The “Restless Spirit of Radicalism”: Old School Fears and the Schism of 1837 Exploring a time when extreme passions led to the rupture of American Presbyterianism. by James H. Moorhead

“THE NECESSITY FOR THE SEPARATION OF some quarters, the anger was so deep that it the parties is urgent,” wrote the Philadel- continued to smolder even years after the phia-based Presbyterian on June 24, 1836. division. As late as 1855, one Old School “They do not agree; they cannot agree. We partisan still contended that “the palpable can scarcely conceive of two parties more perversions of religious truth” in the New antagonistic in all the principles of their School would have, if unchecked, “prove[d] belief and practice; they receive not the the programme to an age of infidelity, and same Gospel; they adopt not the same moral introduce[d] upon the American stage the code, and the absence of all mutual affinities shocking theological panorama of universal must oppose an insuperable barrier to their derangement and confusion in the elements harmonious union. Truth on one side, error of the moral world; as a parallel to which we on the other; honesty on one side, artifice on may point only to the reign of terror and the other.…” The two parties were the Old triumph of ungodliness in the French Revo- and New School factions within the Presby- lution.…” To explore the issues and circum- terian Church, and soon the author, an ar- stances that aroused such extreme passion, dent Old Schooler, had his wish. The 1837 especially within the Old School, and led to General Assembly, controlled by an Old the rupture of Presbyterianism is the goal of School majority, voted to expel four pre- this essay.2 dominantly New School synods. When com- missioners from those synods tried to take I their seats at the assembly in 1838, they were not recognized and then proceeded to The most ancient source of the 1837 split organize their own separate General Assem- was the complicated history of cooperation bly. Until 1870 Old and New School Pres- and disagreement that had marked the rela- byterians existed in separate denominations.1 tionship between Congregationalists and How had it come to pass that Presbyteri- Presbyterians. Congregationalists, largely ans framed their disagreements in terms from England, settled initially in New En- starkly dualistic—truth versus error, honesty gland after 1630. Presbyterians, some from versus artifice? Why was it that emotions England but even more from Ireland and were so inflamed that many Old Schoolers Scotland, came in force in the eighteenth found desirable a remedy as drastic as excis- century and made their homes chiefly in the ing a significant portion of the church? In middle colonies: New York, New Jersey,

Dr. Moorhead is Professor of American Church History at Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, N.J.

Journal of Presbyterian History 78:1 (Spring 2000) 20 Journal of Presbyterian History

Pennsylvania, and Delaware. The two groups first pastoral duties took him to a Presbyte- disagreed over polity, Congregationalists rian church in New York City. Subsequently distrusting the Presbyterian subjection of the he returned to labor as a Congregationalist local church to higher ecclesiastical author- minister in Massachusetts, first in North- ity. They also had the memory of religious ampton and later Stockbridge. In 1758, he struggles in England, Scotland, and Ireland completed the circle by becoming president that had made them sometime foes as well as of the unofficially Presbyterian College of allies. Yet differences notwithstanding, these New Jersey (Princeton) only weeks before groups often understood themselves as ad- his death. Jonathan Dickinson (1688–1747), herents of a common or at least similar likewise reared in Connecticut Congrega- tradition. The fate of the Westminster Con- tionalism and trained at Yale, made a simi- fession of Faith provides a graphic case in lar, if more permanent transition, becoming point. Drafted in the 1640s as the work of an one of the leading ministers in eighteenth- English assembly with Scottish advisors, the century Presbyterianism. The ease with confession eventually became the official which individuals could shift between the creed of Scottish, Irish, and American Pres- denominations was paralleled by other forms byterians. Although never adopted in En- of cooperation. For example, in 1766 Pres- gland, Westminster did serve as a model in byterians and Connecticut Congregational- important respects for the Savoy Declara- ists approved mutual consultations that oc- tion (1658) of English Congregationalism, curred annually until the eve of the and its central tenets were reaffirmed by Revolution. In the 1790s, both denomina- New England Congregationalists at the Re- tions agreed to grant representatives of the forming Synod of 1680 and of the Saybrook other body the privilege not only of speaking Platform (1708). Congregationalism and but also of voting in their deliberations.4 Presbyterianism often appeared as variants The cooperative spirit reached its most of a common theological tradition. In fact, significant embodiment in the Plan of Union the precise boundary between the two was (1801). Approved by both the Presbyterian sometimes hard to determine. For example, General Assembly and the Congregational- the first American presbytery, organized in ist General Association of Connecticut, the Philadelphia in 1706, had several members plan outlined principles whereby the de- from Congregationalist New England; and nominations could work together in the cre- the uncertain degree of authority the ation of churches in the “new settlements” presbytery exercised over its ministers and produced by the nation’s westward expan- congregations has led some to suggest that it sion. The plan allowed congregations com- was possibly more like a Congregationalist posed of members of one denomination to ministerial association than a presbytery as call a minister of the other. In cases of we know it today. On the other hand, Con- dispute between church and pastor, the min- necticut Congregationalists in the Saybrook isters could appeal to the appropriate bodies Platform opted for connectional structures— of their respective denominations—Congre- consociations of churches—that looked to gationalist ministers to their associations, some suspiciously like presbyteries.3 Presbyterians to their presbyteries. If the Given the similarities between the groups congregation demurred, then the appeal and the sometimes murky boundaries divid- would be taken to a council drawn in equal ing them, it is not surprising that Presbyteri- numbers from each denomination. The plan ans and Congregationalists often maintained also permitted the formation of union cordial and relaxed relationships in the eigh- churches composed of both Presbyterian teenth century. The career of Jonathan and Congregationalist lay people, mandated Edwards (1703–58) provides a case in point. the creation of standing committees in such A child of Congregationalist Connecticut, congregations, and allowed these “Presby- he prepared for the ministry at Yale but his gational” committees to send voting repre- Old School Fears and the Schism of 1837 21 sentatives to presbytery. The Plan of Union was not simply a policy decision imposed from the top down. It formalized and ratified cooperative efforts already underway in par- ticular communities, especially in the state of New York. The originators of the plan, while blurring denominational distinctions, did not