Information relating to the Republican United Brethren
Excerpts from:
by J. L. Luttrell
Dayton,
Ohio
United Brethren Publishing House
1892.
Most of this excerpt discusses the formation of the Reformed or Evangelical United Brethren Association. This was a splinter group of Auglaize Conference ministers who were in sympathy with the southern rebellion. In discussing the Evangelical United Brethren Association, Luttrell mentions their eventual merger with the Republican United Brethren and gives us some background to that organization.
Pertinent sections are highlighted.
SLAVEHOLDERS' CHURCH ORGANIZED.
Parties to It—Rev. D. Bender at the Political Meeting—Makes a Speech—A Mob Resists Him—The Writer Mobbed, etc.
As THERE are thousands living to-day who know nothing of what transpired during the last war in the United States only as it is learned by tradition or read in print, and as not one in ten of the members of the church to-day were living then, we believe it to be our duty to give a faithful statement, at this time and place, of what the war cost us in the Auglaize Conference, just as fully as our limits will allow. We have, in a former chapter, referred to the fact that a number of our ministers were found in sympathy with the slaveholders' rebellion.
Now we will give the list of those who felt themselves compelled to take the step they did, and this we do without any malice or ill will.
These are the men: George W. Holden, P. B. Holden, John Frysinger, J. S. Hickman, and A. Shindledecker.
On the 10th day of December, 1863, at the home of P. B. Holden, in Jackson Township, Putnam County, Ohio, assembled G. W. Holden, son of P. B. Holden, John Frysinger, and A. Shindledecker, four in all, and proceeded to organize what they were pleased to call the “Reformed United Brethren Church.”
As is always the case with reformers, those from whom they come out are of all men most sinful, so with these devotees of the proposed Southern oligarchy. They say:
The ministers of the church have polluted the pulpit and disgraced themselves by preaching politics.
They mean by politics any prayer, song, exhortation, or sermon that contained a single sentence in favor of the poor slave. In support of their claim, they cite the following, which they say was gotten up and passed by one of our conferences.
Resolved, That we will neither fellowship anyone as a member of our society, nor receive anyone into membership, who sympathizes in any manner with the so-ca1led Peace Party, which is supporting C. L. Vallandigham for Governor of the State of Ohio.
You will observe that this is capable of two constructions. The term, “one of our conferences,” while it was beyond doubt intended to be understood as meaning the Auglaize, still might mean any other conference in the Church, as the term, “one of our conferences,” would embrace the Church at large. Now, since no resolution was ever gotten up and passed by the Auglaize Conference, nor yet by any other, so far as we could ever learn,—and we made a special effort to find out the facts in the case, but could never trace it to any other source than that of the minutes of the meeting in Putnam County,—we leave the child to the tender mercies of just criticism.
Fifteen days later, December 25, 1863, these four men meet at the house of A. Shindledecker, in Mercer County, Ohio, and it appears that they have been busy, as they are strengthened by the addition of the following members: J. W. Summers, J. Cremean, and J. S. Hickman, making seven in all.
The third meeting of the reformers was held in Old Pleasant Hill Chapel, commencing on the 10th of June, 1864. The members present at the beginning of the session were Shindledecker, Frysinger, Summers, and Hickman. The king's commandment being urgent, H. Waggoner and J. P. Jones joined their conference at this time and were ordained elders before the session closed. It was at this meeting that what was called the “Republican United Brethren” and the “Reformed United Brethren” consolidated, and took upon themselves the name of “Evangelical United Brethren Association.”
A word about the “Republican United Brethren” will be in place here, as it was so utterly insignificant as never to be known beyond the reach of its own voice. The “thing” was born during the Mexican War. Some two or three preachers, having enlisted contrary to the laws and doctrines of the Church, which forbade its members’ engaging in aggressive warfare, were disciplined for so doing, and so went out to build up a new church in which they could be free from the restraints of government not dictated by themselves. So paradoxical was this union, that the fact thereof itself seems an absurdity. On the one hand they are opposed to war, and on the other hand they are in favor of war. What the Republican United Brethren could hope to gain by joining themselves to the anti-republican United Brethren, we do not pretend to know, unless it was that they might have better opportunities for avenging themselves.
