|
South
Church: Founding History and Abolitionism
An
Essay Regarding New Facts
by
Charlotte Lyons, March, 2004
South
Church: Founding History and Abolitionism: An Essay Regarding New Facts
A
few well-known facts about Andover stand out: 1) Early Andover had slaves and our first two ministers owned
slaves. 2) In
1846, forty-four people from four Andover churches formed Free Christian
Church as a statement that abolitionism was a Christian responsibility,
where inaction was an institutional and personal endorsement for
slavery. By implication,
the current popular history is that the other churches, including South
Church, passively did not do anything for or against abolitionism.
What was South
Church’s role? I became
interested in this after giving a Cemetery tour of the
slave/abolitionist/Civil War graves to the Andover Historical Society,
and I felt there was more to it than the popular facts, begging many
questions.
In this essay, I offer a few new facts and opinions regarding
our role with slavery and abolitionism.
I also offer insights regarding how our history still influences
us.
In the
beginning… In
1711, thirty-five men and women established South Parish in Andover as a
sister church to North Parish (now North Andover).
Our first pastor, The Rev. Samuel Phillips, who served for 60
years, had slaves; this was common.
When he died in 1771, the slave family of Salem and Remy passed
to The Rev. Jonathan French at the parsonage.
I think Mr. French inherited the slaves from Mr. Phillips but the
little evidence which exists does not explain the exchange.
The first
slave ship came to Boston in 1638, eight years before Andover
incorporated. Slavery in
early America was widely accepted as the British regarded it as a normal
human condition, believing the poor souls should be converted to
Christianity. In 1754, 42
slaves lived in Andover, 28 male, 14 female, probably all born into
slavery in this country. (According
to the first Federal census in 1790, 119 “people
of color” were living here.) Rose
Coburn’s gravestone (1859) tells us she was the last person born into
slavery in Andover, and lived to 99.
When slavery was abolished in Massachusetts in 1783, many slaves
in Andover stayed on as hired help. Those
who fought in the American Revolution also received a veteran’s
pension including Pomp Lovejoy (1826), who lived to 102, and Titus
Coburn (1821), Rose’s husband. By the way, eight black Andover men fought at Bunker Hill, the
most from any community. Parishioner
Samuel Cogswell freed his slave, Caesar, after ‘rendering creditable
service’ in the battle at Breed’s Hill in Boston.
Caesar’s emancipation papers are at the Historical Society.
While our
parishioners were largely complacent about slave ownership, they were
passionate patriots, including the aforementioned slaves.
In the 1770’s Andover was considered a cultural center, with
well educated and well behaved citizens. The Town/Church dealt with the pre-Revolution turmoil by
dictating the standards for behavior, decorum, and discipline.
At many Town Meetings held in our building (our Annual Meeting of
the present), the minutes noted (paraphrased), “That
all members of our community will act without riot to the practices of
the British Government and the followers.
As long as members of this Parish are of Good Standing, no action
or offense will be taken.” (Of course, everyone was British!) This set a precedent of dictating decorum which influenced
our role in abolitionism in the 1800’s.
I believe
the moderator of those meetings, Col. George Abbot, (watching from his
northeastern cemetery spot) would have been proud of us at our 293rd
Annual Meeting, January, 28, 2004.
The Annual Meeting had all the ingredients of our predecessors’
wishes: respect for differing opinions, thoughtful and patient
procedures, passionate and careful words, mindful of the consequences,
reverence for the Sanctuary, love for our congregation and community, an
appreciation for the sincerity and effort by all, and rising above the
discussion to pray together from our hearts.
And like those who worshipped before us, everyone behaved.
Into
the 1830’s…
The Rev. Samuel Phillips’ sons and grandson formed Phillips
Academy (1778), and the Andover Theological Seminary (1808). Sarah
Abbot established The Abbot School in 1828.
Like all town folk, the students attended South Parish, too. West
Parish was the last Congregational church to be established by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1826.
The separation of church and state finally was effected by our
state in 1834, and the Baptist, Episcopal/Church of England, and
Methodist Churches were founded in Andover.
