Almost one year after the Emancipation Proclamation took effect by reason of the refusal on the part of the South to return to the Union, the nineteenth session of the General Conference met in the city of Philadelphia. That body was composed of two hundred and sixteen delegates. Just how any body of men, whether met for political or religious interests, could properly attend to affairs, even to the minutiæ, under the then existing circumstances of so exciting character as those that occurred from May 1, 1864, until the adjournment of that General Conference, is hard to conceive. And yet the proceedings of that body were characterized by patient, wise, and prudent action. Some of the delegates to that General Conference had their thoughts, however hard they strove to prevent it, on Church interests upset, as they took up the newspapers and found an account of the atrocious butchery of colored troops at Fort Pillow by that enemy of the human family, General Forrest. Before leaving the cars upon which they were traveling, they were startled by the cry of the newsboys at every station, as they announced the startling news that the governors of the Western States had offered the United States government eighty-five thousand men for one hundred days, and that the President had accepted the offer; again, that the victory was still in the scales. They had been in session but four days until the wires flashed the news that the irrepressible Grant had crossed the Rapidan in Virginia, and commenced operations in the Wilderness! The next day news came that the armies of the North and South had met in the Wilderness—the former under that invincible hero, and the latter under the intrepid Lee. Since our own Grant was pushing Lee before him nearly everywhere, and knowing how the Church had begun to love General Grant, and that her prayers and influence and sons were with him for the preservation of the Union, it is pretty hard to understand just how that General Conference found time and disposition to work as it did. Its session was during the crisis of the war. As they understood it, “God expects every man to do his best,” and they had then an opportunity to view the whole scene, knowing that God himself was interested, since

So it was on the gory field of battle as well as in that General Conference.

“The conference adopted a new rule on slavery, by a vote of 207 yeas to 9 nays. The small minority of dissenters were delegates from within the then slaveholding States of West Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky—so that the Methodist Episcopal Church alone, of all the Churches in America, within whose communion slaveholding had been allowed, enacted a prohibitory law abolishing slavery, even within the States where it was allowed to continue by President Lincoln’s Proclamation of 1863. Moving forward on the same line, in advance of all the Churches, the same body, already more sweeping in its prohibition of slavery than the civil authorities, yet further anticipated the action of the government in a formal address to the President.”

At that General Conference the special Committee appointed on the State of the Country reported as follows:

“The committee have carefully considered the following subject, submitted to them by the General Conference, namely:

“Whereas, It is a well-known fact that the Methodist Episcopal Church was the first to tender its allegiance to the government under the Constitution in the days of Washington; and whereas, the fair record of the Church has never been tarnished by disloyalty; and whereas, our ministers and people are deeply in sympathy with the government in its efforts to put down rebellion and set the captives free; therefore,

“Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed, whose duty it shall be to proceed to Washington to present to the President of these United States the assurances of our Church, in a suitable address, that we are with him in heart and soul in the present struggle for human rights and free institutions.

“The committee, after further consideration of the subject of the delegation it is proposed to send with an address to the President of the United States, beg leave to report that they have instructed their chairman to present, for the approval of the General Conference, the address contemplated in the resolution referred for consideration. The committee still further report that they have nominated as the delegation, Bishop E. R. Ames, Rev. George Peck, Rev. Joseph Cummings, Rev. Charles Elliott, Rev. Granville Moody.”

On motion of Thomas C. Golden, seconded by K. P. Jervis, the report was adopted. The committee at once began to prepare the address, and in due time the following was presented:

“To His Excellency, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States:

“The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, now in session in the city of Philadelphia, representing nearly seven thousand ministers, and nearly a million of members, mindful of their duty as Christian citizens, take the earliest opportunity to express to you the assurance of the loyalty of the Church, her earnest devotion to the interests of the country, and her sympathy with you in the great responsibilities of your high position in this trying hour.

“With exultation we point to the record of our Church as having never been tarnished by disloyalty. She was the first of the Churches to express, by a deputation of her most distinguished ministers, the promise of support to the government in the days of Washington. In her Articles of Religion she has enjoined loyalty as a duty, and has ever given to the government her most decided support.

“In this present struggle for the nation’s life many thousands of her members, and a large number of her ministers, have rushed to arms to maintain the cause of God and humanity. They have sealed their devotion to their country with their blood on every battle-field of this terrible war.