envision their obliteration. Assum- ing that parallel Congregational and Presby- terian structures would continue to exist in the same territory, the creators of the plan sought to coordinate efforts so that together the two denominations might more effi- ciently serve the expanding populations of the nation’s western regions.5 Yet in some areas, the two churches soon moved beyond cooperation to amalgam- ation. In 1807, the Synod of Albany in re- sponse to an overture from the Middle Asso- ciation (Congregational) invited that group to become a “constituent part of our body.” Rev. Samuel Hopkins The synod offered the association’s churches the right to continue conducting their inter- home missionary work or the distribution of nal affairs in accordance with Congrega- Christian literature—created voluntary be- tionalist usage while simultaneously enjoy- nevolent societies. Non-denominational in ing the privilege of representation in the character and outside formal ecclesiastical synod. In effect, the synod was proposing to structure, these organizations were con- make the association a presbytery under its trolled by boards composed of individuals jurisdiction. Approved by the General As- (often lay people) who represented only sembly in 1808 and confirmed by the Middle themselves, not their churches. The volun- Association, this Plan of Accommodation tary societies thus embodied a task-oriented cleared the way for Congregationalist ecumenism that brought Protestant Chris- churches to enter en masse into Presbyterian tians together in an ad hoc fashion. Although affiliation while maintaining their own dis- these organizations were formed both lo- tinctive practices. The pattern set in 1808 cally as well as nationally, it was at the was then followed subsequently in other national level that they gained great notori- parts of New York and in the Western Re- ety. A group of an interlocking organizations serve of Ohio. How many churches were known collectively as the evangelical united brought into Presbyterianism in this fashion front or the benevolent empire took shape. has been a subject of dispute; but substantial To name only a few, these institutions in- numbers of originally non-Presbyterian con- cluded the American Board of Commission- gregations, probably in the hundreds, en- ers for Foreign Missions (1810), the Ameri- tered the denomination in the first several can Bible Society (1816), and the American decades of the nineteenth century.6 Home Missionary Society (1826). Although Presbyterians also cooperated with Con- the benevolent empire had a broader con- gregationalists through what today might be stituency than the Presbyterians and Con- called parachurch organizations. In the first gregationalists, these two denominations quarter of the nineteenth century, Protes- provided the vast majority of the leaders and tants concerned about the promotion of the workers for the voluntary societies. specific causes—for example, foreign and Through these organizations, then, the co- 22 Journal of Presbyterian History operation represented by the Plan of Union committed. Human beings did not live un- was increased and so, too, was the blurring der a double guilt, Adam’s and their own. of boundaries between Presbyterianism and They were guilty only for sin that they them- Congregationalism.7 selves had done. Yet Hopkins and company did not reject the doctrine of original sin. II Although a person was culpable only for his or her own crimes against God’s law, every Yet even as they cooperated with one man and woman was, in consequence of another, Congregationalists and Presbyteri- Adam’s fall, born with a corrupted disposi- ans inched apart theologically. Despite their tion that made sin inevitable. differences regarding polity, the two groups Just as the New Divinity theologians felt had originally shared a commitment to the discomfort at the idea that Adam’s sin was federal theology which had its fullest creedal imputed to subsequent generations, they expression in the Westminster Confession. also were troubled by the notion that Jesus’ Called federal because of its stress on cov- righteousness paid the debt sinful humanity enant (in Latin, foedus), this theology envi- owed to God. From their perspective, tradi- sioned the human condition in terms of two tional views of the vicarious or substitution- covenants. In the first, God made a covenant ary atonement undercut the sovereignty of of works with Adam who stood as the repre- God and encouraged moral laxness. If Christ sentative for all humanity. By this covenant, literally paid the penalty for the sinner’s Adam’s transgression was imputed or as- transgression, then the sinner’s debts were signed to his posterity who, as a result, were canceled and he or she could legitimately born in a state of sin and were utterly inca- demand salvation from God. Where was pable of doing God’s will. Salvation came grace or the sovereign initiative of God in only through the covenant of grace made such a notion? To resolve this problem, the between God the Father and Christ. By his New Divinity theologians suggested a differ- suffering on the cross, Christ vicariously ent model of the atonement. They replaced paid the penalty for sin on behalf of the elect. the debtor-creditor image with a govern- His righteousness was counted as theirs and mental metaphor. Sin was not a debt owed only in this fashion could the elect be saved.8 God; it was a crime committed against the By the end of the eighteenth century, divine government. Punishment was neces- some New England Congregationalists modi- sary to uphold God’s government, lest the fied this theology. A group of ministers con- law be flouted and sinners feel free to sin sidered the disciples of Jonathan Edwards with impunity. The atonement, then, was sought to improve and refine the doctrines of not Christ’s payment of the debt owed by the their master. Their leading figures included sinner, for sin was a crime not a debt. Instead Samuel Hopkins (1721–1803), Joseph the atonement was Christ’s bearing of the Bellamy (1719–90), and Samuel Emmons punishment due for the breaking of the law (1745–1840). Their movement, often called and expression of God’s aversion to sin. the New Divinity or sometimes Hopkin- The New Divinity also grappled with the sianism, was an effort to render the Calvinist perennial question of free will. In what sense, or Reformed position more consistent or if any, did fallen humanity have the ability to coherent and thus more defensible in the do the will of God and in what sense did men age of Enlightenment.9 and women sin of necessity? To answer Their doctrinal “improvements” pro- these questions, Hopkins and others built on ceeded along several lines. The New Divin- a distinction enunciated by their mentor ity theologians felt considerable unease at Jonathan Edwards, who distinguished natu- the notion that Adam’s sin was imputed to ral and moral necessity. Natural necessity subsequent generations or that people were derived from natural or mechanical laws: condemned antecedent to any acts they Someone who falls off a cliff, for example, Old School Fears and the Schism of 1837 23

