Introduction
In
a letter directed to the Alabama Baptist State Convention dated December 17,
1844, Daniel Sharp and Baron Stow of the Acting Board of the Home Mission
Society reluctantly but confidently asserted the Society’s position on
slave-holding missionaries. Responding
to the question of whether they would or would not appoint a slaveholder to the
position of domestic or foreign missionary, the Board answered, “If, however,
any one should offer himself as a Missionary, having slaves, and should insist
on retaining them as his property, we could not appoint him. One thing is certain; we can never be a party
to any arrangement which would imply approbation of slavery.”[1]
According to the Board, in the thirty-year life of the Society no slaveholder had
ever occupied the position of Missionary.
Appointing such a man would require the sending of his domestics, an act
unprecedented in the history of the Society. Yet the opinions of the Board revealed in
their letter to the Alabama Convention were informed by conviction, not simple
logistics. By ruling in such fashion the
Board would start a fire that would ultimately result in the separation of
Northern and Southern Baptists, and lead to the formation of the Southern
Baptist Convention at Augusta, Georgia in May of 1845.
Similar
splits would occur within the Methodist and Presbyterian denominations, as the
debate over the issue of slavery in the mid-nineteenth century would create
riffs between southern and northern church.
However, in the case of the Baptist split, missions would be the field
upon which the battle over slavery was fought.
The Baptist division, though inseparably linked to the issue of slavery,
reflected a theological conviction of Southern Baptists that had been
foundational to the group for decades.
This conviction, is what Mechal Sobel summarizes as, “Salvation, or
rebirth in Christ”[2]. This “central focus of Baptist belief”[3]
was one that took precedent over social reform, abolition, and denominational
cooperation. To be certain, the Southern
Baptists were not concerned with liberating the African slaves of the American
South. At the same time, considering the
theological convictions made evident through the Baptist developments of the
eighteenth and nineteenth century, as well as theological arguments of
prominent Baptists of the day, the vitality of missions suggests a priority of
salvation over liberation.
Article 9 of the Southern
Convention’s constitution reads, “Missionaries appointed by any sort of the
Boards of this Convention, must, previous to their appointment, furnish
evidence of genuine piety, fervent zeal in their Master’s cause, and talents,
which fit them for the service for which they offer themselves.” According to Southern Baptists, to infringe
upon the call of evangelism by preventing slaveholding missionaries was to
infringe upon their primary theological objective. Piety, zeal, and talents were the
prerequisite for missions, and the issue of slavery was not to discourage the
appointment of those who possessed such attributes.
However,
this theology of salvation and rebirth that resulted in the schism between
Northern and Southern Baptists had a profound impact on the abolition movement
itself. As John Boles argues, the
evangelical efforts of Baptists and other evangelical groups sought to bring
blacks into the fellowship of their churches.
This effort would result in the remarkable growth of black Christianity
during the first half of the nineteenth century and ultimately provide
tremendous leverage for anti-slavery movements.
While the evangelical movement, of which Baptist took a prominent role,
did not seek the freedom of the slave from bondage, it would ultimately recognize
the “soul possessing” status of blacks, and have a profound impact on the climate
of Southern plantations.[4]
As
will be shown, the theological conviction of the Baptists to evangelize will
prove influential not only to the abolitionist movement, but also to the defense
of the institution by Baptists in the South.
This theological priority is illustrated through the diaries and letters
of Baptists, both north and south, and is deeply entrenched in the denomination
at large. By first looking at Baptist
effort on southern plantations, and then turning to the arguments of Southern
Baptists in defense of their split, a common theology will become evident. In the end, this theology would lead Baptists
in the South to embrace an institution they once opposed and separate from
their northern brethren.
Revival
Growth and an Open Invitation
According
to Sobel, black Christianity has always had a “particular relationship to the
Baptist faith.”[5] Sobel argues that a combination of shared
ritual dynamics made the Baptist faith more appealing than other
denominations. The emphasis on experience
and the recognition of the immortal soul resonated strongly with African
religion, and consequently African-slaves became likely converts to the Baptist
faith. At the same time however, this
appeal was only realized after the initial effort of Baptist ministers and
evangelists to open their faith to blacks.
