Personal tools
Antislavery Poetry from San Francisco

Running man image from workshop poster

The Pacific Appeal was the leading African American newspaper on the West Coast during the early 1860s.  A newly-published set of eight antislavery poems from the journal's inaugural 1862 volume captures the sense of expectancy within the African American community for the imminent end of US slavery.  These poems include the work of James Madison Bell, a San Francisco plasterer, brickmason, and poet.  Read more... 
Log in

Forgot your password?
New user?
Document Actions

Color-Caste (XHTML)

A tract arguing against post-emancipation segregation in the Methodist Church, by Rev. Thomas Pearne, a leading church figure (Dayton, Ohio: n.p., 1876). Digitized by the Antislavery Literature Project.

Click here to get the file

Size 37.9 kB - File type text/html

File contents

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "">
<html xmlns="undefined">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
p.MsoBodyTextIndent, li.MsoBodyTextIndent, div.MsoBodyTextIndent
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US">
<div class="Section1">
  <h1>THOMAS H. PEARNE</h1>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center;text-autospace:none'><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>This is an annotated text of <i>Color-Caste</i>,
    published by Thomas Pearne in Dayton, Ohio, in 1876.  Original spelling,
    punctuation and page citations have been retained; minor typographic errors
    have been corrected.</span></b></p>
  <p align="center" style='text-align:center;text-autospace:none'><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>This electronic edition has been prepared for the
    Antislavery Literature Project, Arizona State University, a public education
    project working in cooperation with the EServer, Iowa State University.   Digitization has been supported by a grant from the Institute for Humanities
    Research, Arizona State University.</span></b></p>
  <div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0pt 0pt 1.0pt 0pt'>
    <p align="center" style='text-align:center;text-autospace:none;
border:none;padding:0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Editorial annotation
      by Joe Lockard.  Digitization by April Brannon.  All rights reserved by the
      Antislavery Literature Project.  Permission for non-commercial educational use
      is granted.</span></b></p>
  <p><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Introduction</span></b></p>
  <p>            <span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Rev. Thomas
    Pearne (1820-1901) was a leading figure of nineteenth-century American
    Methodism.  Born in western New York to English immigrant parents, he studied
    at Cazenovia Seminary and joined the ministry in 1837.  Until 1851 he served in
    central New York and northern Pennsylvania.  From 1851-1865 he organized the Methodist Church in Oregon, then returned east to Tennessee to participate in Reconstruction
    activities.  He was appointed US consul to Jamaica in 1870, where he spent four
    years.  Pearne concluded his career in the Cincinnati Conference, where he
    functioned as a Methodist minister.  For further, see Pearne, <i>Sixty-One
    Years of Itinerant Christian Life in Church and State</i> (Cincinnati: Curtis
    and Jennings, 1899).  </span></p>
  <p class="MsoBodyText">            <span style='letter-spacing:0pt'>The present
    text emerges from the post-emancipation debates within US Christian churches
    concerning treatment of blacks.  In this tract, Pearne argues against
    segregation and denounces “color-caste” as a social and theological evil. 