ianism charged otherwise. For example, in 1798, the Presbyterian General Assembly reprimanded Hezekiah Balch, a Presbyte- rian minister in Tennessee, for espousing the views of Samuel Hopkins. In A Contrast Between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism (1811), Ezra Stiles Ely contended that the New Divinity undermined the Reformed understanding of the sinfulness of humanity and the nature of Christ’s redeeming work. Encouraging sinners to think that they might contribute something toward their own re- demption, it tended toward the ancient her- esy of Pelagianism. In general, however, Presbyterians were not inclined to view the New Divinity in such dire terms. For ex- ample, after 1798 Balch appears to have continued to teach the offending views with- Rev. Ezra Stiles Ely out any further censure from higher judica- will of necessity plummet downward. That tories; and Ely’s blast against Hopkinsianism person has no freedom to reverse the law of resulted in official ecclesiastical action to gravity. But moral necessity was of a differ- soothe rather than inflame the controversy. ent order. Moral necessity referred to the fact In 1817, a General Assembly committee that certain actions necessarily and certainly chaired by Princeton Seminary’s Samuel follow from the habits, dispositions, and Miller reviewed a letter of the Synod of motives of the heart. Since no external, Pennsylvania written by Ely and charging mechanical law compelled an individual to error against the New Divinity. Although the sin, he or she possessed a natural freedom to committee commended “the zeal of the avoid sin. However, since the dispositions Synod” in attempting to promote “strict con- and habits of the unregenerate were wicked, formity” to the creedal standards of they would inevitably use that freedom to Presbyterianism, it regretted that ardor “on choose sin. In a word, men and women this subject should be manifested in such a possessed a natural ability to refrain from manner as to be offensive to other denomi- sin, but not a moral ability since their souls nations, and especially to introduce a spirit were warped. Or as William Breitenbach of jealousy and suspicion against ministers has summarized using another metaphor, in good standing.”11 “the distinction between natural ability and The committee’s report, alluding to the moral ability allowed the Hopkinsians to necessity of maintaining “strict conformity” shunt divine sovereignty and human free- to Presbyterian creedal standards, pointed dom past one another on parallel tracks.”10 to a deeper constitutional issue posed by the The New Divinity became a formidable intrusion of the New Divinity into Presby- power in northwestern Connecticut and terianism. What did it mean for Presbyteri- western Massachusetts, and, in a time of ans to be a confessional church? When close cooperation between Congregational- American Presbyterians early in the eigh- ists and Presbyterians, the theology made its teenth century had discussed the wisdom of appearance among the latter as well. Al- requiring their clergy to subscribe to the though its adherents believed the New Di- Westminster Confession and catechisms, the vinity to be a preservation and restatement issue had been hotly debated. Some argued of orthodox Calvinism, opponents both that as a hedge against doctrinal error min- within Congregationalism and Presbyter- isters should be required to subscribe, but 24 Journal of Presbyterian History others feared that subscription would exalt mere human interpretations over the Word of God. When the synod (then the highest Presbyterian judicatory in America) in 1729 required ministers to declare their agree- ment with the Westminster standards, it struck a compromise between those positions. One had to affirm the “essential and necessary articles” of Westminster but remained at liberty to dissent on nonessential points. The synod did not, however, attempt to define which elements were “essential and neces- sary.” Yet on a subsequent occasion in 1736 with a strong subscriptionist majority in at- tendance, the synod declared adherence to the Westminster standards to be “without the least variation or alteration.” In other words, those who wished to argue for either a strict or loose constructionist interpreta- tion of adherence to the Westminster Con- fession could find something to bolster their positions depending upon which historical Rev. Albert Barnes precedent they chose to emphasize. In the long run, this issue would prove to be a Princetonians, however, while considering significant one for Presbyterians as they faced Taylorism to be beyond the pale of accept- rupture in the 1830s.12 ability, continued to express a willingness to But during the first quarter of the nine- tolerate, somewhat grudgingly, the New teenth century, the innovations proposed by Divinity. To Presbyterians further to the right New Englanders appeared to most Presbyte- than Princeton, the situation was more dire. rians to be minor or at least within the range Taylorism symbolized the direction of New of toleration. By the late 1820s, however, England theology as a whole. The contro- this perception began to change with the versy compounded their fear that the New emergence of the so-called New Haven Divinity itself was unsound on such ques- Theology and its leading proponent tions as total depravity, the imputation of Nathaniel William Taylor. Although schol- Adam’s sin, Christ’s vicarious atonement, ars still debate the extent to which the theo- and the nature of regeneration.13 logical pedigree of Taylor, professor of di- In this context, the Reverend Albert dactic theology at Yale, can be traced to Barnes was brought to ecclesiastical trial for Edwards and the New Divinity, he clearly a sermon he had preached at his church in took some of their assertions a step further Morristown, New Jersey, in February 1829 than they had. For example, Taylor some- during a revival. The Way of Salvation be- times blurred the New Divinity’s distinction came an issue when Barnes answered a call between humanity’s natural and moral abil- to the pastorate of the First Presbyterian ity and thus (in the opinion of critics) ap- Church in Philadelphia in 1830. The city of peared to be suggesting that unregenerate brotherly love, perhaps poorly named from humans had a power to effect their own Barnes’s point of view, was the center of salvation. Soon the theologians at Princeton conservative resistance to New England’s Seminary, engaging in a sharp exchange in theological innovations. Presbyterian lead- print with the New Haven theologians, ers such as William Engles and Ashbel Green, pointed to the dangers of Taylorism. The believing that only the strictest confessional Old School Fears and the Schism of 1837 25 subscription to Westminster was accept- ing innovations in practice set the Old School able, argued that Barnes had compromised proponents on edge. They saw dubious the- the integrity of the church’s standards. He ology wedded to inflammatory practice.