The Disruptive Effects Of The Negro Slavery Controversy Upon The Presbyterian Missions Among The Choctaw And Chickasaw Indians

By William L. Hiemstra

Paterson, New Jersey

THE Second Great Awakening of the early nineteenth century affected all the major Protestant churches in the United States. A renewed interest in missions was one result of this religious movement. Several missionary societies were formed; among them was the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.[1] Shortly after its organization in 1810 the A. B. C. F. M. established mission stations and schools among the Cherokee and Choctaw Indians.

Presbyterian activity among the Choctaw Indians was begun in 1818. Cyrus Kingsbury and Cyrus Byington were pioneer Presbyterian missionaries among the Choctaws in Mississippi. Both of these men, born and reared in New England, served the Choctaw Indians first in Mississippi and later in the Indian Territory.

Presbyterian labor among the Chickasaw Indians was begun in 1799 by the New York Missionary Society. This mission was discontinued in 1803. A more permanent work among the Chickasaws was begun by the Missionary Society of the Presbyterian Synod of South Carolina and Georgia in 1820. The Reverend Thomas C. Stuart served the tribe from 1820 to 1834. The Chickasaw mission was transferred on December 17, 1827 to the supervision of the American Board, under whose administration the Presbyterians continued to serve the Chickasaw Indians.

Missionary activity among the Choctaws and Chickasaws in Mississippi was terminated because the Indians were moved to lands west of the Mississippi river. By 1834 the majority of these tribes had left Mississippi. The mission stations were completely abandoned in 1834 and several missionaries accompanied the Indians on the “Trail of Tears”.

Mission activity among the tribes was continued in the Indian Territory. The first churches were organized in 1832. From small beginnings in 1832, the church grew to a total membership of more than two thousand in 1861. Approximately eight per cent of the church membership was negro.[2]

In the Indian Territory the Presbyterian missionaries also promoted an educational program for the Indians. The mission schools received support both from mission and government funds. The government appropriations were made from the Civilization Fund in accordance with the provisions of a treaty negotiated in 1825.[3]

Indian Slave Owners

There were slave owners among the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians. This had been true before the time of their exile to the territory west of the Mississippi River. They had had negro slaves, as had their white neighbors;[4] and negro slavery was an easy solution to the labor problem, particularly where cotton was cultivated. Because slavery was economically profitable, the Choctaws and Chickasaws did not welcome adverse criticism of their slave-holding habits.[5]

Missionary Attitudes

The Presbyterian missionaries in general did not make the elimination of slavery among the Indians their chief work. This was especially true of the older men, despite the fact that most of them had been reared in New England. These men did not warmly approve of the institution of slavery, neither did they strongly condemn it. The Reverend Cyrus Kingsbury is perhaps typical of this group. He was in favor of a temporizing policy in the belief that more important tasks should be given priority.[6] This was Dr. Kingsbury’s position in 1848.

In January, 1861 he expressed himself more strongly on the subject of the secondary character of emancipation. He said:

How much better it would have been for the church and for our country if ministers had followed the example and instruction of the apostles in relation to slavery, and labored for the conversion of the slaves in obedience to the command of the Savior, instead of rending the government of our country in a vain struggle for their civil emancipation. It [negro slavery] is a small matter compared with the salvation of the soul.[7]

Cyrus Kingsbury was a product of the religious revival in New England during the opening years of the nineteenth century. As early as 1816 he had volunteered for missionary work among the Southern Indians. Therefore he had escaped the entire advent and rise of the abolitionist crusade. In addition, his strong evangelical faith would not permit the intrusion of a social implication of the Gospel at a time when such action might eliminate any opportunity of preaching a gospel of redemption through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. As the years passed and the abolitionist pressure became more intense, Cyrus Kingsbury favored the cause of the South in the War for Southern Independence.

