1

Mennonites and Tunkers: Silent Abolitionists of the Old South

By Reed Miller

Published by Reed Miller

Copyright 2009

Centreville, VA

Reedmiller31@verizon.net

Reed’s web site -

http://shalomcommonwealth.blogspot.com

2

The Mennonites and Tunkers(Brethren) are well known for being two

of the only Christian denominations with clear teachings against the

bearing of arms in war. The denominations' pacifist teachings extend

far back, to their beginnings as Anabaptist groups in and around

Germany during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century.

Mennonites and Tunkers believe that Christ forbid all Christians from

participating in war by teaching that the greatest commandment was to

"love thy neighbor as thyself." This belief, in fact, led members of

the denominations to flee war-plagued areas like Germany, Switzerland,

and the Netherlands in the hopes of finding a lasting peace in the

United States. Many of the Mennonites and Tunkers, of course, were

also attracted to the United States by the religious freedom there,

which was guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Once in America, however, conflict seemed to follow the earliest

of Tunker and Mennonite settlers. The Revolutionary War struck their

new nation in 1774, followed shortly by the War of 1812. The real

test of the denominations' pacifist teachings, however, came during

the Civil War, when the first national conscription acts were adopted

by the Confederate States of America and the U.S. Tunkers and

Mennonites in both the South and North were forced to petition their

congressmen for exemptions from military service on the basis of

religion. The South, however, had also long provided a special

challenge to Tunker and Mennonite doctrine which culminated in effect

during the Civil War. This special challenge was the issue of

slavery.

How, it should be asked, would denominations which believed that

people should "love thy neighbor as thyself" feel about the

3

institution of slavery? Would the denominations ban the institution

from their churches, or would they find some other Biblical

justification for slavery, as many other Christian denominations did?

Did the denominations really believe in loving their neighbors, or did

they draw a color line under which only certain neighbors were

qualified to be loved? The answer to these and other questions are

important because the answers may or may not add two groups to the

list of Americans who had the courage to speak out against slavery

during the 18th and 19th Centuries. This list of Americans is

collectively known as the abolitionists, and they worked long and hard

to make the morality of slavery an issue on the scene of national

American politics. It is the purpose of this paper, therefore, to

discover the Mennonites' and Tunkers' doctrines on the issue of

slavery, and if possible to make a judgement whether or not the

Mennonites and Tunkers should be classified as abolitionists.

The position of the Tunkers on slavery, surprisingly, was clearly

defined for church members by the time of the Civil War. The church's

position had been established by the religious denomination at least

since 1782, although it went through many changes before being

finalized in 1845. The Tunkers, by tradition, hold an annual

denominational meeting to discuss important issues which have caused

debate within individual churches during the preceding year. The

meetings are congresses at which church policy is debated, and then

decided upon by vote. It was at these annual meetings that the Tunker

position on slavery was defined. Since 1778, minutes have been kept

of the meetings, and the great majority of these records have survived

to this day.

The earliest written example of the issue of slavery being

4

discussed at an annual Tunker meeting can be found in 1782. A

decision on the issue of slavery, in fact, is the only one recorded

within the minutes that year. The minutes state, "It has been

unanimously considered that it cannot be permitted in any wise by the

church, that a member should or could purchase negroes, or keep them

as slaves."1 Furthermore, the minutes continue: But concerning Brother John Van L., who had bought a considerable time since a negro wench and the same has given birth already, during that time, to four children by fornification, it is the united and cordial counsel of the brethren that the said Brother L. shall let the old negroe wench go free from this time on ... 2

John Van L. is later advised that if the negro woman does not wish to

leave Van L.'s family, Van L. is to free her and then enter into a

contract with her for wages. The Tunkers, therefore, had indeed taken

a stance against slavery in America at least as early as 1782 when the

stance was recorded in the minutes of their annual meetings.

