The Scottish Historical Review, Volume XCIV, 1: No. 238: April 2015, 74–99DOI: 10.3366/shr.2015.0240© The Scottish Historical Review Trust 2015www.euppublishing.com/journal/shr

D A N I E L R I T C H I E

Antislavery Orthodoxy: Isaac Nelson andthe Free Church of Scotland, c. 1843–65

ABSTRACT

The ‘Send back the money’ controversy between the Free Churchof Scotland and zealous abolitionists was one of the most importantevents in nineteenth century Scottish religious history. The Revd IsaacNelson of Belfast is best remembered for his anti-revivalism andhis advocacy of Irish nationalism. What has often been forgotten isthe centrality of antislavery to the making of Nelson’s controversialreputation, even though he was held in high esteem by abolitionistson both sides of the Atlantic. Accordingly, this article examines hisopposition to the Free Church’s receipt of monies from and extensionof christian fellowship to the slaveholding churches in the United States.It highlights his critique of leading ecclesiastical statesmen, includingThomas Chalmers, William Cunningham and Robert S. Candlish. Theessay also considers the sophisticated intellectual critique of chattelslavery that under-girded Nelson’s opposition to the policy of the FreeKirk, as well as his evaluation of the nature of proslavery religion inAmerica. By means of a biographical case study of an interesting outsider,this article seeks to provide a lens through which one of the most tragicincidents in Scotland’s ecclesiastical past can be freshly examined.

The Revd Isaac Nelson (1809–88) of Donegall Street PresbyterianChurch, Belfast, was the most vocal Ulster abolitionist in the 1840s.Such was his influence that he was even praised in William LloydGarrison’s Boston Liberator newspaper because of his maintenance ofabolitionist principles in the face of the apostasy of the Free Church ofScotland from antislavery orthodoxy.1 Nelson is primarily rememberedas the leading opponent of the Ulster revival of 1859 and as the home

1 Liberator, 25 Jun. 1847.

DANIEL RITCHIE is an Irish Research Council Post-Doctoral Fellow at the School ofHistory and Archives, University College Dublin. He is the author of a forthcomingmonograph entitled Evangelicalism, Abolitionism and Parnellism in Irish Presbyterianism: Thepublic life of Isaac Nelson, 1809–88. The author would like to thank Dr Andrew Holmes,Dr Brian Kelly, Professor Colin Kidd, Dr Fearghal McGarry, Professor Peter Gray and theanonymous peer reviewers for their feedback on this article, the research for which wascarried out while the author was an AHRC doctoral student at Queen’s University Belfast.

antislavery orthodoxy 75

rule member of parliament for County Mayo (1880–5).2 Yet it wasthrough antislavery agitation that Nelson first came to prominence,especially for his reaction to one of the most tragic events in nineteenth-century Scottish ecclesiastical history.

The purpose of this article is to consider the question of how Nelsonresponded to the ‘Send back the money’ controversy in the Free Churchof Scotland (1844–7). He was unique among the Belfast presbyterianclergy in being willing to confront openly their Scottish co-religionists.As late as 1853 Francis Calder of the Belfast Anti-Slavery Societyreferred to Nelson as the ‘one honourable exception’ who continued tosupport the society following the outbreak of the campaign against theFree Church.3 In ‘Send back the money!’, Iain Whyte, a leading historian ofScottish antislavery, describes Nelson as a ‘commanding figure’ and ‘apowerful advocate of an uncompromising position over slavery’.4 Thusfar the role of this Irish presbyterian in the controversy between theabolitionists and the Free Church has received limited attention fromboth Scottish and Irish historians. Such inattention probably reflects thetendency among nineteenth-century historians to neglect the obviouslinks between the presbyterian communities in Ulster and Scotland.5Both Nelson’s support for the abolitionists in the ‘Send back the money’controversy and the reluctance of other Belfast presbyterians to assailthe Free Church constitute evidence of how the two presbyterian bodieswere intimately connected with one another. In Nelson’s case, the closeassociations with the Free Church meant he was compelled to rebukehis Scottish brethren; whereas for other Belfast clergy, their links withScotland made them unwilling to criticise the Free Church.6

With a view to elucidating the significance of Nelson’s contribution tothis dispute, several major, interlocking thematic issues are addressedin this article. Nelson’s involvement with the ‘Send back the money’campaign was one of the clearest indicators that the agitation was notsimply provoked or maintained by opponents of the Free Church.7As with all orthodox Ulster presbyterians, Nelson supported theDisruption in opposition to the Erastianism of the British state.8 Along

2 Daniel Ritchie, ‘Evangelicalism, Abolitionism and Parnellism: The Public Career ofthe Revd Isaac Nelson’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (Queen’s University Belfast, 2014).

3 Oxford, Rhodes House, Bodleian Libraries [Bodl], Mss.Brit.Emp.S.18.C29/20(British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society MSS), F. A. Calder to L. A. Chamerovzow,26 Sep. 1853.

4 I. Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’ The Free Church of Scotland and American Slavery(Cambridge, 2012), 111, 119.

5 A. R. Holmes, ‘Presbyterian religion, historiography, and Ulster Scots identity, c. 1800to 1914’, Historical Journal 52 (2009) 615–40, at 617.

6 See Ritchie, ‘Evangelicalism’, 56–117; Boston Public Library [BPL], H. C. WrightMSS, MS.q.Am.1859.v.31 (journal of H. C. Wright), 17 Dec. 1844.

7 Princeton University Library [PUL], Charles Hodge MSS, MS CO261/Bx15/F16, W.Cunningham to C. Hodge, 26 Apr. 1845; W. Cunningham to C. Hodge, 1 Sep. 1846.

8 Northern Whig, 8 Jan. 1846; Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, 139. Even some defendersof the Free Kirk admitted that among its critics were ‘well-meaning friends of the FreeChurch’: Free Church Magazine, Jul. 1846, 220.

76 daniel ritchie

with his impeccable abolitionism, this made Nelson an ideal candidateto speak on behalf of the Free Church Anti-Slavery Society in 1847.

In other accounts of the controversy, there has been a tendencyto focus on well-known personalities such as Thomas Chalmers andFrederick Douglass.9 By concentrating on Nelson, this article highlightsthe importance of less prominent individuals in this dispute andthus serves to provide us with a more nuanced understanding ofthe controversy. Furthermore, by considering both the antislaveryarguments of Nelson and the proslavery apologies of the Free Churchleaders and American churchmen, the article draws attention tothe transatlantic context in which the radical abolitionist agitationagainst the Free Kirk took place. Analysis of Nelson’s critiques of the‘Disruption Worthies’ and his ideological arguments against slavery,moreover, reveal that the ‘Send back the money’ controversy was aboutmuch more than a financial gesture. Instead, it could be argued that theprinciple of christian fellowship with the slaveholding churches was theprimary issue at stake in this dispute. Nelson’s ideological contributionis also important in terms of revealing the commitment of evangelicalabolitionists to biblicist antislavery arguments that were congruous withtheological orthodoxy.

Nelson’s moral critique of the Free Church policy helps us not totake the language of suffering martyrdom that the Free Kirk appliedto itself in the wake of the Disruption entirely at face value. Stewart J.Brown has pointed out that the opponents of the Free Church askedhow could the Free Churchmen ‘appeal for sympathy from sufferingand oppression at the hands of Scottish landlords, while they accepted“blood money’’ – wealth derived from suffering and oppression – fromAmerican slave-owners?’ Thus the ‘Send back the money’ campaign wasa ‘serious blow to Free Church claims to moral superiority through itssufferings’, and may have persuaded the leaders of the Free Kirk tomodify their rhetoric.10

Nelson’s writings on antislavery included three pamphlets thatwere written contemporaneously with the debates in the 1840s, andtwo written in the 1860s, in reaction to the Ulster revival of 1859and the American civil war. The advantage of this temporal rangein his publications is that it helps us to discern how abolitionistsinterpreted both the short and long-term impact of the Free Church’sactions—indicating that this was more than a localised dispute overScottish presbyterian church order, but an issue that had much widerramifications in the North Atlantic protestant world.

9 George Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers, the Free Church of Scotland and the south’,Journal of Southern History 17 (1951) 517–37; A. Pettinger, ‘Send back the money:Douglass and the Free Church of Scotland’, in A. J. Rice and M. Crawford (eds),Liberating Sojourn: Frederick Douglass & Transatlantic Reform (Athens, 1999), 31–55.

10 S. J. Brown, ‘Martyrdom in early Victorian Scotland: Disruption Fathers and themaking of the Free Church’, in Diana Wood (ed.), Martyrs and Martyrologies, Studiesin Church History (Oxford, 1993), 330.

antislavery orthodoxy 77

I

At the Disruption of the Church of Scotland in 1843 over one thirdof the ministers and between one third and one half of the laityleft the establishment and formed the Free Church. By doing sothey relinquished their charges, stipends, glebes and manses.11 Havingleft the establishment, the newly formed denomination had to findalternative sources of funding so that it could provide for over fourhundred ministers and subsidise its own churches, missions, schools,manses and colleges.12 In 1842 Thomas Chalmers had estimated thatthe new church would need at least £100,000 per annum to supportthe outgoing clergy alone. This appeared to be an insurmountablefinancial challenge, especially as the Disruption occurred during theeconomic depression of the early 1840s in which unemployment waswidespread. Moreover, landowners often refused to sell or lease sites tothe Free Church and threatened tenants with eviction for supporting itsministers.13 Not surprisingly, the Free Church looked to other branchesof the presbyterian and evangelical world for assistance.