Kingsbury’s views were not shared by all the mission workers. Miss J. Hitchcock, teacher at Goodwater school, wrote to W. Lowrie, Secretary of the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions:

I have no wish to be released from my present connection, provided there is need of me. The only objection to my work here is the slavery question and that is not strong enough to keep me at home.[8]

There is a certain similarity between the views of Dr. Kingsbury and Miss Hitchcock. Neither desired to be exclusively crusaders for social reforms. Yet Miss Hitchcock and those of similar opinion who left the mission field in 1861 were more opposed to slavery than was Dr. Kingsbury who remained at his station during the war years.

The Reverend H. A. Wentz was sent to the mission station in the early part of 1861. Wentz apparently had abolitionist principles, or he in some way anticipated the struggle for Southern independence, for a case of revolvers was found in his trunk. Mr. Wentz was seized on May 20, 1861 by members of a vigilante committee while on his way from Doakesville to Spencer Academy where he was an instructor. Mr. J. P. Kingsbury, a merchant, was successful in having Mr. Wentz released. The Academy was searched later by an angry mob from Texas who were looking for arms and ammunition and Mr. Wentz, who had departed hurriedly for the North.[9] The behavior of Mr. Wentz induced the venerable Cyrus Byington to protest strongly against such recruits. He wrote to the New York office:

When an ordained minister comes here with your instructions, we look for a man who will help us and the cause of our Redeemer. We do not look for a case of revolvers in his trunk. The United States may sever, but the Kingdom of the Redeemer will stand.[10]

Government Agent’s Attitude

Douglas H. Cooper was the government agent to the Chickasaws and Choctaws. As the leading government representative among the Indians he wielded great influence. In his report for the year 1859 to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Cooper clearly shows that both he and the Indian office had pro-slavery sympathies, and he rejoiced in the fact that the attitude of Dr. Kingsbury was the prevailing one among the missionaries. Early in the year 1859 Cooper had requested all missionaries and teachers to include in the next report information regarding date and place of birth. The replies to this request revealed that all missionaries and teachers of the Presbyterian mission among the Choctaws and Chickasaws had come from homes in the North and East, with the exception of two women and one man who had been natives of South Carolina.[11] In spite of the “northern” antecedents of the Presbyterian workers, Agent Cooper reported that it was his sincere belief that

most, if not all, the missionaries now among the Choctaws and Chickasaws.... entirely repudiate the higher-law doctrine of northern and religious fanatics.[12]

In Agent Cooper’s report of 1860 he says:

No doubt we have among us free-soilers; perhaps abolitionists in sentiment; but, so far as I am informed, persons from the North, residing among the Choctaws and Chickasaws, who entertain opinions unfriendly to our system of domestic slavery, carefully keep their opinions to themselves and attend to their legitimate business.[13]

It seems apparent, therefore, that there was very little abolitionist sentiment among the missionaries. This condition was eminently pleasing to the Indian agent and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

Controversy Within the Church

There was rumbling of discontent within the church in 1859 when the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions decided to withdraw all support from their Choctaw mission because of the pro-slavery attitude of the missionaries. The controversy increased when the Presbyterian Board contemplated adopting the orphaned mission. Several ministers in Ohio thought the Presbyterian Board should not assume the responsibility for the cast-off Mission. They advanced a lengthy argument to support their contention. They admitted that in Ohio there was

comparatively little of that fierce vindictive spirit which characterizes New England abolitionism. Still in many parts of the West the hatred of slavery is in our church very intense, and is becoming more so every year.[14]

The complainants from Ohio reminded the Secretary of the Presbyterian Committee that the church was short of funds; there were certainly other fields more promising; people would say that there was a special alignment of New York with the South. They also feared that should the Presbyterian Church assume responsibility for the orphaned mission many loose tongues would be calling the Presbyterian Church “The Slave Church of America”.[15]

The Presbyterian Board replied that the missionaries abandoned by the American Board had always been ministerial members of the Presbyterian Church. To refuse their request for support would show lack of charity.[16]

The Presbyterians of Arkansas were favorable to the project of supporting the orphaned mission. The Synod of Arkansas on October 20, 1859 deplored the excinding act of the American Board in a resolution:

Resolved, 3, That we feel constrained to express our unqualified disapprobation of the action of the A. B. C. F. M. at Detroit, in 1858, in which our ecclesiastical bodies are charged with ‘a lamentable defection from some of the first and most elementary ideas of Christian morality’. The ostensible cause of this unauthorized and unChristian assault upon our Synod, is the ecclesiastical connection of the missionaries with us; but the real cause manifestly is, the fanatical and disorganizing opposition of the A. B. C. F. M. to the civil institutions of our State.[17]

On October 31, 1859 the Synod of Arkansas requested the Presbyterian Board to assume control over the Choctaw mission formerly supported by the A. B. C. F. M.[18] On December 2, 1859 six missionaries requested support.[19] Others made the same request later. All were received.