The negro woman's children are also not left out of consideration

by the denominational meeting of 1782. The minutes record Van L. is

to "have them schooled," and then to "give the children free at the

age of twenty-one years."3 This consideration is unusual for the

times since very few Americans advised the education of African

Americans, and some states were creating laws to prohibit it. Even if

the case of John Van L. took place in northern states which were

gradually seeking to abolish slavery from the mid-1780's on, however,

northerners rarely sought to provide freed slaves with an education.

1    ?Minutes of the Annual Meetings of the Church of the Brethren (Elgin, Il. : Brethren Publishing House, 1909), 7.

2    ?Ibid., 7.

3    ?Ibid., 7.

5

There seems to have been, therefore, an element of sympathy for the

plight of African Americans present within the Tunker denomination

which was rarely seen among other segments of the white population.

Further evidence of this sympathy will be presented throughout the

course of this paper, along with a discussion of a Mennonite sympathy

along similar lines. Finally, the paper will seek to address whether

or not the Tunkers and Mennonites in Virginia deserve to be classified

as abolitionists because of their sympathy for the plight of black

Americans, or if the denominations somehow fell short of this

classification despite their sympathy.

First, however, it is necessary to trace the steps of a Mennonite

and Tunker immigration into Virginia which may have affected the two

denominations' views of slavery. A large immigration of Tunkers into

Virginia began in 1775 or 1776, just after a Tunker named John Garber

was sent from Pennsylvania to Virginia to "scout out the land."4 The

immigration was caused by the fact that the Tunkers were trying to

escape religious persecution in Pennsylvania and Maryland, where state

laws had been passed against people dissenting from the Anglican

faith. An old Tunker letter records that by the year 1787, at least

45 families had migrated from Pennsylvania and Maryland into the

Shenandoah Valley.5

Mennonite immigration into Virginia followed much the same route

as Tunker immigration, but began at a far earlier date. The

Mennonites began immigrating from Pennsylvania into Virginia in 1728.

Their immigration was apparently sparked by William Penn's death in

4    ?D.H. Zigler, A History of the Brethren in Virginia (Elgin, Il. : Brethren Publishing House, 1908), 30.

5    ?Ibid., 41-42.

6

that same year. When Penn died, his sons had inherited his land, and

immediately restricted the availability of land grants within

Pennsylvania. Large tracts of land, however, were still available in

the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, and this attracted Mennonites to

immigrate into the state.6 The Mennonite immigration lasted into the

first quarter of the 18th century. It is also clear, however, that

for both the Mennonites and Tunkers, a small immigration explosion

occurred just after 1785, when the Virginia General Assembly passed

the "Statute of Religious Freedom."7 By the year 1800, therefore,

both the Mennonites and Tunkers had substantial populations within

Virginia.

At the annual Tunker meetings during and after the immigration,

the issue of Tunkers owning slaves once again became a topic of

discussion. This is perhaps not surprising, since a large portion of

the Brethren denomination in the United States had just migrated into

a state with a slave economy. Since the invention of the cotton gin

in 1793, in fact, slavery had become more widely accepted in Virginia

and the rest of the South, as slave-owners felt more blacks were

needed to feed the increased capacity of the textile industry.

Although Virginia itself was a tobacco state, it too had adopted a

greater acceptance of slavery because tobacco was a labor-intensive

crop. Any further justifications offered for slavery such as the

cotton demand, consequently, were welcomed by many Virginians.

More importantly for this discussion is the fact that the South's

justifications for slavery may have had an influence on the Mennonites

6    ? Harry A. Brunk, History of Mennonites in Virginia 1727-1900 (Staunton, Va. : McClure Printing Co., 1959), 10.

7    ?Zigler, Brethren in Virginia, 36.

