Slavery and the Ohio Circuit Rider
By PAUL H. BOASE*
There can be no doubt about John
Wesley's hatred of slavery.
Both the trade and practice were
condemned as the "execrable
sum of all villainies," and if
ranked in order of precedence, few
if any sins surpassed "the buying
and selling the bodies and souls
of men, women, and children, with the
intention to enslave them."
Wesley's early followers were good
disciples, equally energetic in
their efforts to stamp out the evil. The
oft-assumed premise that
Methodist circuit riders were merely
Bible-pounding, muscular
evangels, wholly concerned with
other-worldly matters and unaware
of the social gospel, requires
qualification in the light of their
vigorous involvement with the slavery
issue.
In 1785 the first American conference of
the Methodist Episcopal
Church tolerated no equivocation on the
question, "What methods
can we take to extirpate slavery?"
Each slave held by a Methodist
was to receive his freedom after a
specified period, and "every
infant born in slavery . . . immediately
on its birth." To make en-
forcement certain, each itinerant
preacher was required to keep a
record, to be handed to his successor,
of each slave on the circuit.
Those who would not comply with the rule
were warned to leave
the society quietly or be expelled;
future applicants for church
membership were to be slaveless.1 From
this uncompromising stand
Methodism gradually retreated until a
high in vacillation occurred
in 1808, when the general conference
authorized the publication
of a thousand copies of the Discipline
for use in the South Carolina
Conference with the rule on slavery
omitted. This general con-
* Paul H. Boase is an associate
professor of speech at Oberlin College. He is the
author of several articles on the
Methodist circuit rider in Ohio.
1 David Sherman, History of the
Revisions of the Discipline of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church (New York, 1874), 114-118.
195
196
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
ference also tried to wash its hands of
any guilt by giving the annual
conferences authority to formulate their
own rules on slavery.2
The Methodist circuit rider in Ohio
played a unique role in this
antislavery struggle. From 1801 until
1808 Buckeye territory com-
prised the only free land in the Western
Conference,3 and the
Ohio Conference, when formed in 1812,
included part of Kentucky
and western Virginia.4 The
impossibility of mollifying the diverse
elements in the Western Conference was
graphically detailed by
Jacob Young, later a popular Ohio
circuit rider. Meeting in 1808,
the westerners conducted their business
"in peace and harmony,"
wrote Young, until they faced the
slavery question. "We were
sitting here [Liberty Hill, Tennessee]
in a slave state, and we had
to move with a great deal of
caution." Finally the conference
appointed a committee on slavery, whose
report, followed by "a
long, weary, and warm debate," was
rejected.5 Even Bishop Asbury
failed in his effort to reconcile rival
points of view.6 Ultimately
the conference passed a resolution to
eliminate the profit motive
from slave transactions. The conference
said nothing about the
system and seemed perfectly content to sanction
the slaveholder
as long as he neither bought nor sold
slaves for profit.7
In 1812 at the opening session of the
newly formed Ohio Con-
ference it appeared that this group
might revive the original
Wesleyan rules. One member, Joseph
Oglesby, was ordered to
emancipate his slaves. Moreover, the
session passed a long reso-
lution condemning slavery and the buying
and selling of slaves
for profit. Provision was made to grant
ultimate freedom to those
slaves held by church members.8 This
rule, however, proved too
severe for a majority of the conference
and was repealed in 1817.9
2 Journals of the General Conference
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol.
I,
1796-1836 (New York, 1855), 93.
3 Minutes of the Annual Conferences
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol.
I,
1773-1828 (New York, 1840), 105-171.
4 Ibid., I, 229.
5 Jacob Young, Autobiography of a
Pioneer (Cincinnati, 1857), 249-250.
6 Robert Paine, Life and Times of William McKendree (Nashville,
1869), 215-216.
7 Manuscript journal of the Western Conference, October 1808. Ohio
Wesleyan
University, Delaware, Ohio.
