare h i m innocent, and then, a r r a y i n g the act against their o w n decision, they proceed to s courge h i m . a nd d ates further back. In comparing the law and the conduct of B i s h o p A n d r e w , we can W e believe the real cause lies d eeper H a v i n g a l a w on slavery, even T h e D i s c i p l i n e expressly provides, t he province o f the general In B i s h o p A n W h y was law declined, and o p i n i o n , and N o r t h e r n and foreign find no'adequate cause for the action in his case.

p opular feeling appealed to, against Bishop Andrew? f act, that express provision of l a w covered the case. t hat w here circumstances drew's

t he non-prohibition of the act charged as an offence, r endered i t l a w f u l , a part from the remove a c ase f rom w ithin

p r i n c i p l e , n o i n d i v i d u a l s hall s uffer from any application of the l a w .

case, that w h i c h the l a w e xcepts i n terms, is made the s u m of his o ffence.

W h a t t he l a w declines exacting, and actually dispenses w i t h , i s made the sum of duty. W e would not arraign motive, and car. readily c onceive how passion may be excited i nto s entiment, and aversion roused into a c t i v i t y , leading to the most unhappy r e s u l t s , w h i l e t he actors are unconscious of-the real character of their own course o f action, ur

  
5
t he evils they i nflict. I t did s eem to us, at the time, and s ubsequent e vents h ave b een Northern b ut too well calculated to confirm the i m p r e s s i o n , that h o s t i l i t y to the South was the m o r a l type o f the whole m ovement, a nd that it was intended to teach us that a a ltar m ust hereafter sanctify the gifts o f the C h u r c h . t he c onduct o f Bishop A n d r e w as morally T h e majority could not consider

w r o n g , for they not only a l l o w , but expressly

a uthorize i t , i n the c ase o f his s c r i p t u r a l Peers   the E l d e r s h i p , or College of Presbyters. T h e y could not^egard his c onduct a s officially w r o n g , for they publish to the w o r l d , that t here is i>eithef prohibition nor requirement, c onnected w ith t he o ffice, i n the s hape o f l a w , a nd h ence i nfer, that the lex non scripta o f N o r t h e r n prejudice, on the s ubject o f s lavery, must be the standard ofijudgment, and constitute the tenure, by w h i c h Bishops o f the Methodist E p i s c o p a l C h u r c h , are hereafter to hold o ffice. B u t f urther!: the abstract principles; and favorite d ogmas o f a b o l i t i o n i s m , in the M e thodist E p i s c o p a l C h u r c h , had had their day of d i s t u r b i n g notoriety, and w ere r egarded b y the South, as nearly defunct, u n t i l q uickened into activity and dramatized, by the It was the conviction of the South, principles upon which they had forI t i s not a nti-slavery party of the late G e n e r a l Conference. t hat this party, dissatisfied w ith t he conservative

merly acted, found themselves, as a b ody, w ithout principles upon which they could act a s they wished, and it b ecame n ecessary that they should a dopt n ew o nes. p a r t i e s ; it i s believed that this was not the c ase. ties w ere d eeply i f not equally interested. a ssumed, that there was any formal coalition b etween t he A b o l i t i o n and anti-slavery B u t there was, at the s ame t ime, a m i n g l i n g o f parties for specific action   to accomplish g i v e n purposes, i n which the parT h e policy and m ovements o f the old conservative party, while i n a state of preparation for action, d u r i n g the early part of the C onference, s eem to have performed the functions o f a k i n d o f L a z a r e t t o , at which a bol i t i o n i s m d id brief quarantine, and was then accredited as ancient M e t h o d i s m , at least f or the time, and so far as the c ase o f Bishop A n d r e w was c oncerned. T h e r e was a t , Both l east a spasm of harmony, d u r i n g which the parties w ere o ne i n aim and action. cognized by both as consistent w ith c hristian and m i n i s t e r i a l c haracter.

u nited i n declaring that a n o ffence w hich violated no l a w of G o d or m a n , and was roE a c h was p rompt i n c l a i m i n g for the G e n e r a l C onference a bsolute control o ver b oth the formation a nd the execution of l a w . pro salute anima:, T h e y acted t ogether i n asserting the c l a i m of j u r i s d i c t i o n T h e y c l u n g tow ithout license of l a w or sanction o f p recedent.