7

and Tunkers who immigrated to Virginia. Although it had already been

decided that the Tunkers would not own slaves, for example, the

question of whether they could or not was again raised at an annual

Tunker meeting held in Blackwater, Virginia in 1797. In the minutes

of the 1797 meeting, the official Tunker position on slave-owning is

again restated, but with one important change. The minutes reiterate

that: "It was considered good, and also concluded unanimously, that no

brother or sister should have negroes as slaves; and in case a brother

or sister had such, he (or she) has to set them free."8 The minutes,

however, go on to record that the time at which the slave children in

a Tunker's possession are to be set free has been changed from the

1782 minutes regarding slavery. The minutes record that: "if they

(the slaves) have children, they shall stay with the brother as

servants until they are twenty-five years old; he is to have them

taught reading and writing, and then bring them up in the fear of the

Lord, and when they enter on their twenty-sixth year, to let them go

out free with a good suit of clothing (frei kleid)."9 The release age

of slave children, therefore, has been changed from 21 years old in

1782 to 25 years old in 1797.

Although it can never be proven absolutely, the change of release

age may have reflected the influence of southern sentiment upon Tunker

thought. The changing of the release age from 21 to 25, after all,

would allow southern planters to keep their slaves an extra four

planting seasons. The change may even have been a ploy, therefore, to

make the Tunker church more attractive to southern planters. Some

proof of this hypothesis does exist, and it comes from the minutes of

8    ?Brethren Minutes, 18.

9    ?Ibid., 19.

8

the same Tunker meeting during which the release age of slaves was

changed.

At that same meeting in 1797, a question was asked not just about

the release age of slaves, but about what to do with slave-owning

citizens who desired to become members of the Tunker church. The

minutes of the meeting record the answer: And in the case a person is drawn by the grace of God, who has negroes, and desires to be received into the church, then it is to be laid before him before being received by baptism into the church, that it is the brotherly and united counsel that brethren and members having negroes for slaves, and thinking that they could not at once emancipate them, may hold them so long as the nearest church may deem that they had earned the money (the slaves cost), and then, according to the counsel of the church, to let their slaves go out free ... "10

The issue of the release age of slaves and the issue of what to do

with slave-owners requesting church membership appear to be

interconnected at the 1797 meeting. The issues both are written upon,

in fact, in "Article 1" of minutes, as if they were one and the same

issue. It is entirely possible, therefore, that a southern slave-

owners had applied to become members of the Brethren denomination, but

had objected to the release age of 21 as being too early. The

Tunkers, upon hearing this objection, yielded to southern sentiment by

making the release age later. They hoped that this would make the

Tunker denomination more attractive to potential southern members.

Further evidence of the possibility the release age was changed

to make the Tunker denomination more attractive to southerners can

again be found in the meeting of 1797. The answer given to the

question on what to do about slave-owners wishing to join the church,

10    ?Ibid., 19.

9

after all, states that the owners may keep their slaves "so long as

the nearest church may deem that they had earned the money (the slaves

cost), and then, according to the counsel of the church, let their

slaves go out free ... "

The Tunkers, in other words, were trying to accommodate slave-owners

who did not want to automatically release slaves who were over 25 upon

the slave-owner's entry into the church. This new measure

accommodated these slave-owners by allowing them to keep their slaves

until they had regained the money originally spent on the slaves. A

measure requiring an automatic release of slaves, of course, would

have turned away many a southern planter from the Tunker denomination.

Overall during the annual meeting of 1797, therefore, it is clear

that the Tunkers changed church doctrine to accommodate southern

opinion. Southern sentiment had become an influence on the

denomination because many of its members immigrated into Virginia and

either accepted a new morality, or desired to make the church more

attractive to southerners. It must also be remembered, however, that

the Tunkers were still one of the only groups in the South against

slavery, and possibly the only group advocating the education of slave

children. The Tunkers, in fact, restate their opposition to slavery

forcefully at the end of the 1797 discussion on slavery, almost as if

to say we have made concessions to southern opinion, but we are still

a strong anti-slavery group. The last sentence of the discussion

reads: "Further it is considered, if a brother, contrary to this

conclusion, would purchase negroes, and would not emancipate them, he

would have to be considered as disobedient, and we could have no

fellowship with him until he sets them free."11

11    ?Ibid., 19.