Orators
frequented Andover due to the Academy, the Seminary, and connections to
Harvard. Abolitionists
Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, George Thompson, and Wendell
Phillips led fiery discussions. Andover
was quietly very abolitionist. Discreetly,
town folk became factors in the Abolitionist movement. The William Poor family built wagons with false bottoms and
ran a stop on the Underground Railway through Frye Village for years.
Societies sprang up all over town, meeting in homes.
Meanwhile, at South Parish, missions and missionaries from the
congregation and the Seminary were strongly and passionately supported.
Temperance, Sabbath School education, the women’s prayer
groups, music and an organ (egads!) were issues for the Deacons.
Also, when North, South, and West Parishes were established by
the state, they held the legal welfare responsibility of all persons in
each parish.
As
Abolitionism in Andover gathered momentum, the town’s institutions
felt the affect of political division.
The Rev. Leonard Woods of the Seminary stated that when one was
at school, one studied, and politics were not a part of the curriculum.
Phillips Academy echoed the same sentiment but there is
speculation that the Academy also was under pressure from their Southern
graduates and parents to quell the topic.
Southerners had sent their sons to Phillips to aid entry to
Harvard and Yale for decades. West
Parish’s minister, The Rev. Samuel Jackson agonized over the turmoil
in his church, and admonished his congregation from the pulpit as unruly
behavior invaded worship and meetings, scolding all parishioners,
forbidding further controversy. Abolitionists wanted their ministers to refuse pews to
pro-slavers. John Smith
refused to pay his church taxes and resigned as Deacon and church
treasurer because West Parish was serving communion to supporters of
slavery.
Slavery
was not in our backyard in the 1840’s.
People’s daily lives were affected more by the disruptions in
their institutions than by the institution of slavery itself.
Many stood by the U. S. Constitution, believing that preserving
the Union as being the more important issue.
Would forming a new church in town directly help the plight of
the slave? 44 persons
thought so.
In 1846,
14 members from South Parish, 17 from West Parish, 10 Methodists, and 3
Baptists formed the Free Christian Church.
The name came from the Scottish movement to separate from the
persecuting Presbyterian Church in Scotland; many Scots had relocated to
Andover. They advertised, “All are cordially invited to unite with us
believing that slave holders and apologists do not honor Christ, they
are NOT included in this invitation.”
Slavery was a moral and political issue which needed Christian
support, prayer, and action; inaction equaled an endorsement.
Founder John Smith first came to America via the South, and saw
the separation of families, the poor living conditions, and the
inhumanity of slavery first hand, something he could never shake from
his thoughts.
In the
1840’s – 1860’s… What
role did South Church play?
South
Church maintained the same practice established in the 1700’s. All
opinions were honored, but church was a place for worship. The congregation was by far the largest and most diverse in
town by ethnicity, color, heritage, education, financial circumstance,
and vocation. Political
talk or action in church was walking the fence on acceptable behavior.
At the
Annual Meeting, Feb. 17, 1840, four wordy paragraphs regarding slavery
were voted into the “Church Order.”
The first two paragraphs denounce slavery as an evil in America
and to God, declaring it an ‘inexcusable wrong to those whom it holds
in bondage.’ The third
paragraph acknowledges that all Christians must be accepted, but
denounces our brethren who ‘countenance this sin.’
No apology will be made for them, and ‘sympathy [will be given]
for all who are made to suffer by it.’
The fourth paragraph notes, ‘That, though we differ – some of
us, widely,’ on how to act on these beliefs that slavery is a sin,
there is a duty to oblige to the mutual agreement that, ‘[as long as
one does not] violate the precept of our common faith,’ one shall not
be denied the opportunity to worship fully in accordance with The
Covenant, to which all members professed upon admission to the
congregation of South Church since 1711.
As early
as 1840, South Church did take a stand against slavery.
Differing opinions on how to uphold this stand led to tolerance
for all opinions. Any
institution could defend a separation from politics by arguing that individuals could
advance abolitionism (or not) in their own way via local associations
such as the Essex County Anti-Slavery League, without any consequence to
a parishioner’s good standing. I want to draw out the point that
South Church did endorse slavery as a sin, but left individuals free
to their own activities as they had local opportunity to participate, as
long as they honored worship for all, deferring to the original Covenant
of 1711. We endorsed abolitionism as an institution, leaving the
responsibility of action to individuals, preserving the church as a
place of worship for all.
