No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Reunion of the Episcopal Church, 1865
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Extract
When the American Civil War began, the Southern dioceses of the Protestant Episcopal Church organized a Confederate Church. Contrary to sentiment in the other popular Protestant denominations, there was in 1861 little hostility between the Confederate and Northern leaders of this Church. As the war progressed, however, bitterness developed until in 1865 at the close of the war many wanted to retain separate church organizations. Despite these animosities, some bold spirits succeeded in bringing about the reconciliation of the dioceses of the Church. The story of this reunion has been told before, but new material recently made available warrants a new analysis.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Church History 1940
References
1 To most Protestant clergymen, the war was primarily a religious and moral struggle. Buck, Paul H., The Road to Reunion, 1865–1900 (Boston, 1937), 60–63Google Scholar; Sweet, William Warren, Story of Religion in America, (New York, 1930), 470.Google Scholar
2 Cheshire, Bishop Joseph Blount in The Church in the Confederate States: A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate Stated (New York, 1912)Google Scholar has the most satisfactory account. His study is scholarly and sympathetic but he did not have access to the Whittingham and McIlvaine papers. He neglected to use the debates of the General Convention and newspapers. His is a strong defense of the Southern Church, especially the rôle which North Carolina played. Mohler, Mark in “The Episcopal Church and National Reconstruction, 1865,” The Political Science Quarterly, XLI (1926), 567–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has more recently analyzed the relations of the Church's reunion to national reconstruction; but he used practically no manuscripts, pamphlets, or even secondary works of the Southern Church. He also over-emphasized the inevitableness of reunion.
The most important sources not used before are: (1) the large collection of Bishop Henry C. Lay Papers including his diaries, letter books, scrap books, and pamphlets in the Southern Collection at the University of North Carolina; (2) the Bishop Charles P. McIlvaine Papers at Kenyon College, consisting of nine letters from other Northern bishops to McIlvaine about reunion in 1865; (3) the Bishop W. R. Whittingham Papers, consisting of letters and letter books at the Maryland Diocesan Library, Baltimore. Numerous miscellaneous sources used here for the first time will be indicated in subsequent footnotes.
3 Mohler, , op. cit., 578Google Scholar; Lay, 's Journal, 06 19, 1865Google Scholar, MS. Lay Papers.
4 [Hopkins, John Henry Jr.], The Life of the Late Right Reverend John Henry Hopkins, First Bishop of Vermont, ana Seventh Presiding Bishop by one of his sons (New York, 1873), 347.Google Scholar
5 Before the endorsement of Hopkin's proposal, Potter had written independently to Southern Church leaders urging them to work for the reconciliation of the dioceses. Ibid.The Raleigh Sentinel, 08 9, 1865Google Scholar, declared that if Potter's spirit were prevalent in the North, the reunion of the Episcopal Church would be certain.
6 In a letter to McIlvaine, Bishop, 07 6, 1865Google Scholar, Whittingham wrote that although he considered Hopkins' method a dangerous precedent, he was “so earnestly desirous that the sundered elements of our Body should be brought together with the least possible delay,” he had encouraged Hopkins to send the circular as his personal letter with “my hearty concurrence.” McIlvaine Papers.
7 Lee, Bishop Alfred to Hopkins, , 07 7, 1865Google Scholar, McIlvaine Papers; Philadelphia Episcopal Recorder, quoted in Richmond Southern Churchman, 08 31, 1865Google Scholar; Hopkins, , Life of Hopkins, 347.Google Scholar
8 Lee, Henry W. to McIlvaine, , 07 6, 1865Google Scholar, McIlvaine Papers.
9 Whittingham, W. E. to McIlvaine, , 07 6, 1865Google Scholar, ibid.
10 John Williams, Henry John Whitehouse, and McIlvaine agreed with Lee. Williams, John to McIlvaine, , 07 26, 1865Google Scholar, ibid.; Journal of – the Dioceses of Illinois – September 13, 14, I5, 1865 (Columbus, 1866), 14.Google Scholar