Attention will now be called to a remarkable report—it is that of the committee on grievances, and is, in effect, as follows:
They propose to clear and vindicate the character of P. B. Holden, A. Shindledecker, John Frysinger, and J. S. Hickman, who, they say, were slanderously reported by the Auglaize Conference. The slander to which they refer was the action of the Conference in the disposition of their names. At the twelfth session there were committees appointed to inquire into the nature of the complaints urged against these parties, and before the committees could investigate matters, they met and organized as already seen.
Now observe: first, these are the men who were complained of as being in sympathy with human slavery and the slaveholders' rebellion and war; second, they dodge the committees which were appointed to investigate those complaints, by meeting and organizing a new church; third, in this new church they assail the Conference and vindicate the character of one another.
Now, in all kindness and candor we ask, What class of criminals could you name which could not do as well under like circumstances? And is it not strange that the very actions of these men who claim to be vindicating each other's character by clearing them, as they say, from the charges alleged against them—we repeat, is it not strange that they do not know that their own conduct is the best proof of their guilt, and that they, by doing as they do, vindicate the Conference in what she thought to do when the investigation was proposed?
But to return to the report of this grievance committee. They say:
We have examined the evidence in reference to the slanderous report of the A. A. C. of the U. B. C. against some of our ministers, and submit the following report:
1. That in our opinion the resolutions in the minutes of 1863 and 1864 of said Conference are not explicit enough in their expression to justify a legal process or action in law:
2. That said resolutions are confounded and false in their expressions, and are proved to be such by comparing a report of a committee that investigated said charges brought against one of our preachers with the resolution.
It is just to the cause of truthful history, and due to our people, that the plain facts be sifted out of the rubbish of falsehood and thrown into the even balance of truth and justice, as between man and man. This we now propose to do in this case. You will observe that they say: “ The resolutions are confounded and false.” Now, whether the reformers understood the import of the language they used or not, we do not pretend to know. If they did; then the following conclusion must be reached:
They, if they understood the term used, intended to say that the resolutions were so mixed and blended with something else as to be indefinite—not understood. We place them before you:
Resolved, That P. B. Holden, A. Shindledecker, John Frysinger, and J. S. Hickman have withdrawn from the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, because they were not permitted to advocate slavery and treason in her communion.
What is confounded here?
They say the resolutions are false.
In what are they false?
The charges here specified were the only ones preferred by the Conference, and these only as complaints at the first and when those men had the opportunity to clear themselves according to the laws and usages of the Church, they did it by “clearing out,” and organizing a church of their own.
Another of those resolutions says:
That we exceedingly regret that these brethren, after occupying honorable positions in the United Brethren Church for a series of years, should now bend the knee to the god of slavery, and attempt to build up a church on the foundation of human bondage—a foundation accursed of God and good men, and fast falling into ruins.
This resolution is clearly defined and certainly unmixed with anything other than the matter dealt with, and we ask, in all candor, In what respect is it false?
These men had already organized and called themselves a church, and all that was alleged against them, and for which they left the United Brethren Church, was just what the resolutions say. The truth of the whole matter is, they were guilty and resorted to the folly and the sin of seeking to cover up their tracks by a subterfuge.
THE NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION-CONTINUED.
UP to the time of the close of the previous chapter, our new would-be church founders are still going under the compromise name, “Evangelical United Brethren Association.’
But simultaneous with this bubble, there is fermentation elsewhere in the land. A certain proslavery preacher by the name of Erastes, whose home was entirely too far North at that time, preached an anti-war sermon in which denunciations of “Abolitionists” and “Lincoln hirelings” and loyal churches and faithful ministers, were as thick as the “flies in Egypt.” In his tirade he called upon all who, he said, were proscribed, to come out from among the “wolves in sheep's clothing,” and form a “Christian Union.” About this time the fermentation of the malcontented had worked its way throughout the mass until the whole lump was leavened.
Accordingly there was held in Lancaster, Ohio, on the 14th of January,.1864, a meeting in the interests of Northern secessionists from the Christian churches whose sympathy was with the slave and our bleeding country. This meeting was presided over by one, Dr. Olds, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and was called for the purpose of organizing a new church.