Nelson was a long-standing supporter of the Scottish kirk’s spiritualindependence. Back in 1840, while he was still minister at Comber, theDown presbytery commissioned Nelson and the Revd William Craig‘to inquire in what way this Presbytery can best assist the Churchof Scotland in this momentous struggle’ against state intrusion. As aresult the March meeting of presbytery recommended that each of itscongregations ‘petition the Legislature that no Minister be intrudedinto a Parish in Scotland contrary to the wishes of the Congregation’and that petitions be sent to both houses of parliament.14 At theend of 1840 Nelson was part of a deputation from the recentlyformed presbyterian church in Ireland that visited Scotland in orderto raise funds for their home mission. Nelson addressed meetings inEdinburgh, Glasgow, Paisley and Dundee. The efforts of the deputationwere greatly appreciated by leading evangelicals such as Chalmers andRobert S. Candlish.15 Commenting on this in 1867, George Gilfillanof Dundee claimed that Nelson ‘was amazingly popular there bothas a preacher and a platform man. His readiness of speech boldnessof fancy, and occasional unkempt roughness of manner were all then

11 S. J. Brown, The National Churches of England, Ireland, and Scotland, 1801–1846(Oxford, 2001), 358.

12 C. D. Rice, ‘The Scottish Factor in the Fight against American Slavery, 1830–1870’,unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Edinburgh, 1969), 273; Shepperson, ‘ThomasChalmers’, 518; Brown, ‘Martyrdom’, 323; Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, 13.

13 S. J. Brown, Thomas Chalmers and the Godly Commonwealth in Scotland (Oxford, 1982),336–46; Brown, National Churches, 358–9; Brown, ‘Martyrdom’, 327–30.

14 Belfast, Presbyterian Church House [PCH], Minutes of Down presbytery, 4 Feb. 1840,3 Mar. 1840.

15 Witness, 21 Nov., 25 Nov., 2 Dec. 1840; Belfast News-Letter, 13 Nov., 22 Dec. 1840;Downpatrick Recorder, 2 Jan. 1841.

78 daniel ritchie

thought delightful’.16 Nelson later concurred with the support in Ulsterfor the Scottish non-intrusionists, signing a petition on their behalfin March 1843.17 As with virtually all orthodox Ulster presbyterians,Nelson was not someone who was at odds with the principles of theDisruption Worthies.18 In October 1843 Irish presbyterians were praisedfor various acts of assistance rendered to the Free Church, whichincluded donating £10,000 to their Scottish brethren.19

Earlier, however, at the May 1843 Free Church general assembly, itwas suggested that if they sent a deputation to the United States theywould collect £100,000 or £200,000.20 Duncan Rice argues that Americawas clearly the place for the Free Church to begin collecting funds,as many Americans admired it for giving up material wealth for theprinciples of presbyterianism.21 Hence a deputation was sent to Americain order to explain the Free Church’s position and to collect funds.22

The deputation comprised George Lewis of Dundee, William Chalmersof Ayrshire, Robert Burns of Paisley, Henry B. Ferguson (a Dundeemerchant and ruling elder) and William Cunningham of Edinburgh.23

Cunningham was the most important member of the deputation; hearrived at Boston in December 1843 and was later joined in the UnitedStates by other members of the deputation, early in 1844.24 At the Freegeneral assembly in May 1844 Cunningham reported that £3,000 hadbeen collected in America, with a further £6,000 having been sent toScotland from America since he arrived home.25 The precise amountcollected was debated at the time;26 but that dispute had no bearing

16 George Gilfillan, Remoter Stars in the Church Sky: Being a gallery of uncelebrated divines(London, 1867), 134

17 Belfast News-Letter, 24 Mar. 1843.18 Holmes, ‘Presbyterian religion’, 624–5; Brown, National Churches, 361.19 Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, held at Glasgow, October

17, 1843 (Glasgow, 1843), 54; cf. Witness, 30 Aug. 1843.20 Proceedings of the General Assembly . . . October 1843, 103.21 C. D. Rice, The Scots Abolitionists, 1833–1861 (Baton Rouge, 1981), 126.22 Proceedings of the General Assembly . . . October 1843, 173; cf. Witness, 10 Jan. 1844.23 Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, 14; Edinburgh, New College Library [NCL], Chalmers

MSS, MS CHA4.307.55, W. Cunningham to T. Chalmers, 30 Dec. 1843; PUL, CharlesHodge MSS, MS CO261/Bx14/F62, W. Chalmers to C. Hodge, 1 Aug. 1844.

24 Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, 18–19; George Lewis, Impressions of America and theAmerican Churches (Edinburgh, 1845), 1–20; Robert Rainey and James MacKenzie,Life of William Cunningham, D.D. Principal of Theology and Church History, New College,Edinburgh (London, 1871), 204; Boston Courier, 21 Dec. 1843, 1 Apr. 1844; Witness,10, 27 Jan., 3 Feb., 24 Apr. 1844; Caledonian Mercury, 11 Jan., 1 Feb. 1844; GlasgowHerald, 8 Jan. 1844; North American and Daily Advertiser, 16 Feb. 1844; Dundee Courier,9, 30 Apr., 7 May 1844.

25 Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, held in Edinburgh,May 1844 (Edinburgh, 1844), 71. Cunningham and Ferguson left Boston to sail toLiverpool on 1 May 1844 (Daily Evening Transcript, 1 May 1844; Boston Post, 2 May1844; Rainy and MacKenzie, William Cunningham, 212).

26 James MacBeth, The Church and the Slaveholder (Edinburgh, n.d.), 34; A. H. Abel andF. J. Klingberg (eds), A Side-Light on Anglo-American Relations 1839–1858: Furnishedby the correspondence of Lewis Tappan and others with the British and Foreign Anti-SlaverySociety (Lancaster, Pa, 1927; New York, 1970), 199 (L. Tappan to J. Sturge, 15 Nov.1844).

antislavery orthodoxy 79

upon the symbolic importance of receiving contributions and fellowshipfrom churches connected with slavery.27 Indeed, the money receivedfrom America was only a relatively small percentage of the £363,871that the Free Church had raised subsequent to the Disruption.28

The receipt of money from, and fellowship with, the churchesconnected with slaveholding provoked an immediate reaction fromabolitionists. In March 1844 the Glasgow Emancipation Society, spurredon by the Garrisonian activist Henry C. Wright, expressed its deepregret that the Free Church had accepted pecuniary contributions frombodies that had recently been portrayed by J. G. Birney as bulwarksof American slavery.29 Such churches were deemed more ‘deserving ofadmonition & censure than the countenance of Christian men’ and thesociety counselled the Free Kirk to return the money and remonstratewith the Americans.30 Abolitionists from outside Scotland essentiallyconcurred with this assessment. Writing to John Scoble of the Britishand Foreign Anti-Slavery Society in April 1844, Lewis Tappan claimedthat the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society counselled the FreeChurch commissioners against soliciting money from slaveholders.31

Thus the controversy with the Free Church was an issue that unitedabolitionists of both Garrisonian and anti-Garrisonian sensibilities.32

Defenders of the Free Kirk alleged that the abolitionists’ campaign wasa conspiracy inspired by satan and the ‘mass of Heathens’ in Scotlandto have ‘an opportunity of pouring out their venom against the FreeChurch’.33 Richard Blackett provides a more accurate explanation ofthe abolitionists’ motives, however, when he points out that the conductof the Free Church was a direct challenge to their attempts to isolateAmerican proslavery churches both at home and abroad.34 Hence therewas a perceived need for all branches of abolitionism to oppose its unionwith slaveholders with the utmost zeal.

Over the next three years a storm of controversy raged over thisissue, as various American abolitionists came to Scotland calling on theFree Church to ‘Send back the money’. Wright was joined in Scotland

27 Lewis had admitted to and defended receiving money from slaveholders: Lewis,Impressions, 324.

28 Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, 13; NCL, Miscellaneous MSS, MS CM/5100, W. B.Sprage to J. Edgar, 27 Apr. 1844.

29 Ibid., 34–5; Pettinger, ‘Send back the money’, 32; [J. G. Birney], The American Churchesthe Bulwarks of American Slavery, 3rd edn (Newburyport, 1842).

30 Glasgow, Mitchell Library [ML], Smeal MSS, MS 324926, Minutes of GlasgowEmancipation Society, 14 Mar. 1844; cf. R. A. Jezierski, ‘The Glasgow EmancipationSociety and the American Anti-Slavery Movement’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis(University of Glasgow, 2010), 153–74.

31 Abel and Klingberg, Side-Light, 182 (L. Tappan to J. Scoble, 10 Apr. 1844); Liberator,26 Apr. 1844.

32 George Shepperson, ‘The Free Church and American slavery’, SHR 30 (1951)126–43, at 126; Rice, ‘Scottish Factor’, 277–9; Rice, Scots Abolitionists, 128.