11 Lee, to McIlvaine, , 07 6, 1865Google Scholar, McIlvaine Papers.
12 Coxe, to Whittingham, , 08 4, 1865Google Scholar, Whittingham Papers.
13 Hopkins, , Life of Hopkins, 48, 347, 353.Google Scholar
14 Whitaker, Walter C., Richard Hooper Wilmer, Second Bishop of Alabama: A Biography (Philadelphia), 155–156.Google Scholar
15 July 12, 26, August 23, September 27, 1865.
16 July 26, August 16, September 27, 1865.
17 Church Journal, 09 27, 1865Google Scholar; Cheshire, , op. cit., 210Google Scholar; Hopkins, , Life of Hopkins, 345.Google Scholar
18 Raleigh, Church Intelligencer, 08 31, 1865.Google Scholar This was the first issue of this paper after its suspension in May, 1865.
19 Ibid.; Church Journal, 08 16, 1865Google Scholar; Richmond, Southern Churchman, 08 31, 1865.Google Scholar This was the first issue of the latter paper after its discontinuance in April, 1865.
20 Church Journal, 09 27, 1865.Google Scholar
21 See below, pp. 130–31.
22 General W. N. Pendleton, for instance, wrote Lay, Bishop Henry C., 10 9, 1865Google Scholar, that he was unable to bring himself to ask “sincerely,” the “Lord's unlimited, unconditional favor, ‘all heavenly gifts, prosperous continuation,’” on civil authorities of the United States. He, therefore, omitted the official prayer and substituted one of his own. Lay Papers.
23 In his scrap book, Lay states that some Southern Churchmen were “alarmed lest there should be a seeming confession of wrong doing.” Lay Papers. Bishop Stephen Elliott wrote Lay, July 17, 1865, “I for one shall make no acknowledgement of wrong, for I still think the South acted properly both in its civil and ecclesiastical action.” Ibid.
24 Whitaker, , Wilmer, 153–154Google Scholar; Wilmer, Richard H., The Recent Past from a Southern Standpoint; Reminiscences of a Grandfather (New York, 1887), 162–163.Google Scholar
25 Pettigrew Papers, University of North Carolina.
26 Mohler, , op. cit., 582.Google Scholar
27 Nott, Arthur H., A History of the Church in the Diocese of Tennessee (New York, 1900), 148–149.Google Scholar
28 The Texas bishop, Alexander Gregg, in June before the movement for reunion was well under way and without consulting the other Confederate dioceses, recommended sending delegates to Philadelphia. For this precipitate action he was criticized. Gregg explained that the defective communications made contact with the other dioceses impossible, and, therefore, since the time until the General Convention met was short, he felt justified in the steps he had taken. Besides, he added, he had followed the course of the seceded dioceses in 1861. Murphy, Du Bose, A Short History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Texas (Dallas, 1935), 53Google Scholar; Nott, Arthur H., Alexander H. Gregg: First Bishop of Texas (Sewanee, 1912), 86–89Google Scholar; Church Journal 08 16, 1865Google Scholar; Church Intelligencer, 08 3, 1865.Google Scholar
29 Lay Papers.
30 Atkinson, to Lay, , 06 30, Lay Papers.Google Scholar
31 The paper played up those items which the editors felt would strengthen the reunion and minimized the items which it felt would produce friction. See especially the issues for August 31, September 21, October 5, 10, 1865.