10

* * *

From the meeting of 1797 until the Civil War, the subject of

slavery comes up periodically at the Tunkers' annual meetings. Some

of the decisions at the meetings reflect little change in Tunker

opinion, while other decisions appear more momentous in the evolution

of Tunker doctrine. In 1813 at an annual meeting, the age for the

release of slave children is reversed back to the age of the 1782

decision, but with one small exception. Males are to be released at

the age of 21 again, while females are to be released at the new age

of 18.12 The release age of females, in other words, was three years

younger than the age had been in 1782.

There are probably a couple of different reasons this

unprecedented change in the release age of females could have taken

place. The first reason might be that the females married at an

earlier age than the males, and therefore were considered to have

reached an adult age earlier. This reason, however, is unlikely when

compared with the second possible reason. The better reason for the

change of the release age of females to a lower age than that of the

males is the males were more valued as agricultural workers. There

was probably a movement within the denomination to lower the release

ages of slaves, but since the males were more valued in the field,

their release age was kept higher than the females' age. At the

denominational meeting of 1813, therefore, the Tunkers had once again

hardened their stance against slavery by lowering slave release ages

overall, but the higher release age of males reflected that southern

opinion still held a large influence at denominational meetings.

The hardening of Brethren attitudes against slavery continued

12    ?Ibid., 31.

11

until the Civil War. In 1835 at an annual meeting held in Cumberland

County, Pennsylvania, for example, an important question was asked of

a white church. The question was whether or not African Americans

might be allowed to join the denomination. Article twelve of the

minutes records the answer: It was considered, that inasmuch as the gospel is to be preached to all nations and races, and if they come as repentant sinners, believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and apply for baptism, we could not consistently refuse them ... if they prove faithful, they should be considered on an equality of full membership.13

African Americans, therefore, were not only welcomed to join the

church in 1835, they were offered the equality of a full membership.

This fact may not be that remarkable, however, because at the time,

many white churches in the South offered blacks memberships.

One can assume that since a full membership was offered to the

blacks involved with this query, the blacks must have been allowed to

come and worship with white church members in Tunker meeting houses.

This assumption is confirmed by what is written later in article

twelve of the 1835 meeting. The article records that: "inasmuch we

receive our fellow members with the holy kiss, and there is a

repugnance in some of our white members to salute colored persons in

this manner, the colored members should bear with that weakness, and

not offer the kiss to such weak members until they become stronger,

and make the first offer, etc."14 It is clear, therefore, that the

Tunkers did indeed plan on allowing black church members to worship

with whites. It is also clear, of course, that the Tunkers were not

devoid of some racist attitudes, but the fact that the Tunkers

13    ?Ibid., 60.

14    ?Ibid., 60.

12

welcomed blacks into their churches as early as 1835 demonstrated they

were opening their hearts to other races. The Tunkers had shown a

unique sympathy for the plight of African Americans by considering the

holy kiss publicly, which was not common among white churches at the

time.

At an annual meeting held in Roanoke, Virginia in 1845, the

Tunkers continued to step-up their opposition to slavery. At this

meeting, a query was raised regarding whether or not Tunkers could

hire slaves from their owners for temporary work. Many historians,

such as Samuel Horst and D.H. Zigler, have noted Brethren and

Mennonite farmers used to sometimes hire slaves from their owners to

plant and harvest. At meeting of 1845, however, the Tunkers decided

this practice went against the Bible. The minutes of the meeting

state: "In regard to hiring slaves, (it is) considered but little

better than purchasing and holding slaves, and that it would be best

for a follower of Jesus Christ to have nothing at all to do with

slavery."15 The Tunkers, therefore, began taking steps in 1845 to

limit the practice Horst and Zigler noted.

The issue of whether or not to accept African Americans into the

denomination is also is once again discussed at the meeting. It is

decided that Blacks are to be accepted as members of church if they

request membership and are repentant, as before, but this time it is

highly recommended by the elders of the church that white members

welcome blacks with the holy kiss. The minutes record that: ... if colored persons are once received as members into the church, the members should be at liberty to salute them (kiss them) in the like member as white members, at the same time having patience with those who may be weak in the faith, and can not do so. The assembled elders, however, consider it as the more perfect way, to which

15    ?Ibid., 85.

