1. “Some Significant Factors in American Church History,” Journal of Religion (JR), VII. (01. 1927), 13.Google Scholar

2. As regards Presbyterians, in Religion on the American Frontier, II. The Presbyterians, 1783–1840. (New York, 1936). 110–125; 744–751; 827–887.Google Scholarpassim.

3. The most notable spokesman of the proslavery New School was Frederick A. Ross, a member of the New School majority in Holston Presbytery, East Tennessee, which “renounced the jurisdiction of the true General Assembly …” in October 1838, as it was expressed by the Old School minority. Ross' pro-slavery views are spread over the pages of the journal he edited: The Presbyterian Witness, Knoxville, Tenn. 01 1851 until 10 25, 1860.Google Scholar Most of this journal is in the collection of the Historical Foundation, Montreat, N.C. Cf. also his Slavery Ordained of God (Philadelphia, 1857).Google Scholar Also Armstrong, Geo. D., The Christian Doctrine of Slavery (New York, 1857).Google Scholar

4. Sweet, op. cit., 858.

5. A History of the New School … (Philadelphia 1868).Google Scholar

6. “Abolitionism and the Presbyterian Church Schism, 1837–38.” Mississippi Volley Historical Review. XXXVI, 391 ff.Google Scholar

7. Barnes, Gilbert, and Dumond, Dwight, eds. The Letters of Theodore Dwight Weld and Angelina Grimke Weld and Sarah Grimke, 1822–1844 (New York, 1934). I, 224.Google Scholar

8. Ibid., 228.

9. The theory developed in the South in support of slavery is set forth in the study of Jenkins, William Sumner, Pro-slavery Thought in the Old South, (University of North Carolina Press, 1935).Google Scholar

10. Charleston Observer, Benjamin Gildersleeve, ed. 04 16, 1836.Google Scholar

11. Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1835 (Philadelphia, 1836), 33.Google Scholar

12. Charleston Observer, 04 16, 1836, 66.Google Scholar

13. Issue of April 15, 1836. Staiger states that “the Old School North's suggestion of a united orthodox front was favorably received by the majority of southern journals.” (Op. cit., 405.) Among the exceptions was perhaps the most ably edited, the Southern Religious Telegraph. Evidence of reluctance in the judicatories of the South is cited in Sweet, op. cit., 844. The men who subsequently became advocates of doctrinal-disciplinary division were keenly aware of the dependence of South upon northern aid. W. H. Foote observes that George Baxter, for example, was slow to commit himself to any kind of division (Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical. Second Series [Philadelphia, 1855], 511).Google Scholar The Union Theological Seminary, where he was principal professor, could not survive financially without the North. His decision against sectional division left northern assistance to Union Seminary undamaged.

14. Charleston Observer, 06 11, 1836.Google Scholar

15. Ibid., loc. cit. There is ample evidence of widespread indifference in the South to the northern quarrcl. Cf. Foote, op. cit., 520.

16. Southern Religious Telegraph, June 7, 1836.

17. Charleston Observer, 05 30, 1836.Google Scholar Cf. Southern Religious Telegraph, 06 24, 1836.Google Scholar

18. Gillett, Ezra H.History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Rev. ed. (Philadelphia, 1864), II, 496n.Google Scholar

19. Op. cit., 403f.

20. cf. Gillett, op. cit., II, 524. In a letter to Shepard Kollock of North Carolina, dated July 14, 1832, Witherspoon states: “Why then bind together in one church under one constitution, men who can never agree? Are there not many hundred ministers in our church who will not exchange pulpits? And many more professing christians who think those that differ from them destitute of piety? Does not A. Tappan and others North think that no slavcholder can be a christian? (and is not this a pretty common opinion there—' tho a concealed one on the part of many for the sake of peace?) Now then I say, let these hetrogencous [sic] parties separate. … Let there be openly what there is secretly, two presbyterian churches in the United States.” (Kollock papers. Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia). Abolitionist views are here cited as evidence that unity is already lost to Preshyterianism. Witherspoon had apparently not pressed his line of thought to the point of asking whether the failure of respect between North and South over slavery corresponded or did not correspond to the disharmony caused by other disputes.

21. Foote, op. cit., 512. Letter to Kollock, January 4, 1837. Further evidence of Witherspoon's radicalism is found in a letter dated August 25, 1835, in which he questioned the doctrinal reliability of William S. Plumer, suggesting that he exhibited too much sympathy with Converse's New School views. Witherspoon raised similar questions about other southerners who proved to be Old School stalwarts and perfectly “safe” on the slavery issue.