32 Lay Papers. The story of the Atkinson-Lay friendship and their part in the reunion fight is most completely presented in Lay's Journal, letters, letter books, and scrap book. Cheshire's account in his Church in Conf. States is the best published story. Other accounts are Cheshire, 's Bishop Atkinson and the Church in the Confederacy (Raleigh, 1909), 21Google Scholar; Lay, Henry C., “Life and Character of Rt. Rev. Thomas Atkinson, D.D., L.L.D.,” The University Magasine, VI (1887), 305–321Google Scholar; Lay, Henry C., Sermon Commemarative of the Late Thos. Atkinson, D.D., L.L.D., Bishop of North Carolina, Delivered in Christ Church, Raleigh, before the Convention of North Carolina, May 18, 1881 (Winston, N. J.), 27.Google Scholar
33 Extract from the Adaress of the Rt. Rev. Thomas Atkinson, Bishop of North Carolina, before the Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church, held in Raleigh, September 1, 1865 (Raleigh, n. d.), 6–7.Google Scholar
34 Rough draft of joint letter of Lay and Atkinson, to Elliott, , 06 2, 1865Google Scholar, Lay Papers; Extract from the Address of Rt. Rev. Thomas Atkinson – September 13, 1865, 7.Google Scholar
35 Mohler, , op. cit., 580Google Scholar; Atkinson, to Lay, , 08 8, 1865Google Scholar, Lay Papers.
36 Johns, to Lay, , 10 5, 1865Google Scholar, ibid.; Journal of the Seventieth Annual Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, held in St. Paul's Church, Richmond, on the 20th and 21st, September, 1865 (Richmond, 1866), 27–33.Google Scholar
37 Atkinson, to Lay, , 09 18, 1865Google Scholar, Lay Papers; Raleigh, Daily Sentinel, 09 16, 1865Google Scholar; Journal of the Forty-ninth Annual Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of North Carolina (Raleigh, 1865), 31–32.Google Scholar
38 Cheshire, J. B., Bishop Atkinson and the Church in the Confederacy, 16.Google Scholar
39 Lay, to his wife, 10, 3, 5, 1865, Lay Papers.Google Scholar
40 Whitaker, , Wilmer, 123.Google Scholar
41 See below, pp. 130–31.
42 Wilmer, , Recent Past, 156–158.Google Scholar
43 Whitaker, , Wilmer, 154.Google Scholar
44 Letter of Green, in Southern Churchman, 08 31, 1865.Google Scholar
45 Church Intelligencer, 11 1, 1865.Google Scholar
46 Letter to Lay, , 07 17, 1865Google Scholar; Guerry, Moultrie, “Stephen the Magnificent,” Men Who Made Sewanee for Makers of Sewanee Today. Biographical Sketches (Sewanee, 1932), 31Google Scholar; Whitaker, , Wilmer, 157.Google Scholar
47 Hopkins, , Life of Hopkins, 355–356.Google Scholar
48 Elliott, to Lay, , 09 1, 1865Google Scholar, Lay Papers.
49 Cheshire, , Church in Conf. States, 214Google Scholar; Journal of the Third Annual Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Georgia, held – May 11, 1865 (Savannah, N. D.), 39.Google Scholar
50 Hopkins, , Life of Hopkins, 355–356.Google Scholar
51 October 1, 1865, Lay Papers.
52 Journals of the Proceeding of the Eighty-second Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New York – September 27,– 1865 (New York, 1865), 100.Google Scholar
53 Ibid., 47.
54 Cheshire, , Church in Conf. States, 242.Google Scholar
55 Protestant Episcopal Church. The Delates and Proceedings of the General Triennial Convention, held in Philadelphia, Pa., from October 4 to 24, 1865 (Philadelphia, 1865), 5.Google Scholar
56 MrsCummins, Alexander Macomb (Balch), Memoirs of George David Cummins, D.D., First Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church (New York, 1878), 241.Google Scholar
57 Atkinson, to Lay, , 09 18, 1865Google Scholar, Lay Papers; Elliott, to Lay, , 09 18, 1865Google Scholar, ibid.; Lay's scrap book.