8 Manuscript journal of the Ohio
Conference, October 1812. Ohio Wesleyan Uni-
versity.
9 Ibid., September 1817.
SLAVERY AND THE CIRCUIT RIDER 197
In 1835, still encumbered by slave
territory, the Ohio Conference
attempted to clarify its stand on
slavery with particular reference
to the abolition movement that was
beginning to prick the con-
sciences of many members. With Bishop
Andrew in the chair
(whose trial in 1844 was to tear the
church asunder over this
issue), the Ohio Conference expressed
its confidence in gradual
emancipation and completely disavowed
abolitionism.l0 In pub-
lishing the conference resolution, the Western
Christian Advocate
asserted that all preachers in the Ohio
Conference were agreed on
three points: First, slavery was an
evil; second, gradual, con-
stitutional methods furnished the best
weapons for removing the
evil; and third, the abolitionist remedy
constituted an evil worse
than slavery itself.11
The passage of the resolution did not
mean that Ohio circuit
riders were lax in enforcing the rules
that remained. The Discipline
still contained the General Rules which
prohibited "the buying
and selling of men, women, and children,
with an intention to
enslave them."12 David
Lewis, riding the Marietta circuit in 1835,
indicted a Virginia slaveholder for
selling his slaves and migrating
to Ohio, where, wrote the circuit rider,
he lived "in princely style,
on the price of blood." To keep the
Virginian out of Ohio was
impossible, but Lewis arraigned the man
before a church court,
which expelled him. The slaveholder
appealed the decision to the
quarterly conference, where he spoke for
two hours in his own
defense but failed to regain his
membership. "It was truly a sad
spectacle," Lewis concluded,
"to see a man professing Christianity,
guilty of the black crime of selling his
fellow-beings into slavery,
stand up to justify the deed before an
ecclesiastical court. In slave
states such things may yet be done, but
I mistake the signs of the
times if the light of truth does not yet
put an end to scenes so
humiliating, even there."13
The general conference, meeting at
Cincinnati in 1836, was still
10 Ibid., August 1835.
11 Western Christian Advocate (Cincinnati), September 11, 1835.
12 The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist
Episcopal Church (New York,
1832), 78.
13 David Lewis, Recollections of a Superannuate, S. M. Merrill, ed.
(Cincinnati,
1857), 276.
198
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
under the domination of the southern and
northern anti-abolitionists,
but the radical antislavery element met
the challenge. In heated de-
bates, reported with asides and
refutation by Philanthropist editor
James G. Birney, the Methodist
abolitionists pressed the conference
to restore the Wesleyan rules on slavery
and thus adhere more
closely to the abolition line. Birney's
presence at the conference so
incensed the southern delegates that
they charged him with "un-
gentlemanly" conduct and introduced
a resolution, never put to a
vote, that he be barred from the
house.14 In spite of the activity
of Orange Scott and his circuit-riding
abolitionist colleagues, the
conference censured two members for
attending and speaking at
an abolition meeting.15
Despite episcopal exhortations to eschew
"modern abolition,"
antislavery agitation continued to rise,
led in the East by Garrison
and in Ohio by the "Lane
Rebels" at Oberlin. Soon a new abo-
litionist wing, the Wesleyans,
threatened Methodist unity. As early
as 1839 breaks in Methodist Church
structure began to show at
Cleveland, Monroe, and Williamsfield,
the last two forming Con-
gregational churches.16 Methodist
leaders in the North realized that
they were being pushed off the fence,
and that a stronger stand
on slavery was imperative to stem a
widespread exodus. The general
conference of 1840, therefore, treated
the abolitionists more kindly,
and references to slavery in the
pastoral address were conciliatory
in the extreme toward the antislavery
faction.17 On the other hand,
this general conference passed a
resolution which many northern
members probably did not realize opened
the door for a slave-
holding bishop. Although drawn up to
apply to the local ministry,
there was nothing in the wording that
excluded the highest office.
