Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T01:52:30.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Footnote to the Role of the Protestant Churches in the Election of 1928

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Robert Moats Miller
Robert Moats Miller
Affiliation:
Texas Western College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historians are in agreement that the Presidential election of 1928 aroused the concern of American Protestantism. Many observers have expended thousands of words discussing this election. Curiously, while most investigators chide the churches for their indifference to secular affairs, in this instance condemnation is usually because the Protestant churches displayed too much rather than too little interest.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 1956 , pp. 145 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Peel, Roy V. and Donnelly, Thomas C., The 1928 Campaign. An Analysis (N. Y., 1931), 171.Google Scholar

2. For evidence supporting these conclusions see Miller, Robert Moats, An Inquiry Into the Social Attitudes of American Protestantism, 1919–1939 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1955), 293–314Google Scholar.

3. World Tomorrow (12, 1928), 493.Google Scholar

4. The Ogburn and Talbot study is cited in Binkley, Wilfred E., American Political Parties (N. Y., 1947), 375.Google Scholar

5. Kearns, Frances Emner, Changing Social Emphases in the Methodist Episcopal Church (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1939), 54Google Scholar.

6. Journal of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, (1928), 1621, 1733, 252Google Scholar. For Cannon's address in 1924 see ibid. (1924), 753.

7. Journal of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (1926), 292.Google Scholar

8. According to Bishop du Bose, out of 8,500 Southern Methodist preachers, only four supported Smith. Bishop Oandler's biographer believes that less than a third of the Methodist pastors of Georgia agreed with Candler's nonintervention policy. All authorities conclude that, whatever the exact percentage, the Methodist clergy were overwhelmingly for Hoover. See Smith, Rembert Gilman, Politics in a Protestant Church (Atlanta, 1930), 86Google Scholar; Pierce, Alfred M., Giant Against the Sky. The Life of Bishop Warren Akin Candler (N. Y., 1948), 221–222.Google Scholar

9. (July 12, 1928), 868.

10. (May 5, 1927), 412; (March 29, 1928), 339.

11. (Nov. 28, 1928), 1379.

12. (Nov. 14, 1928), 1455–1456.

13. (July 32, 1928), 1.

14. See Smith, , Politics in a Protestant Church, 97ffGoogle Scholar; Literary Digest (12 8, 1928), 28–29Google Scholar; Christian Register (01 20, 1928), 45ff.Google Scholar; Williams, Michael, The Shadow of the Pope (N. Y., 1932), 191ff.Google Scholar

15. Annual of the Northern Baptist Convention (1928), 198Google Scholar. The phrase “recommends to its members” originally read “pledges its members.”

16. Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention (1924), 116; (1927), 118; (1928), 88.Google Scholar

17. Kelsey, George D., The Social Thought of Contemporary Southern Baptists (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tale University, 1946), 134Google Scholar, believes Southern Baptists have been as politically minded on the prohibition issue as any Christian group in America on any issue since the separation of church and state became an established fact.

18. (Nov. 17, 1928), 1391.

19. (Aug. 30, 1928), 1095; (Oct. 4, 1928), 1259.

20. (Nov. 15, 1928), 3; (Oct. 11, 1928), 3; (March 9, 1933), 4.

21. (Feb. 17, 1927), 12–13; (May 19, 1927), 11; (Nov. 1, 1928), 10.

22. (Aug. 23, 1928), 10. It might be mentioned here that the Religious Herald, as other journals, opened its pages to Smith supporters.

23. The editorial attitude of these Baptist journals for which no citations were given are all revealed in a symposium in the Watchman-Examiner (10 25, 1928), 1355–1357.Google Scholar

24. Walker, Edgar Allen, Changing Emphases of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. on Social Problems (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1940), 6–59.Google Scholar

25. The distinguished Henry Sloane Coffin, although a supporter of Hoover, publicly protested the action of the moderator. Time (10 8, 1928), 36.Google Scholar

26. (Sept. 27, 1928), 9.

27. (Aug. 9, 1928), 5.

28. Minutes of the National Council of Congregational Churches (1929), 70–71, quoting 1927 action.Google Scholar

29. Congregationalist (07 19, 1928), 69.Google Scholar

30. Christian Leader, Southern Churchman, Living Church, Homiletic Review.

31. Quoted in Nashville Christian Advocate (11 2, 1928), 1380.Google Scholar

32. Ryan, John A., “A Catholic View of the Election,” Current History, Vol. 29 (12, 1928), 378.Google Scholar

33. The Shadow of the Pope, viii.Google Scholar

34. It is not entirely beside the point that several exchanges of this type between Protestant and Catholic spokesmen were held in an attempt to openly thrash out the issues, and that, unlike the even tempered statement of Governor Smith, other Catholic advocates met dispassionate doubts with Klanlike vituperation. For example, Reverend Charles Hillman Fountain, Baptist, and Father John A. Ryan debated the issue of a Catholic President in the March 1928 issue of Current History, and in so far as politeness is concerned, the honors are with the Baptist. Father Ryan subsequently reported in a Catholic paper: “My attitude toward the writer [Fountain] alternated between contempt for his intellectual processes and resentment at his stupid prejudices and occasional unfairness of method. It seemed to me that an example ought to be made of him, that the egregious presumption which impelled him to attempt a task so far beyond his powers needed to be adequately stigmatized.” “Mercy on us,” exclaimed the Lutheran minister quoting Father Ryan. See Lutheran Church Quarterly (07, 1928), 249–264).Google Scholar

35. Reformed Church Messenger (05 12, 1927), 4.Google Scholar

36. The Shadow of the Pope, 171Google Scholar. Curiously, Mr. Williams repeatedly misdated the letter by a year and made other mistakes of fact.