The Stanton-Ames Order and Union Military-Supported Church Confiscation During the American Civil War

BearWorks MSU Graduate Theses Spring 2021 We May Undertake to Run the Churches: The Stanton-Ames Order and Union Military-Supported Church Confiscation During the American Civil War Todd Ernest Sisson Missouri State University, [email protected] As with any intellectual project, the content and views expressed in this thesis may be considered objectionable by some readers. However, this student-scholar’s work has been judged to have academic value by the student’s thesis committee members trained in the discipline. The content and views expressed in this thesis are those of the student-scholar and are not endorsed by Missouri State University, its Graduate College, or its employees. Follow this and additional works at: https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses Part of the History of Religion Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Sisson, Todd Ernest, "We May Undertake to Run the Churches: The Stanton-Ames Order and Union Military-Supported Church Confiscation During the American Civil arW " (2021). MSU Graduate Theses. 3619. https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/3619 This article or document was made available through BearWorks, the institutional repository of Missouri State University. The work contained in it may be protected by copyright and require permission of the copyright holder for reuse or redistribution. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WE MAY UNDERTAKE TO RUN THE CHURCHES: THE STANTON-AMES ORDER AND UNION MILITARY-SUPPORTED CHURCH CONFISCATION DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR A Master’s Thesis Presented to The Graduate College of Missouri State University TEMPLATE In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts, History By Todd Sisson May 2021 WE MAY UNDERTAKE TO RUN THE CHURCHES: THE STANTON-AMES ORDER AND UNION MILITARY-SUPPORTED CHURCH CONFISCATION DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR History Missouri State University, May 2021 Master of Arts Todd Sisson ABSTRACT During the American Civil War, the Methodist Episcopal Church was authorized and supported by the federal government to take control of Methodist Episcopal Church, South, churches and parsonages in which a loyal minister appointed by a loyal bishop did not officiate. Authorized under the popularly styled “Stanton-Ames order,” northern Methodist agents traveled southward alongside the Union army, and the two parties worked in conjunction to eject southern Methodist ministers from their pulpits and replace them with ministers who were loyal to the Union. These confiscations happened across the South, but they were executed by northern Methodist officials who engaged in the work with differing degrees of enthusiasm. Although their subsequent occupation of these properties was short-lived, the dramatic northern action exposed the powerlessness of southern divines to protect the sanctity of their own sacred spaces. After the war, when northern Methodists believed a reunited Methodism was imminent, southerners pointed to northern actions under the Stanton-Ames order as a reason to maintain their separate and distinct organization. As the northern connection pushed for reunion, southern intransigence, fueled by their contempt for northern Methodist conduct during the war, forced the northern Methodists to become penitents, confessing wrongs and compromising on principles, and allowing the southern Methodists to deflect any criticism for supporting slavery and treason. KEYWORDS: Stanton-Ames order, Methodist Episcopal Church, Methodist Episcopal Church South, church confiscation, separation of church and state, civil liberties, American Civil War, Edwin Stanton, Edward Ames, Methodists ii WE MAY UNDERTAKE TO RUN THE CHURCHES: THE STANTON-AMES ORDER AND UNION MILITARY-SUPPORTED CHURCH CONFISCATION DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR By Todd Sisson A Master’s Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College Of Missouri State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts, History May 2021 Approved: Jeremy Neely, Ph.D., History, Thesis Committee Chair F. Thornton Miller, Ph.D., History, Committee Member Eric Nelson, Ph.D., History, Committee Member Sean Scott, Ph.D., History, Committee Member Julie Masterson, Ph.D., Dean of the Graduate College In the interest of academic freedom and the principle of free speech, approval of this thesis indicates the format is acceptable and meets the academic criteria for the discipline as determined by the faculty that constitute the thesis committee. The content and views expressed in this thesis are those of the student-scholar and are not endorsed by Missouri State University, its Graduate College, or its employees. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Neely for his wisdom and guidance throughout my work on this thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Nelson, Dr. Miller, and Dr. Scott for generously agreeing to serve on my committee. I dedicate this thesis to my parents, who graciously indulged the fourth grader who made them stop at every monument at the battlefield in Vicksburg, and my wife, whose support and listening ear were always available. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 From Roots to Rupture 11 Schism or Secession? 13 The Non-Renewable Offer 19 The Division Deepens 25 The Political Bishop 34 Rising in the West 35 In the King’s Court 39 One Side or the Other 43 The Stage is Set 54 Going Down to Dixie 61 The Southern Swing 69 The Differing Views of the President and the War Secretary 72 Wider Confiscation Efforts Across the South 79 Ames in Louisiana 82 Simpson in Tennessee 88 Ames’ Southern Terminus 94 ! ! The Tipping Point 106 The New Guard 113 “The Sons of Africa” 116 Loyalty Not Optional 126 Refusal to Repent 131 ! ! The Southern Methodists Rally! 135! Reunion Hopes Fade to Resignation! 139! Southern Property Returned! 143! ! ! Only on Honorable Terms! 155! The Political Test! 159! The Non-Renewable Offer (Repeated)! 161! Finally, Fraternity! 165! ! ! Bibliography! 169! Primary Sources! 169! Periodicals! 174! Secondary Sources! 177! v INTRODUCTION On January 2, 1863, one day after the Emancipation Proclamation became law, President Abraham Lincoln composed a letter to Major General Samuel Curtis, operating out of Missouri. Lincoln’s subject was the ouster of a Presbyterian clergyman in St. Louis, an episode in which Curtis had played a significant part. One’s loyalty, or perceived loyalty, was a major topic among the civilian population during the war, and that was especially true in the border region. Ministers, as some of the most prominent and vocal members of local communities, often were some of the first civilians to have their allegiance closely scrutinized. Samuel B. McPheeters, the minister who presided over the Pine Street Presbyterian Church in the city, caused considerable consternation among a segment of his congregation who believed the minister held dangerous southern sympathies. While McPheeters’ own beliefs were more subtle and less public, his wife vocally supported the Confederacy, and he committed a grievous wrong in the eyes of a radical minority of his congregation when he baptized a newborn named for the Confederate General Sterling Price.1 An appeal to military authorities from this outraged contingent served as the impetus for General Curtis’s involvement in the affair. Curtis, himself a radical abolitionist, ordered the local provost marshal to eject McPheeters from his pulpit, then placed the church in the charge of a military commission that ensured the loyal members of the congregation assumed control of the building.2 McPheeters had powerful friends, however, and he refused to surrender without a fight. He won the support of Governor Hamilton Gamble and eventually earned a meeting with 1 Lucas P. Volkman, Houses Divided: Evangelical Schisms & the Crisis of Union in Missouri (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 145. 2 April E. Holm, A Kingdom Divided: Evangelicals, Loyalty, and Sectionalism in the Civil War Era (Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 2017), 109. 1 President Lincoln at the end of December 1862.3 Shortly after this meeting, Lincoln penned his thoughts to General Curtis, clearly and concisely identifying the danger in Curtis’s course of action. The President confessed, “After talking with him, I tell you frankly, I believe he does sympathize with the rebels,” but he characterized much of the evidence against McPheeters as “general.” Lincoln seemed troubled by a sentence as extreme as exile being levied on someone for such dubious reasons as “secret sympathies.” Ultimately, the President left the issue in General Curtis’s hands, albeit with a powerfully worded caveat: But I must add that the U. S. government must not, as by this order, undertake to run the churches. When an individual, in a church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest, he must be checked; but let the churches, as such take care of themselves— It will not do for the U.S. to appoint Trustees, Supervisors, or other agents for the churches.4 The dispute over the pastorship of Pine Street Church highlighted the critical intersection of politics, loyalty, and faith during the Civil War, but the clash of these powerful forces preceded the war itself. Although ostensibly institutions of peace and fraternity, American churches were not insulated from the rampant sectionalism that plagued the country in the early to mid- nineteenth century. Nearly two decades earlier, the largest denomination in the

Load more