33 Free Church Magazine, May 1846, 146.34 R. J. M. Blackett, Building an Antislavery Wall: Black Americans in the Atlantic abolitionist

movement, 1830–1860 (Baton Rouge, 1983), 84.

80 daniel ritchie

in 1846 by the American Anti-Slavery Society’s James N. Buffum,Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison.35 They worked withthe British abolitionist George Thompson and acted as a counter-deputation on behalf of the slaves.36 The belief that the Free Church’sunion with the American churches had undermined antislavery bystanding before ‘the world as the most prominent defender of theChristianity of man-stealers’, and the hope that its severing of thoseties would provide a conspicuous boon to the cause of emancipation,inspired the protest against the Free Kirk.37 This campaign disturbedprominent Free Church leaders, as it was not only perceived tobe a threat to their finances, but aggravated fears that the newdenomination would split. Such concerns had some basis, as the slaveryquestion had been the cause of divisions among American baptists,methodists and presbyterians in the 1840s.38 Mainstream Americanpresbyterianism was already in a fractured state, as the Old andNew School presbyterians had separated in 1837–38 over a range oftheological and organisational issues.39 James Lennox of New Yorkwrote to Chalmers in 1845, dreading a split amongst Old Schoolpresbyterians over slavery, and it is probable that Chalmers feared thiswould be replicated in Scotland.40

In response to internal murmurings on the slavery question the FreeChurch general assembly in September 1844 agreed to address a letterto the presbyterian church in the United States of America (Old School).At the May-June 1845 assembly, a report was read warning that slaverywould provoke national judgment and that it needed to be abolished. Itwas equivocal, however, on whether or not American slaveholders weredeserving of excommunication.41 For his part William Cunninghamhoped that there would be no further discussion on the subject.42

However, the general assembly came under immense pressure in 1846to take a firmer line, as Wright, Buffum, Douglass and Thompson

35 Witness, 24 Jan.; 2 Jun.; 24 Oct. 1846; Arbroath Guide, 14 Feb. 1846; Dundee Courier,3 Feb. 1846; Caledonian Mercury, 28 Sep. 1846; BPL, W. L. Garrison MSS, Ms.A.1.1.v.4, p.38 (W. L. Garrison to R. D. Webb, 25 Sep. 1846).

36 Shepperson, ‘Free Church’, 127; Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 520.37 Washington D. C. Library of Congress, Frederick Douglass MSS, General

Correspondence File 1846, F. Douglass to W. L. Garrison, 23 May 1846; cf. Rice,‘Scottish Factor’, 277.

38 J. R. McKivigan, The War Against Proslavery Religion: Abolitionism and the northernChurches, 1830–1865 (Ithaca, 1984), 74–93; Banner of Ulster, 24 May 1844.

39 M. A. Noll, America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln (New York, 2002),124–5, 129–30, 262–3, 302–03; John, Wolffe, The Expansion of Evangelicalism: The ageof Wilberforce, More, Chalmers and Finney (Nottingham, 2006), 89.

40 Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 530 (J. Lennox to T. Chalmers, 27 Mar. 1845).41 Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, held in Edinburgh, May

1844 (Edinburgh, 1844), 163; Free Church of Scotland. Report of the Proceedings of theGeneral Assembly on Saturday, May 30, and Monday, June 1, 1846. Regarding the relations ofthe Free Church of Scotland, and the Presbyterian Churches of America, rev. edn (Edinburgh,1846), 3–7; Witness, 3 Jun. 1845; Dundee Courier, 10 Jun. 1845.

42 Witness, 3 Jun. 1845.

antislavery orthodoxy 81

mounted a concerted attack on the Free Church.43 The assembly wasalso petitioned to denounce slavery and disown slaveholding churchesby various antislavery societies and lesser ecclesiastical courts.44

Robert S. Candlish attempted to defend the Free Church’s position,arguing that while slavery always involved sin, the sin did not always liewith the slaveholder. In opposition to this argument, the Revd JamesMacBeth of Glasgow insisted that the principle of no fellowship withslaveholders was not an extreme viewpoint but rather the positionof various respectable evangelical christians and orthodox churches.In a statement which sheds light both on how the position ofthe Free Church differed from that of the presbyterian church inIreland—and why Nelson was content with the latter but not with theformer—MacBeth argued that while he had no difficulty with friendlyintercourse with the Americans, ‘no church communion, on a footingof equality, could be granted them, till they had excommunicatedtheir slaveholding members’.45 It was this extending of fellowship, notremonstrance via correspondence, to which the abolitionists objected.46

In response to MacBeth’s unsuccessful motion to break fellowship withslaveholders, Cunningham attacked the abolitionists and set forth whatwere essentially proslavery interpretations of scripture, despite claimingthat slavery was unbiblical.47 Upon failing to persuade the Glasgowpresbytery to petition the assembly to reconsider its decision, MacBethand Dr Michael Willis formed the Free Church Anti-Slavery Society inlate 1846, with Willis as president and MacBeth vice-president.48 Theyorganised a series of lectures for early 1847, with Nelson as one of thespeakers, in an effort to exert pressure on the general assembly to breakits links with the Americans.49

The general assembly in May 1847 could not ignore the slaveryissue, having received several petitions on the subject. A petitionsigned by 1,871 persons appears to have been connected with theFree Church Anti-Slavery Society, which Candlish attacked owing to itslack of clerical support and its reliance on anti-Free Church and anti-sabbatarian speakers. Cunningham continued to argue that slavery waswrong but that it was not a duty of the church to exclude slaveholdersfrom christian ordinances. Moreover, he made the audacious claimthat ‘the communion-roll of these American Presbyterian Churchesis purer than the communion-roll of the Presbyterian church of thiscountry’. Candlish closed the discussion by asserting that they would

43 Rice, ‘Scottish Factor’, 304.44 Regarding the Relations of the Free Church, 13.45 Ibid., 28, 30.46 Douglass called on the Irish churches to remonstrate with their American

counterparts (Freeman’s Journal, 4 Oct. 1845).47 Regarding the Relations of the Free Church, 33–7.48 ML, Free Church MSS, MS CH3/146/34 (Minutes of Glasgow Presbytery), 7 Oct. 1846;

cf. Witness, 14 Oct. 1846.49 Witness, 2 Dec. 1846; Dundee Courier, 8 Dec. 1846; Belfast Commercial Chronicle, 23 Dec.

1846.

82 daniel ritchie

take whatever practical steps they could to promote the abolition ofslavery and he hoped that the Free Kirk would receive less defensivecorrespondence from the Americans than what they had previouslywritten to the Irish presbyterians.50 The Free Church Anti-SlaverySociety had evidently failed to convince the general assembly of theerror of its ways.

II

In the midst of addressing the annual general meeting of the FreeChurch Anti-Slavery Society in May 1847, Nelson said that ‘in speakingthe truth, it must be spoken unpalatably, and in defiance of greatmen’.51 This was something Nelson had himself taken to heart, as hehad no fear of confronting the arguments made by some of the mostconspicuous names in Scottish presbyterian history. Writing to ThomasSmyth of Charleston in September 1844, Chalmers expressed his lackof sympathy for those who would unchristianise the American south orrefuse to engage in commercial transactions with it.52 Chalmers latersubmitted a letter to the Witness in May 1845, wherein he defendedthe compatibility of slaveholding with christianity. Despite continuing toview slavery as an evil system, comparable to war, Chalmers counselledthat the most ineffectual way of extirpating it was to excommunicatethe slaveholders.53 The subsequent delight of proslavery Americanpresbyterians at Chalmers’s position was not surprising: as J. F. Maclearhas observed, Chalmers was the Scottish religious leader most reveredin America at the time.54 On behalf of the Belfast Anti-Slavery Society,Nelson responded in March 1846 to this position in a pamphletcontaining Chalmers’s letter with his critiques in the margins.55 He alsoreplied to Chalmers’s arguments in his lecture before the Free ChurchAnti-Slavery Society in February 1847.

Nelson regarded Chalmers’s comparison between war and slavery ascompletely untenable, as defensive war was just and necessary, whereaschattel slavery was not. As for the argument that since good men wereto be found connected with the system it would be wrong to breakfellowship with them, Nelson asked why Chalmers had left the churchof Scotland when there were good men to be found in it. Moreover,Chalmers’s contention that being born within slaveholding territories

50 Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, held at Edinburgh, May1847 (Edinburgh, 1847), 262–6, 269–71, 278; Witness, 22 May, 1 Jun. 1847.

51 Scotsman, 15 May 1847.52 Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Thomas Chalmers, D.D. LL.D., ed. W. Hanna, 4 vols

(Edinburgh, 1853), iv. 579–80 (T. Chalmers to T. Smyth, 25 Sep. 1844). It has beenargued that Smyth was a moderate on the slavery question, and wanted the institutionto eventually die out (Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, 45–6).

