The American Tract Society(s)1

One of the most signifcant controversies in the late 1850s involved the American Tract Society

(ATS). At the 1858 meeting of the Worcester Baptist Association, with J.L.A. Fish as the clerk, the pastors passed a resolution “approving the action of the Tract Society in .”2

The American Tract Society was one of the highest profle interdenominational agencies in the country. Clifford Griffn called it one of the “three greatest interdenominational associations in the land,” alongside the American Bible Society and the American Home

Missionary Society.3 In 1856 the HMS brought in $210,000, the ATS $400,000, and the ABS

$500,000 respectively.4 The ATS was a joint effort between Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists,

Congregationalists, and others and thus Baptist leaders like Francis Wayland, Heman Lincoln, and Baron Stow joined with Presbyterians like Charles Hodge and Lyman Beecher among the dozens of leaders of the society.5 The ATS pledged to print only tracts that enjoyed the approval of “all evangelical Christians,” meaning, for example, that tracts on the mode of baptism were out of bounds. It included members from every section of the country, north, south, east, and

1 By Daniel Kleven (2021).

2 “Worcester Baptist Association,” Massachusetts Spy, August 25, 1858, 2.

3 Clifford S. Griffn, “The Abolitionists and the Benevolent Societies, 1831-1861,” The Journal of Negro History 44.3 (1959): 195; on the ATS controversy see also John R. McKivigan, The War Against Proslavery Religion: Abolitionism and the Northern Churches, 1830–1865 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), 119–23, 256–58.

4 Griffn, “The Abolitionists and the Benevolent Societies, 1831-1861,” 196.

5 Thirty-Second Annual Report of the American Tract Society (New York: American Tract Society, 1857), 2.

1 2 west, and their colporters distributed tracts just as widely. Thus a particular position on the issue of slavery was also considered to be out of bounds. This partnership between northern and southern Christians at the cost of silence on one of the most pressing moral issues of the day was a source of deep discontent among anti-slavery advocates.

William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator had been sharply criticizing the ATS since the

1840s. In 1846 they published the minutes of the Weymouth and Braintree Female Anti-Slavery

Society, which claimed that one of their greatest obstacles in the work of anti-slavery was the

“opposition of the members of the various churches.” The WBFASS held the conviction that separation from fellowship with slave-holders was

an essential requisite of Christian character. ‘If any man love not his brother whom he hath seen, he cannot love God whom he hath not seen. No man can love his brother and enslave him, or connive at his being enslaved, or apologize for or commune with the enslavers… By this rule do we judge and reject the majority of the American churches, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, and the American Tract Society and other kindred societies. By this rule, too, do we judge the so-called evangelical churches of this town.6

In 1852 the Liberator decried the ATS for censoring books containing any reference to slavery. In publishing the Memoir of Mary Lundie Duncan, the ATS was careful to delete several sentences expressing her opposition to slavery. “The Tract Society has by this act forfeited the confdence, and deserves the deepest reprobation, of all honest people.”7

In 1853 William Jay wrote a public letter to the ATS.8 He wrote that in twenty seven years of existence it had “never published a line intended to touch the conscience of an American

6 “Annual Meeting of the Weymouth and Braintree Female Anti-Slavery Society,” The Liberator, October 16, 1846.

7 “Conservative Mutilation of Books,” The Liberator, March 26, 1852.

8 William Jay was an abolitionist and had been an early member of the ATS. See William Jay, Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery (Boston: John P. Jewett & Co., 1853); Stephen P Budney, William Jay: Abolitionist and Anticolonialist (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005). 3 slave-breeder or trader. On the contrary, especial care has been taken to EXPUNGE from your reprints every expression that could even imply a censure on our stupendous national iniquity.”9

He pointed out the gruesome irony, that, “in some of our States even a free mother if her complexion be dark, is by law liable to be scourged on her bare back, should she be caught teaching her little ones to read your Child’s Paper; yet not a word of remonstrance escapes the

American Tract Society!”10 Jay noted the formation of the American Reform Tract and Book

Society in Cincinnati, a group which had been willing to publish on the sin of slavery, but like the

Baptist Free Mission Society, they never gained much popular support.11

In 1857 Jay published another, more lengthy letter, criticizing again the ATS’s willingness to publish tracts on the sins of “all who sell or drink intoxicating liquors,—who read novels, play cards, attend horse-races, join in the dance, go to the theatre, and either smoke or chew tobacco,” even though many evangelical Christians disagreed on those things, yet refused to publish a word on slavery.12 He also raised a critique of Nehemiah Adams, a pro-slavery northerner who had recently published a book in favor of southern slavery. The ATS would never budge as long as

Adams was serving on the Publishing Committee.13

The ATS felt the mounting pressure, and appointed a special committee to “inquire into and review the proceedings of the society’s executive committee,” particularly their policy

9 William Jay, Letters Respecting the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, and the American Tract Society (New York: Lewis J. Bates, 1853), 3.