“We regard this dreadful scourge now desolating our land and wasting the nation’s life, as the result of a most unnatural, utterly unjustifiable rebellion, involving the crime of treason against the best of human governments, and sin against God. It required our government to submit to its own dismemberment and destruction, leaving it no alternative but to preserve the national integrity by the use of the national resources. If the government had failed to use its power to preserve the unity of the nation and maintain its authority, it would have been justly exposed to the wrath of heaven and to the reproach and scorn of the civilized world. Our earnest and constant prayer is that this cruel and wicked rebellion may be speedily suppressed; and we pledge you our hearty co-operation in all appropriate means to secure this object.

“Loyal and hopeful in national adversity, in prosperity thankful, we most heartily congratulate you on the glorious victories recently gained, and rejoice in the belief that our complete triumph is near.

“We believe that our national sorrows and calamities have resulted, in a great degree, from our forgetfulness of God and oppression of our fellow-men. Chastened by affliction, may the nation humbly repent of her sins, lay aside her haughty pride, honor God in all her future legislation, and render justice to all who have been wronged!

“We honor you for your proclamations of liberty, and rejoice in all the acts of the government designed to secure freedom to the enslaved.

“We trust that when military usages and necessities shall justify interference with established institutions, and the removal of wrongs sanctioned by law, the occasion will be improved, not merely to injure our foes and increase the national resources, but also as an opportunity to recognize our obligations to God and to honor his law. We pray that the time may speedily come when this shall be truly a republican and free country, in no part of which, either State or Territory, shall slavery be known.

“The prayers of millions of Christians, with an earnestness never manifested for rulers before, daily ascend to Heaven that you may be endued with all needed wisdom and power. Actuated by the sentiments of the loftiest and purest patriotism, our prayers shall be continually for the preservation of our country undivided, for the triumph of our cause, and for a permanent peace, gained by sacrifice of no moral principles, but founded on the Word of God, and securing, in righteousness, liberty and equal rights to all.

“Signed in behalf the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

“Joseph Cummings, Chairman.

“Philadelphia, May 14, 1864.”

To this address the President responded:

“Gentlemen,—In reply to your address, allow me to attest the accuracy of its historical statements, indorse the sentiments it expresses, and thank you in the nation’s name for the sure promise it gives.

“Nobly sustained as the government has been by all the Churches, I would utter nothing which might in the least appear invidious against any; yet, without this, it may be fairly said that the Methodist Episcopal Church, not less devoted than the best, is, by its greater numbers, the most important of all. It is no fault in others that the Methodist Church sends more soldiers to the field, more nurses to the hospitals, and more prayers to Heaven, than any. God bless the Methodist Church! Bless all the Churches! And blessed be God, who, in this our great trial, giveth us the Churches!

Memorials were sent up to this General Conference, also asking for a colored pastorate and conference organization. Several petitions from the colored members within the District of Columbia and the States of Delaware and Maryland were presented, praying for this. The wisdom of the petitioners is best seen by noting the fact that most of the best work among the colored people within the Church is in the bounds of the territory from whence came most petitions for a colored pastorate and separate conferences. The Church began to see a new door open at the sesame of belching cannons for her admission into the South. She then declared: “As a Church we have never sought, do not now seek, to ignore our duty to the colored population.” And besides this, the Church at that conference declared: “Justice to those who have been enslaved requires that in all the privileges of citizenship, as well as in all the other rights of a common manhood, there shall be no distinction founded on color.” These were strong words at that early day, and meant what the Church has been teaching ever since. That General Conference created a special committee to look after the interests, hear the appeals, consider what ought to be done by that conference to further the work among the colored members It was known as “the Committee on the State of the Work among the Colored People,” to whom all such petitions and memorials were referred. This was not one of the regular standing committees, but a special one appointed for the occasion. After the General Conference had been in possession of said petitions and memorials two weeks or more, they submitted a report, in which they said that they based their report on “direct information from delegates to the General Conference familiar with the work; from intelligent and trustworthy local preachers who have been deputed by the colored charges in Delaware and Maryland and the District of Columbia to represent them before the committee, and from various memorials setting forth the wishes of our colored members.”