Perhaps blacks were eager to accept, but the invitation must first be
offered. This invitation would
ultimately come during the revival periods of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, and the response to this invitation by blacks affirmed the commonalities
of which Sobel writes and would precipitate a major conversion of blacks to the
Baptist faith.
Black
conversion was no accident, particularly on southern plantations. Long before efforts would be made on southern
plantations, however, the field was prepared as Evangelical Christianity swept
the country during the great revivals of the 18th century,
particularly the Great Awakening powered by George Whitefield and Jonathan
Edwards. Whitefield, himself a slave
owner, described the climate of revival amongst the Africans, “I think now is
the season for us to exert our utmost for the good of the poor Ethiopians.”[6] Though not a particularly Baptist movement,
nor a specifically American movement for that matter, the Great Awakening would
have tremendous implications for Baptists in America, as the fires of
evangelical Christian revival were sparked.
Whitefield’s sentiments for these, “poor Ethiopians”, would be shared by
many, and revival would see conversion of both blacks and whites throughout the
eighteenth century. The movement would
recognize a particular theological conviction known as the, “equality of
souls”, and the “heathen African” would find themselves initiated into the
Christian fellowship of evangelical Protestantism.[7]
With
the foundation laid during the Great Awakening revivals of the eighteenth
century, Baptists would find themselves racing towards an explosive expansion,
which would reach its peak in the middle of the nineteenth century. From 1770 to 1850 the Baptist denomination
would grow from 67,000 to 715,000, with 59% of Baptists residing in the South[8]. This massive expansion was a direct result of
revival efforts, particularly in the form of intra-denominational camp meetings
held throughout the South during the Second Great Awakening. In 1813, David Benedict of Kentucky would
record that, “about ten thousand were baptized and added to the Baptist
churches in the course or two or three years.”[9]
Similarly, Georgia would record an increase of 3,800 in the year 1812 alone[10]. This growth would occur in areas throughout
the South, most significantly in Tennessee, Virginia, and the Carolinas.
Conversion
experiences would define the camp meetings of the Second Great Awakening
revivals. Writing in 1813, one Kentucky
minister describes such camp meetings as, “…those great parades, and
sacramental seasons, those extraordinary exercises of falling down, rolling,
shouting, jerking, dancing, barking…”[11]
Revivals cultivated experience, and this experience would be open to those who
desired to save their eternal soul, be they black or white. The “equality of souls” theology would offer
no discrimination, nor would the revivals sponsored by such theology. As Sobel summarizes, “This religious ritual
called for experience, and the early invitation to the black was to come and
participate.”[12]
Not only did these
revivals result in tremendous growth of the Baptist denomination, but also in
growth that was interracial. By
prioritizing the salvation of the soul Protestant evangelicals sought to
provide the Christian faith to any who would receive it. Furthermore, with their particular blend of
theology and practice Baptists were able to find resonance between their own
faith and African religion. This
combination of concerted conversion efforts and African receptiveness resulted
in rapid expansion for Baptists. Due to
this revival atmosphere, Baptists in the early to mid nineteenth century found
themselves larger than ever, more diverse than ever, and having experienced
enough success to motivate and propel their particular theology onto the
plantations of the American South.
Changing the Climate of Southern Plantations
With
their emphasis on the soul, Baptists would be required to preach conversion and
receive a response. At the camp meetings
of Protestant revivals, the Baptists and others had witnessed a great multitude
of conversions, and “the Spirit of God was seen most evident.”[13]
With conversions happening on such a large scale, Baptists were gaining
momentum, experience, and an ever-increasing motivation to continue the work.
On plantations, however,
the pulpit for proclamation was far more difficult to attain. As planters had control over their slaves on
plantations, the exposure of slaves to the Baptist message would necessarily
have to be granted by the master himself.
Fear of slave uprising and a history of Baptist opposition to slavery
prior to the nineteenth century would be two major factors that would persuade
planters to exercise extreme caution in this regard. With the constant fear of insurrection and
renowned Baptists like John Leland and Isaac Backus staunchly opposing the
institution, the reminder that, “the
gospel sets all men upon a level”[14], was
not a welcome one for plantation owners`[15].