At this meeting it was arranged to hold a kind of a general convention in which all malcontents from all over the country could participate by appointed or self-constituted delegation as emergencies might require. Mr. Olds was appointed a delegate by this meeting at Lancaster, Ohio, and the time and place for holding the general convention was fixed for Columbus, Ohio, February 3, 1864, just twenty-seven days after the one at Lancaster, Ohio.
The reasons Mr. Olds gave for withdrawing from The Methodist Episcopal Church were
1. That the Conference of the said Church had the United States flag hanging out of a church window; and that another flag was wrapped around the pulpit.
2. That they denounced those who did not agree with them and the State in the means to suppress or put down the rebellion.
We quote from our files of that time (Christian Witness, March 18, 1869, Vol. IV., No.46), referring to the death of Dr. Olds, which took place about five years after the great convention was held at Columbus, Ohio.
It was at the convention in Columbus, Ohio, that this proslavery organization dropped all former names, as “Reformed United Brethren,” “Republican United Brethren,” and Evangelical United Brethren Association,” and came out under the name, “Christian Union,” by which they are known today; though there are but few organizations extant at this time, and doubtless would be still fewer did the good people but know and understand their origin.
So far as the Auglaize Conference is concerned, we know of but one feeble congregation at this time. This was at one time the strongest point occupied by them, and is memorable because of the havoc wrought in the church at that place. The leader at that point “worked the ropes,” and took from the class book twenty-one names at one time, and placed them upon the book of the seceders, and with them founded the organization. They were then ready for every evil work, and so proceeded to claim and take to themselves the church house at that point; but they were told by lawyers that they could not do so—that they had gone out of the Church and organized another, and therefore could carry nothing away with them. So far as the success of those men in building up an organization is concerned, it was truthfully foreshadowed in one of the resolutions which was promulgated by the Conference of 1864. It reads:
That we have no fears that they will succeed to any considerable extent in building up a separate denomination, believing that the people who support slavery and a rebellion in its interest in the nineteenth century, are as warmly attached to their master, the Devil, as they are to his children, and consequently do not care to connect themselves with any church, their design being not to tear down one religion and build up another, but to destroy all religion, virtue, and morality.
In these days of peace and good will among the people of all political parties and all Christian churches, such chronicles as are here written seem more like romance than truth. To say that the Church within the bounds of the Auglaize Conference suffered greatly in consequence of this rebellion is drawing it very mildly. There was scarcely a neighborhood anywhere but what was in an “uproar.” Neighbors who all their life long had lived in peace, were now arrayed against each other; brethren in the Church were at swords' points, and seldom did they meet at the house of prayer, in many places at least, that they did not cut each other with bitter words; and so hot did it become sometimes that more than words were used.
On one occasion of a quarterly meeting which we now think of, a “Northern rebel” attacked an old man on Sabbath morning just about the time that services were to open; but the old brother brought his man, and did it so thoroughly that it became necessary to improvise an ambulance to carry him to his home. Moreover, mobs were thought to be in perfect accord with the demands of the time.
By these it was proposed to subdue the “black abolition preachers,” as all were called who dared preach a whole gospel, as the following incidents will show:
In those days we had, an indomitable little preacher among us, whose name was Daniel Bender. To say that he was loyal to his country but poorly expresses his zeal for the rights .he claimed under the flag and Constitution of the United States. Now, it came about that this preacher attended a Democratic meeting near Mendon, Mercer County, Ohio, and listened to the speeches made on the occasion—a thing which was very hard for a loyal citizen to do. However, Daniel kept quiet until his time came, which finally did on this wise: Parties who knew him, on seeing him there, supposed that he belonged to that side of the question; and so, just as soon as the speaker had closed his tirade against the government and the administration, there were loud and prolonged calls for “Bender! Bender! Bender!” until, amid shouts and cheers, Bender wended his way to the stand, and boldly opened fire upon the enemy. Then, as if “pandemonium” had let loose, the hisses and shouts of “Take him down!” “Shoot him!” together with the nice (?) “pet” names so common to the vocabulary of that day, were almost deafening.