    Early in his career, Pearne had encountered the divisiveness of the slavery
    question at the 1844 General Conference where the Methodist Church split between slave-holders and opponents of slavery.  He argues in this tract that the Methodist Church should not repeat its history of divisiveness by segregating itself along
    the color line.  Pearne calls for a fully integrated church, both in the laity
    and ministry.  Despite this anti-segregationist position, Pearne employs
    repeated racial stereotypes in his writing and was, at the time of the tract’s
    publication, the secretary of the American Colonization Society, dedicated to
    sending emancipated slaves to Africa.  Pearne’s theology called for formal
    integration and spiritual equality between black and white church members, but
    his cultural and political orientation favored separation and removal of black
    ex-slaves from the United States.  </span></p>
  <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>                — Joe Lockard</span></p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[unnumbered page 1]</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
  <p style='text-autospace:
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'><b>BY THOMAS H. PEARNE, D.D.</b></p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><b>                     </b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>PASTOR OF GRACE  M. E. CHURCH, DAYTON, OHIO.</span></p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>                                              ___________________</span></p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'>COLOR-CASTE is that prejudice against black persons and mulattoes, which
    leads one to treat them with disrespect, and which discriminates against them
    in favor of the whites.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>This
    prejudice is born of slavery, and, like the tail end of the snake, which, it is
    said, will not die until sunset, no matter what time of the day the body was
    killed, this color­-caste will not die; its sunset has not yet come. Just now,
    this tail end of slavery is twisting itself into all manner of contortions, and
    is raising quite a stir in the Methodist Epis­copal Church, by insisting on the
    separation of whites and blacks in those Southern conferences, where some of
    the mem­bers are colored. Correspondents in the Church papers are earnest in
    enforcing their views on this important question. The General Conference is
    invoked to come to the rescue.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>The question,
    it is declared, has long since been practically settled by custom; but, like
    Banquo's ghost, it will not re­main down. Unless the General Conference shall
    do some­thing, harm will come to the Church, our position as a Church will be
    misapprehended in the South, and the peace of that whole section will be
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>Writers in
    the <i>Western Christian Advocate </i>urge separate conferences for the white
    and black preachers.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>The <i>Christian
    Advocate </i>(New York) of April 19, 1876, has the report of three districts in
    Tennessee, in convention, who ask the General Conference to establish, or to
    authorize the establishing of, separate conferences on the color line.</p>
  <p style='
text-autospace:none'><i>The Methodist
    Advocate </i>(Atlanta) has presented the argu-</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 2]                                                                                                                       </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>ments, <i>pro</i> and <i>con</i>,
    on this question, but we fear it has given the weight of its influence to the
    separationists.                                                                                                             </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>            What is the
    grievance? A trivial one to endure, but a momentous one to change.  The payment
    of stamps a hun­dred years ago was a comparatively small affair; our
    Revolutionary fathers could have paid them without much incon­venience. They
    refused. That refusal gave birth to a free nation.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>The grievance
    is simply this. A few colored ministers meet, in conference only, with the
    white ministers. They do not belong to the same classes; they do not sit in the
    same congregations nor Churches; they do not go to the same day-schools nor
    Sunday schools. O no!  &quot;Society,&quot; it is affirmed, has adjusted that.
    How? By kukluxing the white teachers of freedmen schools, and by killing their
    colored teachers, as has been repeatedly done, until, from fear of the deadly
    bullet and the assassin's knife, the freedmen have learned to keep themselves
    aloof from white Churches and schools.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>This
    separation, it is urged, has been by mutual con­sent, and for the benefit of
    both parties. The consent has been just about as mutual as that between the
    highwayman and his victim. &quot;Society&quot; has presented the revolver and
    the bludgeon, and has said to the freedman, &quot;Stand and de­liver!&quot; He
    has submitted, by surrendering some of the dear­est rights of manhood and some
    of the sweetest amenities born of Christian civilization.  He has consented to
    be a pariah rather than to be extirpated from the land which gave him birth,
    and which he has enriched by centuries of unrequited toil.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'>The freedmen have never voluntarily consented to forego respect and fair
    treatment, and to be subjected to proscrip­tion and degradation; they are not a
    consenting party to the separation. But if they were, it does not follow that
    the separation, as now existing, is wise or necessary. The wishes of the
    whites, resulting from whim, caprice, or prejudice against color, do not
    establish nor settle great moral princi­ples. Nor can the consent of the
    proscribed class settle them. The position of the colored people on this
    question of color separation, as it has been and as it is sought to be, is much
    what it was as to slavery during the earlier years of the war.</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 3]</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>&quot;We 's de bone,
    massa,&quot;  said a black man to Chaplain Hunter the first year of the war. 