Not willing
to surrender the mission field of southern plantations, Baptists and other
evangelicals were forced to develop new strategies to infiltrate the slave dwellings and ease the
skepticism of planters in the South.
Baptist ministers like Richard Furman would openly speak to the moral
lawfulness of proper slave owning, and speak out against religious writers who
were “very unfriendly to the principle and practice of holding slaves”[16]. Not only did these compositions distance
Southern Baptists from their anti-slavery predecessors, but they also provided
a forum to articulate the advantages of Christian slaves. Pointing to Rome and Greece as examples, and
noting the “Gospel History” of friendly relations between Christian slaves and
freemen within these societies, Furman suggests that conversion would not
infringe upon the master-slave relation.
Rather, this should be the ultimate goal of the Christian and should
prove advantageous to planters.[17]
In
the 1820’s and 30’s, arguments from Baptists on the morality of slavery as an
institution would ease the fears of southern planters and create “a growing
interest in the religious instruction of slaves”[18]
by the mid-1840s. The burden of African
souls weighed upon Baptist ministers in the South, and with carefully
articulated arguments in favor of the institution, Baptists had gained the
trust of southern planters. The field had been prepared for missionary
endeavors on southern plantations. As
Furman writes, southerners had a particular Christian obligation to slaves,
To have them brought to this
happy state is the great object of Christian benevolence, and of Christian
piety; for this state is not only connected with the truest happiness, which
can be enjoyed in time, but is introductory to eternal life and blessedness in
the future world: And the salvation
of men is intimately connected with the glory of their God and Redeemer.[19]
Evangelism on Southern Plantations
By
presenting the conversion of black slaves as both a Christian obligation and a
potentially advantageous maneuver on the part of planters, evangelicals were
able to cultivate a strong argument in favor of conversion efforts. Coupled with an ever-intensifying effort on
behalf of southern evangelicals to convert the slaves, the plantation became a
domestic mission field, and Baptists were more than willing to support such
outreach. In some cases, like that of Basil
Manly and William Ford, Baptist ministers themselves held slaves. Other planters like James Smith and James G.
Carson found it advantageous to allow Baptist ministers onto their plantations
for the betterment of the slave souls and, perhaps more importantly in these
cases, the well being of the plantation at large. Regardless, these evangelical efforts would
have a profound impact in terms of slave conversions and recognize the status
of “soul equality” between blacks and whites.
In
some cases planters were themselves Baptist ministers. As such, the process of evangelism literally
took place in the planter’s own backyard, as religious instruction was provided
on the plantation. Looking at the
writings of Solomon Northup, this evangelistic effort administered by planters proved
to be quite effective. Describing his
observations of a fellow slave by the name of Sam, Northup writes, “In the
course of the summer Sam became deeply convicted, his mind dwelling intensely
on the subject of religion. His mistress
gave him a Bible, which he carried with him to his work.”[20]
According to Northup, the preaching and teaching of Sam’s master William Ford
precipitated this “conviction”. On
Sabbath days, Ford would gather the slaves and preach to them on such subjects
as love for one another and dependence on God.
Ultimately Ford’s preaching would precipitate conversions by stirring
the minds and hearts of his own slaves.
At
the same time however, most planters were not Baptist ministers, or even
particularly religious, but they nonetheless saw the advantage of converted
slaves. Ever ready to save souls,
Baptist ministers took full advantage of the masters’ requests, by making trips
to the plantations to preach and instruct. James Smith would be one of many
planters to provide such an opportunity.
Upon his death, Smith designated a sum of one hundred dollars annually to
hire a Baptist minister to preach to his slaves. The chosen minister would preach twice
monthly, and a chapel on Smith’s estate would provide the appropriate
meetinghouse for such services.[21]
When
a minister was not available, non-clerical planters would often turn to
instructing their slaves themselves. In
some cases, like that of James G. Carson, planters would even encourage other
planters to engage in evangelical efforts on their plantations. With the combination of minister-planters and
non-clerical planters hiring missionaries as well as instructing their own
slaves, evangelism swept the plantations of the South during the mid-1800s. With plantation revival occurring within the
“heathen” community of African slaves, planters not only saw themselves as
fulfilling their Christian duty, but also creating a master-slave relationship,
bound by religious ties and obligations, that would prove advantageous in the
years to come.