13

we should all strive to come, viz., that love, which makes no distinction in the brotherhood in this respect. (See James 2: 1-10.)16

The biblical reference in the minutes refers to a passage in which

James warns the early church against favoritism being given to any

group or tribe among them. James writes that God has proven the poor

are often richest in faith, and therefore advises church members to

treat others as they themselves would like to be treated. The

Tunkers, quite similarly, are advised to strive to give black church

members the holy kiss, and to show no favoritism towards whites. The

meeting of 1845, therefore, had seen two important additions to Tunker

beliefs regarding race relations - they were not to hire slaves, and

they were to give blacks the holy kiss.

At the annual meeting of 1853 in Beaver Dam, Maryland, a new

problem comes up regarding the issue of slavery, one which at first

appears very strange. The new question raised is: "How shall any

branch of the church proceed, in case an individual wishes to become a

member, who is in possession of a slave or slaves, and the law of the

State in which they reside is such that they cannot manumit them in

safety, without transporting them beyond its limits ... ?"17 How, in

other words, are Tunkers to free slaves and guarantee some measure

safety to the newly freed African Americans? The question appears

strange because by 1853 the Tunkers had been freeing slaves for 70

years; why hadn't such a question come up sooner?

The answer to these questions concerns the Fugitive Slave Law.

In 1850, the Fugitive Slave Law had been passed as a portion of the

Compromise of 1850. The compromise allowed California into the Union

16    ?Ibid., 85.

17    ?Ibid., 135.

14

as a free state; created Utah and New Mexico as territories in which

the question of slavery was to be determined by popular sovereignty;

ended the slave trade in Washington D.C.; and created the Fugitive

Slave Law. The Fugitive Slave Law itself made it easier for southern

planters to have runaway slaves captured and returned. Federal

commissioners, in fact, were appointed to accomplish just this task.

The commissioners issued warrants, gathered posses, and forced

citizens to aid in catching runaway slaves under penalty of fine or

imprisonment.

The problem which made freeing slaves unsafe, however, was that

the federal commissioners quickly became corrupted. A commissioner

was paid five to ten dollars per case, so he could stand to make a

small fortune if he simply created the runaway cases himself. Many

free blacks were kidnapped by planters, commissioners, and other

collaborating whites. The blacks were then sold back into slavery by

the commissioners, who received their five to ten dollar fee.

The question for the Tunkers, therefore, was how to keep their

former slaves from being kidnapped after they were freed. It was

decided that the issues involved in this matter were "too important"

to decide upon at one annual meeting, and so a special committee was

set up to study the issues and report on them at the next annual

meeting.18

During the meeting of 1854 in Ashland County, Ohio, a decision

was reached by the committee on the matter of freedman safety. The

decision comes in two parts. First of all, it is restated that "under

no circumstances can slavery be admitted into the church."19 Just

18    ?Ibid., 135.

19    ?Ibid., 143.

15

because freedmen are being kidnapped and sold into slavery, in other

words, it does not mean that the Brethren can condone slavery within

their denomination to protect slaves. Secondly, the decision adds a

new requirement on how the Tunkers are to emancipate slaves. The

minutes state: All of those over and above these ages (21 and 18), when manumitted, are to be paid by their former owner such a sum, either in money or goods, as may be judged right by the church in which the case may occur ... as a compensation for their services over age. This will enable the manumitted to migrate to a land of liberty, and will relieve the conscience of the liberator from the burden of taking with him to the bar of God the wages of oppression."20

The Tunkers, in other words, had come up with a way to help their

former slaves reach the slave-free states of the North. They would

pay their ex-slaves money for services rendered by the freedmen after

they had been set free, and hopefully this money would allow the

freedmen to travel north safely. In the meeting of 1854, therefore,

the Tunkers had both rejected the possibility of allowing slavery

within their church to "protect" blacks, and had given their freedman

a way to travel north safely.

The final question on slavery raised at the annual Tunker

meetings came in the midst of the Civil War. The year was 1863, and

the meeting was held at Clover Creek Church in Blair County,

Pennsylvania. The question is one which might have been expected

during a time of heated sectional division over union and slavery.