…” was accused of teaching views that put him Thus Old School protests against the New at variance with the confession on such School frequently catalogued errors of prac- matters as original sin, the atonement, and tice as well as errors of doctrine. For ex- the ability of unregenerate humanity to re- ample, at a convention held prior to the spond to the call of God. Eventually Barnes’ General Assembly of 1837, ardent Old presbytery condemned the teaching of The Schoolers elaborated in the “Testimony and Way of Salvation (though not Barnes person- Memorial” numerous violations of church ally), but in 1831, the General Assembly order and discipline which had been toler- reversed that judgment.14 ated or encouraged by the New School. The pattern soon repeated itself. In 1835, Among others, these included the creation after publishing a commentary on Romans, of geographically overlapping presbyteries Barnes was tried anew and this time sus- formed on the basis of theological affinity, pended from his pulpit by the presbytery for the failure of presbyteries to examine pro- allegedly teaching errors analogous to the spective members on the soundness of their ones of which he had been accused several theology, and the representation in the higher years earlier. In 1836, the General Assembly judicatories by laymen who had never been again reversed the verdict. These episodes ordained as ruling elders. (Here the “Testi- are intriguing in view of the argument by mony” had in mind the committeemen per- historian Earl Pope, the most careful student mitted under the Plans of Union and Accom- of the theological dimension of the Presby- modation to govern churches and to sit in terian infighting in the 1830s, that Barnes presbytery, synod, or General Assembly.) was no Taylorite and that he went scarcely Also condemned were “disorderly and un- (if at all) beyond the views advanced by seasonable meetings of the people, in which Samuel Hopkins. If Pope is correct, one then unauthorized and incompetent persons con- sees in Barnes’s trials an interesting phe- ducted worship in a manner shocking to nomenon: ideas that had previously been public discipline.” Among these “shocking” mere irritants within the Presbyterian Church behaviors was the practice of “females often were now generating a major brouhaha. leading in prayer in promiscuous assem- What had changed? Had Taylorism ren- blies” that is, in mixed gatherings of men and dered all New England theological innova- women. The “Testimony” also expressed tions subject to guilt by association? And anxiety about “the unlimited and irrespon- why was it that conservatives were now sible power, assumed by several associa- raising questions about the orthodoxy of tions of men.” The benevolent or voluntary other well-known Presbyterian ministers— societies of the so-called evangelical united for example, Lyman Beecher in Ohio, George front actually took “control of affairs in large Duffield in Pennsylvania, and James portions of the Church, and sometimes in Wheelock in Indiana? Why by the mid- the General Assembly itself, out of the hands 1830s had the Old School cry against the of the Presbyteries into those of single indi- New School become increasingly shrill and viduals or small committees located at a desperate?15 distance.”16 The Old School complained that proper III ecclesiastical order had dissolved, and no- where were there more dramatic images of “Presbyterian polity might have with- the religious world run amok than in upstate stood these debates,” Nathan Hatch has New York, the center of New School strength observed, “had they been confined to the and the place where the Plans of Union and contrasting theologies.…Yet bold and dar- Accommodation had produced the heaviest 26 Journal of Presbyterian History

Congregational influx into Presbyterianism. Finney’s approach “swept some nineteen In the 1820s, Charles G. Finney, a lawyer (or hundred years of Christian declamation into possibly a law clerk) turned evangelist, the wastebasket”; but Finney was unquestion- brought into the Presbyterian church a re- ably a rebel against traditional forms of eccle- vivalism that many found suspect. Finney siastical practice, decorum, and theology.17 employed what were commonly called “new Finney’s ecclesiastical revolt paralleled measures.” Although the Methodists had larger changes unsettling the order of Ameri- actually pioneered in the use of these, Finney can society and culture. An economic trans- brought them into the “Presbygational” formation—a market revolution, gaining churches. The techniques included a pun- force in the several decades after the end of gent, colloquial style in the pulpit, pro- the war with Britain in 1815—profoundly tracted meetings, and the use of the anxious altered human relations. In the Northeast, or mourner’s bench where people concerned the growing scarcity of land tore young men about the state of their souls were to be and women loose from the ties of blood, seated. When he conducted worship, Finney place, and prescribed social roles and hurled named sins with uncommon directness; and them westward or into the towns and cities. neither his sermons nor his prayers left much In the urban areas, artisans who had previ- doubt as to the identity of the perpetrators. ously enjoyed some degree of status and The evangelist tolerated—some would have independence were subjected to the more said, encouraged—women to step outside impersonal regime of wage earning. Among their proper domain by speaking in “promis- the growing middle classes, the nature of cuous assemblies.” Moreover, Finney’s close work tended to separate production from the association after the 1830s with leaders of home and produced a major rethinking of national voluntary societies—men such as the proper roles of men and women. Among Arthur and Lewis Tappan—made him an apt the new religious movements that had sprung symbol of “the unlimited and irresponsible out of the revivals, there were a number of power, assumed by several associations of women preachers. “By 1830,” Catharine men.” By the mid-1830s, Finney also con- Brekus notes, “female preachers were more demned slaveholding as sin and insisted that visible, more popular, and more aggressive churches would not continue to enjoy reviv- than ever before.” Even Presbyterians who als of religion unless they spoke forthrightly supposedly did not permit such things were on the subject. While he claimed certain not untouched by the popular tide—witness affinities to Edwards and the New England the complaint against Finney’s “promiscu- tradition, Finney was unabashedly and ous meetings” or the fact that the Presbytery openly moving toward an Arminian view of of Philadelphia censured two churches in the freedom of the will. Moreover, he pub- 1826 for allowing a female itinerant to oc- licly criticized the mode of theological edu- cupy the pulpits. Beneath these specific cation prevalent in many of the seminaries. changes was a transformation of conscious- These were run by people he styled “ancient ness that some historians have called a “de- men, men of another age.” Had Finney not mocratization of mind”—a new outlook in been safely ensconced in overwhelmingly which ordinary people vaunted their right to New School presbyteries at the beginning of take charge of their own lives without the his career or had he not later switched his help of traditional authority and without ministerial affiliation to the Congregational deference to their “betters.” Evidences of denomination shortly after he went off to that determination appeared in the popular teach at Oberlin College in Ohio, the Old assault against professional elites in medi- School would almost assuredly have given cine and law and in the extension of suffrage him the same treatment it meted out to to the vast majority of white males. With the Barnes and others. Perry Miller probably electorate vastly widening, politics was in- overstated the case when he asserted that creasingly converted into a form of popular Old School Fears and the Schism of 1837 27