58 Lay, H. C., Sermon Commemorative of the Late Thos. Atkinson – Delivered in Christ Church, Raleigh – May 18, 1881 (Winston, n. d.), 18–19.Google Scholar
59 Hopkins, , Life of Hopkins, 348Google Scholar; Cheshire, , Church in Conf. States, 241Google Scholar; Harrison, Hall, Life of the Right Severend John Barrett Kerfoot, D.D. L.L.D., First Bishop of Pittsburg with Selections from His Diaries and Correspondence (New York, 1886), II, 391.Google Scholar
60 The best accounts are: Cheshire, , Church in Conf. StatesGoogle Scholar, Hopkins, , Life of Hopkins;Google ScholarHarrison, , Life of KerfootGoogle Scholar; Lay, , Sermon Commemorative of Thos. Atkinson – before the Council –, held at Raleigh, September 13, 1865;Google Scholar Lay's letters to his wife October 5, 6, 1865, Lay Papers.
61 Letters of Williams, John and Upfold, George to Lay, , 10 11, 14, 1865Google Scholar, Lay Papers.
62 Ibid.
63 “W. H. K.” to Lay, , 10 11, 1865Google Scholar, Ibid.
64 Debates of the General Convention, 1865, 28.Google Scholar
65 Ibid.
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 One of these, the race issue, was not a matter of serious controversy since the Southern Church leaders already realized thoir responsibility to the Negro. See the report of Evart, G. M., 09 15, 1865Google Scholar, in Protestant Episcopal Freeclman's Commission Occasional Papers, January, 1866 (Boston, 1866), 23–24Google Scholar; Elliot, to Lay, , 07 17, 1865Google Scholar, Lay, Papers; Church Intelligencer, 11, 30, 12 14, 1865Google Scholar; Cheshire, , Church in Conf. States, 254Google Scholar; Southern Churchman, 09 28, 1865.Google Scholar
A second sectional problem concerned Bishop Lay's status. Before the war he was missionary bishop of the Southwest. Upon the secession of Arkansas he offered to the Presiding Bishop, Brownell, of the Northern Church, his resignation which was never officially acted upon. During the war Arkansas was organized as a diocese of the Confederate Church and Lay was elected bishop. At the close of the war Lay was advised to recall his resignation to Brownell and continue as missionary bishop of the Southwest, thereby renouncing his status as bishop of the Confederate Church and avoiding a controversy. Lay objected to this plan because he felt that deference to the Southern Church required the recognition by the Philadelphia Convention of his changed status. At Philadelphia, Potter was willing to do whatever Lay desired, but under the influence of the fine spirit displayed there and out of respect for Atkinson's insistence, Lay wavered his claim and returned to the status he held before 1861. See clipping from letter of Brownell in Church Journal for 10, 1861Google Scholar, Lay's scrap books; Carder, J. D. to Lay, , 09 7, 1865Google Scholar, Lay Papers; Atkinson, to Lay, , 06 30, 1865Google Scholar, ibid.; Lay to his wife June 3 and to Carder, , 09 14, 1865Google Scholar, Lay Papers; Lay, 's Journal, 10 5, 1865Google Scholar; Cheshire, , Church in Conf. States, 25, 254.Google Scholar
The consecration of Bishop-elect Quintard of Tennessee was the third problem of a sectional nature. During the war Quintard had been appointed a chaplain in the Confederate Army. Some delegates to the Convention tried to defeat his consecration because of his military service, but when he explained that he had never accepted the commission in the army, the opposition withered away. Delates of General Convention, 55–56Google Scholar; New York Times, 10 11, 1865Google Scholar; Church Intelligencer, 10 7, 1865.Google Scholar
70 Whitaker, , Wilmer, 124–125.Google Scholar
71 Cheshire, , Church in Conf. States, 194–197.Google Scholar
72 Lay, to his wife, 10 3, Lay Papers.Google Scholar
73 Quoted in his address to his diocese in January, 1866, Church Intelligencer, 02 8, 1866.Google Scholar
74 Ibid.
75 Lay, 's Journal, 10 6, 1865.Google Scholar
76 Ibid., October 7, 1865.
77 Lay, 's Journal, 10 8, 1865Google Scholar. He telegraphed Wilmer as soon as the votes on these resolutions were taken. Lay, to his wife, 10 7, 1865Google Scholar, Lay Papers.
