Huntington University: Christian College of the Liberal Arts

Suggested Citation:
[Identification of Item]. Available at the United Brethren Historical Center website; http://www.huntington.
edu/ubhc/publications/ebooks/
virginia/virginiatitle.htm

History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, Virginia Conference

by A. P. Funkhouser

CHAPTER XII

THE CHURCH IN THE WAR OF 1861

When the result of the election of 1860 was made public, the quarrel between North and South came to a head. Within six more months there was open war between the sections.

In an economic, or industrial, sense, the territory covered then by the conference was much more Northern than Southern. Slaves were few in nearly all its counties, and were owned by a very small number of the white people. This was notably the case where the German element was strongest. The great majority of the farmers worked their land themselves. They had no interest in slavery and no love for the institution. There was not the social ban on manual labor that existed in the planting section of the South. The chief commercial outlet of the Shenandoah Valley was toward Baltimore and not toward Richmond.

But on the other hand, the dominating political sentiment of the entire valley was of the Southern type, although not unanimous on the subject of secession. Virginia gave only a few scattering votes for Lincoln. The electoral vote of the state was thrown to Bell and Everett, the candidates of the Constitutional Union party, their ticket being heavily supported in the Valley counties. On the Maryland side of the Potomac, secession was held in the great disfavor. In the Virginia counties on or near the Potomac were not a few persons who were equally hostile to the doctrine. In the war, the Maryland portion was in Confederate hands only on three or four occasions, and for a very few days at a time. As far south as Strasburg and Front Royal, the Virginia side alternated from one army to the other, yet was within the Federal lines the greater portion of the four years. Still farther southward, the Valley was nearly all the while within the Confederate lines. The

military situation was therefore such as to encourage Unionism in the northern half of the Conference district and discourage it in the southern half.

The stronghold of the United Brethren was first in the southeast of Pennsylvania and also in the very part of Maryland that was most hostile to secession. The Church had been pressing numerously into the West. South of the Potomac its foothold was very small in area, and existed only where agriculture was organized about the same as in the North. As to slavery, we have already seen that the attitude of the Church was uncompromising. Under all these circumstances, it was inevitable that the United Brethren, taken in the mass, should have no sympathy with the Southern program. The small section of the Church in the two slave states of Maryland and Virginia could not fail to be out of harmony with the Confederate government, and to have sympathetic relations with their much more numerous brethren in the free states.

Thus the 3,000 members of the Conference were placed in a difficult position. To all intents and purposes they were undeniably sympathetic toward the Union cause. Their feelings were no secret to such of their neighbors as felt it their duty to side with the Confederacy. To them the United Brethren were what the pro-Germans were to the loyal Americans of 1914-18. They were held in distrust and subjected to some persecution. Some of their preachers were jailed, and some others had to flee from the state they were living in. Some of the members crossed over into the Federal lines for the primary purpose of enlisting in the Federal armies. Throughout the northern side of the Mason and Dixon line, the Brethren were patriotic in the highest degree. To be a Democrat even, was in some conferences to be under suspicion or in some instances to be pushed out of the Church, while to be a secessionist was to receive no quarter.

We have observed that the northern portion of the Conference was usually within the Federal lines, while the contrary was the case with the southern portion. This

caused a temporary division of the Conference. During the four years beginning with 1862, one group of its preachers held sessions within Federal territory, while another group held sessions in Confederate territory. But as a rule the membership of the two bodies were not at odds in political sympathy. They were simply making a virtue of stern necessity.

Bishop Markwood was fiery and uncompromising. No one could be more fierce in his invective against secession and everything that was involved with it. There was a reward for Markwood's arrest, but he made his escape to the other side of the Potomac. During the war he presided over the sessions of the northern section of the Conference.

Bishop Glossbrenner, who presided over the southern section, was of another temperament. He was calm and conservative. There were a thousand or more of the members of his church who were at the outset within the limits controlled by the government at Richmond. With brief intervals this continued to be the case until the close of the war. He was convinced that it was his duty to remain with them and see that they had such advice and protection as his influence might command. Otherwise, it was certain that their hardships would be more severe. It speaks volumes for the well-balanced prudence of the bishop that in spite of the suspicion in which his sect was held, he would still be able to retain the respect and confidence of those in Confederate authority.