Could one
use this as an excuse for not taking a stand? Absolutely. Could
one be outspoken in Town and still be of good standing? Yes. Our
cemetery hosts many abolitionists from South Church.
An ardent Abolitionist, Isaac Abbott, aged 53, died in 1858,
before he saw the slaves emancipated.
His epitaph reads, “Here lies the remains of a true reformer;
but his spirit is free and will live forever, fulfilling his mission on
earth and in Heaven.” Also,
I have found no evidence of segregation in the cemetery, another
testament to equality.
The rich
history of the Congregational Church shows many Congregationalists were
anti-slavery leaders in their churches and wider communities.
There were individual churches which did make abolition their
business from their pulpits, pocket books, and actions.
Think of the congregation in Connecticut and the Amistad
ship. Though South Church
did not have an Amistad
experience to learn from personally, 40% of the missions’ collections
between 1840 and 1859 went to at least three different
Congregational–based Abolitionism/Anti-Slavery/ Missionary Societies,
including the American Missionary Association (1846) formed to educate
emancipated slaves. This
fact and the 1840 “Church Orders” statements indicate at least
internal, committee level discussion and financial support.
In February, 2004, Julie Mofford, Director of Education and
Research at The Andover Historical Society found a line in a Phillips’
student’s diary about attending an anti-slavery meeting at The Old
South Church, led by a runaway slave, dated January 16, 1848.
Julie notes, “This is also the first documentation I’ve
discovered of an actual anti-slavery gathering held at South Church.”
All 44
Free Church members were from Andover, not other communities, not even
from the North Parish Church, nor Christ Church.
No new churches popped up in neighboring communities denouncing
slavery. Were these
44 simply radicals and malcontents in their churches? Or
were they visionaries and ‘immediatists’?
Were our members too comfortable in our heritage and so slow to
change that they stayed? What
role did our pastors, moderators, and deacons play through these years? Was the need or precedence for individual worship and
tolerance greater than any one issue, even one considered as divisive as
slavery?
I wonder
if perhaps there was skepticism regarding the founders.
When Abraham Marland, owner of Marland Mills, founded our
neighboring Christ Church (1835), those of Episcopal heritage joined,
but also many of his employees followed to curry favor.
Was the community suspicious of John Smith?
He was one of the 44, and owner of the Smith & Dove Mill who
employed the Scots. The new
church began as another Congregational Church, and did attract the
Scots. It was an
uncharacteristic move as most Northern mill owners and workers relied on
the cheap cotton from slavery for their livelihoods.
Did our parishioners wonder if his intentions were pure? Was this a class and ethnic division primed by abolitionism?
I
personally do not doubt the sincerity and passion of the original
formers. Obituaries for Mr.
Smith and Mr. Dove cite tremendous benevolence and selfless acts of
charity. However, I do feel a responsibility to offer these doubts
when I am questioning our church’s and parishioners’ actions in that
same period.
In
hindsight, it is the dynamics of Andover and of several of the founders
which make the establishment of Free Christian Church stand out. They were all part visionaries, radicals, and
uncharacteristic business persons who were 20-30 years ahead of
everybody else, mostly because they were Scottish.
Slavery had been abolished in Great Britain. They grew
up with anti-slavery in their churches, and probably were frustrated by
our old, tradition-bound American institutions. I think South
Church simply hadn't yet experienced the transition and revelation that
they had. These mill owners and workers denounced slavery even when they
indirectly benefited from it, because they already believed in anti-slavery
as a Christ centered belief, placing them well ahead of their American
counterparts, Christians, and especially mill owners and workers.