78 Debates of the General Convention, 1865, 47.Google Scholar
79 Ibid., 84–86.
80 Ibid., 78–80.
81 Ibid., 84–86.
82 Ibid., 112.
83 Only Godwin voted against consecration but he explained that, like others, he favored unanimous decisions whenever possible. If his negative vote represented only one in opposition, he said he would change it. He felt, however, that many at heart opposed Wilmer's consecration. These, for sake of harmony refrained from voting when they saw the resolution would pass. Ibid., 124, 300.
84 General W. N. Pendleton wrote Lay, October 9, that it was the anticipation of such a spirit and proceedings in part which influenced the Virginia Council to delay taking steps for reunion. Lay Papers.
85 Lay, H. C., Sermon Commemorative of the Late Thos. Atkinson … Delivered in Christ Church, Raleigh … May 18, 1881, 19Google Scholar; Cheshire, , Church in Conf. States, 245.Google Scholar
86 Lay, to his wife, 10 13, 1865, Lay Papers.Google Scholar
87 Ibid.
88 Lay, 's Journal, 10 13, 1865.Google Scholar
89 McIlvaine, Alfred Lee, H. W. Lee, Eastburn, Burgess, Bidell, and Vail voted for Burgess' motion. Harrison, H. H., Hugh Davey Evans, LLD.: A Memoir Founded upon the Recollections Written by Himself (Hartford, 1870)Google Scholar; Journal of the Proceedings of the Clergy and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Assembled in a General Convention, held in … Philadelphia from October 4 to October 24 … 1865 (Boston, 1865), 169Google Scholar. On the day before the service was held, Bishop Eastburn tried again to include thanksgiving for the restoration of national authority. He was voted down by 7 to 15. Ibid.
90 New York Times, 10 16, 1865Google Scholar; Church Journal, 10 25, 1865.Google Scholar
91 Speech of Kerfoot, , 10 17Google Scholar, Debates of General Convention, 1865, 207–208.Google Scholar
92 October 18, 1865.
93 Southern Churchman, 10 19, 1865Google Scholar; Harrison, , Life of Kerfoot, II, 393–394Google Scholar; McConnell, S. D., History of the American Episcopal Church from the Planting of the Colonies to the End of the Civil War (New York, 1891), 378.Google Scholar
94 Harrison, , Life of Kerfoot, II, 51.Google Scholar
95 Debates of the General Convention, 1865, 208–209.Google Scholar
96 Chambers' remarks, ibid., 201.
97 The test vote was 35 to 13. Ibid., 146, 209.
98 Ibid., 211; Philadelphia Press, 10 18Google Scholar; Church Intelligencer, 10 25.Google Scholar
99 Philadelphia Press, 10 28.Google Scholar
100 McIlvaine reported to his Ohio Convention in June, 1866, that it was “with deep sorrow and mortification that we had to submit to such a result.” The bishops of Massachusetts, Kansas, and western New York made similar defenses of their votes. H. C. Potter, a future bishop, criticized the Convention for its “timid and unmanly temper.” In Philadelphia, F. Burnot led a fight in the lay press against Kerfoot on the thanksgiving services to prevent his election as bishop of the Pittsburg diocese. Journal of the Proceedings of the Forty-ninth Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Ohio held ‥ June 7th, Sth, ama 9th, 1866 (Columbus, 1866), 16Google Scholar; Journal of the Seventy-sixth Annual Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Massachusetts, held … May 2 and 3, 1866 … (Boston, 1866), 27Google Scholar; Journal of the Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Kansas, held September 12th, 13th and 14th, 1866 (Philadelphia, 1866), 20Google Scholar; Church Intelligencer, February 22, 1866; Philadelphia Press, 10 20, 26, 28, 1865Google Scholar; Harrison, , Life of Kerfoot, II, 411Google Scholar; Southern Churchman, 11 30, 1865.Google Scholar
101 See letter of Lee, Alfred to McIlvaine, , 07 25, 1865Google Scholar, McIlvaine Papers; Lay, 's Journal, 10 7, 1865Google Scholar; Mohler, , op. cit., 583Google Scholar; Manross, W. W., A History of the American Episcopal Church (New York, 1935), 293.Google Scholar