10 Jay, Letters, 5.

11 Jay, Letters, 13.

12 William Jay, A Letter to the Committee Chosen by the American Tract Society : To Inquire into the Proceedings of Its Executive Committee, in Relation to Slavery (New York: n.p., 1857), 5.

13 Jay, A Letter to the Committee, 5. The book published by Adams was called A South-Side View of Slavery; or, Three Months at the South, in 1854 (New York: J. C. Derby, 1855). This book earned Adams the nickname “South-side Adams” in The Liberator. 4 regarding the issue of slavery.14 This special committee, which included a mix of anti-slavery fgures (like Francis Wayland) and pro-slavery fgures, reached a compromise. They re-affrmed that “the Tract Society was founded, not to discuss disputed questions in theology, or morals, or politics, but to spread the truth in its simplicity and purity, as it is held and loved by all evangelical

Christians.” They adopted fve resolutions, including, that:

the political aspects of slavery lie entirely without the proper sphere of this Society, and cannot be discussed in its publications; but that those moral duties which grow out of the existence of slavery, as well as those moral evils and vices which it is known to promote, and which are condemned in Scripture, and so much deplored by evangelical Christians undoubtedly do fall within the province of this Society, and can and ought to be discussed in a fraternal and Christian spirit.15

The resolutions were ambiguous: they closed off discussion of slavery as a political question, as well as any discussion of slavery as a sin in itself, but it was open to discussion of the sins which arose from slavery, if the publishing committee deemed it prudent.

Thus the anti-slavery and the pro-slavery members each thought they had won a victory.

The anti-slavery because they could now publish on the sins related to slavery; the pro-slavery because slavery itself was still safe, and the fnal discretion on what to publish was still in the hands of the conservative publishing committee. Nevertheless, this was all put to the test when the question of actually publishing a tract was raised. A tract written by a pastor in the south on

“The Duties of Masters” was ready to go to press, when the southern members and auxiliaries erupted in protest. The tract did not attack slavery itself, but even so, it was deemed too controversial to publish.16 This refusal was viewed by some as a defection from the resolutions approved the previous year to publish on “the moral duties which grow out of the existence of

14 Thirty-Second Annual Report of the American Tract Society, 225.

15 Thirty-Second Annual Report of the American Tract Society, 227.

16 To All Evangelical Christians. The Suppressed Tract! And the Rejected Tract! (New York: John A. Gray, 1858). 5 slavery.” The Publishing Committee, however, felt that they had retained the discretion to publish what seemed in the best interests of the society and felt that to publish this would split the society over the issue.

Two weeks after the ATS meeting in May, the New England Anti-Slavery Society met in

Boston, and introduced a series of resolutions condemning the ATS yet again, for pretending to move on the issue, while not moving at all. He mocked the resolution passed by the special committee of the ATS. They were now willing to discuss “those moral duties which grow out of the existence of slavery.” Imagine a tract on “‘The moral duties growing out of the existence’ of piracy, highway robbery, and burglary ! Why, these are sins to be exterminated at once, and the moral duty is to slay them at once.”17

It was in the midst of this tension that the American Tract Society in Boston decided to split from the ATS headquartered in New York. The two had originally been separate organizations, but had been working so closely together for decades that everyone referred to a single “American Tract Society.”18 As the tension and publicity increased, the ATS-Boston decided to take a stand in support of the resolutions approved the year before.

From the very beginning, though, some were very skeptical, like Charles K. Whipple, frequent contributor to The Liberator. In February 1858, he noted that the ATS-Boston had taken a distinct stand—“on the fence; and they have been straining their eyes ever since, in the diligent effort to distinguish which side has the strongest battalions that they might obediently follow ‘the

17 “New England Anti-Slavery Convention,” The Liberator, June 5, 1857.