gether and f ought f or the s ame r esults, under every c hange o f colour, u n t i l t heir p u r pose w as accomplished. They united i n r e q u i r i n g Bishop A n d r e w to do what the l a w expressly b espeak o f the Church did not exact, and the l a w s of the State i n which he resided, C h u r c h a l l o w e d , and for not d oing what the l a w of the State prohibited. t he patience and candor of the reader. We

f o r b i d     i n o ther words, they agreed to punish the Bishop for doing w hat the l a w o f the T h e freedom, and it may be thought b oldness o f

c ensure, i n t hese b rief preliminary statements, cannot be judged of f a i r l y , e xcept i n connection w i t h the facts and evidence, w e submit, i n support of their t ruth, a nd i n v i n d i cation of the c ourse a nd policy of the South, in the premises of this unhappy versy. I ntending an examination of a l l the principal topics i n controversy b etween t he N o r t h a nd South of the Methodist E p i s c o p a l C h u r c h , no particular a n a l y s i s , either of the P r o test or the R e p l y , is d eemed n ecessary, e xcept a s we p roceed i n order, to a review of tho w hole ground o ccupied by both. T h e first general topic c l a i m i n g attention, is the compromise character of the t heir P rotest, and its denial by the N o r t h , i n their Rejoinder. general law of slavery i n the M e t h o d i d i s t E p i s c o p a l Church ; its assumption by the South i n T o prevent misapprehencontro-

  
s i o n , i t may be well to state here, and o nce f or a l l , that the term compromise i s used i n t he Protest, in its most ordinary popular acceptation, i n connection w ith l e g i s l a t i o n , to d enote a m utual agreement to adjust difficulties, i n the shape of a legal arrangement s ome g eneral rule or l a w , upon the grounds of mutual concession and forbearance, by t he parties l e g i s l a t i n g , acting as the authorized representatives of the more p r i m a r y p arties, i mmediately interested. Before proceeding, however, I must ask to be i n dulged, while I offer s ome p r e l i m i n a r y views and statements, w i t h r eference to the general s ubject, and my connection w i t h i t , without w h i c h I cannot be properly understood, e ither by my friends or enemies. Involved i n this controversy somewhat p r o m i n e n t l y , by the f orce o f circumstances, rather than any voluntary agency o f m y o w n , I am a n x ious.to place it i n the power of both my friends and enemies, to j udge m e f a i r l y , a nd b eyond t his. I h ave nothing to invoke or deprecate w i t h r egard to either. A t the first s ession of the Ohio Conference, after the d i v i s i o n o f the old Pioneer W e s t e r n Conference, I s aw and heard, for the first time, that extraordinary man, B i s h o p A s b u r y , who, i n a n elaborate address to the Conference, on the affairs of the C h u r c h , glanced at and t he then recent session of the first Delegated G e n e r a l Conference, M a y , 1812,

s poke of the advantages l i k e l y to result, and e n l a r g i n g upon the various interests of the C h u r c h , E a s t , W e s t , N o r t h and South, he remarked, that i n a l l these sections the M e t h odists were one   every w here the same p eople ; a nd added, that at one time he and h i s the Church ; but he w a r m l y v enerable colleague, D r . Coke, had greatly feared, that i n this country, slavery i n the S outh, a nd the opposition to it in the N o r t h , w ould divide c ongratulated the Conference, that the e v i l t hey had dreaded, had passed away ; that the N o r t h a nd S o u t h , in t h e G e n e r a l and A n n u a l C onferences, had, by mutual concession and f orbearance, settled down upon common ground, s ubject. a nd had agreed to be governed by l a w     t h e D i s c i p l i n e of the C h u r c h , i n a l l they said or did on this dangerous and e x c i t i n g " Do t h i s , " s aid he, i n t ones o f c o m m a n d i n g but affectionate authority, " a n d y o u w i l l s ave the master and slave, the bond and the free, the N o r t h and the S o u t h . ' ' T h e impression I received from l i s t e n i n g to this address, was strengthened and rendered indelible by a private discussion, to w h i c h I listened, d u r i n g the same Conference, i n w h i c h s ome y oung preachers maintained, i n opposition to Bishop A s b u r y , that slavery i n e very shape, and a l l slave holders, should be banished from the Church ; and the g reat and g ood S amuel Parker advocated the necessity of a compromise course, a nd defended the views of Bishop A s b u r y , i n his address. A p a r t from my distinct recollection o f these facts, I kept a k ind o f j o u r n a l record at the time, of nearly every t h i n g t hat i nterested me, and i n view of both, I make this statement, as substantially correct. B efore this I had vaguely regarded slavery, i n a l l its possible forms, as a foul blot upon t he C h r i s t i a n n ame, and the remarks of Bishop A s b u r y , and the arguments of P a r k e r , g ave m e the first distinct impression   led me to the first rational enlarged view of the s ubject of slavery, i n relation to the Methodist E p i s c o p a l C h u r c h , 1 had ever entertained, a nd w i l l r emain w i t h m e to the c lose of l ife. T h r e e years after, at the fourth session o f the Ohio Conference, Sept. 1815, I heard Bishop A s b u r y preach the funeral sermon o f D r . C o k e , and i n e n l a r g i n g upon the Apostolic zeal and extensive usefulness o f the D octor, as an " A m e r i c a n Methodist B i s h o p , " he alluded to the manner i n w h i c h the D octor's usefulness had been " c u r t a i l e d i n the S o u t h , " in his o w n phrase, by his imprudent z eal a nd movements in reference to slavery. c ompromise the matter, or l ose t he S o u t h . " " W e t h o u g h t , " said the B i s h o p , '    we I cannot pretend to give entire the precise c ould k i l l t he monster at o nce, b ut the laws and the people w ere against us, and we had to l anguage of the Bishop, but such was the substance   the p lain i mport o f what he said ; a nd c onnected as it was, w i t h w hat I had heard h i m say b efore, I c ould not forget i t ,