102 November 1, 1865.
103 Potter, to Lay, , 10 18, 1865, Lay Papers.Google Scholar
104 Church Intelligencer, 11 4, 1865.Google Scholar
105 Ibid., November 23, 1865.
106 Lay's scrap book.
107 Letter to Lay, , 10 11, 1865Google Scholar, Lay Papers.
108 Lay Papers.
109 Journal of Georgia Convention, 1866, 17.Google Scholar
110 Southern Churchman, 01 4, 1866Google Scholar; Church Intelligencer, 01 25, 1865.Google Scholar
111 Letter to Whittingham, , 11 28, 1865Google Scholar, Whittingham Papers.
112 Hopkins, , Life of Hopkins, 355–356.Google Scholar
113 Whittingham to McIlvaine, no date, McIlvaine Papers.
114 Potter, wrote Lay, 10 18Google Scholar, “most earnestly do I hope and pray, that if any of the bishops meet in Mobile [the Council was scheduled to meet in. Mobile, but Wilmer's churches had been closed; and so, Elliott transferred the meeting place to Augusta] it will be only to convene together as friends and not as a separate organization.” Lay Papers.
115 Elliott, to Lay, , 09 1, 1865Google Scholar, Lay Papers.
116 Only Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama were represented. Church Intelligencer, 11 23, 30, 1865Google Scholar; Southern Churchman, 11 23, 1865.Google Scholar
117 Church Intelligencer, 11 23, 30, 1865Google Scholar; Southern Churchman, 11 23, 1865.Google Scholar
118 Elliott wrote Trapier of Camden, December 13, 1865, that the Augusta Council proved that the Southern Church was not schismatic. Trapier Papers, University of North Carolina.
119 Potter, wrote Lay, 11 1, 1865Google Scholar, that “hesitation of the South is hardly what we would expect.” Again he wrote on January 15, 1866: “The tardy action of the Southern Dioceses has given a severe shock to Northern Sympathy.” Lay Papers. The editor of the Church Intelligencer, December 21, 1865, tried to allay the Northern fears. McIlvaine wrote Whittingham complaining of the Augusta Council whose action, he felt, had been ungracious after the kindnesses displayed at Philadelphia. Undated reply of Whittingham to McIlvaine, McIlvaine Papers.
120 Ibid.
121 Hopkins, , Life of Hopkins, 356.Google Scholar
122 Journal of Georgia Convention, 1866, 18Google Scholar; Cheshire, , Church in Conf. States, 252.Google Scholar
123 Journal of the Twenty-fifth Annual Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the Diocese of Louisiana, held … on the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th days of May, 1866 (New Orleans, 1866), 21Google Scholar; Diocese of Florida Journal of the Proceedings of the Convention held … May 8, 1867 … including Proceedings in 1863 and 1866 (Tallahassee, 1867), 25.Google Scholar
124 Wilmer resented the fact that Atkinson and Lay had brought his case before the Philadelphia Convention and remained defiant toward the military authorities to the last. For discussion of this controversy see Lay's Journal, November 1, 1865; Lay to his wife, February 4, 1866, Lay Papers; Southern Churchman, 02 15, 1866Google Scholar; Church Intelligencer, 03 1, 1866Google Scholar; letter of Wilmer to Whittingham, Whittingham Papers.
125 Cheshire, , Church in Conf. States, 252Google Scholar; The Thirty-ninth Annual Convention of the Diocese of Mississippi held … May 9, 1866 (Jackson, 1867), 62–63.Google Scholar
126 Church Intelligencer, 03 1, 1866.Google Scholar
127 Ibid.; Southern Churchman, 03 1, 1866.Google Scholar
128 Ibid., May 24, 1866.
129 Ibid.
130 Ibid. The vote was:
131 Ibid.