53 Witness, 14 May 1845; cf. Pettinger, ‘Send back the money’, 36.54 J. F. Maclear, “‘American protestantism’’ and British nonconformity, 1829–1840’,

Journal of British Studies 21 (1981) 68–89, at 71.55 He identified himself as the author of these responses in Isaac Nelson, The American

War in Relation to Slavery (Belfast, 1863), 29.

antislavery orthodoxy 83

made continuing in the practice excusable was deemed to be ‘strangereasoning’, since living in a region where atrocities were committed wasno excuse for continuing in them.56 Nelson argued that had he beenborn in an idolatrous country he would probably have been an idolater.That he was born where such a system prevailed would not serve asan excuse for the sin, except among those who denied the necessity ofbiblical revelation to be proclaimed to the heathen for their conversion.Therefore, Nelson believed that Chalmers’s argument, if taken to itslogical conclusion, would ‘make sad havoc of missions’.

While Chalmers may have bemoaned the evils that accompaniedslavery, Nelson charged him with forgetting that slavery itself wasthe ‘parent sin’ that gave birth to the crimes of dishonesty andlicentiousness. If people could be excluded from the church forsins which were the fruits of slavery, then why could they not beexcommunicated for indulging in the sin which encouraged them?57

Chalmers had tried to argue that when the apostle Paul gave a listof people to be excluded from church fellowship, such as fornicators,covetous, idolaters, drunkards and extortioners, he did not referto slaveholders. Hence it was wrong to exclude slaveholders fromcommunion.58 Nelson claimed that Chalmers’s stance was illogical,since robbing a man of his person was a heinous breach of the eighthcommandment and holding him in a state of perpetual concubinagegrossly violated the seventh commandment, making the perpetratorsof such immorality worthy of ecclesiastical censure.59

In response to Chalmers’s assertion that the excommunication ofslaveholders was a new idea, Nelson quoted from James Morgan’sBelfast Anti-Slavery Society address in 1841 to prove that theabolitionists were not advocating anything novel.60 Furthermore,Chalmers’s claim that he was simply following the example set to himby earlier antislavery advocates, such as the Frys, Gurneys, Buxtons,Clarksons and Wilberforces, in their ‘unsparing and uncompromisingwarfare with this system of foul iniquity and horror’ was treated withsuspicion by Nelson. If Chalmers admired these men so much, Nelsonasked, then why did he not lend them any assistance in the crusade forthe abolition of British slavery?61 This raises a significant point; whileit would be easy to conclude that Chalmers betrayed the abolitionistcause, his position was always that of moderate emancipation.62 In 1826Chalmers had criticised the abolitionists for their intemperate attacks

56 [Isaac Nelson], Letter of the Rev. Dr Chalmers, on American Slave-Holding; With Remarksby the Belfast Anti-Slavery Committee (Belfast, 1846), 5–6.

57 Isaac Nelson, Slavery Supported by the American Churches, and countenanced by recentproceedings in the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1847), 4, 7.

58 Witness, 14 May 1845.59 Nelson, American Slave-Holding, 7–8.60 Ibid., 9; cf. [J. Morgan], To the Christian Churches of the United States. The Address of the

Belfast Anti-Slavery Society (Belfast, 1841), 8–9.61 Witness, 14 Mar. 1845; Nelson, American Slave-Holding, 13.62 Shepperson, ‘Free Church’, 132.

84 daniel ritchie

on the planters and urged that any scheme for emancipation endorsedby the British legislature would have to be congruous with ‘sacrednessin property’. Another reason for Chalmers’s cautious approach was thatmembers of his family had invested money in the slave trade in the1790s and appearing too critical of those involved with slavery wouldhave exposed him to charges of hypocrisy. So it would appear that therewas a large degree of continuity in Chalmers’s thought with respect toboth British and American slavery.63

In short, Nelson believed that Chalmers’s position amounted topraying for slaves while refusing to act on their behalf, which, ineffect, was to act against the slave by strengthening the hands of hisoppressor. It was a melancholy fact, Nelson reasoned, that when slaverywas being condemned by the great statesmen of Europe the only placeit could find a refuge was within the bosom of the church. The effectof Chalmers’s letter was to ‘gladden the hearts of slaveholders, anddepress Abolitionists’, as Chalmers was now regarded as an apologistfor slavery.64

Notwithstanding this dispute, Nelson still retained deep respect forChalmers and even as late as 1863 Nelson was genuinely grievedthat his son-in-law, William Hanna, had not taken pains to cover-up‘Chalmers’ wretched error of judgment regarding American slavery’by refusing to reprint the letter to the Witness in his father-in-law’s memoirs.65 Moreover, Nelson had invited a united presbyterianminister, the Revd George Gilfillan of Dundee, to lecture on the geniusof Chalmers before the Donegall Street Young Men’s Society in October1864.66 Sadly, uncompromising antislavery was not part of Chalmers’sgenius. Nelson’s reference in 1863 to Chalmers’s letters of 1844–5appears to confirm Shepperson’s verdict that these had served to bluntthe fight against slavery right up to the time of the American civil war.67

Nelson continued to recognise their crucial importance nearly twentyyears after they had been originally penned. Writing in the Bannerof Ulster in November 1864, Nelson was convinced that this was thegreatest moral and intellectual mistake Chalmers ever made.68 Thisjudgment has been partially confirmed by the research of Mark Noll,who observed the praise for Chalmers’s criticisms of abolitionists amongsouthern presbyterians several years after his decease in 1847.69

63 Thomas Chalmers, A Few Thoughts on the Abolition of Colonial Slavery (Glasgow, 1826),5–6; Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, 47.

64 Nelson, American Slave-Holding, 15–16; cf. Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 531 (J.Lennox to T. Chalmers, 27 Mar. 1845).

65 Nelson, American War, 29.66 Dundee Courier & Argus, 17 Oct. 1864; Banner of Ulster, 22, 27 Oct. 1864.67 Shepperson, ‘Free Church’, 142; Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 521; cf. Jezierski,

‘Glasgow Emancipation Society’, 158–9.68 Banner of Ulster, 12 Nov. 1864.69 M. A. Noll, ‘Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) in North America (ca. 1830–1917)’,

Church History 66 (1997) 762–77, at 770–1.

antislavery orthodoxy 85

It would be naïve to think that monetary considerations did not, tosome extent, shape Chalmers’s thinking. After all, Smyth had writtento him to point out that the Americans would never have offered theFree Church their support ‘had we conceived the possibility of havingour gifts reciprocated by anathema and abuse’. The fear of this supportbeing withdrawn probably influenced Chalmers’s views.70 Although weshould be careful not to overestimate the extent of his intellectualinfluence, Chalmers was a very popular figure in the United Statesat the time.71 William S. Plummer wrote to him in 1844 urging himto come to American as ‘[m]illions will be delighted to see you’.72 Astrong statement by Chalmers against slavery would have alienatedmany friends and admirers. It must be remembered that when thiscontroversy was at its height, Chalmers was in his last days andmust have been deeply tired, both mentally and physically, after themomentous events of the previous years.73 Keeping this in mind helps tocontextualise the error of judgment Chalmers made as the mistake of aman whose mind was worn out and distracted with other things, thoughit does not absolve him from culpability. This may partly explain whyNelson continued to hold Chalmers in high esteem, notwithstandingtheir divergence on slavery.

The second leader with whom Nelson took issue was WilliamCunningham, who has often been regarded as the greatest theologian ofthe Free Church fathers.74 Shortly before he sailed to America in 1844,Cunningham’s four-year old son, Willie, died of whooping cough.75

Along with the stress of the Disruption, this emotional turmoil may havebeen a factor in his subsequent actions. Cunningham had himself oncebeen zealous in the antislavery cause. In his preface to George Bourne’sPicture of Slavery in the United States (1835), Cunningham denouncedslavery as a sinful by-product of voluntaryism.76 Even as late as 1840Cunningham denounced chattel slavery as a tyrannical system andcondemned those who argued that it was not essentially wrong.77 PaulGutjahr has tried to argue that Cunningham’s reverence for scripturalauthority kept him from attacking the institution of slavery but

70 Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 524 (T. Smyth to T. Chalmers, 24 May 1844);Blackett, Antislavery Wall, 87.

71 See Noll, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 762–77.72 Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 536 (W. S. Plumer to T. Chalmers, 8 May 1846).73 Shepperson, ‘Free Church’, 134.74 S. Finlayson, Unity & Diversity: The founders of the Free Church of Scotland (Fearn, 2010),

83.75 Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, 18–19.76 J. F. Maclear, “‘Send back the money’’: transatlantic presbyterianism and American

slavery’ (unpublished paper); Caledonian Mercury, 6 Aug. 1835; Jezierski, ‘GlasgowEmancipation Society’, 165; M. W. Honeycutt, ‘William Cunningham: His Life,Thought and Controversies’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Edinburgh,2002), 172.

77 W. Cunningham, Defence of the Rights of the Christian People in the appointment of Ministers(Edinburgh, 1840), 28.

86 daniel ritchie

this conclusion overlooks his earlier antislavery views.78 Nevertheless,Cunningham’s attitude to slavery changed upon visiting America. Ofparticular relevance was his friendship with American clergymen, andespecially with Dr Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminary.79 At thispoint in his career, Hodge was a moderate apologist for slavery, whopinned the blame for the rise of overtly proslavery opinions uponthe abolitionists.80 This implicitly amounted to an admission thattheological defences of proslavery opinions were a reaction to an over-zealous attack upon the peculiar institution, rather than a positionwhich could be commended on its own merits.