Conclusion…
Not until
1861 did secession and slavery bring war into our daily lives, into our
backyard. After Fort Sumter
was attacked, men of Andover enlisted in the Union Army; 599 in all
served. The Women’s
Society of South Church made bandages. We
financially supported the men’s needs in the field and their families
here. Douglass Lane was named for Frederick Douglass who frequented
an Underground stop at a farmhouse off Jenkin’s Road. 16 men from South Church died in battle, from wounds or in
captivity (66 total from Town); they rest in mass graves in Georgia,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania. 117 veterans lay in our Cemetery, including
Robert Rollings (1879), a black soldier from the courageous 54th
Regiment, and two 16 year old white boys, the first Andover deaths
(disease, 1862). Our town
held the memorial service for President Lincoln in our present
sanctuary, as our current building was erected in 1861.
Though
evidence indicates support by South Church, it appears little was of
public knowledge, not even an anti-slavery meeting.
I believe the attitude of tolerance overshadowed any known facts
as well, to our historical detriment.
The current local historians’ opinion is that South Church
avoided controversy historically regardless of the issue going back to
the 1700’s. With Free Christian forming, by default, it appeared to be
the only abolitionist institution in Town.
However, it was the individuals in Town, regardless of their
institutional association, including Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose
husband taught at the Seminary, who lead the movement.
Free Christian was a place of worship for Christians who wanted a
distinction in their Church Orders which held parishioners accountable
to one another in order to worship fully.
They used their building and pulpit for meetings, fairs, and
projects, their people and resources to provide for runaway slaves, and
publicly they protected the outspoken abolitionist from harm.
Though
South Church did support abolitionism as previously noted, no apologies
were made for individual responsibility and tolerance. Free Christian provided a choice for one’s house of
worship. If Free Christian
Church hadn’t formed, I wonder if we would have changed more notably
in the 1850’s as tensions rose, especially after the Fugitive Slave
Law in 1850, which forced more people to take a stand. Was
slavery another social issue until war?
Was the church a refuge for ignoring a problem or controversy, or
was it a place for tolerance? The
1859 Historical Manual of South Church “Rules of Order”
reaffirm the past condemnations of slavery.
We now know that South Church definitely rebuked slavery, and in
my heart, I believe the congregation was anti-slavery, as well.
Our members certainly were driven by their own judgments.
Maybe they just didn’t want to leave their church, standing by
their oath that all could worship here. Perhaps
they simply stuck together through the fray, still worshipping as one,
serving and sponsoring the many projects and persons of the congregation
and parish, and attending to abolition in their own way.
I began
this essay noting two well-known facts about Andover and their
implications. I hope these
previously hidden facts will help us all better understand the
intermingling history of South Church in influencing our past, present,
and future issues. With
insight into our history, I can honor the actions taken regarding
slavery. I wish I could go
back to the 1850’s to find that the minister and congregation did
actively support abolitionism, or were publicly against secession.
Maybe the evils of slavery were preached, but after so many
years, it was an accepted topic without consequence.
However, we simply do not know, at least not yet.
I
recognize the good and bad effects of our historical influences. I
belabor the questions because I find the role South Church played not as
simple as action versus inaction or judgment by degree of action.
I do not support the implication that institutional inaction was
an endorsement of slavery. I
cannot accept the adage, “If you’re not with us you’re against
us.” In this case, I
accept the words of Jesus, “Whoever is not against us is for us.”
(Mark 9:40)
I am
grateful for this forum to give you my thoughts about our past. I
feel blessed to be part of a congregation which works on so many levels
of faith where action/inaction is far more involved than yes or no.
May we grow with our history.
Author’s
note:
I
began this essay as an historical peek into our past for the Lenten
Booklet. I found that
giving a summary and opinion without the background of the facts and
times was unfair to the topic, and I thank The Historical Committee for
this forum. I am proud to
share my discoveries of this period with you, leaving you to ponder the
implications. Many of our
congregation have wished it was South Church which had taken the first
(or at least a bolder) stance of anti-slavery, as if we need to
apologize for our history, and perhaps we do.
As I learn more about the black and white persons in our
cemetery, I know this is not simple. In the great Congregational way, our Church is made up of
individuals, and individuals make up the congregation. I
hope I have raised more questions than I have answered.
I do not love all of our terrific history, but I do appreciate
it. Thank you for your time
and interest.
Charlotte
Lyons, March, 2004
|