Thus the South had additional law on its
side for the approaching
struggle over the propriety of
slaveholding among the bishops.18
By 1842 the abolitionist group, led by
Orange Scott, Jotham
14 Debate on "Modern Abolitionism," in the General Conference
of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, Held in Cincinnati,
May, 1836 (Cincinnati, 1836), 3-4.
15 General Conference Journals, I, 447.
16 Lucius C. Matlack, The History
of American Slavery and Methodism from 1780
to 1849, and History of the Wesleyan
Methodist Connection of America (New
York,
1849), 301-302.
17 General Conference Journals, II,
159-160.
18 Ibid., 171.
SLAVERY AND THE CIRCUIT RIDER 199
Horton, and La Roy Sunderland, decided
they had had enough of
the Methodist Episcopal Church and
published the news of their
withdrawal. Chief cause for complaint
was their condemnation of
the Methodist Church as a slaveholding
and slavery-defending
church; they also objected strongly to
the episcopacy. Writing in
the first issue of the True Wesleyan,
they declared, "These we be-
lieve to be anti-Scriptural, and well
calculated to sustain each other."
A call was published for all like-minded
folk to join the crusade.
Six thousand responded, and on May 31,
1843, the Wesleyan
Methodist Connection of America was
formed. Responses came
from Troy, Bellville, Cincinnati,
Columbia, Russell, Sandusky, Piqua,
and Cedarville, and in October 1844 the
new church held its first
general conference in Cleveland.19 These
withdrawals, plus an in-
creasing tendency on the part of
southerners to reject even the
church's time-honored introduction to
compromise and rationaliza-
tion--"We declare that we are as
much as ever convinced of the
great evil of slavery"20--were
more than many abolition haters in
the North could stand.
At the 1844 general conference in New York
City the northern
and southern factions clashed in debate
over the case of Bishop
Andrew. After assuming office in 1832 he
became a slaveholder
through marriage, a condition many
insisted would render him
useless in the annual conferences of the
North. The dilemma of
many anti-abolitionists in Ohio was
clearly expressed by Michael
Marlay of the Cincinnati district in a
letter to his fellow presiding
elder, James B. Finley of the Zanesville
district. Expressing his
intense hatred of abolitionism, Marlay
declared that he would
oppose it as readily as "the
approach of slavery to the episcopacy,
and I never expect to countanence [sic] the one or
the other."21
It was obvious that most members of the
1844 general conference
hoped to avoid open conflict, and for
two days, notwithstanding a
wealth of business directly connected
with slavery, all seemed
fearful of mentioning the touchy
question. Indeed, when the stand-
ing committees were read, slavery was
omitted. Finally on the
19 Matlack, Wesleyan
Connection, 301-353.
20 General Conference Journals, I,
62.
21 Marlay to Finley, May 15, 1845.
Finley Papers, Ohio Wesleyan University.
200
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
third day a committee on slavery was
established, in spite of a
southern effort to table the motion.22
Immediately the memorials on
slavery poured in from every section of
the country, and it became
increasingly apparent, as the conference
took up the question of
the slaves owned by Bishop Andrew's
wife, that church unity
neared the breaking point.
Ohio circuit riders, led by James B.
Finley, played a leading part
in the Andrew controversy. Though Finley
was not the most
talkative member of the Ohio delegation,
it was his substitute
motion which provoked the debate that
divided the church. His
subsequent course on slavery and that of
the Ohio Conference
were inextricably intermixed,
demonstrating the stress and pull of
northern, moderate, and southern circuit
riders in Ohio.