Upon his return to Scotland Cunningham told the Free Churchgeneral assembly in May 1844 that it needed to modify its viewsconcerning the relationship of the American churches to slavery.81 Thusfraternisation with Hodge and R. J. Breckinridge appears to have hadthe effect of turning Cunningham against the abolitionists. He wasdetermined to do all he could to restrain the Free Kirk from saying ordoing much about slavery.82 It was hardly surprising that Cunninghamshould have wanted this situation to prevail because, in addition to themoney collected by the deputation, the Old School presbyterians hadresolved in 1844 to solicit funds for the Free Church.83

Notwithstanding his protestations that slaveholders could hold slaveswithout sin and be admitted to christian privileges, Cunningham wasstill forced to dissent from the notion that chattel slavery was justifiableand affirmed that it was contrary to the Mosaic law.84 In making sucha concession, Cunningham had admitted that American slavery wasman-stealing and consistency should have led him to demand thatslaveholders be excommunicated as scandalous sinners. But, instead,he did the precise opposite; even as early as April 1844 Smyth claimedthat America was ‘greatly indebted to Dr Cunningham’ for his effortson their behalf.85 And in the subsequent struggle with the abolitionistsSmyth regarded Cunningham as one who so ‘nobly presented the

78 P. C. Gutjahr, Charles Hodge: Guardian of American orthodoxy (Oxford, 2011), 221.79 PUL, Charles Hodge MSS, MS CO261/Bx15/F16, W. Cunningham to C. Hodge, 9

Apr. 1844; Honeycutt, ‘William Cunningham’, 164–5; Biblical Repertory and PrincetonReview, Apr. 1844, 229–61.

80 Biblical Repertory and Theological Review, Apr. 1836, 269; A. A. Hodge, The Life ofCharles Hodge (1880; Edinburgh, 2010), 353.

81 Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, held in Edinburgh, May1844 (Edinburgh, 1844), 164.

82 PUL, Charles Hodge MSS, MS CO261/Bx15/F16, W. Cunningham to C. Hodge, 15Jul. 1844; W. Cunningham to C. Hodge, 26 Apr. 1845.

83 Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America(Philadelphia, 1844), 379; Witness, 17 Jul. 1844.

84 PUL, Charles Hodge MSS, MS CO261/Bx15/F16, W. Cunningham to C. Hodge, 26Apr. 1845.

85 Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 526 (T. Smyth to T. Chalmers, 27 Apr.1845).

antislavery orthodoxy 87

irresistible shield of christian truth and charity’ against the abolitionistfanaticism in Scotland.86

In spite of Cunningham’s efforts to stop the Free Church delegatesventuring into the southern states, Nelson viewed him as thechief offender in the whole affair. Owing to the manner in whichCunningham had behaved after returning from the United States,Nelson found himself in the situation of having to attack a manhe respected while looking with contempt upon his arguments.87 Ina letter to the Witness in February 1845, which Nelson referred toin 1863, Cunningham denied that there was anything in the actualrelation of the American evangelical churches to slavery that would haveprecluded the Free Church from holding ‘communion with them aschurches of Christ’. The blame for all the misapprehensions in Scotlandwas attributed to the abolitionists.88 Speaking before the Edinburghpresbytery in March 1845, Cunningham dissented from John Duncanand Henry Grey’s view that scripture demanded that slaveholders bedisciplined, arguing that while the system was sinful not all thoseinvolved in it were guilty of sin. Even though he admitted that theslave laws reduced men to beasts and personal chattels, it was notpractically possible to emancipate them as there was no other way ofgetting domestic servants in the southern states. This, according toCunningham, was comparable to the situation in the northern stateswhere the only servants people could get were ‘Irish Papist[s]’; in bothcases, people were constrained by necessity to acquiesce in a bad system.Not only did he apologise for slavery, but he argued that abolitionistswere men lacking sanity and sense.89 Nelson viewed his remarks asdeeply injurious to christianity.90 When addressing the Free ChurchAnti-Slavery Society in February 1847, he interpreted Cunningham’swords to mean that slaveholders would be better robbing men of theirunpaid toil than employing Irish Roman catholics.91

This provoked a debate between the two men in the newspapers,as Cunningham claimed that Nelson was distorting his sentimentsand was repeating a falsehood uttered by H. C. Wright two yearsearlier.92 Writing in the Scotsman on 5 May 1847, Nelson denied thiswas the case at all, as he had merely borrowed Cunningham’s ownwords from the Witness in March 1845. Revealing his own oppositionto crude expressions of no-popery, Nelson rebuked his opponent forhurling such a gross insult against Irish Roman catholics. Moreover,he rejected Cunningham’s ostensibly biblical arguments for admitting

86 T. Smyth, Autobiographical Notes, Letters and Reflections, ed. L. C. Storey (Charleston,1914), 352.

87 Scotsman, 5 May 1847; Caledonian Mercury, 10 May 1847.88 Witness, 12 Feb. 1845; Nelson, American War, 29.89 Witness, 15 Mar. 1845.90 Northern Whig, 8 Jan. 1846.91 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 13.92 Witness, 24 Apr. 1847; Scotsman, 8 May 1847.

88 daniel ritchie

slaveholders to communion as tenuous because there was no evidence inthe New Testament that the apostles would ever have admitted anyoneto communion who would have upheld the American chattel system orsubmitted to the slave laws that existed in the United States. In denyingthe duty of immediate emancipation, Nelson argued that Cunninghamhad uttered a libel on christianity which rendered his ‘libel on Papists. . . a venial transgression’. Moreover, reflecting his commitment tocommon sense philosophy, he accused Cunningham of playing into thehands of despotism by implicitly reaffirming the creed of tyrants that‘men are not endowed by the God of creation with personal freedomand the right to pursue happiness’ when he defended slavery.93

Shortly afterwards Cunningham responded by persuading theWitness to reprint Nelson’s letter in order to demonstrate the extentto which he had imbibed the spirit of Garrison, Wright and Buffum.Cunningham maintained that Nelson was putting words into hismouth, as he was not arguing that holding slaves was preferable toemploying Irish papists but merely suggesting that both cases wereexamples of people finding themselves in less than ideal situations.94

Nelson claimed that the Witness, which had recently berated him formisrepresenting Cunningham, had refused to publish his responseand so he submitted it to The Scotsman instead.95 He cut throughCunningham’s sophistries by reminding the Scot that he had told theEdinburgh presbytery that hiring an Irish papist was something likea sin, while he had refused to pronounce the same condemnationon southern slaveholders. Indeed, Cunningham had even said that‘[a] man may be a slaveholder innocently’.96 So although he may nothave explicitly said that enslavement was preferable to employing Irishpapists, it was something that could be reasonably inferred from hiscomments. Consequently, Nelson challenged him to dare assert thatpaying a man, even one of a different religion, for his labour wascomparable to holding men as chattels, who were ‘denied the word ofthe Lord, and compelled to live in adultery’.97

The Witness had refused to publish Nelson’s replies to Cunninghamon the pretext that its columns had been closed to the subject of slaveryfor fourteen months, even though it had permitted Cunninghamto publish a letter on this very subject in response to Nelson. Thesociety believed that the real rationale for not publishing Nelson’sresponse was because ‘never was [a] reply more triumphant, or thedemolition of an adversary more complete’. In the end, it thought

93 Scotsman, 5 May 1847; Caledonian Mercury, 10 May 1847. Both papers alleged theWitness had refused to publish this letter.

94 Witness, 12 May 1847; cf. Scotsman, 8 May 1847 which printed a smaller version ofCunningham’s letter before he sent an extended version to the Witness attached withNelson’s.

95 Witness, 15 May 1847. This was in a report of the Free Church Anti-Slavery Society’sannual general meeting.

96 Witness, 15 Mar. 1845.97 Scotsman, 19 May 1847.

antislavery orthodoxy 89

that Cunningham’s attempts to defend his position left him lookingmore like ‘some bare-faced and half-witted clown’ than the premiertheologian of his church.98 Nelson never forgave Cunningham for hispart in this controversy. In 1864 Nelson reminded readers of TheBanner of Ulster that it was vain for protestant preachers to execratethe antislavery advocate Daniel O’Connell for his political views whilevenerating the memory of an apologist for the slaveholders such asCunningham.99

Other prominent Free Church men also proved a disappointmentto Nelson. As late as March 1844 Robert S. Candlish publicly declaredthat he was opposed to communion with incorrigible slaveholders.100

Such was his notoriety that Smyth wrote to Chalmers complainingthat Candlish was anathematizing the American churches.101 By 1847,however, the Free Church Anti-Slavery Society could not but seethe irony that Candlish was now attacking it for holding a positionthat he had embraced prior to the outbreak of the controversy. Itrecognised, however, that Candlish never went as far as Cunninghamand that Candlish had at least expressed a desire to see immediateemancipation.102 In February that year Nelson maintained thatCandlish’s position at the Evangelical Alliance was not congruous withthat in the Free Church, as he agreed not to invite slaveholders tothe former organisation while, at the same time, defending them inScotland.103

Candlish is mentioned with some favour in Nelson’s later writingsas he believed the former had forsaken his earlier compromise withproslavery opinions. He subsequently became active in the movementagainst the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) and was a strong supporter ofJohn Brown of Harpers Ferry.104 Notwithstanding the earlier conflictwith Douglass, Candlish was among those who donated to FrederickDouglass’s Paper when it was in severe debt.105 Thus in 1861 Nelsonclaimed that Candlish had lately ‘laid a most generous, self-sacrificingoblation on the altar of truth and principle’, by his emphatic declaration

98 The Sinfulness of Maintaining Christian Fellowship with Slave-Holders: Strictures on theproceedings of the last general assembly of the Free Church of Scotland regarding communionwith the slave-holding churches of America (Edinburgh, 1847), 4–5; Witness, 5 May 1847.