  
e specially a s my a dmiration o f the m an, amounted t o a lmost idolatrous veneration.

I

w as perhaps t he m ore s truck w i t h t he B i s h o p ' s r e m a r k s , a s I had t hat year b een p reacher i n c harge o f a c i r c u i t i n V i r g i n i a , w here t he s ubject h ad n ecessarily e ngaged m y attention. T h e r e a re t hose l i v i n g , w ho k now that t he r ecollection o f s uch incidents w ould be l i k e l y to be i ndelible w ith m e, f rom t he f act, that a t t his Conference, b ut for t he stern interposition o f B ishop A s b u r y , m y u nimportant career a s a M e t h o d i s t t r a v e l i n g p reacher, would probably have terminated. Crushed b y w hat I r egarded ( r i g h t o r w r o n g ) a s the u nfeeling scrutiny o f the C onference, I h ad a ddressed a l etter o f w i t h d r a w a l to the C onference, through m y f riend R e v . D a v i d Y o u n g , upon t he r eading o f w h i c h , B ishop A s b u r y said : " G i v e that p oor b oy to me, I ' l l t ake h i m and he r e s p o n s i b l e . " B ishop A s b u r y thus b ecame m y f riend a nd p rotector, a t a t ime when I g reatly n eeded b oth ; a nd let no one be s urprised that I t reasured u p and p reserved, what others, differently c ircumstanced, m ay h ave forgotten. w h i c h I w as a m ember u n t i l 1 821. h a v i n g a d ecided majority. A f t e r t r a v e l i n g nearly four years i n t he O h i o of C onference, I w as, i n the a utumn o f 1816, t ransferred t o the T ennessee C onference,