Just how Finley stood on the slavery
question is not easy to dis-
cern from his Autobiography. In
the book describing his work as
chaplain of the Ohio State Penitentiary,
however, he leaves no doubt
about his intense hatred of slavery.23
At the general conference of
1836 he was not active in the debate on
abolition; he was not elected
delegate in 1840. Indeed, his failure to
secure election might have
been due to suspected southern
sympathies. When he took a strong
antislavery stand at the general
conference of 1844, a letter he wrote
in 1839 to his cousin J. M. Bradley of
the South Carolina Con-
ference was used against him. Finley was
quoted as writing, "One
great charge brought against me [when up
for election in 1839]
was, that I voted for Bro. Capers for
Bishop in '36,24 and if elected,
I would do so again, which charges I did
not deny, for I will not
succumb, nor creep to any men, or set of
men, where I think I
have acted correctly." Expressing
his bitter hatred of the abolitionists,
his love for the South, Finley declared:
"I am a Southern man in
feeling, and sentiments, and cannot go
with the Yankees in their
divers measures. I very much prefer
Southern Methodism with all
their slavery to the Methodist Politics
of the North, in their
Revolutionizing Schemes."
Caustically he assailed the abolitionists,
22 General Conference Journals, II, 13.
23 James B. Finley, Memorials of
Prison Life, B. F. Tefft, ed. (Cincinnati, 1850),
44-45; 177-179.
24 William Capers, a leading southern
preacher and slaveholder, was approached in
1836 for the office. He later was
elected a bishop by the Methodist Church South.
SLAVERY AND THE CIRCUIT RIDER 201
and expressed his desire to "pull
up my stakes and get out of its
[the North's] fiers [sic] for, I
never could swim in a washing tub,
and, I must go South and lay my
bones." This dilemma in which
Finley found himself was common to the
moderates of both the
North and the South, and made their
fight against the evils of
slavery a difficult one.
The first resolution at the 1844
general conference dealing with
the Andrew case requested the bishop to
resign.25 After a short and
inconclusive debate, Finley recognized
that this resolution was un-
satisfactory to all elements in the
conference. Too mild for the
extremists in the North, it was
likewise too severe for the moderates.
For all loyal Methodists it was a blunt
and shocking proposal
directed at the highest officeholder in
the church. Up to this time
no bishop had even been brought to
trial. Seeking a compromise,
Finley proposed a substitute for the
main resolution; Joseph M.
Trimble, a son of former governor of
Ohio Allen Trimble, seconded.
The essence of the substitute was a
demand that Andrew "desist
from the exercise of this office so
long as this impediment remains."26
For the next ten days the conference
seethed with debate re-
volving around the substitute motion,
Finley taking the floor twice
in defense of his proposal. Taunted by
the South as an abolitionist,
Finley hurled back the challenge.
"So I am sir, in the Methodist
sense of the word; but none can say
that I am a radico-abolitionist.
I throw back the assertion with perfect
contempt. By those rabid
abolitionists I am called a pro-slavery
man, and I treat this with the
same disregard. I am a Methodist."
Finley concluded by sum-
marizing his position. As a native-born
southerner he was willing
to compromise to any extent, except on
two points, the evil of
slavery and the right of a bishop to
hold slaves. Ending his speech
rather wearily, he declared:
"Having thus expressed my position
fearlessly, but I trust with no bad
feeling toward my brother, on
the ground which I believe the Church
has always occupied, I
take my seat, and shall wait the issue
with as much composure and
prayer as I am capable of."27
25 General Conference Journals, II,
64.
26 Ibid., 65-66.
27 "Report of Debates"
in General Conference Journals, II, 151-152.
202
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Finley's closing line well expressed the
general tone of the as-
sembly. For another four days the
debates, concerned mainly with
the substitute motion, wore on, when
finally the vote, taken "amid
the most profound stillness,"
favored the Finleyan forces by 111
to 69.28 During the remaining four days
of this conference, that
had "paused and trembled for nearly
six weeks,"29 instead of the
usual four, it became clear that with
the passage of the Finley
substitute the South would secede.
The National Anti-Slavery Standard gleefully
reported the
news of the Finley victory, but added,
"Both sides indeed seem
thoroughly frightened."30 Perhaps
not frightened, Finley was never-
theless concerned with the reaction of
the Ohioans toward his sub-
stitute motion. On arrival home he
received letters from all quarters,
some condemning, some praising. His old
crony, the venerable John
McDonald, frontier historian, mixed the
two judiciously, lauding
the Finley rhetoric but deploring the
implications of the substitute.
