|
When the Civil War ended,
members who had fled north to escape the
fighting returned and the church once
again thrived. Today there are several
Shiloh Baptist churches in the
Fredericksburg area. During the Civil War,
the original Shiloh Church served as a
hospital for Union soldiers.
Shiloh Baptist sprung
forth from the integrated Fredericksburg
Baptist Church. The original congregation
included both white and black members and
by the 1840's over 75% of the 800-member
assembly was black. Not surprisingly, the
archived transcripts recalling the
division of the church and the sale of its
building back to the black members differs
greatly in tone between the two races.
Upon examining both church minutes and
individual member's recollections, it
appears that the perspectives of both
groups with regard to the reasons behind
the move, as well as the manner in which
it took place, are as different as night
and day.
This is completely
understandable, given the time in American
history that they occurred. Although both
churches share a strong bond today, this
was not always the case during the racial
strife of the pre-Civil Rights period. I
want to take a moment to briefly address
the subject of slavery as it plays a
pivotal role not only in the history of
these churches, but of course in the
history of our country.
Traced back to the
earliest colonization of America, human
bondage remained one of the most
controversial aspects of the country's
culture. The first Africans arrived in the
"New World" as Indentured Servants at the
Virginia Company's Jamestown Settlement in
1619. There they were initially able to
earn their freedom by working as laborers,
artisans, servants, and cooks for white,
European settlers.
However, the role of
"indentured" servant was radically
redefined by 1640, when the colony of
Maryland became the first settlement to
officially institutionalize slavery.
Ironically, the practice was then
propagated in the north, where, in 1641,
Massachusetts wrote that "bondage was
legal," in their own legislative Body of
Liberties. This act inevitably ushered in
the accepted ability for one human being
to hold property ownership of
another.
Slavery led to an obvious
contradiction in the social structure of
America's own roots as the very same
settlers who had fled Europe in order to
practice their own form of liberty, now
denied freedom to an entire race of
people. Although some Christians were kind
and even at times charitable towards those
held in bondage, there was no denying the
moral-hypocrisy that surrounded the
institution.
The early Christian
churches did not take up the cause of
eliminating slavery until much later in
the century and some church leaders
attempted to justify the act by quoting
passages from the Bible that outlined the
proper treatment of slaves, specifically
the books of Deuteronomy, Ephesians and
Colossians.
In 1693, the famous Boston
theologian, Cotton Mather, wrote a
propaganda-piece titled "Rules for the
Society of the Negroes," which argued that
slavery had been spiritually sanctioned
because "Negroes were enslaved because
they had sinned against God." As a
Christian, I find it bothersome to think
that the Word of God was manipulated like
that.
As I mentioned in my
intro, I was struck by the differing
viewpoints that have been recorded when
reflecting on Fredericksburg at the time
of the Civil War, particularly books and
articles that were penned in the early
20th-Century. Obviously there was a lot of
material presented over the decades
following the war that tried to dull the
sting of racism, or even sometimes
encourage it. As a result, a lot of
historical publications promoted a white
dominated agenda.
There is a movement about
today in regards to American history that
is trying to address the notion of biased
memory and the need to re-incorporate the
perspectives of black Americans.
Especially in regards to race relations
and of course slavery. I myself am only
starting to comprehend the challenge this
presents. I'd like to give you an example
of a piece of historical memory that I
myself incorrectly penned and have since
then, come to learn the whole story thanks
to my friends at the National Park
Service.
Ms. Hannah Coalter the
lady of the palatial Chatham Manor (which
is located up on the hill overlooking the
river and the city) offered all ninety-two
of her slaves a choice between
immigration, or continued bondage after
her death. The idea was that they could
become a contributing member to society if
they desired and had skills. Sounds good
right? Wrong…
Although the offer appears
at face value to be a generous one, it
should be noted that it was only to be
granted on an individual-by-individual
basis and had no stipulation for keeping
relatives together. This inevitably
resulted in an agonizing choice of freedom
over one's family. Making matters worse,
Coalter's successor, Horace Lacy, was not
interested in granting freedom to any of
Chatham's slaves. He filed a petition with
the local court to overturn the offer. The
court sided with the plaintiff citing that
the servant population of Fredericksburg
were not considered citizens and
therefore, had no right to make decisions
regarding their release.
Every account that I read
of this from a 'white standpoint' painted
a portrait of generosity and amicable
respect. Now please don't misunderstand me
there were whites who championed for
freedom and liberty for blacks, but the
majority of the population at the time was
benevolent at best.
Beyond the court system,
the complexity of overturning the
institution of slavery can be found in the
vast difference of perspective that
existed between those both for, and
against, the practice. For example, an
anti-slavery advocate from North Carolina
wrote that:
Northerners know nothing
at all about Slavery. They think it is
perpetual bondage only. They have no
conception of the depth of degradation
involved in that word, SLAVERY; if they
had, they would never cease their efforts
until so horrible a system was
overthrown.
On the other hand, George
Fitzhugh, a wealthy Virginia Planter wrote
in 1850 that:
The slaves are all well
fed, well clad, have plenty of fuel, and
are happy. They have no dread of the
future-no fear of want. [The slaveholder]
is the least selfish of men...The
institution of slavery gives full
development and full play to the
affections.
So here you can see the
completely different points of view on the
subject. Another example of this can be
found in Shiloh Baptist's origins. When
what initially appears to have been a
gracious act, may have furthered the
divide between the races.
As was often the case
during this period, white Christians took
a paternalistic approach to their
African-American neighbors that were less
rooted in recognition of equality, and
more on the moral obligation to assist
those souls held in bondage. This often
posed a complex conflict of conscience, as
the people offering spiritual nurturing to
their "colored brethren" were also slave
owners themselves.
SPACER
| 