    &quot;What do you mean by that?&quot; said the Chaplain.  &quot;Why, massa, you
    see two dogs fighting over a bone, de bone don't fight.  We's de bone.&quot; 
    On this question they may yet fight as they did on that; but if they do, it
    will not be on the side of their proscribers.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>            And the separation,
    now sought, is not by any means, by mutual consent.  Nor would it be for the
    benefit of the parties, nor of either of them.  To allege that it would, is to
    assume the very point in dispute.  It must be more than asserted—it must be
    proved.  It can not be proved by any reasoning based on God's Word, or on sound
    policy, that to treat the freedmen as an inferior, abject, outcast race, will
    benefit them.  Nor can it benefit the whites to be guilty of thus treating the
    blacks.  It is ennobling to exercise benevolence; but to mistreat the colored
    people, because they are colored, or because they were slaves, is to display
    and to cultivate the meanest and the most intense selfishness.  Brutish
    impulses are degrading; but to mistreat our fellow-man, because his skin is
    dark, is brutish, and therefore this conduct is injurious to those practicing
    it.  Before any this is conceded to this clamor for separate conferences, let
    it be shown by the clearest proofs, that the separation would be for the
    benefit of those of both colors.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>            Who demand
    separation?  So far, as appears, the whites, and not the freedmen.  The letters
    in the <i>Western Christian Advocate</i>, asking for separate conferences, are
    all written by white persons.  The convention referred to was made up of white
    delegates.  Some letters in the Western and in the <i>Methodist Advocate</i>,
    against separation, are written by colored preachers.  No colored members,
    ministers, quarterly conferences, annual conferences, as such, ask this separation. 
    The Holston Conference, it is said, almost unanimously adopted a memorial,
    asking separation.  I venture the assertion that John C. Tate and Charles Mays
    did not vote for it.  If either of them did, or if others have, there or
    elsewhere, it has been through persuasion, intimidation, or rebuff.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>            It is claimed that,
    in the convention held at Ellijay and Alabama on this subject, the colored
    people were present, and agreed in asking for separate conferences.  But the
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 4]</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>have never
    so far as I know, originated such action.  It has always originated with the
    whites.  When the colored people have acquiesced, or seemed to, they have been
    persuaded or intimidated into such action.  In line with this view, I quote
    Rev. D.S. Huskins, of Georgia:</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>            <span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>Quoting from the tenth resolution of the Ellijay
    Convention these words:</span>  <span style='font-size:10.0pt'>&quot;There
    being no such desire on our part, nor do we understand it to mean that our
    colored people are to be abandoned, forsaken, or hated,&quot;   Brother Huskins
    adds: &quot;Now brethren, it affords me great pleasure to say that we are not
    your colored people, as by the terms of the Fifteenth Amendment to the
    Constitution of the United States we are declared free.  Again, I will ask the
    brethren of that convention, many of whom were ministers and members of the
    annual conference, if no man should be elected bishop, because he is colored,
    why should many men have a conference organization, because they are colored? 
    If color should not enter into the qualification for one, why should it in the other?”</span></p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>            Rev.
    D.H. Hays, of the Tennessee Conference, says:</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>&quot;The plea for separation implies a great deal
    more than those who urge it care to bring to the surface.  It means ostracism
    and forced degradation of all to whom God has given a dark complexion.  It
    means the weakening and <i>the ultimate overthrow</i> [italics mine] of the
    power and influence of Northern white men in the South.  It means, practically,
    a Methodist Episcopal Church in the South, for and under the control of white
    men of the South.  More than that.  It means the fixing of the claim for
    superiority in the color of the skin.  Is the great loyal heart of the
    Methodist Episcopal Church ready to favor it?  A million and a half of voices
    respond, No!&quot;</span></p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>And now
    comes good John C. Tate, or &quot;Bishop Tate,&quot; as he is sometimes called,
    of Holston Conference.  Hear him:</p>
  <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style='letter-spacing:0pt'>&quot;We joined the
    Methodist Episcopal Church from principle, and not from mere policy.  Our
    colored brethren of the Zion Church tell us that we are 'slaves of the white
    people, and that we are able to run our own machine, that the white people will
    impose on us, and that we can never be a people until we learn to do our own
    business.'  All very true, said I, <i>but we want to associate with those who
    have what we have not</i> [italics mine], and what we so much need, and who are
    willing to contribute to our necessities until we can stand alone.  The
    Methodist Episcopal Church was the first to stretch out her hand to take us on
    board.  Our white brethren in the South, whom we call Southern Methodists, withdrew
    from us, or rather kicked us out of the back door, plainly declaring that they
    would have nothing to do with negroes, that they might go to heaven or anywhere
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'>If all the whites and negroes in the South should ask separate
    conferences, that fact would not make the separation</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 5]</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>right, if it were not otherwise
    right.  Opinions and prejudices are not the rule of right.   They are scarcely
    safe guides as to what is expedient.  It is not always true that &quot;the
    voice of the people is the voice of God.&quot;  Majority opinion is not
    necessarily right; but, if it were, we do not get it by submitting the question
    to the wishes of the Southern white members of our Church, say fifty thousand,
    as against the one hundred and seventy-six thousand of our colored members. 