But Bender had been called out, and by all the laws of courtesy and parliamentary usage he should be heard, and he was not the mail to yield the ground until he was through. Thus far all was well, but when he announced that he would preach in the schoolhouse near the place at a given time, he was notified not to come, for he would not be permitted to preach. Well, the time came, and the preacher came also; but as Providence would have it, as we believe, Brother Bender put up with a soldier who was at home on a sick furlough. This soldier, knowing the men composing the mob—for there was one organized—better than Brother Bender did, finally prevailed on him to take his revolver, which the soldier cleaned and charged for him. He reached the schoolhouse, and the congregation was gathered, and services had progressed somewhat, when all at once some five or six men walked squarely down to the front and demanded that the preacher stop, telling him that he could not preach there that night. Brother Bender told them plainly that he had announced to preach, and that by the grace of God he should I do so. Upon this they moved forward to lay hold upon him, when he whipped out the revolver, and presenting it at the breast of the leader, said, “Stop, and do not advance another inch, or I will blow your heart out”; and, strange to say, so far as we know, that would-be assassin, in all these twenty-seven years, has never got any closer to D. Bender than he was when, at the muzzle of that revolver, he stood terrified almost to death. Nor did he leave the place half so quickly as he desired to do, for he was compelled to keep order by the force of circumstances, and hear a spirited lecture on the situation, which must have been very tiresome indeed, as they did not even have the privilege of sitting down, it being so much better to have them stand close to the preacher until they had received his benediction.
In the fall of 1862 the writer was mobbed, or an attempt was made to do so. It was on this wise: At one point on the charge we then served, the entire community, except about four families, were proslavery and anti-war people, amplified to the fullest extent of what these terms expressed in those days.
Well, it came to pass that these good men decided that no “Abolitionist” could preach again in that community; and accordingly they called a special meeting for the purpose of devising means to put a stop to it. The conclusions of the council were that it could be best done by a mob; and on numbering they found eleven who were courageous and patriotic enough to pledge themselves to the undertaking. They must have been sworn to the profoundest secrecy. One of their number in council, when he saw what was decreed against us, turned traitor and reported the matter to one of our brethren, solemnly enjoining him never to report him, declaring that if the matter was brought to their ears they would kill him. This friend, for such we esteem him, vehemently urged the brother not to permit us to go to the church, declaring that if we did they would surely kill us.
Notwithstanding, we went agreeably to appointment; our usual congregation was there, which, strange to say, was always a full house. The mob were there also, and so well did they play the roll of innocence that the few who knew their purpose were led to think that they had abandoned it; for up to a given signal their preconcerted plans were all, evidently, carried out to the very letter. They formed two lines, one on either side of the walk from the church door to the road, the purpose being that we should run the gantlet, while they would inflict the punishment due to a “black-hearted abolitionist” preacher.
We did not run the gantlet, however, but we did walk it firmly, steadily, and decidedly, looking both right and left as we did so, to about as good advantage as if we had been cross-eyed. They allowed us to pass to the end of the line before they lifted a hand; then a young man about twenty two or three years of age, and over six feet in height, and resembling somewhat the “sons of old Anak,” opened fire on us and ran; and whether we appeared to the mob as a “grasshopper” or not, their actions must determine. One thing, however, is certain, they did not appear as giants to us; for in the name of the Lord we joined the battle, determined to win or die. Suffice it, we won, and are yet living to record the truth, which should crimson the blackest cheek of the lowest criminal that ever received justice under sanction of divine law. The truth, that, in the United States of Christian America, and under the floating banner of red, white, and blue, the emblem of the nation's life and the symbol of her perpetuity and the guarantee of the rights and liberties of all her people, there should be found as late as 1861 to 1865, anywhere in all the land, those who, for no cause under all the heavens above us save that a man was true to his God, his calling, and the people, would attempt by arbitrary measures to deter all other from the righteous pursuits and callings of life as imposed by the Almighty and guaranteed by both the organic and local laws of the land, is indeed strange. But truth sometimes is stranger than fiction, and so the incidents here recorded may seem more romantic than real to such as were either not living then or were not permitted to witness them.
Our list of such scenes is not exhausted, but these are enough to show in what light we were viewed by a class of men who, while claiming to be friends of the government, were ever ready to, do the bidding of the slave oligarchy. Our limits will not permit a more extended review of the lawlessness of those times, beyond the mention that men were driven from the pulpit under drawn revolvers, deadly missiles hurled through windows, church houses burned, ministers assaulted on the highway between appointments, etc.