In 1863 he applied for permission to go within the Federal lines in order to attend the northern section of his conference and also the Pennsylvania Conference. The request was granted, although, as a matter of course, Glossbrenner was enjoined not to convey any information that might work to the disadvantage of the Confederacy. He was thus put on his honor and the trust was not abused. On his return similar restrictions were imposed by the Federal military authority. Yet there was some difficulty in getting over the lines, both going and coming.

For staying in the South the bishop's motives were

sharply assailed. After the return of peace he was called upon to defend his course. This he did to the satisfaction of his critics. He assured them that he had never wavered in his loyalty to the Federal government. He had told Stonewall Jackson to his face that he did not wish the success of the Confederate arms.

The United Brethren preachers did not pray for the success of the Confederacy, yet had to be circumspect if they were to observe the civil authority in force where they were. The northern section of the Conference was at full liberty to pass resolutions in support of the Union cause and did not hesitate to do so. T. F. Brashear, presiding elder of the southern district in 1862, prayed for Federal success at the time the army under General Banks was in camp around Harrisonburg. But Banks had to retire, and Brashear had to flee. In 1862 the northern conference section passed the resolution that "we deeply deplore the unavoidable separation from our brethren in Virginia, and hope that the time is not far in the future when we shall be permitted to meet as usual and continue our connection as hitherto. We will thank God that it is no worse with us than it is and take courage." Strong resolutions were also passed in the subsequent sessions.

At the end of the war, Markwood exclaimed that there was no longer a United Brethren church in Virginia. But this was decidedly an overstatement. The Church in the Shenandoah valley had seen a very real time of stress, yet a nucleus had been preserved, and during the war one house of worship had even been built. This was Salem church near Singers Glen. But in the devastation that had been wrought throughout the length of the valley, the membership that had held together were in poor shape with respect to church buildings or in the ability to maintain their preachers. With respect to the paper money of the Confederate government, they had lost little, since they did not let it depreciate on their hands. But the close of the war found them poor, nevertheless. In this emergency the Marylanders came generously to the relief of their

brethren on the other side of the Potomac. The war had not touched them so harshly, yet that they did not come out unscathed, the following letter, written by Jonathan Tobey to the Rev. William R. Coursey, will bear witness. It is dated August 9, 1864, and was mailed from Pleasant Valley, Maryland.

"We suffered much in our county from the late rebel invasion. It would take volumes to enumerate all their acts of wrong, cruelty, and barbarism. They justified their conduct saying Gen. Hunter did so, and so Hunter's conduct in Virginia is not justifiable, but Johny reb out done him by far. The Johnies they robbed, kidnapped, and burned in Maryland. They took all the horses they could see except some lame ones, and all who did not run off their horses or hide them lost them. They entered private homes in the night, and demanded of the citizens their purses, watches, and so forth. They shot a respectable citizen in his own house and in his own bedchamber. They plundered all the stores, took meat away, and much they destroyed. They took wagons, buggies, and harness. They seemed to be savage in their manner, quite insulting, and threatening, seemed to look upon the Maryland people as enemies, and treated them as such. They came back to the county twice since the first invasion, the last time took some of our citizens prisoners as hostages, for to have some of their rebs redeemed. It is unhappy living along the border.— Religion seems now to (be) almost lost, the people were so much excited and lost so much that (they) seem discouraged, broken down."

It was asking too much of human nature to expect that the unpopularity of the Brethren in the Valley of Virginia could be thrown off in a day. Shortly after the return of peace, Markwood visited a quarterly meeting at Keezeltown and was invited to leave. He then went with Simon Whitesel to a Sunday school and was invited by Whitesel to address it. The entire audience immediately left, leaving the two men alone. Yet the unpopularity soon waned and has long since quite disappeared.



	Contact Us \| 2303 College Avenue Huntington, IN 46750 \| 1.800.642.6493 \| Copyright 2004