At
the same time, recognition of “soul equality” would serve to buttress abolitionist
arguments. Southerners would have to dig
in their heels to defend the institution of slavery, and Northerners would
highlight the hypocrisy of Christian slavery. Debates over abolition would create strong
tensions between Baptists in the North and South, and the abolitionist movement
in the North would continue to grow in prominence and influence. Baptists in the South would soon find their
ability to evangelize, the primary exercise of soul saving theology, infringed
upon as abolitionist influence in the North began to stretch its hand into
southern churches. In 1845, Baptists
would resort to separation from their northern kin in an effort to preserve
their own exercise in evangelism.
Interestingly, the same theology that would lead to mass conversion, and
consequently influence abolitionist arguments, would find itself infringed upon
in the South by abolitionists of the North.
Fuller and Wayland
In hindsight, the split
that would come in 1845 appears inevitable.
Yet in the years and months preceding the separation of northern and
southern Baptists, hope remained that the denomination might remain
united. Most Baptists were willing to
engage in debate and conversation, and with the exception of the perceived
hostility of the abolitionists, Baptists in the South viewed their anti-slavery
brethren in the North as part of a common Baptist fellowship. This fellowship would be exercised through
correspondence and debate, with important leaders on both sides entering into
conversation with one another.
Writing in the
years of 1844-45, just prior to the formation of the Southern Baptist
Convention, Richard Fuller, of South Carolina, and Francis Wayland, of Rhode
Island, composed a congenial correspondence over the issue of slavery, and in
doing so, reflected the opposing theologies that informed their prospective
positions. With Wayland, the institution
of slavery would be presented as a moral evil and a Christian sin, which must
necessarily be abolished. For Fuller,
the conversion of African souls would be evidence of the positive impact of the
institution and serve as one of several defenses for the continuation of
slavery in the South. Though Fuller
would not limit his position to one informed by evangelism alone, the priority
of conversion is evident, and without such efforts to spread the Gospel and
instruct southern slaves in Christian religion his arguments would be purely
political and held little weight with his Baptist brother in the North. This correspondence reveals the opposing
positions that would ultimately split Baptists in the North and South, and
recognizes the southern theology of salvation.
The
Wayland-Fuller correspondence began in November of 1844, with Fuller submitting
a letter to the editor of the Christian
Reflector, denying that slavery was a moral evil. In this letter, Fuller argues that biblical
references to slavery lack condemnation of the institution, characters of the
Bible did in fact own slaves themselves, and that in the early Church, slavery
was “everywhere a part of the social organization of the Church.”[22]
His comment, “…if you love the country, or the slave, do not sever the bands
which unite the Baptist churches”[23],
recognizes the growing tensions over the subject. The most striking argument in Fuller’s
initial letter, however, is that slavery itself might somehow “be best for the
slave himself”.[24] Considering that the slave is clothed, cared
for, and religiously instructed,
Fuller argues that the institution itself has been for the well being of the
slave.
In
this initial letter, Fuller would make references to the work of Dr. Francis
Wayland and Dr. William Channing, of Rhode Island. Upon raising the point that slavery was
permitted in the Old Testament, Fuller notes that both Channing and Wayland
concede to his argument. If therefore,
slavery were permitted in the Old Testament, Fuller argues, the institution
could not be a crime in and of itself.
By referencing Channing and Wayland, Fuller would open the subject to
debate and identify his opposition. The
weight of defense would therefore fall upon Francis Wayland, and he would rise
to rebut the contributions of Fuller.
Wayland drafted a series of letters that he sent to Fuller, who would
respond to each one. The letters of
Wayland attempted to refute the arguments of Fuller that slavery was sanctioned
by Christian scriptures, and in doing so revealed a theological perspective
quite different from that of his southern counterpart.
Wayland
himself did not identify with the abolitionist movement. To Wayland, the abolitionists were divisive
in both matters of religion and country.