    Both these together would be less than one seventh of our entire membership, as
    a Church.  If this question of color caste were submitted to the suffrages of
    all races, the white race would go under, for they are an inconsiderable
    minority.  There are more dark races of men than light ones.  The dark races
    are much the more numerous.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>In every
    refined, intelligent negro, there is a shrinking from asking the recognition
    from the whites, to which his manhood is entitled. But there certainly is not—there
    can not be—a voluntary asking to have equality denied, and in­feriority
    conceded. I lived five years in the South, and I speak from close and careful
    observation.  A few years ago a white brother proposed a separate enumeration
    of the whites and colored in the Holston Conference Minutes. Some of the whites
    favored it, but none of the blacks did. The colored people are<i> </i>sensitive
    about such allusions to their color as imply inferiority. During the last
    battle of Hatcher's Run, when Grant extended his left line, Mr. D. L. Moody and<i> </i>myself were visiting the negroes on a plantation, which that advance had
    included in our lines. Mr. Moody asked one of the negroes this question:
    &quot;Auntie, do you think the Lord Jesus loves colored people as much as he
    does the white?&quot; After a significant pause, she replied: &quot;Brother,
    the Lord Jesus loves all his redeemed children.&quot; A colored person would
    never have asked a white person, such a ques­tion as to the whites. The
    disparaging comparisons, the sug­gestions of inferiority, the proposal of
    painful and doubtful separations, always come from the whites.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'>The reasons assigned for this proposed change, are, first, the welfare of
    the colored people, who, it is claimed, would develop more rapidly and
    healthily if thrown upon their own resources; and secondly, the more convenient
    working of our</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 6]</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>white work in the South, as it
    would free them from the reproach to which these mixed conferences subject
    them.  </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>As to the
    former of these reasons, it is not borne out by the facts.  The purely colored
    Methodist organizations are not equal in development with the colored numbers
    of the Methodist Episcopal Church.  John C. Tate inquires in vain for a single
    colored school in the South supported by the Zion (colored) Church.  In Jamaica
    (West Indies), the color line was long since abjured, especially in Church
    matters; and there harmony, thrift, civilization, and religion have advanced. 
    In Hayti, white association has been unknown.  The blacks have exclusively
    administered their own affairs.  The result there has been division,
    revolution, irreligion, cannibalism.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>            It is reasonable,
    not because of color, but in the nature of the case, that the less informed,
    less cultured, would profit more by association with those more advanced than
    they would if separated from them.  No one in the North would favor the
    separation of the less advanced white members of our annual conferences from
    their more experienced white brethren, that the former might be more
    self-dependent and developed.  Why, then, propose it as to the colored people
    in the South?</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>On several
    accounts separate conferences of whites and blacks are objectionable:</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>The demand
    for them springs from a hostile animus toward the freedmen.  Those who advocate
    separate conferences on the color line seem incapable of recognizing merit in
    the colored people.  They make disparaging comparisons between the white and
    colored people.  They make disparaging comparisons between the white and
    colored preachers.  The blacks can not sustain a respectable examination in the
    prescribed studies; they are &quot;lacking in industry, sobriety, truthfulness,
    and chastity.'' And yet it is proposed to set them off by themselves, that they
    may improve! The money expended on their schools has proved vain. Hardly the
    desire for education is left, while the mass of the colored people have sunk
    into perfect indifference. I adduce these statements not to deny them. That is
    unnecessary; but simply to show the spirit of those who demand separation.