99 Banner of Ulster, 12 Nov. 1864.100 Cf. Witness, 9 Mar. 1844; Caledonian Mercury, 4 Apr. 1844; Banner of Ulster, 5 Apr.

1844; Belfast News-Letter, 12 Apr. 1844.101 Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 523 (T. Smyth to T. Chalmers, 24 May 1844).102 Sinfulness of Maintaining Christian Fellowship, 17, 27–8; Regarding the Relations of the Free

Church, 26–30.103 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 13; cf. Manchester Times, 17 Apr. 1846; Caledonian Mercury,

7 May, 1 Jun. 1846.104 Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 524; Liberator, 10 Feb. 1860; Caledonian Mercury, 29

Nov., 8, 23 Dec. 1859; 31 Mar. 1860; William Wilson and Robert Rainy, Memorials ofRobert Smith Candlish, D.D. (Edinburgh, 1880), 489–90.

105 Anti-Slavery Reporter, May 1857, 118–19.

90 daniel ritchie

that the bible gave no support to chattel slavery.106 Candlish realisedthat slavery in America was not going to die out quietly in onecontained region of the United States.107 Instead the events of the1850s, especially the passing of ‘such infamous acts as the Fugitive SlaveLaw’, demonstrated that proslavery forces were determined to preservethe system and expand the slavocracy’s territory. Thus in 1867 Candlishtold the general assembly that he had been instrumental in having allcorrespondence with the Americans discontinued some years earlierowing to differences over slavery.108

III

Throughout Nelson’s writings and speeches there is strong ideologicaljustification for his antislavery sentiments. Some of this may be found inhis lecture for the Free Church Anti-Slavery Society, Slavery Supported bythe American Churches. Nelson delivered the fourth lecture in the society’sseries at Edinburgh on 4 February 1847, when he spoke to a largeaudience at the Waterloo Rooms. At the end of the meeting a vote ofthanks to Nelson was proposed by the Revd G. M. West and secondedby another episcopalian clergyman, whose name was not recorded.109

On 8 February he delivered the same lecture in Glasgow. The GlasgowArgus described it as ‘a most excellent and powerful lecture’ and ‘one ofthe ablest lectures we ever heard on any subject, abounding in closeand overwhelming argument, and in flashes of brilliant wit’.110 Thislecture was also highly esteemed by contemporary abolitionists; in 1848the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society hoped it would get ‘the widecirculation which it deserves’.111

Nelson denied that he had come to Scotland merely to complainabout the Free Church. On the contrary, he claimed that the defence ofantislavery principles was fundamental to christianity. The abolitionistcrusade was not the cause of malcontents, but of the God who hatedoppression. Nelson’s main reason for advocating abolitionism wasbecause the incarnation of Christ, and his proclamation of libertyto the captive, taught him to preach a gospel of antislavery. Sinceholding men in unlawful bondage was dishonouring to Christ, itwas the christian’s duty to be concerned about the matter. However,Nelson reasoned that instead of preaching the good news of antislaverythe churches in America, and their friends abroad, had become thebulwarks of oppression. He maintained that chattel slaveholding was

106 Isaac Nelson, The Year of Delusion: A review of “The Year of Grace’’ (Belfast, 1860–6), 86;Demonstrations in Favour of Dr Cheever, in Scotland (New York, 1860), 9–24.

107 Robert Botsford, ‘Scotland and the American Civil War’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis(University of Edinburgh, 1956), 30.

108 Wilson and Rainy, Memorials, 520–1, 548; Liberator, 10 Feb. 1860.109 Caledonian Mercury, 8 Feb. 1847; Edinburgh Evening Post, 10 Feb. 1847.110 Glasgow Argus, 15 Feb. 1847.111 Sixteenth Annual Report, presented to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society (Boston, 1848),

36.

antislavery orthodoxy 91

a sin incompatible with a credible profession of faith, comparableto midnight robbery, murder or piracy, and so the church couldnot welcome such criminals into its fold without incurring divinejudgment.112

In order to understand his ideological basis for advocatingabolitionism it is necessary to pause and consider how exactly Nelsonwas defining slavery: ‘[t]o claim man, then, as a slave, is to holdhim as a piece of chattel property; remove this element, you destroyslavery – without this element there is no slavery, there can be noslavery’. Nelson claimed that chattel slavery was wrong because heaven’slaw did not authorise men to keep others in perpetual bondage aspersonal chattels. Using this definition, Nelson was able to rebuffappeals to ostensibly proslavery passages of scripture as irrelevant, sincehe did not believe that the bible ever sanctioned the form of servitudethat existed in America. As far as he was concerned, scripture nevergave anyone the right to reduce a man to a mere article of commercelike a horse or an ox.113 Colin Kidd identified exegetical argumentsconcerning the incongruence of American slavery with Old Testamentservitude as ‘escape routes available to moderate emancipationists’.114

Nelson’s employment of such argumentation, however, demonstratesthat such routes were also open to zealous abolitionists.

As for the New Testament, he believed that the apostle Paul’sletter to Philemon was not a parallel case with modern fugitive slavelegislation. Nelson asserted that the apostle was merely sending backa relative who had probably defrauded or wronged Philemon andwas not to be understood as a charter for a draconian slave code.Proslavery arguments were, in Nelson’s opinion, a grotesque perversionof scripture for unholy ends and were conducive to the spread ofinfidelity. He alleged that the disciples of Voltaire and Paine rejoicedto ‘see the heaven-robed Christianity of Jesus deformed to a bloodydemon with a slave-whip in one hand, and a perverted Bible in theother’. Nelson further claimed that the slave-owners knew that the biblewas antislavery; and so they often refused to allow slaves to read it lestthe slave learn of his God-given rights which the chattel system robbedhim of.115

Nelson warned proslavery advocates to be careful in appealing to thebible for justification of their system, in case it proved too much: ‘laynot your sacrilegious hand for this purpose on the word of the Eternal,lest it be on that passage, whosoever stealeth a man and selleth him, orif he be found in his hand, shall surely be put to death’.116 Americanslavery was deemed to be a form of man-stealing, condemned in the

112 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 2.113 Ibid., 2, 4, 19.114 Colin Kidd, The Forging of Races: Race and scripture in the protestant Atlantic world,

1600–2000 (Cambridge, 2006), 139.115 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 20.116 Ibid. Nelson is referring to Exodus 21:16.

92 daniel ritchie

Old Testament as a capital offence. Little wonder then that Nelson,appealing to the example of late church of Scotland evangelical AndrewThomson, demanded that every professing christian offer their slavesunconditional and immediate emancipation. This did not mean that allties between masters and their former slaves needed to be severed, asNelson was quite happy for the slaves to remain as waged servants oftheir masters.117 Nevertheless, the principle that other human beingswere mere chattels had to be immediately abolished.

Such a system violated biblical anthropology as it blurred thedistinction between man and beast and treated men as if they werenot rational creatures with moral obligations to God with a heaven tobe won and a hell to be shunned. Slavery treated men as somethingless than made in the image of God, and was a condition that Godcould not inflict upon man. Even in hell God does not violate men’smoral constitution but makes them feel that their condition is the resultof ‘violated law and neglected responsibility’—something which wouldnot be possible if men were to be treated as chattels. For this reasoncomparisons between the condition of slaves in the southern states withthe destitute in Ireland and the Highlands of Scotland were superficial,as the essence of slavery’s evil lay not in the amount of work that theslaves were required to do or the amount of food that they were given toeat. Instead, the real essence of slavery’s wickedness lay in ‘denying toman the rank of a rational, intelligent, accountable creature, reducinghim from the class of intelligent, moral agents, to the class of brutes,chattels, things’.118

To demonstrate that he was not erecting a straw-man, Nelson citedJudge George M. Stroud’s assessment that ‘the cardinal principle ofslavery is, that the slave is not to be ranked among sentient beings,but among things. That he is an article of property, a chattel personal,obtains as undoubted law in all the slave States’. He also quoted theslave code of Louisiana, which decreed that a slave ‘can do nothing,possess nothing, nor acquire anything but what must belong to hismaster’.119 In light of this Nelson rejected as ‘silly’ the attempt todistinguish between slavery and holding men as chattels. This was owingto his notion that the chattel principle was the very heart and soul ofslavery and that without it slavery, as defined by American legislation,could not exist. Nelson, therefore, concluded that the attempt todistinguish between slaveholding and chattel slavery was made in orderto fulfil an agenda—otherwise no-one would have attempted to makesuch impossible and absurd distinctions. The implication was that theFree Church leaders were so desperate to justify their conduct that they

117 Ibid., 4–5; I. Whyte, Scotland and the Abolition of Black Slavery, 1756–1838 (Edinburgh,2006), 179–209.

118 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 3, 5–6.119 Ibid., 5; cf. Boston Courier, 9 Feb. 1843; G. M. Stroud, A Sketch of the Laws Relating to

Slavery in Several States of the United States of America (Philadelphia, 1827), 22–3.

antislavery orthodoxy 93

would latch on to any argument, no matter how irrational, in order todig themselves out of the hole in which they found themselves.