D u r i n g t his whole period, a f ierce controversy w as

r a g i n g i n t hat Conference, o n the s ubject o f s lavery a nd a b o l i t i o n , t he A b o l i t i o n i s t s T h e c ourse a nd p ractice o f the m a j o r i t y , went t o s ettle t he p r i n c i p l e , t hat n o s lave holder, whatever m i g h t be the l a w o f the S tate, i n the c ase, o r h is c l a i m s i n o ther respects, should be r eceived into t he t r a v e l i n g connexion, a nd no p reacher, t r a v e l i n g o r l o c a l , admitted t o o rdination, u n t i l h e had first in fact e mancipated h i s s laves. T h e m i n o r i t y contended that such a c ourse w a s i nconsistent w i t h , a nd T h e s truggle w as l o n g a nd b itter, c o n t i n u i n g from year t o y ear, i n v iolation o f, the r ights l o n g secured t o s lave holders, i n S tates where emancipation w as impracticable. a nd a t the T ennessee C onference i n 1819, the m i n o r i t y , a c t i n g under t he a dvice o f B i s h ops M c K e n d r e e a nd G eorge, pretested a gainst t he c ourse o f the m ajority, a nd a ppealed t o t he G e n e r a l Conference o f 1820. U p o n t he p resentation o f the P rotest i n C onference, B ishop M c K e n d r e e p r e s i d i n g , admitted i t to r ecord, against t he d eclared w i l l o f t he majority, a nd t ook o ccasion to a ddress t he C onference a t g reat l e n g t h , o n the c ourse o f t he m a j o r i t y , a nd the s ubject o f s lavery i n g e n e r a l ; a nd as the i nterference o f the C onference w i t h t he s ubject, h ad e xcited n o l i t t l e d istrust a nd j ealousy i n the p ublic m i n d , B ishop M c K e n d r e e requested that h e m ight be h eard b y s ome o f the m ost influent i a l c itizens o f N a s h v i l l e , i n w h i c h t he C onference s a t ; and at h i s r equest, I i ntroduced i nto t he C onference t he H o n o r a b l e F e l i x G r u n d y a nd O l i v e r B . H a y s , E s q . , w ho l i s t e n ed t o the a ddress o f B i s h o p M c K e n d r e e w i t h i ntense interest, a nd d eclared t o the C o n ference, t hat according t o the a ddress, t he l a w o f the C h u r c h w as not, as t hey h ad b een l ed t o s uppose, i n c onflict w ith t he l a w s o f the S tate. I n t his address, Bishop M c K e n d r e e glanced briefly, but clearly a t the w hole range o f t he l e g i s l a t i o n o f the C h u r c h , o n the s ubject o f s l a v e r y , a nd t ook g reat pains t o s h o w t hat w h i l e t he C h u r c h sought t o r emove t he e v i l o f s l a v e r y , from w i t h i n i ts o w n l i m i t s , w here i t c ould be d one c onsistently w i t h t he l a w s a nd w elfare o f s ociety, i t d i d not, i n a ny instance, abridge t he r ights o f m inisters o r p eople, w here l a w and the c onventional u nderstanding a nd i nterests o f s ociety pursuant t o t hem, rendered emancipation i m practicable. H e r eviewed, i n a s ummary w a y , the v arious a nd o ften conflicting r e g u l a tions o f the C hurch respecting s l a v e r y , from t he e arly days o f A s b u r y a nd C oke, down t o that period, a nd s howed that t he a pparent inconsistency, o n the p art o f the C h u r c h , w as o w i n g t o a lternate party a scendency, a s i t r egarded t he N o r t h a nd the S outh. His w hole address went t o s how, a nd he r epeatedly affirmed i t , t hat t he q uestion w as one t hat c ould only be m anaged by c oncession o f p arties, a nd t hat t he e x i s t i n g l a w s o f the C h u r c h , w ere t he r esult o f s uch mutual concession, a nd t hat a t the G e n e r a l Conference

  
8
o f 1808, they hud solemnly agreed to let the subject alone, i n General Conference, and a l l o w t he annual Conferences to regulate the matter w i t h i n t heir own l i m i t s . h e had hoped that this act of compromise, H e stated w ith o thers, and the f inal a ction i n 1810,

w ould save the Church from any serious trouble, but he saw i t would not, and declared h is p urpose to p ropose t o the next G e n e r a l Conference, to deprive the annual Conferences o f the power g i v e n them i n 1808, and to establish one uniform l a w to govern the w hole C h u r c h . A c c o r d i n g l y , he and Bishop George, privately advised the m i n o r i t y o f B ishop t he Tennessee Conference, to memorialize the G e n e r a l Conference to that e ffect.

G eorge addressed the Conference, approving the views of Bishop M c K e n d r e e , and a s s u r i n g u s, he should concur w ith h i m i n reporting the unauthorized proceedings of the T ennessee Conference, and in a s k i n g the G e n e r a l Conference to repeal the l a w of 1808. T h e M e m o r i a l of the m i n o r i t y , p r a y i n g the repeal of this l a w , as advised by the B ishops, t ogether w i t h t heir representations, led to a discussion in the G e n e r a l Conference o f 1820, w h i c h resulted i n the repeal prayed for. ip Bruce In the final c onflict between the Phil' m ajority a nd m i n o r i t y of the Tennessee Conference, on this subject, the venerable

t ook a n active part, and f ully a nd most unequivocally sustained the v i e w s of