Furthermore, the hostility and aggression with which he felt they
presented their opposition could be potentially detrimental to slaves
themselves.[25] Violent and aggressive rhetoric and action
could potential prompt a violent and aggressive response, pitting Baptists at
odds with one another and creating causalities out of the slaves over which the
two sides were debating. At the same
time, due to theological convictions, Wayland, though not an abolitionist
himself, opposed the institution of slavery.
Employing Christian scriptures and his own reasoning, Wayland’s response
to Fuller’s initial letter carefully articulated his position, maintaining his
firm view while making ever effort to not condemn his Carolinian brother. According to Baptist historians Pamela and
Keith Durso, Wayland, “perhaps espoused the most reasoned northern Baptist
argument against slavery”[26],
while maintaining a congenial and respectful tone. He would not deny the positive good of
conversion, but argued that conversion under the institution of slavery was
manipulative and coercive, thus failing to be adequate defense of the
institution.
Posing
a hypothetical situation in which a Christian missionary might be moved to
convert the slaves, Wayland presents multiple approaches that, though
effective, are nonetheless evil and “lies in the name of the Most High God.”[27]
After presenting three such circumstances, Wayland poses a hypothetical
situation that would have resonated greatly with Fuller himself. Wayland writes, “Or again, suppose that while
I myself hold firmly to the doctrines of the gospel, I, from the fear of
popular clamor, adopt means for advancing what I believe to be truth, of which
my conscience and reason disapprove.”[28] In such a circumstance, one’s intention to
promote the truth, i.e., the gospel, has taken priority over all else, forcing
the proselytizer to adopt means for advancing the truth that are at odds with
his own conscience. Such an approach,
Wayland argues, is wicked, and the proselytizer is pandering to humanity rather
than the God whom he serves. In doing
so, the proselytizer ruins the souls of those to whom he should be
ministering. He concludes, “I do, as if
by the command of God, what I do not believe that he has commanded, and do this
because my fellow-man desired it. I am
guilty, and to God I must answer it.”[29]
Wayland’s
hypothetical situation was very much a reality for Baptist in the South. In an effort to save the souls of African
slaves, southern Baptists had turned one hundred and eighty degrees from their
initial opposition to slavery, had won the approval of planters in the South,
and had advanced their cause through such means. For Wayland, slavery itself was a violation
of the conscience and reason of Baptists.
While Fuller would argue to the contrary, tracing the developments of
Baptist faith in the South suggests that the denomination as a whole had indeed
taken such an approach. Though their
efforts to promulgate the Gospel had been effective, they had nonetheless
required a turn from previous convictions.
According to Wayland, such an effort was wicked and to the ruin of
souls, rather than the salvation thereof.
For Wayland, such “salvation” was not salvation at all.
Yet
even Wayland, who argued against the institution of slavery and reasoned with
Fuller to see his point of view, could not accept the infringement upon
missionary appointments. Throughout his
correspondence with Fuller, Wayland argues that slavery is not in line with
Christian faith. However, he nonetheless
fails to offer any disqualifications for the office of missionary. On the contrary, just two days before the
Southern Baptist Convention would holds its inaugural meeting, Wayland laments,
“You will separate of course. I could
not ask otherwise. Your rights have been
infringed.”[30] The
rights of which Wayland speaks are the rights to appoint missionaries, and this
infringement would result in the division of the Baptist denomination.
The
Formation of the Southern Baptist Convention
When
put into practice, the theology of soul equality resulted in great missionary
movements on plantations, and saw significant growth of black members among
Baptist churches. With such a theology,
Baptists in the South were able to applaud their own efforts, knowing that
though the slave remained in bondage, his soul had been “freed in Christ”. In the North, however, the concept of
salvation took a more temporal tone.
Certainly the evangelical efforts of the revival period were not
obsolete in the North, nor was social reform absent in the South, but due to
divergent trajectories in terms of agriculture, manufacturing, and politics,
the fields of the North were found ripe for abolition efforts. At the same time that southern Baptists were
making their ways onto plantations to reach the souls of blacks, northern
Baptists were developing their own priories.
One such priority would be the abolitionist movement, an effort by
northern Baptist to free their African brothers from the bonds of slavery and
recognized “soul equality” as primary grounds for societal equality as well.