As for philanthropic arguments in favour of holding slaves becausethey could not take care of themselves, Nelson pointed to FrederickDouglass as one who could soon tell them how much effort masters hadmade for the slaves advancement. Moreover, he denied that any manwas compelled to be a slaveholder and appealed to the existence of freeblacks in various slave states as proof that this argument was fallacious.In relation to the suggestion that slaves could not be set free lest itseparate husbands and wives, Nelson dismissed this by arguing thatthere was no real marriage among slaves anyway and that the churchesin America were countenancing wholesale fornication and adultery. Somuch so, that the southern part of the American union was ‘one giganticbrothel’.120

Nelson was alarmed at the inconsistency of the Free Church leaders.He could not fathom how men so jealous of their own liberty, whowere the descendants of those who fought for freedom at Bannockburnand Bothwell Brig, could then clasp the hands of slaveholders. Nelsonsurmised that slavery, having robbed men of their God-given rights,was an invasion of Divine prerogatives. The men who defended theAmerican slaveholders were the same people who had bemoaned theinvasion of the ‘crown rights of the Messiah’ during their controversywith the British state, and yet here they were supporting a system whichreduced fellow christians to mere chattels. Was it not an invasion ofChrist’s crown rights that this system suffered christians to be treatedas ‘marketable commodities, bought and sold in the land of revivals’?Thus Nelson concluded that proslavery apologists were degradingchristianity to the point that they lowered it ‘below Mahommedanism,which forbids to keep a brother Mussulman as a slave’.121

He considered it a tragic irony that the Free Church deputationhappened to be in America at the same time as the Revd CharlesT. Torrey, ‘a pious devoted, laborious, evangelical minister’ waslanguishing in prison, where he subsequently died, for assisting slaves toescape. In Nelson’s opinion the men who ‘judicially murdered’ Torreyhad now laid down their garments at the feet of the Free Church,which served to illustrate graphically the pernicious effects of the FreeKirk’s conduct.122 It would have been better, Nelson suggested, forthe Free Church deputation to have been hounded out of America,like George Thompson, because then they would have been hated byslaveholders but blessed and prayed for by the slaves.123 While Candlishand Cunningham would have been perfectly safe in the United States,

120 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 7, 15.121 Ibid., 2–3, 7, 19.122 Ibid., 3; cf. Anti-Slavery Reporter, May 1846, 69; 1 Jun. 1846, 89.123 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 12. This comment was made in response to derogatory

comments against Thompson in the Free Church Magazine, May 1846, 146; FreeChurch Magazine, Jun. 1846, 167; cf. C. D. Rice, ‘The anti-slavery mission of

94 daniel ritchie

anyone who proclaimed Andrew Thomson’s doctrine of immediateemancipation would probably have endured the same fate as the RevdElijah Lovejoy, a presbyterian minister and former Princeton student,who was killed by a proslavery mob in Illinois in 1837.124 Here Nelson’sanalysis was somewhat unfair, as Cunningham had received letters fromAmerican presbyterians complaining about the Free Church deputies,Burns and Lewis, protesting against slavery.125 On the other hand, itshould be remembered that it was not Cunningham who was protesting.While virtually all other British churches were refusing fellowship totheir sister denominations which connived at slavery, Nelson claimedthat the Free Church alone had given them succour by reiterating grossmisrepresentations of scripture and apostolic practice.126

Nelson did not accept the supposition that the American churcheswere making any real efforts to promote emancipation. Instead hebelieved that ‘[t]he pulpit, the Church, the gospel, as preached in thatwretched land, have given their strength to the beast.’ He drew thesame conclusion which the New School theologian Albert Barnes hadreached, that the moment the church withdrew its countenance fromslavery the system would fall to the ground.127 To substantiate thisproposition Nelson referred to a vast array of evidence from proslaverydivines in order to highlight the reality that the American church wasa huge obstacle to emancipation. For instance, he cited the claim ofThomas S. Witherspoon of Alabama that holding heathens in bondagewas biblically sanctioned.128 Nelson noted that this did not say muchabout the effectiveness of American missions when they apparentlyhad three million pagans on their own soil. He then referred to acongregationalist, Professor Moses Stuart of Andover Seminary, and amethodist, President Wilber Fisk of the Wesleyan University, to showthat the American divines thought that the system was legislated for inscripture.129

In addition to the proslavery sentiments of the Old Schoolpresbyterians, Nelson also found similar attitudes among the NewSchool presbyterians. Although the New School synod of Cincinnatihad disciplined the Revd W. A. Graham in 1844 for holding proslavery

123 (Continued) George Thompson to the United States, 1834–1835’, Journal of AmericanStudies 2 (1968) 13–31.

124 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 13; cf. M. L. Dillon, The Abolitionists: The growth of a dissentingminority (New York, 1979), 93–7.

125 Rainy and MacKenzie, William Cunningham, 210–12; Honeycutt, ‘WilliamCunningham’, 168.

126 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 12–13.127 Ibid., 7–8; cf. Albert Barnes, An Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery (Philadelphia,

1846), 383–4.128 Cf. Birney, American Churches, 38; Liberator, 27 Jun. 1835; 24 Jan. 1845.129 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 8; cf. S. S. Foster, The Brotherhood of Thieves: Or, a true picture

of the American church and clergy (Boston, 1844), 45.

antislavery orthodoxy 95

opinions, the general assembly of 1846 restored him.130 Nelson arguedthat the tone of the debate on that occasion was a frank display of theproslavery dogmas of the Americans and a marked contrast with thesophistries recently uttered in Scotland.131 This is perhaps surprisingbecause it has sometimes been thought that the abolitionism of theNew School side contributed to the split with the Old School party in1837–8. However, Nelson’s point appears to lend weight to the view thatif slavery had any role in that controversy, it was more as a backgroundissue.132

Writing to Chalmers in March 1845, James Lennox argued that‘[b]efore the division, the New School party in the North were strongabolitionist men. Since the disruption they as a body have cooleddown very much.’133 Perhaps their abolitionist zeal was more of anidentity marker between them and their Old School opponents priorto the schism, rather than something based on strong convictions. JohnMcKivigan argues that after the schism both Old and New Schoolpresbyterian church authorities sought to avoid antislavery gestureswhich might offend their southern membership.134 This would suggestthat slavery was not fundamental to the split or else the New Schoolwould not have had proslavery members. In light of this it should notbe thought that theological conservatism equated with conservatism onthe slavery issue.135 Moreover, Nelson felt the need to correct thosewho sympathised with the Old School presbyterians and who mayhave thought that they were ‘sounder on the subject of slavery thantheir brethren of the New School’. This comment serves as furtherconfirmation that theological conservatives were to be found in theranks of the abolitionists, and Lennox admitted to Chalmers that therewere some abolitionists among the Old School presbyterians, albeit asmall minority. Nelson, however, was disappointed to say that the OldSchool presbyterians were even worse in their proslavery opinions.136

During a debate over breaking off correspondence between the OldSchool general assembly and the Free Church in Canada in 1846, itwas suggested that they might also have to cease corresponding withthe Free Kirk and the presbyterian church in Ireland. In response,R. J. Breckinridge argued that this was unnecessary, because ‘[t]he

130 North American and Daily Advertiser, 27 Sep. 1844; Easton Gazette, 2 Nov. 1844; PublicLedger, 25 Nov. 1844; Oberlin Evangelist, 24 Jun. 1846, pp 101–3; Oberlin Evangelist,22 Jul. 1846, 118.

131 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 8–9.132 G. M. Marsden, The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience: A case

study of thought and theology in nineteenth-century America (New Haven, 1970; Eugene,2003), 93–103.

133 Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 530 (J. Lennox to T. Chalmers, 27 Mar. 1845).134 McKivigan, Proslavery Religion, 101.135 See Daniel Ritchie, ‘Radical orthodoxy: Irish covenanters and American slavery, circa

1830–1865’, Church History 82 (2013) 812–47.136 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 10; Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 530 (J. Lennox to T.

Chalmers, 27 Mar. 1845).