The slavery issue was seemingly ubiquitous. On October 22, 1860 a Reverend S. C. Bartlett of the Chicago Theological Seminary asked for further information of the mission secretary concerning the report that in January 1859 a slave-woman was burned alive at a public assembly. The inquirer wished to know what part the missionaries had had in this affair.[20]

The missionaries could explain promptly and with satisfaction that the mission and church had not been responsible for the death of Lucy. The slave had been taken by enraged relatives and burned.[21]

Abolitionist sentiment caused the missionaries great concern. Cyrus Byington, the pioneer missionary, intimates the unsettled conditions in the fall of 1860 when he writes:

I hope you will never be instrumental of sending hither a man or woman, who glories in being an Abolitionist.[22]

All the missionaries realized that any conflict would be injurious to the Indians. Miss Sue McBeth, a school teacher of exceptional abilities at Goodwater, sensed the plight of the Choctaws and Chickasaws when she wrote on January 12, 1861:

In the event of a rupture between the north and south both parties will feel at liberty to ignore the existence of the Indians and his claims altogether.[23]

Dr. Kingsbury manifested a similar concern for the Indians when he wrote on January 18, 1861:

It is impossible to predict what effect the present political agitation throughout the country will have upon the poor Indians. We very much fear they will be used up in the collision.[24]

Conditions in February were no better than those of January 1861. The missionaries, both men and women, were conscious of their desolate condition. The increased animosity of many of the half-breed neighbors made the missionaries fearful and apprehensive.[25] The persistent rumors of the Texas secession did not allay their fears. Each one admitted to himself, if to no other, that there was not much time in which to work.[26]

By April the Choctaws had become aroused regarding the division among the States, “some wishing to secede but the majority opposed to secession for the present”.[27]

The missionaries regularly learned about events a month after their occurrence. The Reverend C. C. Copeland wrote in a state of excitement to Dr. J. Leigh ton Wilson on May 2, 1861:

We have just heard exciting news. News of war. If it goes on what is to become of the poor Indians? The Choctaws and Chickasaws are trying to be quiet and take no part or lot in the strife, but whether they will be allowed to do so or not is uncertain. The Lord help us.[28]

The Presbyterian mission among the Choctaws and Chickasaws was effectively continued until the early summer of 1861. Through the influence of Indian Agent Douglas H. Cooper and the military authorities from Arkansas, sufficient pressure was placed upon the tribes to lead them into joining the Confederate States. Treaties were negotiated in July 1861.

The Chickasaws and Choctaws in 1861 were in a very embarrassing position. Those of the older generation had lingering memories of the unjust treatment they had received from the Federal government in the treaties negotiated in Mississippi during the administration of President Andrew Jackson. They also knew that residents of Mississippi, a state now a part of the Confederacy, had desired their lands in the 1820’s and 1830’s. There was no reason for them to expect more gracious consideration from the new government of the South. Yet inasmuch as they owned slaves, necessary to cotton culture, the Indians had a common interest with the South. On the other hand, their friends were northern missionaries. The Indians truly desired neutrality. They were not anxious to fight with the North or the South. They were, however, to be denied the right of neutrality. The Indian territory was to become a battle-ground.[29]

The unsettled conditions, in the Indian Territory due to the war made mission work difficult. The schools were forced to close since most of the teachers had returned to the North during the summer of 1861. The missionary force was also greatly reduced by an exodus to the North at the same time.