recognition that rioter and victim ought to share values—the level of violence in a riot increased.” In an earlier compilation of epi- sodes of mob violence reported in the pages of a leading national paper between 1812 and 1849, historian Leonard Richards discovered a sharp rise in disorder in the 1830s, with the vast majority of incidents in that turbulent decade coming between 1834 and 1836.19 The violence studied by Richards was directed chiefly at another sign of the revolt against traditional authority: abolitionism. Exemplified by the formation of the Ameri- can Anti-Slavery Society in 1833, abolition- ism changed the tenor of antislavery thought. Prior to the 1830s, there existed in much of the North—and also in some circles in the South—a conviction that slavery was an institution inconsistent with both Christian- ity and the spirit of the age. It was an anach- ronism that should and would disappear. Rev. Charles G. Finney The Presbyterian General Assembly ex- Photo courtesy Oberlin College pressed this view in 1818 when it branded slavery “a gross violation of the most pre- mobilization and entertainment as the so- cious and sacred rights of human nature” called second party system of the United and asserted that it was “utterly inconsistent States coalesced in the 1830s. As Robert with the law of God.” Yet this form of anti- Wiebe has written, it is little wonder that slavery thought was exceedingly cautious. It many observers professed to see in the young recognized the difficulties of immediate nation “only bursts of atomized behavior, a emancipation, honored the property rights kinetic confusion that was undermining the of slaveholders, never accused them of be- last pillars of an old order.”18 ing sinners, and looked toward the eventual Even mob violence testified to the chang- colonization of blacks in Africa once free- ing character of American society. Paul Gilje, dom was gradually and voluntarily attained. a recent student of the phenomenon, has The abolitionists assaulted the peculiar insti- noted that pre-nineteenth century riots had tution much more directly. Asserting that often been staged in the name of community slaveholding was a sin demanding repen- unity and values, but that the “new riot” of tance, they affirmed that slaves ought in- the 1800s, as he styles it, often self-con- stantly to be set free and that, once freed, sciously pitted one group against another. they should enjoy civil rights. Colonization, Gone was the sense of a common social the abolitionists charged, was a morally interest. Moreover, in the name of egalitari- bankrupt substitute for genuine antislavery anism, rioters challenged the older hierar- conviction. With the aid of the penny press chical notions of society whose ideals of that now made possible a relatively cheap deference and paternalism had at least par- mass dissemination of printed material, abo- tially constrained those who took to the litionists sent out reams of pamphlets and streets in earlier generations. The change papers touting their message. Speakers was one of great moment. “Without a com- fanned out to cities and towns where they mon interest,” writes Gilje, “binding the preached the gospel of abolition. (The termi- components of society together—without a nology is appropriate, for the meetings often 28 Journal of Presbyterian History had the air of a revival; and, in fact, support for abolitionism was frequently linked to the Finneyite style of evangelicalism.) Aboli- tionists also organized campaigns to inun- date the U. S. Congress with antislavery petitions.20 The level of fear and hostility directed against the abolitionists is difficult to overes- timate. In some places in the South, post- masters ransacked the mails in search of abolition literature; and this illegal tamper- ing enjoyed the full support of the Jackson administration. The petition campaign pro- voked the House of Representatives to adopt a gag rule preventing the reading of antisla- very petitions, and behind that prohibition lay the outrage expressed in South Carolin- ian Congressman James Henry Hammond’s warning that “abolitionists, ignorant, infatu- ated, barbarians as they are” should “if chance should throw any of them into our Rev. George Junkin hands…expect a felon’s death.” When abo- litionists ventured into countless northern It is against this backdrop of pervasive communities, their fate was often only mar- confusion and fear that the Presbyterian ginally better as they were hounded from schism of 1837 must be set. Since abolition- lecture halls by mobs often instigated and ism was arguably the most visible symptom led by substantial citizens. of this ferment, historians have sometimes As Leonard Richards has demonstrated, asked whether the controversy over slavery these “gentlemen of property and standing” was the “real” issue dividing the Presbyte- had complex fears. While they were at one rian Church in 1837. Framed in this fashion, level responding to what they perceived as a the question has received a negative answer revolt against proper order, they were at from most scholars who have studied the another level fearful of too much order or of question closely. They have shown con- a new order of the wrong kind. Abolitionists vincingly that the theological issues dividing might be seen as anarchists who allowed the Old and New Schools antedated the democracy to run wild; but as they came out explosive debate over slavery in the mid- from their headquarters in major cities or as 1830s. Moreover, southern Presbyterians, they used the penny press to inundate the while probably having from the beginning a land with their propaganda published in greater theological affinity to the Old School, those same metropolitan centers, abolition- were not deeply engaged in the theological ists might also appear to be the perpetrators controversy in its early stages. Only as the of a centralized despotism. rupture neared did they in overwhelming Anti-abolitionists, Richards observes, numbers cast their lot with the Old School. “dreaded the prospect of becoming indistin- That decision may have been influenced, guishable ‘instruments’ in a centrally orga- historians have acknowledged, by the fact nized and centrally directed mass society.” that the majority of Presbyterian abolition- Abolition—and the violence unleashed ists, with only a few notable exceptions, against it—testified in a most graphic way to were within the New School. The consensus Americans’ fear that the old landmarks of view of recent historians has thus come order had fallen.21 down to this: Slavery did not cause the Old School Fears and the Schism of 1837 29

schism, but the southern Presbyterian turn to Over our entire country there prevails a powerful the Old School guaranteed that when divi- epidemic, attended often with a spasmodic ex- citability—a kind of moral cholera, that seems to sion came the Old School had a majority in disregard the persons of men and seize the tem- the Assembly and could divide the church perate as well as the intemperate. The state and on its own terms. The slavery question, in the church are agitated by it. What is a mob, but this view, affected the terrain on which the an appeal to the fountains of power in the people, theological issues were fought out but did immediately, and irrespectively of the legitimate organs of action? And do we not see the same not create the issues themselves.22 things attempted in our church? And in reference Yet it is probably misleading to pose the to this very case too? What is the publication of question in a manner that draws a sharp a Defense [that is, Barnes’s defense] before a distinction between concern for proper doc- word of argument is published on the other side, trine and concern with social issues such as but an appeal to the people—to popular feeling? What mean these public congregational meet- slavery. These were not, in the