Color Commentary
Many of our peers in the academic and publishing blogosphere have discussed the challenges in writing honest, insightful, and balanced Civil War narrative that presents the perspectives of both white and black Americans, who shared in the same trials and tribulations of the War Between the States, but have been forever separated in the historical analysis of it. This presents a unique challenge for historians and the best way to accomplish this (IMO) is to gather as much primary source material as possible and write BOTH recollections together, side-by-side, and allow them to stand in judgment by themselves. In other words, lay it all out in print and let the reader draw their own conclusions.
This is the case with my newest book project for The History Press entitled "Houses of the Holy: The Historical Churches of Fredericksburg." This manuscript is coming along great and I am enjoying the fruits of my labor immensely. At this time, I am writing the parallel stories of Fredericksburg Baptist, and the African church that grew out of it: Shiloh Baptist (Old Site). I am amazed by how different the two congregation’s histories portray the same events. Without giving anything away, I do want to share an example of how the white churches appear to have had a ‘paternalistic’ approach to their African brethren, and how the blacks felt this was a ‘patronizing’ attitude that did not view them as equals. The fact of the matter is that despite a clear racial-divide, both sides appear to have been attempting to magnanimously co-exist in a graceful way while collectively worshipping their Lord and Savior.
Unfortunately as is often the case with man, neither were able to maintain a mutual-relationship that benefited one another spiritually or socially. Here’s an example of two views of the same event from my rough draft. (You will notice differences in the amount of money quoted, and the implied tone in my use of verbiage. I quote a myriad of materials verbatim throughout this section. Many of the accounts do not match and ironically, neither church's archives contained the other's transcripts or materials.)
In my Introduction, I openly address this dilemma and my approach to it:
"…I would like to add that it is not my intent to paint a negative impression of any of these fine churches and I have tried to include a balance. This includes multiple perspectives of the events surrounding the political, social, and spiritual issues that plagued the antebellum South in the 19th-century. The sensitive nature of secession, state’s rights, and the institution of slavery, as well as other racial tensions and injustices have been acknowledged here when applicable. Some of the verbiage that is used in this book, specifically when quoting slaves and/or overseer narratives may contain slurs. These have been kept in their entirety for historical accuracy and to illustrate period-speak. In some cases conflicting recollections are presented while giving equal weight to both sides of the story. It is my hope that by sharing these accounts, however uncomfortable at times they may be, I can pay tribute to the congregations of today whose ancestors survived the 'Great Divide' to form a much stronger community…"
FREDERICKSBURG BAPTIST: …In 1854, some tensions began to develop between the two races, and a separation appeared to be a foregone conclusion. This rift was apparently contributed to by both sides and threatened to tear the very fabric of the church in two. A pledge drive was established to assist in financing the construction of a newer and larger building. Despite a lack of or limited resources the black members were able to raise an impressive sum of money given their social situation. In the congregational minutes book that was dated for September 28, 1855, the congregations “colored brethren and sisters’ pledged $1,100. It was then determined that the African-American members would retain the current building by the riverside, and the white congregation would take both side’s pledges and construct a new building in the center of town. A committee was appointed to oversee the matter and after it was discovered that the “Colored Brethren” expressed a strong opposition to the fulfillment of pledges for another church, a compromise of $400 was agreed upon. A new constitution was drafted dismissing the “colored congregation,” and designating the existing church as a separate body to be styled the African Baptist Church of Fredericksburg. Under Virginia law, a white minister had to preside over a black congregation. A special provision was included as well, stating that in case of any difficulty in the transaction of our business, the church may appeal to the Fredericksburg Baptist Church for counsel. It also went on to state that “The church pledges herself to listen to and regard the counsels of the committee of the White Brethren that may be appointed by the Fredericksburg Baptist Church to superintend our worship according to the requirements of the law…”
…In January of 1857, the Fredericksburg Recorder reported that the African church had added another hundred members and that: "Their assemblages are conducted in a remarkable quiet and orderly manner, and we are gratified to see them so fully appreciate their religious privileges..."
SHILOH BAPTIST (OLD SITE): …Despite worshipping together for years, tensions between the two races heightened in 1854, nearly ten years before the War Between the States would erupt over states right’s and the institution of slavery. It was at this time that the groups began to worship separately with the black members meeting on Sunday afternoons as opposed to the mornings. Eventually the idea of building a newer church ‘in town’ for the white congregational members and leaving the riverside building in the hands of the black members was approved. In September of 1855, the church secretary recorded that “it has always been our intention to give up our old house of worship to the colored portion of our church.” Unfortunately, this decision came on the heels of the pledge drive in which the African-American’s had vowed to provide a large gift. This ignited a feud over what financial obligations were to be fulfilled. The white committee members insisted that no property would be officially transferred until the beneficiaries fulfilled their ‘moral obligation’ to make good on all pledges up to the proposed sum of $1100. After much discussion, a compromise of $500 was reached between the two parties. This however did not include the deed…Upon paying the additional sum of $500, the deed to the church was transferred. The original Membership Rolls on file at Shiloh Baptist (Old Site) outline the legacy of the African-American congregation. The fifth column is the most striking as it lists the date of ‘May 4, 1856” over and over as the day in which all of the church’s black members were dismissed. Despite reaching an agreement over the split, another debate surrounded the legal requirement of a white pastor shepherding the church developed. This role was filled by a longtime member named George Rowe. He was an Elder in the Baptist church and owned seven slaves himself. Rowe had established a positive parental-relationship with the “coloured congregation” and was well-versed in the study and preaching of Biblical scripture…
…Minutes taken by the white congregation on February of 1856 stated that: "Whereas we desire the coloured portion of our church to enjoy the privilege of regular public worship in the house we formerly occupied, therefore, resolved, that the esteemed Brother Elder George Rowe, who has for several months been laboring among them with much acceptance, be requested to continue these labors, and to administer the ordinances of the gospel among them, and also, in conjunction with our pastor, to attend to the order and discipline of the church so long as it may be mutually agreeable to the parties concerned, the coloured brethren being expected to make him such compensation for his services as he and they may agree upon."
I may not have shared enough unpublished material here to make my point clearly (I want to be careful as this is a book in progress with a very clear delivery date), but in a nutshell: To one group, it was a gracious work of charity on their part to allow the slave/free black congregational members to remain in posession of the old church building, while to the other, the act was tarnished by demands for additional money and the forced appointment of a white overseeing pastor. Both IMO were right.
Excerpts Copyright 2007. M. Aubrecht/Pinstripe Press