22. Ibid., 507.

23. Gillett, op. cit., 496ff.

24. Southern Religious Telegraph, 06 24, 1836.Google Scholar

25. Wilson expressed himself unequivocally to Belamy Storer, a member of the national House of Representatives in a letter of January 21, 1836 reproduced in Sweet, op. cit., p. 744ff. Cf. also Hightower, Raymond L. “Joshua L. Wilson, Frontier Controversialist.” Church History, III, 308.Google Scholar Nevin's views are displayed in a letter to Theodore Weld explaining the necessity of refusing to address an abolition meeting: Weld-Grimke Letters, I, 222. Breckinridge spoke for himself in his own papers and articles; his general position is competently reviewed in Moore, Edmund. “Robert J. Breckinridge and the Slavery Aspect of the Presbyterian Schism of 1837.” CH, IV, 282ff.Google Scholar Exceptions to the general rule that New School views implied abolitionism and Old School views tolerated slavery are so numerous that this whole thesis must be called into question. This discrepancy is noted, among others, by Pendleton, Othniel A. Jr “Slavery and the Evangelical Churches,” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society, XXV, 88, 153;Google Scholar and by Kull, Irving Stoddard. “Presbyterian Attitudes toward Slavery,” CH, VII, 101Google Scholar, who stresses the economic forces that bore equally on Old and New Schools South.

26. cf. Smith, , Shelton, H.. “The Church and the Social Order in the Old South as Interpreted by James Henley Thornwell.” CH, VII, 115.Google Scholar A later report by Thornwell to the Synod of South Carolina sums up his thinking very adequately: JPHS, XXIX, p. 10.Google Scholar Also the Southern Presbyterian Review, passim.

27. This political move is described by Frederick, Kuhns. “Slavery and Missions in the Old Northwest,” JPHS, XXIV, 214f.Google Scholar, notes 51 and 52. He suggests that their “threats of secession … estopped the Assembly from antislavery action of any kind.” Had there existed a dominant bond between New School theological and social doctrine, the southern threat would probably not have inhibited all action, as occurred, but driven the church to immediate division along a line cleanly separating New School—abolition from Old School tolerance of slaveholding.

28. Jenkins, op. cit., passim.

29. Systematic Theology (New York, 1872–1873), III, 426.Google Scholar

30. Records of the Synod of Indiana, , JPHS, XXXIV, 266–271.Google Scholar

31. Southern Religious Telegraph, 07 8, 1836.Google Scholar

32. Ibid., loc. cit.

33. Ibid., June 4, 1836.

34. The texts of some of these protests may be found in the Watchman of the South, II, 38.Google Scholar

35. cf. Foote, op. cit., 306–510; Staiger, op. cit., 406.

36. Southern Religious Telegraph, 05 19, 1837.Google Scholar

37. Letter to McElheny, of Virginia, , Charleston Observer, 04 15, 1837.Google Scholar

38. Issue of April, 1836, 275.

39. Southern Religious Telegraph, 05 16, 1834.Google Scholar Quoted from the New York Observer. See also Weld-Grimke Letters, Introduction, ix f.

40. Biblical Repertory, op. cit., 277f.

41. Op. cit., 511.

42. Southern Religious Telegraph, 08 18, 1837.Google Scholar William S. Plumer read a lengthy paper in the Convention arguing that neither Convention nor Assembly might act on slavery. Foote, op. cit., 513.

43. New York Observer, 05 20, 1837.Google Scholar

44. Foote, op. cit., 520.

45. Ibid., loc. cit.

46. Southern Religions Telegraph, 08 18, 1837.Google Scholar

47. Ibid., July 9, 1837.

48. Charleston Obscrver, 08 26, 1837.Google Scholar

49. The problem of slavery in Presbyterianism in the period of division is further treated in the following articles: Boison, Anton T. “Divided Protestantism in a Midwest County.” JR, XX, 359ff.Google ScholarLyons, John F. “The Attitude of Presbyterianism in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois toward Slavery, 1825–1861.” JPHS, XI, 69ff.Google ScholarVan Court, J. H. “An Account of the Work of Rev. James Smylie. …“ JPHS, XXI, 20.Google ScholarWelsh, E. B. “Chillicothe, a Distinguished Rural Presbytery.” JPHS, XXIII, 187ff.Google Scholar The following theses deal with the problem: Barber, Verlc Lyndon. The Slavery Controversy and the Presbyterians. Univ. of Chicago (M. A. thesis), 06 1928.Google ScholarHare, John C. The Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh, 1837–1870. Univ. of Pittsburgh (Ph.D. thesis), 1951.Google ScholarBaker, R. A. Pro-slavery Arguments of Southern Religious Leaders as Illustrated by the Old School Presbyterians. University of Chicago (M.A. thesis), 1935.Google ScholarHohman, Elmo P. The Attitude of the Presbyterian Church in the United States toward American Slavery. University of Illinois (M.A. thesis), 1917.Google ScholarMick, Laura A. The Presbyterians in the Anti-slavery Movement in the United States, with special Reference to that Part of the Church not in Contact with New England Abolitionism. Ohio State University (M.A. thesis), 1934.Google Scholar