The African Supplement: Religion, Race, and Corporate Law in Early National America
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 7-2015 The African Supplement: Religion, Race, and Corporate Law in Early National America Sarah Barringer Gordon University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons, Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, History of Christianity Commons, History of Religion Commons, History of Religions of Western Origin Commons, Law and Race Commons, Legal Commons, Legal History Commons, New Religious Movements Commons, Organizations Law Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the United States History Commons Repository Citation Gordon, Sarah Barringer, "The African Supplement: Religion, Race, and Corporate Law in Early National America" (2015). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1575. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1575 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The African Supplement: Religion, Race, and Corporate Law in Early National America Sarah Barringer Gordon N 1807 the trustees of Bethel Church in Philadelphia, technically known as the Association of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Isubmitted proposed amendments to their articles of incorporation to the attorney general, supreme court, and governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The seven amendments were sharply worded, clearly designed to overturn the existing governance of Bethel. The new rules would allow the (black) trustees to mortgage the church, expel or suspend current members, appoint preachers and exhorters, and refuse to accept any preacher nominated by the (white) Methodist minister of the nearby St. George’s Church if a majority of the Bethel trustees did not approve Sally Gordon is the Arlin M. Adams Professor of Law and Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania. This article grew out of research first conducted among dry general incorporation statutes in the early Republic, but expanded and deepened with research at the Mother Bethel Archive and Museum under the helpful guidance of Mar- garet Jerrido, in the African Church folder of the Edward Carey Gardiner Collection at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, and in the African Americana Collection at the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarians at these valuable archives welcome researchers and share priceless documents, without which this article could not have been written. This article was first drafted for the 2013 conference of the British Group of Early American Historians in Norwich, U.K., and benefited greatly from comments there as well as at later stages from a wide-ranging group of scholars, including Greg Ablavsky, Alison Games, Martha Jones, Sophia Lee, Jonathan Levy, Serena Mayeri, Richard Newman, Simon Newman, Dylan Penningroth, Daniel Rodgers, Hilary Schor, Fredrika Teute, Judith Weisenfeld, Betty Wood, and Michael Zuckerman. The many fellow historians and law school colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania Legal History Consortium, the Shelby Cullom Davis Seminar at Princeton University, the conference of the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic, the Univer- sity of Georgia Legal History Workshop, Columbia University’s Institute for Religion, Culture, and Public Life, and the University of Southern California West Coast Law and Literature Conference provided comments and critique at various stages that were vital to crafting more polished arguments and excising legal technicalities. Finally, the anonymous readers at the William and Mary Quarterly provided crucial guidance and suggestions for both tightening the focus and expanding the reach of this article. William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 72, no. 3, July 2015 DOI: 10.5309/willmaryquar.72.3.0385 386 william and mary quarterly the appointment.1 As Bethel Church founder Richard Allen explained to Methodist bishop Francis Asbury, he and his fellow trustees drafted the amendments not as a means of severing Bethel’s connection to Methodism but only to “regulate our affairs, temporal and spiritual, the same as if we were white people.”2 These amendments, duly reviewed by Pennsylvania officials who certified that they were “lawful,” have become known as the African Supplement. They represented a bold equalizing step in an ongoing dis- pute over control of the first Methodist church established by and dedi- cated to serving African Americans. In the end, the African Supplement became part of a war for independence. It was a declaration of liberty from white oversight and management for Bethel; it led to formal indepen- dence within ten years, despite Allen’s assurances to Asbury. The African Supplement also spawned other independence movements among African American churchgoers.3 The rejection of white domination through amendments to articles of incorporation illustrates how thoroughly law and legal structures infused 1 See “Amended Articles, African Methodist Episcopal Church,” Mar. 28, 1807, Letters of Attorney Book (1698–1812), vols. 1–8 (1777–1812), ser. #17.419, 8: 1–5, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. For a reprint, see R[ichard] R. Wright, The Encyclopedia of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2d ed. (Philadelphia, 1947), 332–43. Among early national Methodists, an “exhorter” was an evangelist, often an itinerant, who was not ordained. This lay minister is now known as a “certified lay speaker.” See James W. Lane and Roger D. Carlson, “Lay Servant Ministries History,” Louisiana Conference of the United Methodist Church, repr. of “A Brief History of the Office of Lay Speaker in the United Meth- odist Church (and Its Predecessor Bodies),” rev. ed., November 1998, http://www .la-umc.org/pages/detail/1668. 2 Richard Allen to a Presiding Elder, Apr. 8, 1807, in J. Manning Potts, Elmer T. Clark, and Jacob S. Payton, eds., The Journal and Letters of Francis Asbury in Three Vol- umes, vol. 3, The Letters (London, 1958), 367 (quotation); Francis Asbury to the Trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Apr. 9, 1807, ibid. 3 Daniel A. Payne, History of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, ed. C. S. Smith (Nashville, Tenn., 1891), iv (quotation), 45, 261–67. The formation of separate African American churches occurred in slave as well as free states, especially after the development of the African Methodist denominations. Scholars have documented coherent separate religious communities in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia, although many aspects of their histories have been lost. Sylvia R. Frey and Betty Wood, Come Shouting to Zion: African American Protestantism in the American South and British Caribbean to 1830 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1998), 149–81. In Charleston, South Carolina, the ex-slave Denmark Vesey, a founder of an African Methodist Episcopal church, was accused of plotting an insurrection. The church and the rebellion were suppressed in 1822, and suspected conspirators were hanged. The church’s minister, Rev. Morris Brown, went north to Philadelphia, where in 1831 he became the second bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church and pastor of Bethel Church. Bernard E. Powers Jr., “Seeking the Promised Land: Afro-Carolinians and the Quest for Religious Freedom to 1830,” in The Dawn of Reli- gious Freedom in South Carolina, ed. James Lowell Underwood and W. Lewis Burke (Columbia, S.C., 2006), 138–39. the african supplement 387 the life of separatist African American churches in the early Republic. Bringing law into focus shows how such churches were built, defended, and fought over by black congregations. Battles for control were conducted with legal weapons, including opinions of state courts, lawyers’ advice to clients on both sides, and elections of trustees. The importance of corpo- rate law to religious life in early national America, which played out so dra- matically for Bethel and other black churches, lay in its power to generate havens for spiritual life regardless of race. Incorporation created a new legal person, with the capacity to own property as well as the right to sue and to defend itself. The corporation was neither black nor white and thus, for black people in many jurisdictions, it could be deployed in otherwise inac- cessible spaces (for example, courts or government administrative offices) to accomplish objectives, such as independence and ownership of property, that would otherwise be unattainable or unsustainable.4 Pride in this legal identity as owners and managers of a sacred space was essential to church formation and communal worship, a transformative experience for African Americans in the early Republic (Figure I). Scholars have missed the importance of incorporation in African Americans’ struggle for freedom. The oversight may well be traceable to the unexpected role that corporations played in religious life in general, and in independent African American churches in particular. Traditionally, corporations had been used as tools of empire, monopoly, finance, and local government—all sites of potential oppression, corruption, and abuse. Significant anticorporate sentiment after the American Revolution