That the Church trusted and desired to honor her sable sons, no one doubts. That she was proud of feeling herself loved by them, and an instrument in God’s hands of helping to uplift them, is told in the following expression of that conference: “If it be a principle potent to Christian enterprise that the missionary field itself must produce the most efficient missionaries, our colored local preachers are peculiarly important to us at this time.” The memorialists were filled with ecstasy when the committee reported the following:

COLORED PASTORATE.

“(1.) Our colored members, ministers, and laymen feel that the times are auspicious to the development of their mental and moral power, and request from us the facilities necessary to this end.

“(2.) A colored pastorate they recognize as among the most important of these facilities, securing to them a ministry adapted to their wants, encouraging their young men to enter the ministerial field, and offering motive and opportunity for general ministerial advancement.

“(3.) They do not, however, propose to secure this by—indeed, they are utterly opposed to—separation from our Church, either with a view to a union with another, or to independent organization. With such a feeling on their part, the General Conference can not consistently with its own responsibility, with their constitutional rights, or with any decent recognition of their loyalty to our Church in all the troubles through which, on their account, she has passed, adopt any measure which shall, even indirectly, look to such a result.

“(4.) Conference organization is asked for from two quarters; other memorials urge that the requests should be granted. The local ministers who have been before us have shown deep solicitude in this direction....

“(7.) From this exhibit of facts two convictions are natural, namely: We must retain the oversight of this people; we must give them efficient colored pastors.

“To retain these pastors as mere local preachers, subject to appointment by white presiding elders, will impair rather than increase their efficiency; will promote congregationalism among them rather than itinerant missionary enterprise.

“To propose their incorporation with the existing annual conferences will be attended with difficulties too formidable every way to be readily disposed of, and the delay incident to such a proposition is incompatible with the urgent requirements of the times.

“In view of these considerations, we recommend to the General Conference for adoption the following preamble and resolutions:

“Whereas, In the present circumstances of our country, the colored people occupy a position of peculiar interest, appealing to our Christian sympathy, and inviting our missionary enterprise; and

“Whereas, This enterprise can not now be made efficient by the policy of our Church hitherto pursued toward them, and especial measures have therefore become necessary; and

“Whereas, The exigencies of the case require to efficiency prompt action; therefore, be it

“1. Resolved, by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Conference assembled, That it is the duty of our Church to encourage colored pastorates for colored people wherever practicable, and to contribute to their efficiency by every means in our power.

“Resolved, That the efficiency of said pastorates can be best promoted by distinct conference organizations, and that therefore the bishops be, and they are hereby, authorized to organize among our colored ministers, for the benefit of our colored members and population, mission conferences—one or more—where, in their godly judgment, the exigencies of the work may demand it, and, should more than one be organized, to determine their boundaries until the meeting of the next General Conference, said conference or conferences to possess all the powers usual to mission annual conferences: Provided, that nothing in this resolution be so construed as to impair the existing constitutional rights of our colored members on the one hand, or to forbid, on the other, the transfer of white ministers to said conference or conferences where it may be practicable and deemed necessary.

“3. Resolved, That our General Missionary Committee be requested to take into careful consideration the condition of our colored people, and should conferences be organized among them, make to them—consistently with other demands upon its funds—such appropriations as may be essential to success.”

Annual or mission conferences being composed of traveling preachers, it was necessary that some colored local preachers be admitted into the traveling connection before they could be formed into a conference, which gave rise to a question upon which the same committee made a report, which was adopted, as follows (Jour. 1864, p. 253):

“We, the committee to whom this subject was finally referred, beg leave to report that we are not aware of any legal obstacle to the reception of colored preachers into our annual conferences.”

This General Conference at a later day made more specific and direct provision for the Delaware and Washington Conferences in the following resolution (Jour. 1864, p. 263):

“The Washington Conference shall embrace Western Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia, and the territory south.

“The Delaware Conference shall embrace the territory north and east of the Washington Conference.

“Resolved, That in order to constitute the first conferences of colored members, the rule of Discipline requiring a probation of two years, be so far suspended as to allow the bishops to organize into one or more annual conferences such colored local elders as have traveled two or more years under a presiding elder, and shall be recommended by a quarterly conference, and by at least ten elders who are members of an annual conference.”

The Delaware Conference was organized July 28, 1864, and the Washington Conference October 27, 1864. It will be noted that “the constitutional rights of our colored members” were recognized, as well as the difficulties of incorporating the work.

Let us now examine the above resolutions more closely.