96 daniel ritchie

Free Church of Scotland occupies precisely the same ground thatwe do’.137 Nelson’s point in citing this was to show that while theCanadian Free Church had been cut off by the Old School Americansfor their faithfulness on the slavery question, the Scottish Free Kirkhad become yet another bulwark of slavery in the United States.Moreover, Nelson believed that other American churches, whetherepiscopalian, Roman catholic, unitarian, methodist or quaker, wereoverwhelmingly prejudiced against black Americans, citing variouscases of racial discrimination, segregation and opinions in favour ofslavery. Much as he abhorred their views, Nelson said he would ratherdeal with such men than with the sophistries of their apologists inScotland.138 Although not every argument Nelson employs may beright, his conclusion that the American churches were often proslaveryand overtly racist does appear to be sound. Hence the equivocation andwishful thinking of the Free Kirk leaders was a delusion.

IV

When Nelson returned to Scotland in May 1847, in order to attend theannual general meeting of the Free Church Anti-Slavery Society (priorto the approaching general assembly later that month), he resumedhis attack upon the American churches and congratulated the societyfor what they had achieved in such a short space of time.139 However,the Glasgow Argus had published an editorial earlier in the monthwhich admitted that the agitation to get the Free Church to return themoney ‘has almost, if not altogether, subsided’.140 The Americans werenot exactly shamed into contrition by the Free Church’s exhortations,because in a letter dated 26 May 1847 they referred the Free Churchto the anti-abolitionist letter that they had addressed to the Irishpresbyterians the previous year.141 In response to this the Free ChurchAnti-Slavery Society argued that the unwillingness of the Old Schoolpresbyterians to even take heed to the mildest rebuke of Americanslavery demonstrated that they were morally bankrupt. Moreover, sincesome speakers in the Old School general assembly had regarded theFree Church’s remonstrance as abolitionist in sentiment, the likes ofCunningham, Candlish and Duncan were essentially viewed as of thesame species as the abolitionists.142 Hence all the sophistries of theFree Kirk fathers were in vain, notwithstanding the claim of the FreeChurch Magazine that their refusal to call for the excommunication ofslaveholders would increase their influence with the Americans.143

137 Anti-Slavery Reporter, Oct. 1846, 137, quoted in Nelson, Slavery Supported, 11.138 Nelson, Slavery Supported, 11–12.139 Glasgow Argus, 17 May 1847; Edinburgh Evening Post, 19 May 1847.140 Glasgow Argus, 6 May 1847.141 Witness, 7 Jul. 1847.142 Sinfulness of Maintaining Christian Fellowship, 29–30; cf. National Era, 17 Jul. 1847.143 Free Church Magazine, Apr. 1848, 126.

antislavery orthodoxy 97

In 1848 the Free Church sent another letter to the Old Schoolpresbyterians, assuring them that they would no longer ‘intrudeour opinions and sentiments’ concerning slavery upon them.144 Inresponse, the Free Church Anti-Slavery Society passed two resolutionsat its annual general meeting in 1848, condemning the letter asunsatisfactory while pledging to continue to protest against thegeneral assembly’s position.145 James Standfield of the Belfast Anti-Slavery Society recognised that the general assembly’s letter essentiallyamounted to an official admission of defeat on the part of the FreeChurch, which had decided that because sinners were offended athaving their faults pointed out that they should cease from reprovingthem. Standfield’s letter, however, was also an admission that theantislavery agitation had failed in its objectives with respect to theFree Church, as that body continued to hold fellowship with a churchwhich ‘admit[s] to the Lord’s table men stealers, cradle plunderers,and women whippers’.146 The cause of abolitionism in the Free Kirkwas weakened by the collapse of the Free Church Anti-Slavery Societyand the subsequent removal of Michael Willis and James MacBeth toCanada. Hence it is no surprise that the money was never returned tothe Americans.147

A number of factors probably contributed to this failure, includingthe anti-sabbatarianism of some abolitionists (which was viewed aspotentially reducing the working-classes to the status of slaves) andWright’s theories of non-resistance and anti-clericalism—all of whichwould have offended the sensibilities of orthodox presbyterians.148

Other distracting factors would have included the destitution in theHighlands, where the Free Church was heavily involved in reliefwork.149 Additionally, the abolitionists’ willingness to court working-class support was judged by Duncan Rice to have been a factor in thesubsequent vendetta against MacBeth by the Free Kirk leaders.150 Andthe widespread mourning that followed Chalmers’s death on 31 May1847 would not have helped the abolitionists’ cause.151

Owing to the bitterness caused by the Disruption, there was alsoa culture of defensiveness on the part of the Free Church leadersthat seems to have made them unreceptive to constructive criticismfrom other christians.152 This was an age of crusades and campaigns,when the language of denunciation was stretched to its limits.153 Early

144 North Star, 21 Aug. 1848.145 Dundee Courier, 12 Jul. 1848.146 Belfast Commercial Chronicle, 6 Nov. 1848; North Star, 1 Dec. 1848.147 Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, 146; Finlayson, Unity & Diversity, 100.148 Witness, 24 Oct. 1846; Free Church Magazine, Nov. 1847, 337–8.149 T. M. Devine, The Scottish Nation: A modern history (London, 2012), 415; Brown, Thomas

Chalmers, 367–9.150 Rice, Scots Abolitionists, 143; Rice, ‘Scottish Factor’, 331–2.151 Cf. Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, 138.152 Brown, Thomas Chalmers, 344.153 A. C. Cheyne, Studies in Scottish Church History (Edinburgh, 1999), 117.

98 daniel ritchie

Victorian bellicosity was not conducive to building bridges betweenopposing parties. In such a context, reasonable debate was perhapsunlikely to get a fair hearing and even though Nelson’s anti-Free Churchspeech was fairly moderate in tone, we should not be surprised thatit did not convince his antagonists. In the end one is forced to agreewith Sandy Finlayson that in the midst of this unfortunate episode theFree Church did itself no favours, nor did it do much for the cause ofemancipation.154

In terms of the controversy’s long-term impact, Professor Rice,reflecting some contemporary opinion in Scotland, concluded thatthe Free Church’s insistence on maintaining fellowship with theslaveholding churches strengthened proslavery feeling in the Americanchurches.155 Professor Shepperson concluded that the ramifications ofwhat began as a simple gesture by a Scottish church highlights thatno ecclesiastical institution is an island. The repercussions of the FreeChurch’s laxity encouraged the ideological justifications for slavery inthe United States and thus can credibly be seen as a significant event inthe lead up to the American civil war.156

Although the Free Kirk was antislavery in the abstract, its failureto disassociate itself from proslavery churches suggests that rhetoricagainst vice that is not accompanied by ecclesiastical censure iseffectively useless.157 After attending the Old School general assemblyat Louisville in 1844 George Lewis concluded that ‘the destruction ofslavery in the South will not be gradually accomplished . . . The handof violence will alone accomplish the ejection of this great nationalevil’.158 He was right, yet the churches must take some responsibilityfor bringing this situation about, as they gave the system the sanctionof ecclesiastical protection. Writing in 1863, Nelson pointed out thatthe arguments of Free Church ministers in defence of the christianity ofslaveholders were very similar to the form of argumentation employedby the proslavery clergy in the Confederate States of America. Thus heconcluded that the Free Church was bound to acknowledge its formermistake by removing ‘from its records those specimens of baptizedsophistry which once misled it, and that blood-stained money receivedfrom slaveholding churches should now be returned, with interest, toeducate in better principles the mourning orphan’.159

Appealing as it is to look back upon the heroic Free Church of theDisruption, Nelson’s involvement in the protest against its positionon fellowship with slaveholders serves as a corrective to romanticisednotions of this era as a golden age in Scotland’s ecclesiastical past.

154 Finlayson, Unity & Diversity, 100.155 Rice, ‘Scottish Factor’, 343; Dundee Courier, 16 May 1849.156 Shepperson, ‘Free Church’, 143.157 Cf. Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, 153–4.158 Lewis, Impressions, 298; Shepperson, ‘Thomas Chalmers’, 519.159 Nelson, American War, 30–1; Address to Christians Throughout the World by the Clergy of

the Confederate States of America (London, 1863), 16.

antislavery orthodoxy 99

Dr Pettinger makes a fair point in insisting that the Free Church’s refusalto break fellowship with the Americans cannot be reduced to a cynicalattempt to justify accepting their money, but was based on genuine hopethat the presbyterians in the United States would be a means of doingreal good for the slaves. This does not, however, excuse the Free Kirk’sactions. He is also right to note the naivety of the Free Church leadersin assuming that American presbyterians were mere victims of lawsmade by others and that they seriously underestimated the propagandavalue for the slaveholders’ cause in receiving the Free Kirk’s support.160

Despite the attempts of Robert Rainy and James MacKenzie to explainaway Cunningham’s error of judgment, the conduct of the founders ofthe Free Church clearly reveals that they were men who laboured underinfirmities common to all.161 Although he could have done more todistance himself from the extremism of certain American abolitionists, itis to Nelson’s credit that he was willing to stand against men for whomhe had considerable respect in order to highlight the truly grievousnature of their error.

160 Pettinger, ‘Send back the money’, 47–8.161 Rainy and MacKenzie, William Cunningham, 218–21.