    Intelligent colored men denounce such statements as libelous.</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 7]</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>D.H. Hays thus repels such
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>&quot;It is true we are not yet out of the misty, miry
    log of sin, into which we were most inhumanly thrust, and kept confined during
    the woeful days of slavery. And it is equally true that we are not so radically
    deficient in those lovely traits which constitute the basis of moral excellence
    as the utterer supposes.  My soul heaves with indignation when I see men</span></p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>who
    taught us to prevaricate, while trembling under the lash, who put the bottle to
    our lips, to make us do a greater amount of work, who spoiled the innocence of
    our mothers and sisters by tyrannical force, wasting their energies in the
    attempt to impede our progress, by fastening upon our de­jected brow undeserved
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>Is it wise to
    grant separation on the request of those who discover this want of sympathy and
    appreciation toward the freedmen? A similar animus toward those who oppose sepa­rate
    conferences is displayed by the advocates of color sepa­ration.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>Bishop Haven
    is roundly abused for holding the opinion that freedmen have rights which
    fellow-Christians should re­spect. A year or two since, he dined with a black
    brother in Atlanta, and forthwith he is denounced from Charleston to the Rio
    Grande, as having outraged the decencies of &quot;society&quot; in that
    country. These separationists draw it mildly when they speak of such men as
    Bishop Haven, Dr. Braden, broth­ers Lansing and Hartzell, as &quot;zealous but
    weak-minded white brethren among us,&quot; whose &quot;zeal is not born of
    wisdom,&quot; who seem to think &quot;that the most rapid and ready way to
    elevate the black man is to rub him up against the whites.&quot; God has said,
    &quot;He who walketh with wise men shall be wise.&quot; These separationists
    sneer at those who would act upon God's plan, as &quot;zealous but
    weak-minded.&quot; Will the General Conference divide conferences on the color
    line, to gratify those who dis­play this spirit toward the freedmen's truest
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'>One of' the chief reasons urged in favor of separate con­ferences
    discloses recklessness concerning the colored people, if not direct hostility.
    That reason is, that our work in the South, especially as to the mixed
    conferences, <i>is &quot;an attack upon the social customs of the country in
    relation to the two races.&quot;  </i>Those &quot;customs&quot; ostracize and
    oppress the colored people, drive them from the polls, treat them with rigor,
    deny to them the rights of manhood. The prevalence of those &quot;cus­toms<sup>&quot;</sup> made necessary the Fifteenth Amendment.  It is still</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 8]</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>necessary for the same reason. 
    If those &quot;social customs&quot; could work out their full and fell purpose
    unhindered by the freedmen's friends, they would repeal the Fifteenth
    Amendment, if possible, and if not, they would render it nugatory by State laws
    and by lawless raids upon a defenseless people, and thus, without the name or
    the forms of slavery, reduce the blacks to a serf or subject condition, and so
    reap the monetary and political results of practical slavery.  Because the
    Methodist Episcopal Church in the South antagonizes, or is supposed to
    antagonize, these tendencies and purposes, therefore we must change our policy,
    and so leave these &quot;social customs&quot; to work out these unhappy
    results.  This reason can not certainly have weight with our General
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>The mode in
    which the division is sought is objectionable.  The separation is now asked
    only by the whites. They ask that, on the request of the whites <i>or</i> the
    blacks, separate con­ferences may be organized. Since only the whites ask it or
    will ask it, it is proposed that they shall have it, whether the colored people
    want it or not, whether it is best for them or not, whether it would be for the
    real welfare of the Church in that section, or in the Church at large, or not.
    This one-sided treatment of a question upon the wish of a <i>minority </i>would
    not be asked by any sane person in reference to any conference in the North.