Blessings seldom come unattended. At a glance any one can see that the requests of the colored members had been granted. Henceforth they were to have (1) colored pastorates, the very thing for which they had prayed. No one doubts, we think, that the granting of that very thing gave birth to all the other race questions that do or may arise touching the relations of the two races within the Church. The wisdom of that General Conference peered away out into the future. It probably saw a time when advanced ideas would lead men within the Church to advanced work. These pastorates created by that General Conference were to be for “colored people.” They were to be allowed (2) separate conferences. There was no way to avoid them where there were “colored pastorates for colored people.” Just so. These separate conferences, however, were (3) “not to impair existing rights of our colored members, nor yet (4) to forbid the transfer of white ministers to said conferences where it may be practicable and deemed necessary.” What “existing rights” had colored members? To remain in any Church they chose within Methodism, or join with and worship in any congregation within the Methodist Episcopal Church. It did not stop there, but action was taken looking to the education of the race. The General Conference Committee on Education reported as follows:

“The committee have had before them the memorial of Rev. J. F. Wright in reference to the Wilberforce University, and, in view of its peculiar character and relation to the Church, we offer for adoption the following resolution:

“Resolved, That we heartily sympathize with the noble purpose contemplated in the establishment of Wilberforce University and we do hereby earnestly commend the institution to the prayers and liberal contributions of the friends of humanity.”

Just what “the peculiar character and relation” were, is not stated. It may have been that the enterprise was sprung upon the Church before it had been duly authorized. It may have been that its “peculiar character and relation” meant that it was to be exclusively colored. It makes no difference as to what was meant, some way or other that institution soon passed into other hands.

Again, it would have been folly to grant separate conferences for the colored membership and leave standing the old rule, and allow it to apply in this case, requiring a probation of two years before being admitted to an annual conference. This was brought forward at once, and the animus of the General Conference on the subject was at once manifested by the following resolution:

“Resolved, That in order to constitute the first conference of colored members, the rule of the Discipline requiring a probation of two years be so far suspended as to allow the bishops to organize into one or more annual conferences such colored local elders as have traveled two or more years under a presiding elder and shall be recommended by a quarterly conference and by at least ten elders who are members of an annual conference.”

This was a wise and prudential action. Wise in that it at once dissipated any thought that might have arisen in the minds of the less stable members, that the matter was simply put in a complicated shape to keep the colored members at bay, and thereby eventually drive out of the Methodist Episcopal Church all the colored people. To have kept them waiting under the probationary rule would probably have done much harm. Prudential in that even the local elders were to come up well recommended: (1) By their own people, among whom they lived and worked, and who therefore could testify as to their moral, religious, and literary fitness for the traveling connection. (2) To be recommended “by at least ten elders (white) who are members of an annual conference.” Who were better qualified than such elders to know who were and who were not qualified for traveling preachers—our own people had no experience in matters of that kind—in that they would naturally be able and more willing to speak against those “wolves in sheep’s clothing” who sometimes “climb up some other way” into our annual conferences for the purpose of fleecing, instead of feeding, the flock of God? Our own people might have been in some way related to the applicants or ignorant of their devices. Why should not some precautions be observed when clothing with authority those who, even then, must have been witnessing “the pains, the groans, the dying strife” of an institution that had grown gray in crime and debauchery—under which for two hundred and forty-four years the race had suffered in more ways than the Hebrews in Egypt? They had never enjoyed even the privilege of elementary training in any way fitting them for happiness and usefulness in the world. They were poor and ignorant. Poor in that even the good name of the race was gone; and who does not know that a

We do not know that additional weight attaches to the above by knowing that Shakespeare put these words into the mouth of Iago; but it is a fair statement of the condition of the race when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The morality of the race under the old régime is the prodigy of the age! And yet they knew nothing theoretically of morality, and had opportunities for but few examples of it. They knew nothing of home economics, and not five in one hundred of the rank and file could count correctly ten dollars in small change. Hence the Church was wise in throwing around this people safeguards as well as charity. They knew but little, if anything, of the comforts of home life, the proper training of children; while the fantastic mode of dressing immediately after the war tells a tale at which a heathen should blush. They knew comparatively nothing either of Church polity or moral science. Those who have found occasion to laugh at the huge mistakes of some of our ministers, as well as some others who had enjoyed better opportunities, must find a sufficient explanation in the previous condition of the race. Was the Methodist Church not right in doing as it did?