Finley, he felt, had played the game of
the abolitionists. Church
division, he was positive, would surely
follow, setting the pattern
for a divided nation with "Northern
and Southern confederacies,
and jealousies and bicerings [sic] if
not wars will be scenes of
daily occurances [sic].31
Not all quarters were in agreement with
John McDonald's view.
A leading newspaper which espoused the
extreme antislavery posi-
tion was heartily displeased, branding
the conference action as
"shuffling and unmanly."32
A third opinion was expressed by
Leonidas L. Hamline of Ohio, who had
been elected a bishop at
the stormy session, in part because of
his excellent speech in support
of the Finley substitute.
Enthusiastically he wrote to Finley that
passage of the substitute resolution had
stemmed the flow of
Methodists to the Wesleyan camp.33
What would happen when the Ohio
Conference met three months
after the general conference adjournment
undoubtedly gave Finley
28 Ibid., 190-191.
29 Robert Boyd, Personal Memoirs
(Cincinnati, 1862), 111.
30 National Anti-Slavery Standard (New York), June
6, 1844.
31 McDonald to Finley, July 22, 1844.
Finley Papers.
32 Cincinnati Weekly Herald and Philanthropist,
July 2, 1845.
33 Hamline to Finley, September 14,
1844. Finley Papers.
SLAVERY AND THE CIRCUIT RIDER 203
some anxious moments. Just as he reached
Marietta for this con-
ference, a letter from a relative
congratulated him on his wise
action at the general conference. Now,
the writer assured Finley,
the eyes of all were upon the church as
never before in history.34
At this meeting Jacob Young drew up a
resolution approving the
general conference action and the course
pursued by the Ohio dele-
gation in the Andrew case.35 A
warm debate followed, and though
the "bishops appeared to be
alarmed," and the resolution was sent
back to a committee, it was finally
passed. "The southern brethren
saw that we were men of decision, that
we had understandingly
defined our position in relation to
slavery, and that we were de-
termined to keep it," Young wrote
triumphantly.36
The year following, in May 1845,
delegates from the South met
in Louisville for a convention. There,
as the Zion's Herald ex-
pressed it, the South had to decide
whether to accept the general
conference decision or follow the course
of other seceders.37 Their
decision to separate posed tremendous
problems for the Ohio Con-
ference, which embraced territory in
both sections and included
several circuit riders who were
definitely pro-southern. In September,
when the Ohio Conference met in
Cincinnati, the usual pleasant
anticipation and relish for the annual
meeting was absent from
many preachers' hearts. Bishop Joshua
Soule had already indicated
his desire to join the Church South, but
he had not officially left
the northern branch and expressed his
intention to preside at the
Cincinnati session with the newly
elected Hamline. Soule "was
long-headed," wrote Jacob Young,
"and we trembled for the
safety of the conference."38 The
northern element, led by Young
and Finley, determined at all costs to
prevent Soule from presiding,
and after a furious parliamentary
struggle, the senior bishop was
voted from the chair.39
34 Robert P. Finley to James B. Finley,
August 23, 1844. Finley Papers.
35 Manuscript journal of the Ohio
Conference, September 1844. Ohio Wesleyan
University.
36 Young, Autobiography, 473-474.
37 Quoted in the Liberty Herald (Warren,
Ohio), November 27, 1844.
38 Young, Autobiography, 477-479.
39 Manuscript journal of the Ohio
Conference, September 1845. Ohio Wesleyan
University.
204
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
During the following years the fight for
church property, and
the struggle of each side to control the
border churches produced
bitter conflicts. A Queen City trio
composed of S. A. Latta, Edmund
W. Sehon, and George W. Maley, three of
eight preachers who
withdrew from the northern branch,40
were desperately proselytizing
Cincinnatians for the southern cause and
finally established a
"Slavery Church" in that city.