18 See Seth Bliss, A Brief History of the American Tract Society, Instituted at Boston, 1814: And Its Relations to the American Tract Society at New York, Instituted 1825 (Boston: Press of T.R. Marvin, 1857). 6 leadings of Divine Providence’ in joining it.” He needed to see “fruits meet for repentance” before the ATS-Boston could regain the confdence of anti-slavery Christians.19

In the meantime, the ATS-New York did decide to publish a tract related to slavery—on the duties of servants to obey their masters.20

At the annual meeting in 1858, the anti-slavery members of the ATS tried one last time to vote in new offcials and new policies at the ATS-New York, but they were outnumbered fve to one. The entire set of offcers was re-elected in an endorsement of their current course.21 The

ATS-Boston met two weeks later and considered the resolution that “we are no longer a Branch of the American Tract Society of New York, our union with that Society having been virtually dissolved by its recent action.” However, they delayed approving this action until a committee could look into it the following year, and they reaffrmed that the “political aspects of slavery” were out of bounds. Serving as offcers of ATS-Boston that year included Baptists Barnas Sears and Baron Stow.22

Charles Whipple sharply critiqued the ATS-Boston in The Liberator. They had moved on the issue “but half-an-inch.” They had not separated from New York, but had “voted to refer the question of separation to a committee, to report next year!” Whipple noted that “not one of the movement party proposed the publication of tracts against slavery. Those who spoke of anti- slavery at all did it with detestation, desiring to avoid that not less than slavery itself. They all

19 “American Tract Society, Boston,” The Liberator, February 26, 1858.

20 “The American Tract Society,” Christian Watchman and Refector, May 20, 1858, 2; the tract was Rev. Edmund Botsford, Sambo and Toney: A Dialogue between Two Servants (New York: American Tract Society, n.d.).

21 Thirty-Third Annual Report of the American Tract Society (New York: American Tract Society, 1858).

22 Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the American Tract Society, Presented at Boston (Boston: T.R. Marvin & Son, 1858). 7 desired to occupy a middle ground… Such is the stuff of which the ‘Boston’ American Tract

Society is made!”23

The Executive Committee of ATS-Boston met several months later and issued a public notice clarifying that they were prepared to publish “upon the subject of Slavery, as well as upon any other subject connected with public morals and the evangelization of our land.”24

Thus it was that the Worcester Baptist Association, including Fish, considered and passed these resolutions on the matter:

Whereas, the administration of the American Tract Society at New York has refused, and still refuses, to apply the teachings of the Gospel ‘to the moral duties which grow out of slavery, and to the moral evils which it is known to promote;’ and Whereas the Executive Committee of the older organization, the American Tract Society at Boston, express themselves as being prepared ‘to issue such publications as may appear to them adapted to promote the moral and religion interests of men upon the subject of slavery as well as upon any other subject… Resolved, That we cordially sympathize in the above views of the Executive Committee of the Tract Society at Boston. Resolved, That we earnestly command the Tract Society at Boston to the churches forming this body, as worthy they confdence and support. Resolved, That we recommend to the churches to make immediate, regular, and liberal contributions to the above society, in order both to advance through its agency the conversion of the world, and to express their sympathy with its present position.25

The Worcester Baptist Association was not alone. Thirty other bodies of churches joined in expressing dissent from New York and approval for Boston. However, Whipple was still not impressed. These bodies of Christians seemed to think that the Boston society “occupied ground materially different” than the New York society.26 But “what is, precisely, the difference between

23 C.K.W., “Annual Meeting of the Boston ‘American Tract Society,’” The Liberator, May 28, 1858.

24 Christian Watchman and Refector, August 12, 1858, 2.

25 “Resolutions of the Worcester Baptist Association,” The Liberator, September 24, 1858.

26 “The American Tract Society, Boston,” The Liberator, December 10, 1858; this article was reprinted by the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society and distributed as a standalone tract; see The American Tract Society, Boston (Boston: Mass. A.S. Society, 1859). Further references will be to the republished version. 8 these two bodies?” he asked.27 They had not separated from the New York society yet; they had approved the New York Special Committee’s “two-faced” resolutions; and one of their offcers was Baron Stow, Boston Baptist pastor, “whose position in regard to slavery may be judged from the fact that the pew-deeds of his Baptist church in Chauncy street contain a provision forbidding them to be sold to any but a ‘respectable WHITE person.”28 The Boston society claimed to be willing to publish on the subject of slavery, but Whipple wondered “whether what it proposes to say about slavery is to be against slavery?”29 The society was willing to publish on “the moral duties which grow out of the existence of slavery,” but Whipple joined Garrison in thinking this was absurd:

Does any moral duty throw out of drunkenness, to the drunkard, except that of immediately turning from it? Does any moral duty grow out of adultery, to the adulterer, except that of immediately turning from it? Does any moral duty grow out of either of these sins, to those in the community who have not committed them, except utter opposition to them, at all times and in all places? It is utterly absurd to speak of any moral duty but this growing out of a sin!30

The society wished to discuss slavery, and all other issues, “in a fraternal spirit.” But Whipple posed the crucial question: “Fraternal to whom? To the slave, sympathizing with his bondage ‘as bound with him’ [Hebrews 13:3]? Is there the slightest probability that Rev. Baron Stow, with those members of his ‘respectable white’ church who have a vote in the Tract Society, had this in

27 The American Tract Society, Boston, 4.

28 The American Tract Society, Boston, 6, 12, 13; Baron Stow is a chief example of the mainstream Baptist position on slavery; moderately opposed to it in words, willing to compromise in deeds, and personally unwilling to meet with Black Christians on equal terms. On the restrictive pew-deeds at Stow’s church see “Boston Religion,” Boston Investigator, October 20, 1858; “Is It So?” Christian Era, December 23, 1859; “Is Caste Evangelical?” Congregationalist, December 23, 1859. Stow’s ambivalence here can be seen in that he participated in a newly formed Church Anti-Slavery Society without making any changes to his church’s policy (“A New Anti-Slavery Society,” The Liberator, March 25, 1859). As Stow had made a cross-Atlantic trip to Ireland in relation to the “revivals” of 1857–59, English anti-slavery fgures began to voice their objections to his policy, including Joseph Horner (“The Rev. Baron Stow and Slavery,” The Liberator, October 7, 1859), and others (“Letter of English Baptists to Rev. Baron Stow, D.D.” The Liberator, December 7, 1860). As late as 1864 the policy at Stow’s church still had not been changed (“Resistance of the Church to Reform,” The Liberator, April 15, 1864).

29 The American Tract Society, Boston, 17.

30 The American Tract Society, Boston, 19. 9 their minds when they voted?”31 On the contrary, “fraternity” and “Christian spirit” had always been extended toward slave-holders, not to the slaves nor to anyone too ardently anti-slavery.

Whipple’s judgment was that the Boston society was gaining “the reputation” of opposing slavery without having taken any real steps to actually do so, and that the majority of people were being deluded into believing that they had done their duty by supporting Boston and not New York.

Whipple concluded that this belief was “pernicious,” was “an acceptance of something false as true,” and as “a direct, and gross, misleading of the minds of men in regard to the actual truth.”32

Over the next two years, Whipple would continue to scrutinize the Boston society for any real fruit on anti-slavery. By 1860, he found that though they had published on the topic of slavery, one of their tracts “is directly, and strongly, pro-slavery, having been written by a slaveholder, for the use of slaveholders… Another strongly opposed immediate emancipation.”

Only one out of nine tracts, “the only unexceptionably good one,” showed that the Scriptures

“give no manner of countenance to the practice of slaveholding.”33

Thus the Garrisonian abolitionists remained skeptical and critical of the alleged anti- slavery movement of the American Tract Society, Boston. Griffn’s assessment that in the Boston society, “abolitionists had gained a wealthy ally,” is ambiguous.34 Which abolitionists? Not the

Garrisonians. Nevertheless, the more moderately anti-slavery fgures may have found just such an

“ally” here.

31 The American Tract Society, Boston, 21.

32 The American Tract Society, Boston, 24.

33 “Hot, Cold or Lukewarm?” The Liberator, August 3, 1860. The one “good” tract was Isaac Allen, Is Slavery Sanctioned by the Bible? (Boston: American Tract Society, n.d.); see also “Ye Shall Know Them By Their Fruits,” The Liberator, December 17, 1858.

34 Griffn, “The Abolitionists and the Benevolent Societies, 1831–1861,” 216. 10

Just a few years later in 1865, after the war, the American Tract Society in New York recorded that J.L.A. Fish made a $3.20 contribution to the society. At this time, Barnas Sears was serving as a vice-president alongside Baron Stow, Charles Hodge, Albert Barnes, and Nehemiah

“South-side” Adams, among others. The former breach had been healed.