With the formation
of the Triennial National Convention in 1814, northern and southern Baptists
found themselves partnered on the national level in ways that they had never
considered. A national convention meant
Baptists in America would have the structure and resources to cooperate on issues
of denominational importance, not the least of which being the issue of
missions. The Missions Board of the
Triennial Convention was responsible for approving and funding Baptist
missionaries, and they alone decided who would enter into the mission field.[31]
The Triennial
Convention established qualifications for missionary appointments, as would the
constitution later formed by the Southern Baptist Convention. The fifth article of the Triennial Convention
states these qualifications as, “such persons as are in full communion with
some regular church of our denomination, and who present satisfactory evidence
of genuine piety, good talents, and fervent zeal for the Redeemer’s cause are
to be employed as missionaries.”[32]
While the “Redeemer’s cause” is not
expounded upon, Baptists in the South, informed by their theological
convictions, interpreted this as the salvation of the soul. However, in the North, abolitionists would
include the freeing of African slaves as a top priority, and consequently
diverge from the southern priority of the soul above all else. Disagreements as to whether or not
slaveholding persons were therefore eligible would begin in the 1820s, but they
exploded in the mid-1840s.
When the
application of James E. Reeves reached the office of the Mission Board of the
Triennial Convention in October of 1844, those who would choose the fate of the
Georgia Baptist were faced with a most serious situation. Reeves application read, “The application of
Mr. Reeves, of Georgia, a slaveholder…”[33]
If Reeves were to be nominated, abolitionist backlash would be strong. At the same time, to deny his office would be
to recognize that slaveholding was deemed immoral by the Triennial Convention,
run the risk of isolating the South, and, from the southern perspective, mean
that the saving message might not be heard.
Whether the
inclusion of Reeves slaveholding status was an intentional agitation or simply
an irrelevant side note in the minds of Baptists in the South is not clear. What is clear however; is that this inclusion
doomed Reeves’ nomination. Baptists in
the South now found themselves with a decision to make. The theology of saving souls required
missionaries, and slavery had not, by 1844, proven to be a determinant. Furthermore, Baptists in the South had seen
great conversion on plantations, and many of their clergy were tied directly to
the institution. In the minds of
southerners, to accept the rejection of Reeves’ application would be to accept
an infringement upon the proclamation of their message. A response was required, and that response
would determine the future of mission appointments.
Southerners would
give their response in May of 1845, at Augusta, Georgia, with the formation of
the Southern Baptist Convention. In
response to the ruling, and the growing conflicts with the abolitionist
movement, Baptist in the South felt it was time to succeed, for “the greatest
amount of good” and in an effort “to organize a Society for the propagation of
the Gospel.”[34] At
the meeting in Augusta, 326 Baptists from eight southern states and the
District of Columbia would gather to form the Constitution of the Southern
Baptist Convention. They would elect
William B. Johnson, of South Carolina, as president, a former president of the
Triennial Convention and the likely inspiration of the words defining the
purpose of such a convention.
Borrowing from the
Triennial Convention, the Southern Baptists would claim an allegiance to the
spread of the Gospel with the words, “To elicit, combine and direct the
energies of the whole denomination in one grand effort for the propagation of
the Gospel.”[35]
This spreading of the Gospel would be of utmost importance to Baptists in the
South, taking priority over social issues of the time and denying the disqualification
of slaveholders to the office.
Addressing those gathered in Augusta, Johnson claimed that the
abolitionist efforts, “would forbid us to speak unto the Gentiles”, and “drive
us from our beloved colored people.”[36]
Throughout his address, Johnson made no effort to defend the institution, but
argued that one’s opinion of the institution must not infringe upon the ability
of others to proclaim the Christian message.
The stance of the newly formed convention was to promote missions
regardless of slaveholding status, and their aim was, “the extension of the
Messiah’s kingdom… not the upholding of any form of human policy, or civil
rights; but God’s glory”[37].
The formation of
the Southern Baptist Convention divided the Baptist denomination in
America. On the one hand, the importance
of the slavery issue cannot be ignored in discerning the motivations behind the
schism. At the same time, Southern
Baptists would be driven to the split over the issue of missionary
appointments, a vital component of their soul saving theology, and the
perceived infringement upon such efforts was considered ample justification for
such a split. For Southern Baptists, the
salvation of souls and the vehicle through which this salvation would be shared
took precedence over all else.