REVIEW OF THE WORK OF THE ELEVENTH, TWELFTH, AND THIRTEENTH YEARS.
The Expulsion of Those who were in Sympathy with the Slaveholders' Rebellion—Ministerial Support—The Writer Censured for Leaving a Circuit—Comment upon the Action—Sad Death of a Preacher and His Wife—Happy Death of Rev. McBride—General Observations—Ministerial Associations—Educational—Publishing and Sunday-School Interests.
It is now 9: 00 A.M., September 18, 1863, and we are assembled in Bokes' Creek Chapel, Union County, Ohio. About two-thirds of the preachers are present to answer to their names.
The fight is fully on now, and all who are present have been in the crucible of proslavery prejudice and political hate until there is no longer any doubt as to where every man stands on the great question of the war; though a few who were absent sought to conceal their sympathy with the South and their hatred of the Abolitionists, as every Union man was called at that time.
It did not require as much time in those days to dispose of a bad case as it does at others, as the following demonstrates. Reports being in circulation that certain of our members were in sympathy with the slaveholders' rebellion, a committee of three was appointed to inquire into the matter; and the following report was made by that committee to the Conference:
WHEREAS, Reports are in circulation calculated to produce the conviction that P. B. Holden, G. W. Holden, J. S. Hickman, J. Frysinger, and D. Bolbp are favoring slavery, and warmly attached to the slaveholders' rebellion against the United States; and,
WHEREAS, The Bible, the Discipline of our Church, and the dictates of reason and humanity, all concur in condemning both slavery and the rebellion; therefore,
Resolved, I. That while we would not desire to interfere with men's consciences in politics, we are nevertheless one with all men of all parties who are in favor of putting down the rebellion immediately, effectually, and overwhelmingly; and have determined, in the strength of grace, to have no fellowship with those rebels and traitors, open or concealed, in the pulpit or out of it, who are seeking to destroy the fair temple of liberty bequeathed to us by our fathers.
2. That this Conference appoint as many committees, consisting of one each, as there are brethren complained of, whose duty it shall be to visit the brethren complained of, and all others necessary to obtain the requisite information, and ascertain whether these reports are founded in fact.
3. If the committees find the reports are well founded, they are hereby instructed to bring to trial all such ministers, the same as in other cases of immorality. If the reports prove to be unfounded, they will report accordingly.
4. If any are brought to trial, the following charges should be specified:
(1.) For supporting the system of human bondage.
(2.) For supporting the rebellion.
(3.) For violation of ordination vows, or vows made when received into Conference.
As there are thousands living now who know little or nothing of what the Church passed through during the slaveholders' war, and as there are barely two ministers in the Conference to-day who were in it then, we deem it all important that the facts should be plainly stated, that all who come after us may know the truth.
But to return. Of the brethren complained of, one, G. W. Holden, arrived before the session closed and demanded an immediate trial, received it and was expelled. Of the rest we shall speak later; but we want the reader to keep in mind the fact that we are now passing through deep waters, and that the waves of opposition and persecution are rolling high, and it is about all we can do to keep our feet, and, in fact, many fail and slide away back from the Church and from God. Notwithstanding all this, the Lord has his eye upon his people and regard for his faithful ministers, as the reports show. In spite of all the confusion and strife, opposition to, and persecution of, the Church, nine hundred and thirty-four men and women joined with us in Christian fellowship. Then, again, our people paid more money for the support of the cause than at any time previous, their contributions to missions being $894.88,—$319.64 more than the former year, —while the aggregate amount paid as salary exceeded the previous year $1,841.90, which was equal to about $171.71 to each minister employed. This increase was not altogether the result of a forward movement upon the part of our own people—though we know that many of them did better than at other times—but it was the result of a responsive feeling of loyal hearts toward the men and the cause which proposed the vindication and maintenance of human rights at all hazards. This was natural.