experience of ings [by groups favorable to Barnes], to condemn men and women in the 1830s, entirely sepa- the legitimate actions of the legitimate organs of rate matters but rather found linkage in a your church? Is not this the mob spirit?23 common fear. That fear was one rooted in the entire range of intellectual, religious, Junkin’s address made a number of sig- cultural, social, and political changes that nificant rhetorical linkages. The “spirit of America was experiencing in the 1830s. It free inquiry” was running amok. Revolting was an anxiety that legitimate authority was against the tradition of the fathers, it tried to under assault and collapsing. mobilize the popular will directly without Although a definitive argument for this regard to the intermediary structures that are thesis would require a monograph based on necessary to both its proper expression and extensive archival work, even a cursory read- containment. Having gone beyond proper ing of the addresses and writings of Old boundaries in both church and state, Ameri- School leaders in the mid to late 1830s cans were falling into anarchy, into mob rule provides considerable supporting evidence. reminiscent of the French Revolution. The At the 1836 General Assembly, for example, nation was in a state of dire illness—a “moral George Junkin, president of Lafayette Col- cholera,” Junkin called it—and that was a lege and the chief accuser of Barnes in the powerful metaphor indeed for a people who second trial, pointed to these anxieties when had in recent years witnessed a serious epi- he summed up his plea for the Assembly to demic of the disease. All in all, Junkin’s sustain the conviction. To do so, however, images suggested a fear that church and the commissioners would have to stand society alike were disintegrating. against “the spirit of the age.” He went on to Robert J. Breckinridge, another leader of explain that “a spirit of free inquiry…which the Old School party, addressed the issue of constitutes the glory of the age, is also in authority at the 1837 General Assembly. In imminent danger of becoming its disgrace or a savage attack on the evangelical united ruin. We think, or seem to think, we cannot front, he warned of the threat of centralized give evidence of independent thought, un- power by singling out Dr. Absalom Peters, a less we treat with scorn the thoughts and New School leader who also happened to opinions of our fathers. All past ages were be the chief executive of the American Home bound in mental manacles.…” This attitude, Missionary Society. Noting that the organi- Junkin asserted, “is becoming alarmingly zation controlled the salaries of a number of violent” and starting to assume some “of the clergy, Breckinridge warned: “If…Dr. features it displayed thirty years ago in Absalom Peters…was desirous of revolu- France.” He saw evidence of that transfor- tionizing this country, I know of no man but mation in “the tendency to the anarchy of General Jackson who possesses more facili- popular government by mobs.” In his last ties to do it than he.” This extravagant com- lines, Junkin became even more perfervid: parison—the power of a missionary society’s 30 Journal of Presbyterian History leader likened to that of recently retired ex- and I am ready and willing to take my full share president Andrew Jackson—prompted in all the blame which posterity shall ever heap on the memory of the Long Parliament. I thank Breckinridge to reflect on the relationship of that body for their efforts in behalf of liberty, civil liberty to despotism. as well as religious; and especially for the The principle of democracy, if run to extremes, Westminster Confession of Faith. But we have becomes the most terrible of all despotisms, the seen, in modern times, a system growing up despotism of a mob. Some central body or indi- professedly under that Confession, which has in vidual must wield the power. In the terrible the end become directly opposed to it. The scenes of the French revolution, we have seen system I speak of was broached by Edwards and the wild and indomitable power of the com- Bellamy; but in the hands of their successors, it munes of Paris wielded in turn by a succession of has degenerated into a system of radical heresy, monsters.… [F]rom the very nature of a large and the very heresy which you are testifying against. diffused organization, like that which belongs to In this passage, Breckinridge presented her- these societies, the whole effective control must esy as an affront because it undermined a reside in some central committee, consisting of a confessional document that had served as a small number of individuals. In the present case, that control rests in a single hand; and the farther bulwark of ordered liberty—a document the organization spreads, the wider and more that, in his telling, took on an almost tribal unwieldy it grows, just so much the more certain quality as an expression of Anglo-Saxon is the personal control of this reverend doctor of identity. To make these observations is not divinity. to suggest that Breckinridge’s objections to Here again were linkages similar to those New School theology were insincere or ir- made by Junkin. An excess of liberty leads to relevant. But clearly his concerns were also the mob which in turn becomes the prey of the more than theological in a technical or nar- despot. Without adequate intermediary struc- row sense. His concerns resonated with tures—that is, in the presence of “large and issues and anxieties about order widespread diffused organization”—the danger of tyranny in the American culture in the 1830s.25 becomes overwhelming. Interestingly, the fear In this setting, compromise became in- animating Breckinridge was analogous to the creasingly difficult. Those such as the terror that Leonard Richards has found among Princeton Seminary faculty who, despite the anti-abolition mobs—the fear of losing theological affinities for the Old School, had autonomy “in a centrally organized and cen- heretofore sought to hold the church to- trally directed mass society.”24 gether found that moderation was no longer Yet Breckinridge believed that Presby- a virtue in great demand. The center was terianism had the remedy for this dilemma. disappearing, and the space between the At the heart of the denomination’s polity lay contending parties was becoming a no man’s a structured freedom, “principles of respon- land. At the General Assembly of 1837, the sibility and representation,” which safe- Old School finally secured a firm majority. guarded both liberty and order. At this point After efforts to negotiate a division with the in his address, Breckinridge was moved to New School failed, the Old School majority reflect on the Long Parliament which had decided to dictate the terms of the division. ordered the writing of the Westminster Con- It did so by abrogating the Plan of Union and fession in which Breckinridge rejoiced as “a by expelling four synods that had been orga- great bulwark…of religious freedom.” He nized under its provisions. In a letter circu- described a visit to London where he had lated to all Presbyterian congregations, the stood near the site of another of the Long Assembly explained why it had taken drastic Parliament’s acts: the beheading of Charles I. action. The letter emphasized the New School’s alleged denials of orthodoxy—its There, too, I sought and found a copy of the rejection of “of our covenant relation to warrant for the execution of that base tyrant; and I hung it in my study by the side of our own Adam,” of total depravity, of humanity’s immortal Declaration of Independence. When I utter inability to contribute to its own salva- look at it, I rejoice that I am an Anglo Saxon [sic], tion, and of the “imputed righteousness of Old School Fears and the Schism of 1837 31