Conclusions
For early Baptists
in the South, evangelism was of primary importance; the priority of the
Christian cause. The revival movements
of the eighteenth and nineteenth century had created increased emphasis on
conversion, and the faith and practice of Baptists appeared very attractive to
African slaves. As the Baptist
denomination grew, increased efforts were made to spread the Gospel, and this
would ultimately require the acceptance of slavery. The initial opposition to slavery would be
rejected, as Baptists accepted the institution as a necessary evil in the South
and reconfigured their rhetoric accordingly.
Such adaptations would win the approval of planters in the South, and
consequently the plantation mission field.
Experiencing great success within this field, Baptists began to
reconsider the once necessary evil of slavery as a positive good. If salvation was being attained, how could
the institution under which it was offered be immoral? This development is reflected in the
correspondence between Fuller and Wayland, which illustrates two opposing
theologies on the institution. Wayland’s
comments remind Baptists of the developments that had occurred. By prioritizing the salvation of the immortal
soul above all else, Baptists in the South would find themselves accepting the
institution of slavery. Furthermore,
this initial acceptance would turn to affirmation, as Baptists in the South
would defend their particular brand of slavery.
Ultimately, this disagreement would lead to the formation of a separate
Southern Baptist Convention, and the bands of the Baptist church would indeed
find themselves severed.
Through it all
however, the initial emphasis on evangelism would dictate the course of the
South. Evangelism would be the product
of the revival movements, but it would also be the reason for southern Baptists
changing their perspective on slavery.
On the plantations, evangelism would prove successful, and consequently
leave Baptists in the South affirming slavery.
Meanwhile in the North, the concept of “soul equality” would buttress
the abolitionist argument and create strong opposition to the institution in
the South. Finally, when Baptists in the
South found the ability to exercise evangelism infringed upon by the North,
through the disqualification of slaveholding missionaries, they would opt to
severe their ties with their northern brethren.
In their eyes, it was better to be divided and effective than to remain
united and limit their missionary activities.
The split in the
Baptist denomination was a product of decades of developments in
evangelism. In the South, evangelism to
the heathen slaves was a positive good.
In the North, as reflected in the letters of Francis Wayland, this
evangelism was done under the false pretenses of necessary evil. For the North, slavery was not necessary for
evangelism, nor was the effectiveness of evangelism on plantations sufficient
defense of the institution. Similar to
the war that would come some sixteen years after the first meetings in Augusta,
the split of North and South in the Baptist world would be wrapped upon in
theology and religion. Saving souls
would impact the secession of Baptists in the South; to the extent that without
the developments in southern evangelism, Baptist would have likely maintained
their initial positions, and opposition to slavery would not have been a
uniquely northern phenomenon. As it was,
Southern Baptists would find themselves more and more convinced of the cause of
the morality of the confederate cause, and the churches of North and South
would find themselves divided national in both convention and country.
Bibliography
Backus, Isaac. Address To the Massachusetts Ratifying
Convention. 1788.
Baker, Robert A. Baptist Source Book: With Particular Reference to Southern
Baptists. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1966.
Blake Touchstone.
“Planters and Slave Religion”, in Masters
and Slaves in the House of
the Lord. Edited by John B.
Boles. Lexington, KY: The University Press of
Kentucky, 1988.
Boles, John B. The South Through Time: A History of an American Region, Third
Edition, Volume 1. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc., 2004.
Durso, Pmela R. and Keith E. The
Story of Baptists in the United States.
Brentwood,
TN: Baptist History and Heritage Society, 2006.
Fuller, Richard. Letter to the Editor of the Christian
Reflector. 1844.
Fuller, Richard and Francis Wayland. Domestic
Slavery Considered as a Scriptural
Institution: In a Correspondence between the Rev. Richard
Fuller, of Beaufort,
S.C.,
and the Rev. Francis Wayland, of Providence R.I. Revised and corrected by the
authors. New York:
Lewis Colby, 1845.