Conclusion

The Indians and the missionaries had unwillingly become enmeshed in a controversy which would not allow for neutrality. Despite the vigor of the Choctaw and Chickasaw mission in 1860, the slavery controversy and the consequent war, with its concomitants, were sufficiently detrimental so that only a seriously weakened mission survived in 1865. The work was resumed and much money and many men were expended in an effort to revive the work during the period of Reconstruction and afterward. However, the pinnacle of achievement reached in 1860 was lost during the years 1861–1865. It was never again recaptured.

There are many questions to which it is exceedingly difficult to give conclusive and definite answers. Should the missionaries have been more diligent in promoting a Christian social order? Such action would have been contrary to their training and beliefs. They believed that society would be altered as individuals were converted to Christianity. Furthermore, it is questionable if the Indians would have tolerated a missionary whose burning message was the emancipation of valuable slaves. Yet a direct approach to the slavery question might have produced more lasting results. By advocating the practice of manumission the missionaries could have encouraged their Indian converts to substitute an employer-employee relationship for that of master and slave. It appears that the Presbyterian missionaries allied themselves with those who before 1830 regarded slavery as a necessary evil, and who after 1850, partially in opposition to Abolitionist pressure, sought to justify the existence of the “peculiar institution” of the South. To the credit of the missionaries it must be added that they never joined forces with those who praised domestic slavery as a great benefit to civilization. Perhaps it is legitimate to conclude that the Presbyterian missionaries too frequently procrastinated in their duty to preach the social implications of Christianity. Procrastination frequently produces total neglect.

When the Church fails in her mission to declare the full Gospel, including its social implications, divine chastisement and judgment must be expected. When the government condones a national evil for seventy years, divine retribution ought not to come as a complete surprise.

Notes

1. The A. B. C. F. M. with headquarters at Boston was organized on June 29, 1810 by Congregationalists. At a meeting of the Board held on September 5, 1812, several Presbyterians were added to the Board of Directors, so that this society then served as a missionary agency for the Presbyterians as well as the Congregationalists. It was logical for the Presbyterians and Congregationalists to cooperate in the sphere of “foreign” missions inasmuch as the two groups had agreed in 1801 to home missionary cooperation.
2. Presbyterian Indian Correspondence and Reports, Box 12, Volume I, page 90. The Presbyterian Historical Society of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, possesses an extensive file of unpublished manuscript reports from Presbyterian missionaries serving various Indian tribes. The file contains reports from 1835—1890. The writer used files dealing with the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians. For the sake of convenience this source will be cited: Mission Reports, Box number, volume, and page.
3. The various missionaries who supervised schools reported to the Indian agent concerning their work. This information was transmitted by the Indian agent to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. The Commissioner’s annual reports provide interesting data on mission activity. This source will be cited: Indian Affairs, year, and page.
4. Annie Heloise Abel: The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist (Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1915), p. 22.
5. Mission Reports, Box 10, II, p. 334.
6. W. E. Strong: The Story of the American Board (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1910), p. 53.
7. Mission Reports, Box 12, I, p. 249.
8. Ibid., p.70.
9. Ibid., pp. 264, 289.
10. Ibid., p. 264.
11. Indian Affairs, 1859, pp. 567-575.
12. Ibid., p. 559
13. Indian Affairs, 1860, p. 353.
14. Mission Reports, Box 12, I, p. 329.
15. Idem.
16. Ibid., p. 331.
17. Presbyterian Sentinel (Arkadelphia, Arkansas), October 20, 1859.
18. Mission Reports, Box 12, I, p. 44.
19. Idem.
20. Ibid., p. 183.
21. Ibid., p. 189.
22. Ibid., p. 197.
23. Ibid., p. 243.
24. Ibid., p. 247.
25. The half-breeds were quite generally hostile toward the missionaries and their schools. Most of the half-breeds were slaveholders whereas the majority of full-bloods did not own slaves. Cf. ibid., p. 144.
26. Ibid., p. 252.
27. Ibid., p. 270.
28. Ibid., p. 276.
29. Harold S. Faust: “The Growth of Presbyterian Missions to the American Indians during the National Period”, in Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society, Vol. XXII No. 3 (Sept. 1944), p. 118.