zation was for the Presbyterian Old Schoolers living through it a terrifying “spirit of radical- ism” threatening to “level all order to the dust.” For them “pure faith [turned] into destructive heresy” was undoubtedly the most disastrous result of that spirit; but by their own words the “formidable” evil had infected far more than doctrine and was achieving “ruinous results” in both church and society.27 To restore the order that had been lev- eled in the dust, the Old School sought to claim a smaller domain but one with more secure boundaries. Because the expansive ecumenism of the Plan of Union and of the evangelical united front had led to irregu- larities of doctrine and order, Old School Presbyterians abolished the Plan and vowed Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge to assume as a church the activities which the Redeemer” as the sole ground of re- the voluntary societies had done on an inter- demption and regeneration. The letter denominational basis. They sought to with- charged that New Schoolers had claimed to draw from the divisive issue of slavery by adopt the Westminster Confession “for sub- remaining silent on the subject in ensuing stance” while eviscerating its specific con- years. The Old School Presbyterian response tent. The letter also enumerated the irregu- to upheavals conformed to a pattern wide- larities encouraged under the Plan of Union spread among Protestants in the 1830s and and the abuses perpetrated by the voluntary 1840s. Those decades were marked by what societies.26 some historians have called “resurgent Near the end of the letter, the Assembly churchly traditions.” In various Protestant explicitly situated its action in reference to a communities, movements arose to stress the larger predicament. The passage deserves to particularities of their respective heritages. be quoted in its entirety: Thus Episcopalians had a high church move- One of the most formidable evils of the present ment emphasizing Anglican identity, crisis is the wide spread and ever restless spirit of Lutherans the Missouri Synod and C. F. W. radicalism, manifest both in the church and in Walther stressing the distinctiveness of the the state. Its leading principle every where seems Book of Concord, and Baptists in the South to be to level all order to the dust. Mighty only in an Old Landmark movement claiming that the power to destroy, it had driven its deep agitations through the bosom of our beloved their fellowship alone stood in continuity church. Amidst the multiplied and revolting forms with the apostolic church. Interdenomina- in which it has appeared, it is always animated by tional revivalism having seemingly played one principle. It is ever the same levelling revo- itself out, people were placing their hopes in lutionary spirit and tends to the same ruinous smaller, more clearly defined communities results. It has, in succession driven to extreme fanaticism the great cause of revivals of religion, of faith. As James D. Bratt has recently ob- of temperance, and of the rights of man. It has served, “new voices” in the 1830s were aimed to transmute our pure faith into destruc- offering people “communities of belonging tive heresy, our scriptural order into confusion where they could rest assured. These bodies and misrule. needed to be marked by clear boundaries.… Here again one discerns deep anxiety about If the world would not roll on swiftly to the a pervasive crisis of authority. What con- millennium some sanctuary within it might temporary historians have called democrati- be found.… ”28 32 Journal of Presbyterian History

Even the New School itself, never as can Presbyterianism (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1997); Patricia U. Bonomi, Under the Cope radical as the most partisan Old Schoolers of Heaven: Religion, Society, and Politics in Colonial had feared, turned toward a more self-con- America (New York: Oxford University Press 1986), sciously Presbyterian identity during the years 206; John Von Rohr, The Shaping of American Congre- gationalism, 1620–1957 (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, of schism. Especially after the denomination’s 1992), 263. erstwhile ecumenical partner, the Congre- 5Robert Hastings Nichols, Presbyterianism in New gationalists, repudiated the Plan of Union in York State: A History of the Synod and Its Predecessors, ed. James Hastings Nichols (Philadelphia: Westminster 1852, the New School reemphasized loy- Press, 1963), 70–83. alty to its heritage. New School judicatories 6Ibid., 83–86. also condemned the theological views asso- 7See, for example Charles Foster, An Errand of Mercy: The Evangelical United Front, 1790–1837 ciated with Oberlin College and Charles (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960), Finney. A major figure in the reorientation of 121–55; Clifford M. Drury, Presbyterian Panorama: the denomination was Henry Boynton Smith, One Hundred and Fifty Years of National Missions History (Philadelphia: Board of Christian Education, who after 1850 served as a professor at PCUSA, 1952), 52–76; Peter J. Wosh, Spreading the Union Seminary, the unofficially New School Word: The Bible Business in Nineteenth-Century institution in New York City. A theological America (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), 74. 8Earl A. Pope, New England Calvinism and the mediator, he repudiated the extremes of Disruption of the Presbyterian Church (New York: innovation and restated the Reformed faith Garland, 1987), 5–30. This work is a published version in such a way as to reassure the Old School. of Pope’s 1962 Ph.D. dissertation at Brown University. 9In this and subsequent paragraphs on the New Moreover, by the close of the Civil War, the Divinity, I am heavily indebted to William Breitenbach, departure of the southerners from the Old “The Consistent Calvinism of the New Divinity Move- School Church and the common experience ment,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 41 (April 1984): 241–64; Joseph A. Conforti, Samuel Hopkins of fervid loyalty to the Union on the part of and the New Divinity Movement: Calvinism, the Con- both Old and New Schools in the North had gregational Ministry, and Reform in New England prepared the way for the reunion of the between the Great Awakenings (Grand Rapids: Chris- tian University Press, 1981); David W. Kling, A Field of denomination in 1870. But that is to begin Divine Wonders: The New Divinity and Village Reviv- another story, one that would have seemed als in Northwestern Connecticut, 1792–1822 (Univer- unthinkable in the midst of crisis of authority sity Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993); 29 and Mark Valeri, Law and Providence in Joseph and surcharged passions of 1837–38. Bellamy’s New England: The Origins of the New Divinity in Revolutionary America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). These works present a more NOTES evenhanded assessment of the New Divinity than the often insightful (but also polemical) Joseph Haroutunian, The author wishes to express his appreciation to Piety Versus Moralism: The Passing of the New En- Jennifer M. Reece, whose aid in the research for this gland Theology (New York: Henry Holt, 1932). 10 article was invaluable. Breitenbach, “Consistent Calvinism,” 258. 