Furman,
Richard. "Exposition of the Views
of the Baptists Relative to the Coloured
Population of the United States in Communication to the
Governor of South
Carolina". Charleston, 1823. Reprinted in James A. Rogers, Richard
Furman:
Life and Legacy. Macon, GA: Mercer University
Press, 1985. December
24, 1822.
Georgia Supreme Court.
“Will of James Smith” in Reports of Cases in Law and Equity,
Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, in
the
Year..., Volume 2 - Primary Source Edition. Charleston SC: Nabu Press, 2013.
Leonard, Bill. Baptist Ways: A History. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 2003.
Najar, Monica. Evangelizing the South. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008.
Northup, Solomon. Twelve
years a slave: narrative of Solomon Northup, a citizen of
New-York, kidnapped in
Washington City in 1841, and rescued in 1853, from a
cotton plantation near the Red
River, in Louisiana. Auburn, AL:
Derby and
Miller, 1853.
Ragsdale, B.D. Story of Georgia Baptists. Atlanta, GA:
B.D. Ragsdale, 1938.
Smith, Shelton H.
In His Image But…: Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972.
Sobel, Mechal. Trabelin’ On. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.
Whitefield, George.
Diary March 1751.
[1]
Robert A. Baker, Baptist Source
Book: With Particular Reference to
Southern Baptists (Nashville, TN:
Broadman Press, 1966), p. 109.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
John B. Boles, The South Through
Time: A History of an American Region,
Third Edition, Volume 1 (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc., 2004), p. 169.
[5]
Trabelin’ On, p. 79.
[6]
George Whitefield, Diary March 1751.
[9]
Baptist Source Book, p. 45.
[10]
Ibid. p. 51.
[11]
Ibid. p. 45.
[12]
Trabelin’ On, p. 98.
[13]
Baptist Source Book, p. 48.
[14]
Isaac Backus, Address To the
Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.
[15]
Blake Touchstone, “Planters and Slave Religion”, in Masters and Slaves in the House of the Lord edited by John B. Boles
(Lexington, KY: The University Press of
Kentucky, 1988), p. 99-100.
[16]
Richard Furman,
"Exposition of the Views of the Baptists Relative to the Coloured
Population of the United States in Communication to the Governor of South Carolina,"
Charleston, 1823. Reprinted in Rogers, James A. Richard Furman: Life and
Legacy. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985. 274-286. December 24,
1822.
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
“Planters and Slave Religion”, p. 100.
[19]
"Exposition of the
Views of the Baptists Relative to the Coloured Population of the United States
in Communication to the Governor of South Carolina".
[20]
Solomon Northup, Twelve years a slave: narrative of Solomon Northup, a
citizen of New-York, kidnapped in Washington City in 1841, and rescued in 1853,
from a cotton plantation near the Red River, in Louisiana (Auburn, AL: Derby and Miller, 1853), p. 96.
[21]
Georgia Supreme Court, “Will of James Smith” in Reports of Cases in Law and Equity, Argued and
Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, in the Year..., Volume 2 - Primary Source Edition (Charleston SC: Nabu Press, 2013), p. 238-45.
[22]
Richard Fuller, Letter to the Editor of
the Christian Reflector, 1844.
[23]
Ibid.
[24]
Ibid.
[25]
H. Shelton Smith, In His Image But…: Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910 (Durham,
NC: Duke University Press, 1972), p.
116.
[26]
Pamela R. Durso and Keith E. Durso, The
Story of Baptists in the United States (Brentwood, TN: Baptist History and Heritage Society, 2006),
p. 112.
[27]
Richard Fuller and Francis Wayland, Domestic
Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution:
In a Correspondence between the Rev. Richard Fuller, of Beaufort, S.C.,
and the Rev. Francis Wayland, of Providence R.I., rev. and corrected by the
authors (New York: Lewis Colby, 1845),
p. 66.
[28]
Ibid. p. 67.
[29]
Ibid., p. 67.
[30] Baptist Source Book, p. 116.
[31]
Baptist Ways, p. 165-66.
[33]
Ibid.
[34]
Ibid. p. 59.
[35]
Ibid. p. 57.
[36]
Baptist Source Book, p. 120.
[37]
Ibid. p. 121.
No comments:
Post a Comment