One incident, among many we might name, will illustrate this fact. At a certain point where we were preaching at the time, an old brother refused to support us because we were not of his persuasion politically. An old gentleman hearing this fact sent us word to go on and preach Jesus to the people and he would pay us more than the brother withheld from us. The expression of the Conference on the state of the country was such as had been obtained at previous sessions, with such variations and additions as the development of the times and war necessitated. At this time we say:
We believe that it is the duty of every Christian to give his unqualified support to the government while passing through the fiery ordeal; that the present administration is the people's chosen representative of the government, and is proving itself worthy of the confidence reposed in, and the responsibilities devolving on it; that the emancipation of the slaves of rebels, and the arming and protecting of colored troops, meet our hearty approval.
A word more, and we close this section. We began this decade with three thousand, eight hundred and fifty-four members, and fifty-seven preachers. Two entered the Conference at this time; viz., William A. Kindel, from quarterly conference, and T. S. McWilliams, by transfer from Illinois Conference. G. W. Holden was expelled, and William Lower returned his license. Brother D. R. Miller, being sick, was solemnly ordained at the home of Brother Amon Davis.
After another year of toil and conflict, of fightings without and fears within, of hope and despondency, of victory and defeat, of joy and sadness, laughing and madness, battle scarred and careworn, we go into ecclesiastical camp .at Monmouth, Adams County, Indiana, on the 26th day of August, 1864. Here we lift up our standard and float our colors to the breeze, throw out our pickets, and taking refuge behind bulwarks of truth and righteousness, we brighten our armor, review the past, and plan the campaign for another year. On calling the roll, we found thirty-two members present, while the examination revealed the fact that four of our number had deserted the old flag and gone over to the enemy, and that they had gone into an organization, and were trying to recruit an army of such as were in sympathy with the slaveholders' rebellion, and in opposition to the war which was waged for its suppression. This being true, there remained but one thing for the Conference to do if she would maintain her principles and vindicate her rights and authority. She must court-martial the deserters; not shoot them, but cut them off from the regular army. What now follows shows how this was done.
WHEREAS, At the last annual session of this Conference, reports were in circulation, that P. B. Holden, A. Shindledecker, John Frysinger, and J. S. Hickman were in full sympathy with the institution of slavery, and the slave- holders' rebellion against the United States; and
WHEREAS, Four separate committees, consisting, of one each, were appointed to visit and confer with said brethren on the subject, with instructions to proceed according to the laws and forms of the Church, to make such inquiries and obtain such information touching the reports in mention as to satisfy themselves whether it was, or was not, necessary to bring said brethren to trial, and to report to this Annual Conference; and
WHEREAS, All these brethren, before the committees had even waited on them, formed themselves into a separate body, known first as the “Reformed United Brethren Church,” and subsequently as the “Evangelical United Brethren Association,” and thereby virtually acknowledging that they are the firm supporters of slavery and the slaveholders' rebellion; therefore,
Resolved, 1. That the said P. B. Holden, A. Shindledecker, John Frysinger, and John S. Hickman have withdrawn from the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, because they were not permitted to advocate slavery and treason in her communion.
2. That the secretaries be instructed to erase their names from the Conference journal.
3. That we exceedingly regret that these brethren, after occupying honorable positions in the United Brethren Church for a series of years, should now bend the knee to the god of slavery, and attempt to build up a church on the foundation of human bondage-a foundation accursed of God and good men, and fast falling into ruins.
4. That we have no fears that they will succeed to any considerable extent in building up a separate denomination believing that the people who support slavery and a rebellion in its interest in the nineteenth century, are as warmly attached to their master, the Devil, as they are to his children, and consequently do not care to connect them- selves with any church, their design being not to tear down one religion and build up another, but to destroy all religion, virtue, and morality.
5. That this Conference make, through the presiding elders of the districts on which they reside, a demand of the credentials which they may have received at different times and places from the Church of the United Brethren in Christ.
Additional to the above, there was a loss of four more from our number: T. S. McWilliams, transferred, H. Snell, for obstinacy, and P. B. Moreley, for non-attendance, and J. S. Buxton returned his license, making eight in all. To fill up the depleted ranks, the following recruits were enlisted: D. McConehey and S. S. Walls, from quarterly conference; H. Benton on transfer from Scioto Conference; A. Douglas, from the Methodist Church; and W. Z. Manning from the Adventist Church; while D. F. Thomas and J. W. Waggoner were ordained.