    What would be thought of a proposition to provide that all in the Ohio
    Conference who had red hair and blue eyes might, upon the request of those
    having black eyes and hair, be organized into a separate annual conference? A
    proposal to let a majority of <i>all our members </i>in the South, or all our
    members in the Church at large, decide this question, would be more fair. But,
    if the division of conferences on the color line were allowed in the manner
    asked, that is, upon the request of either party, one party being a minority, a
    principle would be admitted fatal to all Church order and organization. We can
    not afford to do this.</p>
  <p style='
text-autospace:none'>Color prejudice
    originates chiefly in the former servile condition of the freedmen.  It would
    soon die out if left to itself.  But it is all time stimulated to its utmost
    malig­nity by the Church South and by sectional politicians. It is part of a
    deeply laid and tenaciously held policy to drive from the South all white
    sympathy and a cure for the freedmen, so</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 9]</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>that ultimately the whites in
    the South can have as full control of the labor and of the political power of
    the black men as they had when they held them as their own.  I state this
    purpose with the fullest conviction of its correctness.  </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>The policy of
    the Methodist Episcopal Church South toward our Church in the South is the
    first to divide and then to destroy it, by arraying the colored and white
    members against each other, or at least by separating them so producing
    competition, and then mutual aversion.  From a careful observation, under
    favorable conditions, I am satisfied that our white brethren in the South who
    demand separate confer­ences do it under the pressure of a public sentiment
    sedulously kept alive and sensitive by Southern ecclesiastical and politi­cal
    demagogues. They may not see that this is the real policy of the Church South;
    but it is, notwithstanding. From the first our going into the South was
    regarded as an intrusion and an offense.  In an interview, in May, 1865,
    between Bishop Clark, Dr. Poe, and Rev. Dr. M'Ferrin, at which I was present,
    this was the view urged by Dr. M'Ferrin, who sought to dissuade Bishop Clark
    from his purpose to organize the Holston Conference.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>If the
    Methodist Episcopal Church South were benev­olently disposed toward the blacks,
    would they not hail the bestowal of labor and money on the freedmen by our
    Church? Would they not commend our zeal and liberality,  rather than stigmatize
    them as fanatical? The Church South dismembered their colored people, and gave
    them the chapels they had built when slaves, provided they would remain a
    purely colored organization. Why? Simply that they would not recognize the
    Christian manhood of the late chattels of the ex-slaveholders.  If
    de-organization and separation were so<i> </i>good for the blacks, why did not
    the Southern Church try their virtue upon the whites? They did not love the
    freed­men as men, as Christians, as Methodists.  In no other way</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>can we rationally account  for
    the continued hostility of the Methodist Episcopal Church South to our Church
    and work in the South. The Tennessee Conference and the Church South do not
    fraternize. Dickson District and the Church South do fraternize. Why this difference?
    The former opposes, and the latter favors, separate conferences.</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 10]</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>We can have
    fraternity with the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and our white brethren
    there can have peace, if only we will go back on the freedmen. If, to please
    our fifty thousand white members in the South, we will practice injustice and
    wrong upon one hundred and seventy-six thou­sand colored members there, we can
    have peace in all our Southern work. But, if we do this, we shall have God's
    dis­pleasure, and we shall deserve the contempt of all true men, the  freedmen
    included. Nor will it stop here. In the North the anti color-caste views and
    practice are growing. In the opera-house in Cincinnati, in the Bromfield-street
    Baptist Church in Boston, in political meetings, lectures, and concerts, the
    blacks and whites are seen sitting side by side.  This will grow until the
    foolish pride of race and color shall have disappeared.  Is our Church prepared
    to go back on God's poor, and to turn back the hands of progress on the world's
    dial?  If we do, we shall not only be disrupted and disorganized in the South,
    but we shall also lose our following in the North, and we would deserve to lose
    it.  </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>Grand
    opportunities come but seldom. One came in 1844. We seized it. God crowned us
    with honor and vic­tory. This is another golden opportunity.  If we are wise,
    it will be improved. In the old slavery times our General Conference refused to
    black members the right to testify in Church trials. In 1868, in the days of
    freedom—thirty years afterward—we were glad to purge our record from the black
    and damaging spot. If we separate conferences on the color line, the time is at
    hand when such a record will create uni­versal shame and regret.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'>It is safer and better to stand by principle, even though, at the moment,
    inconvenient, than it is to follow the <i>ignis fatuus </i>of policy. God
    requires us to &quot;honor all men.&quot;  Is the freedman <i>a man </i>as
    really as the proudest white oppressor? Then we must honor him. Did Christ die
    for the freedman? Then we may &quot;not destroy our brother&quot; by unfriendly
    and wicked ostracism. Will the Methodist Episcopal Church dare to attempt this?