t he B i s h o p s and the m i n o r i t y , and addressing the Conference, by request, as a l i v i n g w itness i n the p r i n c i p a l transactions alluded to, he was even more minute and exact t han B i s h o p M c K e n d r e e , i n s h o w i n g that the whole legislation of the Church had been i n t he s p i r i t a nd form of compromise, and that i f this compromise was departed from, Methodism must die in the South. T h e same view of the subject was avowed and a d Valentine Cooke, w ho was present, and called upvocated by the never-to-be-forgotten on for his opinions and testimony. Barnabas Henry McHenry, o f whom I o nce h eard Bishop M c K e n d r e e say, i f he were a l l o w ed to c hoose h is successor, as senior B i s h o p of the Methodist Episcopal C h u r c h , Mcw ould be the m a n , was a member of the Tennessee Conference, and assumed and a rgued not only the v i r t u a l c ompromise o f the l a w of slavery, between the N o r t h e r n a nd S outhern portions of the C h u r c h , but the absolute necessity of this or s ome k indred a djustment, to prevent d i v i s i o n and r u i n . i n t he Protest, on this subject. slavery. T hese men were a l l o pposed to s l a v e r y , and Douglas w as w ith h ad no connection w ith i t , and yet they u n y i e l d i n g l y maintained the ground assumed It i s proper to add, that Thomas Logan t he only man i n the m i n o r i t y o f the Conference, who was i n any way connected

T h e m i n o r i t y numbered about twenty members of the Conference, and being

o ppressed and trodden down i n the s t r u g g l e , referred to, they naturally turned to men o f a ge, w i s d o m and experience i n the C h u r c h , for counsel and direction, and especially to a scertain t he real character and purposes of the l a w of slavery, and more p a r t i c u l a r l y t he opinions and conventional understanding, i n w h i c h it had originated; and being one o f the m i n o r i t y , and frequently called upon to act as one of its organs, I was necessarily l ed t o a somewhat extended, i f not c r i t i c a l a cquaintance, w i t h t he whole subject and c ontroversy. I was i n the habit, for years, o f c o n s u l t i n g , whenever I could have access to them, the venerable men who had g r o w n up w i t h A m e r i c a n M e t h o d i s m , and w ho were therefore w e l l acquainted, not merely w ith t he facts, but w ith t he reasons o f l e g i s l a t i o n o n this subject. F r o m them I learned, what I believe to be the true history of t he general rule on s l a v e r y , w h i c h found i t s way into that summary c ode o f m o r a l s , k n o w n a s the " G e n e r a l R u l e s " of M e t h o d i s m , without the sanction of a G e n e r a l C o n ference, being introduced by Bishop A s b u r y and his c o u n c i l , i n 1788 or ' 9 , and first p ublished i n the latter year, and was intended as a response of the C h u r c h to the prov i s i o n i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the U n i t e d States, then just adopted, for the abolition o f t he slave trade ; the council deeming it proper, that what the Constitution looked for-

  
w ard to prospectively, should be at o nce fixed upon as peremptorily b i n d i n g upon a l l m e m bers of the M e t h o d i s t E p i s c o p a l C h u r c h , and h ence t he p r o h i b i t i o n     " b u y i n g of men, w omen, or c h i l d r e n , ( u s u a l l y stolen and plundered from Africa, a nd brought T h e language to of t his c ountry for the purpose) w i t h t he intention to enslave t h e m . "

C oke and A s b u r y , i n their n otes o n the D i s c i p l i n e , sustains this view of the subject. S p e a k i n g o f this r u l e , they style i t , " a s m a l l addition, w h i c h the circumstances t rade in the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the U n i t e d States. N o p art of this r e c i t a l , w h i c h I introduce w ith g reat reluctance, but could not omit w ithout s ubjecting my motives and conduct to misconstruction, is intended i n any d egree t o reflect upon the character or piety of the majority of the Tennessee s o far as I k n o w , no cause of quarrel exists between any of the s u r v i v o r s . Conference. I w i l l only in T h e most of the men who t ook p art i n that controversy, are now i n their graves, and a dd i n this connection, that as M c K e n d r e e , G e o r g e , B r u c e , and Cooke, had frequent i nterviews i n c o u n c i l , w i t h t he m i n o r i t y , my recollections may have confounded, C onference. T h a t I q uote t heir opinions c o r r e c t l y , I am entirely confident. s ome i nstances, what they stated on these occasions, w i t h t heir statements b efore t he Beside m y general connection w ith t he subject, d u r i n g the hotly contested struggle i n the T e n nessee C onference, I was a member of the committee w h i c h drafted the Protest, and a lso of the committee w h i c h drafted the memorial to the G e n e r a l Conference, j u s t a l l u ded to, and h ence i t was the more necessary I should acquaint m y s e l f w i t h a l l the sources, and a vail m y s e l f of a l l means of information i n my power, w h i l e at the same time, I s hould be the more l i k e l y to recollect and preserve the information I had obtained. A n d a c c o r d i n g l y , I have i n my possession c opies o f the Protest and M e m o r i a l , numerous letters received d u r i n g the contest and subsequently, bearing upon i t , together w i t h o ther papers and documents, e n a b l i n g me to