Unburdening himself, Michael
Marlay, the presiding elder of the
Cincinnati district, wrote to
Finley that the "unchristian,
ungentlemanly and contemptable [sic]"
machinations of "this wonderful
Trinity of Spirits . . . stinks in
the nostrils of the public as well as
the Church."41 Two months
earlier, in a letter to Finley, Trimble,
co-signer of the substitute
resolution in the Andrew case, bitterly
assailed the trio. "If false-
hood and slander and deceit can make a
good cause, they have it,"
he wrote, and he added, "Latta is
going to publish a paper, the
Methodist Expositor, then he can write
his belly full."42
Finley soon had more of Latta's paper
than he could stand, and
in response to the first issue, wrote a
vigorous reply:
This morning I received the no. 1 of
your paper and I suppose to try
to harrass my mind with things which you
will say about me and I say now
to you I want you to send no more. I
have lost all confidence in you as an
honorable man. You have treated me badly
as the best and finest friend you
ever had and I look upon ingratitude as
the worst exhibition of the human
heart. I want nothing to do with you and
all you can say about me.
Since they were both well known in
Columbus, Finley expressed
no fears of a damaged reputation but
expressed the hope that they
could coexist peacefully. Dogmatically
endeavoring to close the
debate, Finley declared: "All the
arguments you could use in a
lifetime if it should be as long as
'Mathesolus' will not change my
mind. I am your much injured and
maltreated friend."43
As much as Finley desired to live in
peace with Latta, the southern
faction, and the abolitionists, he was
caught in the cross fire. Tran-
40 Minutes of the Annual
Conferences, IV, 70.
41 Marlay to Finley, January 15, 1846.
Finley Papers.
42 Trimble to Finley, November 12, 1845. Finley Papers.
43 Finley to Latta, July 28, 1846.
Finley Papers.
SLAVERY AND THE CIRCUIT RIDER 205
quility was not achieved through church
division. Indeed, this action
only served to heighten tension, foster
distrust, and intensify the
struggle for church property. Slavery,
therefore, continued to be
the all-absorbing topic for the
remaining years of Finley's life. In
his last general conference at
Indianapolis in 1856, he and his old
friends Peter Cartwright and Jacob Young
helped ward off any
radical changes in the Discipline on
the subject of slavery. Blaming
political demagogues who "care very
little about human liberty"
for stirring up the antislavery
preachers, Cartwright rejoiced that
there were a sufficient number of the
old guard on hand to out-
distance "these innovators and
spoilers of ancient Methodism."44
Shortly after the close of the general
conference the battle of
words was replaced by the rhetoric of
violence. Near the middle of
September Finley attended a meeting of
the Republicans in Lewis-
burg, Ohio, sat on the platform, and
probably delivered a typical
speech, filled with the usual
challenges. The Western Christian
Advocate reported that as Finley passed through the crowd a
group
of heckling rowdies, "delectable
upholders of the system of slavery
and slavery extension, knocked [Finley]
on the back of the head
with a bludgeon, and left [him]
senseless on the ground. The
spirit which prompted Brooks to strike
Sumner over the head, was
the same spirit which prompted the
Lewisburg rowdies to strike
Mr. Finley." The writers of
southern Advocates did their own par-
ticular brand of editorializing. To
Finley's charge that the crime
was due to whiskey and slavery, the
Nashville Advocate replied
that if some of their "northern
friends have the fever and ague,"
they blame it on slavery. The editor of
the Charleston Advocate
hoped "the old Repulican didn't
suffer seriously," and admonished
Finley to "stick to the
Gospel," to which the Cincinnati editor in-
quired, "Pray, Brother Myers, what
is the Gospel?"45
44 Peter Cartwright, Autobiography, W.
P. Strickland, ed. (Cincinnati, 1857), 503.
45 Western Christian Advocate, October 15, 1856.