11Miller’s committee is quoted in Pope, New England 1“State of the Church,” The Presbyterian 6 (18 June Calvinism, 51. Marsden, Evangelical Mind, 39–45. 1836): 2. On the schism of 1837–38, see George M. 12Minutes of the Presbyterian Church in America, Marsden, The Evangelical Mind and the New School 1706–1788, ed. Guy S. Klett (Philadelphia: Presbyte- Presbyterian Experience: A Case Study of Thought and rian Historical Society, 1976), 103–4, 142; Trinterud, Theology in Nineteenth-Century America (New Ha- Forming of an American Tradition, 38–52; Marilyn J. ven: Yale University Press, 1970), 59–87. Westerkamp, Triumph of the Laity: Scots-Irish Piety 2Isaac V. Brown, A Historical Vindication of the and the Great Awakening, 1625–1760 (New York: Abrogation of the Plan of Union by the Presbyterian Oxford University Press, 1988), 150–56; Elizabeth I. Church in the United States of America (Philadelphia: Nybakken, “New Light on the Old Side: Irish Influ- William S. and Alfred Martien, 1855), iii. ences on Colonial Presbyterianism “ Journal of Ameri- 3Leonard J. Trinterud, The Forming of an American can History 68 (March 1982): 813–32. Tradition: A Re-examination of Colonial Presbyter- 13Pope, New England Calvinism, 62–106; Marsden, ianism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 14– Evangelical Mind, 45–52; Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen 37; Williston Walker, Creeds and Platforms of Congre- and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey gationalism (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1960; original ed., (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 94–111. 1893), 409–39, 463–523. 14Pope, New England Calvinism, 169–208; 4Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout, eds., Jonathan Marsden, Evangelical Mind, 52–55. Edwards and the American Experience (New York: 15Pope, New England Calvinism, 175–76; Marsden, Oxford University Press, 1988); Bryan F. Le Beau, Evangelical Mind, 55–58; L. C. Rudolph, Hoosier Jonathan Dickinson and the Formative Years of Ameri- Zion: The Presbyterians in Early Indiana (New Haven: Old School Fears and the Schism of 1837 33

Yale University Press, 1963) 123–28. Mobs in Jacksonian America (New York: Oxford Uni- 16Nathan O.Hatch, The Democratization of Ameri- versity Press, 1970), 10–12. The publication surveyed can Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, by Richards was Niles’ Weekly Register. 1989), 196. The “Testimony and Memorial” is ex- 20Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presby- cerpted in Maurice W. Armstrong, Lefferts A. Loetscher, terian Church in the United States of America … A.D. and Charles A. Anderson, eds., The Presbyterian Enter- 1789 to A.D. 1820 Inclusive (Philadelphia: Presbyte- prise: Sources of American Presbyterian History (Phila- rian Board of Publication, [1847]), 692. See also An- delphia: Westminster Press, 1956), 153–56. The issue drew E. Murray, Presbyterians and the Negro—A His- of proper order and the fear of voluntary societies tory (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Society, focused particularly on missionary work; see Earl R. 1966), 3–28, 67–102; Robert H. Abzug, Cosmos Crum- MacCormac, “Missions and the Presbyterian Schism of bling: American Reform and the Religious Imagination 1837,” Church History 32 (March 1963): 32–45. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 129–62. 17Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Reli- 21Hammond is quoted in William Lee Miller, Argu- gion, ed. William G. McLoughlin (Cambridge: Harvard ing About Slavery: John Quincy Adams and the Great University Press, 1960; original ed., 1835), 192; Perry Battle in the United States Congress (New York: Alfred Miller, The Life of the Mind in America: From the A. Knopf, 1996), 39; Richards, “Gentlemen of Property Revolution to the Civil War (New York: Harcourt, and Standing,” 81. Brace and World, 1963), 63. On Finney, see Charles E. 22For differing views, see C. Bruce Staiger, “Aboli- Hambrick-Stowe, Charles G. Finney and the Spirit of tionism and the Presbyterian Schism of 1837–1838,” American Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Mississippi Valley Historical Review 36 (Dec. 1949): 1996); and Keith J. Hardman, Charles Grandison Finney 391–414; Elwyn A. Smith, “The Role of the South in the 1792–1875: Revivalist and Reformer (Syracuse: Syra- Presbyterian Schism of 1837–38,” Church History 29 cuse University Press, 1987). (Mar. 1960): 44–63; Marsden, The Evangelical Mind, 18Catharine A. Brekus, Strangers and Pilgrims: 250–51; Murray, Presbyterians and the Negro, 103–5. Female Preaching in America, 1740–1845 (Chapel 23“Mr. Barnes’s Appeal to the Assembly,” New Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998), 276; York Observer 32 (6 Aug. 1836): 125. Lois A. Boyd and R. Douglas Brackenridge, Presbyte- 24“The General Assembly,” New York Observer 15 rian Women in America: Two Centuries of a Quest for (19 Aug. 1837): 130. Status, second ed. (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 25Ibid. Breckinridge’s association of the Long Par- 1996), 94; Gordon S. Wood, “The Democratization of liament with the execution of Charles is misleading, for Mind in the American Revolution,” in Library of Con- it was only after the Long Parliament was purged and gress Symposia on the American Revolution, Leader- became the Rump Parliament that the monarch was ship in the American Revolution (Washington, 1974), tried and executed. 63–89; Robert H. Wiebe, The Opening of American 26Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presby- Society: From the Adoption of the Constitution to the terian Church in the United States of America (1837), Eve of Disunion (New York: Oxford University Press, 504. For further discussion of these events, see Marsden, 1984), 295. See also Richard D. Brown, Moderniza- Evangelical Mind, 59–87; Pope, New England Calvin- tion: The Transformation of American Life, 1600–1865 ism, 295–347. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1976), 74–158; David 27Minutes of the General Assembly (1837), 507. Hackett Fischer, The Revolution of American Conser- 28James D. Bratt, “The Reorientation of American vatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Protestantism, 1835–1845,” Church History 67 (March Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 188– 1998): 69. For an older account of the triumph of what 99; Charles H. Sellers, The Market Revolution: Jackso- the authors call “resurgent churchly traditions” in the nian America, 1815–1846 (New York: Oxford Univer- 1830s and ’40s, see H. Shelton Smith, Robert T. Handy, sity Press, 1991), 229–355; Chilton Williamson, and Lefferts A. Loetscher, American Christianity: An American Suffrage: From Property to Democracy, 1760– Historical Interpretation with Representative Docu- 1860 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), ments, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, esp. 117–259 and 545–67; Gordon S. Wood, The 1960, 1963), 2: 66–118. Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: 29Marsden, Evangelical Mind, 128–229. For a re- Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), 229–335. cent account confirming the conservative bent of the 19Paul A. Gilje, Rioting in America (Bloomington: New School, see Leo P. Hirrel, Children of Wrath: New Indiana University Press, 1996), 63; Leonard L. Richards, School Calvinism and Antebellum Reform (Lexington: “Gentlemen of Property and Standing”: Anti-Abolition University Press of Kentucky, 1998).