    When Bishop Kingsley presided at the Hol­ston Conference, several colored men
    were elected to orders. On Saturday there was a stir as to whether Bishop
    Kingsley would ordain the black men at the same time and at the</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 11]</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>same altars as the white
    candidates.  The Bishop was waited on and asked to ordain the blacks at some
    other time and place, and so avoid arousing violent prejudices.  He replied,
    that as God had made no difference in calling colored and white men to the
    ministry, he should make none as to their ordination.  Noble words, worthy of
    the honored Bishop and of the Church, whose bishop he was.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>When Bishop
    Clark preached at a conference in Atlanta, one of the ministers, greatly to the
    Bishop’s annoyance, when he afterward learned of it, stood in the door and
    turned away colored preachers who came to hear their bishop preach.  </p>
  <p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Color-caste is
    unchristian.  Its effects on national life are disastrous; on Church life,
    deadly.  It dishonors Christ.  It is degrading, divisive, disorganizing.  It
    begets uncharitableness, unkindness, hatred, rancor, bitterness, murder.  </p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>If
    color-caste had control of all the agencies reaching the freedmen, they would
    have been left without protection, provision, education, evangelization.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>The
    separation of conferences is instigated by color-caste, and it promotes it. On
    grounds of public policy it should be refused.  Rupture, civil dissensions,
    strife, revolution, and war are opposed to Christ's kingdom. In their presence
    every interest of' Zion suffers. We are, as Christians, inter­ested in avoiding
    whatever tends to<i> </i>such results. But color-­caste does. Therefore, we
    should not yield to its dictum.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>Ex-slave-holders
    fluently predicted, at the close of the war, that the blacks would die out.
    This they refuse to do. In spite of abuses and murders they not only live, but
    they increase.   In 1864 they numbered four millions. They number five millions
    now. They can not remove, <i>en masse, </i>to some other country, if they
    would. We would not have them if they could. Compelled to live with them in the
    same country, under the same laws, shall we live in peace, or in war? in
    fraternity, or in Ishmaelitish hate? religiously, in the spirit of Christ, or
    in the very spirit of the devil? If the former, then we must eschew this
    diabolical color-caste, which is both God-dishonoring and man-destroying.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:
none'>The Roman Catholic Church, regardless of color, recog­nizes the Christian
    manhood of the negro, instructs him, evan­gelizes him, ministers to him in
    sickness, relieves him when in</p>
  <br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 12]</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>want, stands by him when he is
    denounced and proscribed.  This is so obvious that Downing, of Washington, and
    other sagacious and leading colored men, urge the freedmen to make that Church
    their home.  Can we, then, afford to go back on the freedmen?  Philip
    associated with the Ethiopian eunuch, got up into his chariot, and preached
    Jesus to him.  God sent the vision to Peter to assure him that where God has
    made no difference, men may not.  The Pentecostal baptism came upon the
    dwellers of all lands.  Jesus died for all men.  He gave commandment that
    repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all
    nations, beginning at Jerusalem.  He sent them into all the world to preach the
    Gospel to every creature.  To separate the blacks and the whites in annual
    conferences where they are now associated, would be to act, in spirit, against
    these facts.  A backward movement by the Methodist Episcopal Church on this
    subject means more, and effects more injury, than by any other Church, because
    we are, numerically at least, the strongest branch of the strongest Protestant
    organization in the United States.  Will this great Church, in this, the
    nineteenth century—in this, the century-year of our national history, and in
    the thirteenth year of American emancipation—dare to lay a proscribing hand
    upon us.  We can not prosper and be a party to the degradation of this people.</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>            Will Christian
    ministers, Methodist ministers, in this Centennial year, lay a burden that God
    has not imposed upon our brethren?  Shall our Heavenly Father, who has
    &quot;made of one blood all nation of men to dwell on all the face of the
    earth,&quot; see that we, the sons of Wesley, and the preachers of a full and
    free salvation, have consented to affix a brand and a stigma upon a race whose
    only crime is, that they have been in bondage, that they are poor, and that
    they bear the complexion God gave them?</p>
  <p style='text-autospace:none'>            Talk about policy! 
    Talk of convenience!  Better everyone of the fifty thousand of our white
    members in the South should leave us, if that were the alternative (thank God
    it is not), than that this General Conference should ordain separate
    conferences in the South, on the color line.</p>