The query at this meeting asked, "What should be done with a brother

that would preach that slavery was right according to the Scriptures,

20    ?Ibid., 143.

16

and cause discord among the brethren?"21

The question is answered as follows: "Inasmuch as the brethren

always believed, and believe yet, that slavery is a great evil, and

contrary to the doctrine of Christ, we consider it utterly wrong for a

brother to justify slavery, either in public or in private, and that

he should be admonished, and if obstinate, shall be dealt with

according to Matt. 18."22 Matthew 18 states that if there is a

brother who sins against the church, he is to be brought before two or

three of his fellow church members, who are to try to show him the

error of his ways. If the sinner will not listen to the advice,

however, Matthew states that the sinner is to be treated as if he were

"a pagan or a tax collector."23 Anyone preaching in favor of slavery

who will not stop it upon advice from his or her fellow church

members, therefore, is to lose their membership in the Tunker church.

Overall, the Tunkers' stance against slavery had existed at least

since 1782, and possibly before an annual Tunker meeting held that

year. It is impossible to know whether or not the stance existed long

before that year because the Brethren minutes only go back to 1778.

The position against slavery was softened in 1797 due to the

immigration of a large number of the Tunkers into Virginia, but was

once again hardened in 1813 when the release age of slave children was

dropped back to ages 21 and 18. In 1835 blacks were allowed full

memberships in the Tunker churches, and in 1845 the temporary hiring

of slaves was forbidden. The Tunkers, in other words, demonstrated a

21    ?Ibid., 219.

22    ?Ibid., 219.

23    ?The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, Mi. : Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1978), 826.

17

consistent pattern of sympathy for the plight of African Americans

which was rare among white Virginians during the first half of 19th

century. The denomination even went so far as to encourage their

members to greet black church members with the holy kiss, an act which

flew against the dominant mores of the South.

* * *

The Mennonite position on slavery is less clear than the Tunker

position, although it is clear that slavery was opposed by the

Mennonites both before and during the Civil War. The reason the

Mennonite position is less clear is because the denomination did not

keep minutes of its biannual conferences until April of 1860. It is

stated at the beginning of the available minutes that church elders

said the Mennonites held annual or semiannual conferences from 1835 to

1859, but no records exist of these meetings.24 The elders also

stated that it was during these pre-war years of 1835 to 1859 that the

Mennonites first took a firm stand against slavery. Better evidence

of the Mennonite stance against slavery, however, can be found within

the existing minutes of the Mennonite conferences kept after 1860, and

within the memoir of a church member who lived during the Civil War.

At a Mennonite conference held in April 1864, a question was

asked regarding whether or not the Mennonites could temporarily hire

slaves. The answer to this question reveals the overall position of

the Mennonites on the issue of slavery. The minutes record that: Decided since it is against our creed and discipline to own or traffic in slaves; it is also forbidden for a brother to hire a slave unless such slave be entitled to receive the pay for such labor by the consent of his owner. But where neighbors exchange labor, the labor of slaves may be received.25

24    ?Minutes of the Virginia Mennonite Conference (Scottdale, Pa. : Mennonite Publishing House, 1939), 1.

18

The Mennonites, therefore, could not own slaves, but could hire slaves

under certain conditions. The first condition was if the money a

Mennonite would normally have paid the slave's master was paid to the

slave instead. The second condition was if a Mennonite was borrowing

slave labor from a neighbor in return for labor the Mennonite himself

had rendered to the neighbor. The Mennonites do not appear as

staunchly opposed to slavery as the Tunkers were because the Tunkers

had not only outlawed all hiring of slaves, but accomplished it 19

years earlier in 1845.

The fact that the Mennonites had "decided since" that it is

against the Mennonite creed and to "own or traffic" in slaves,

however, does display a sympathy for blacks which was rare in the

South. The denomination had also made the unusual requirement of

church members to pay the slaves and not the slaves' masters when they

hired temporary work. In this way, the Mennonites would not be

helping the institution of slavery to profit, but instead be paying

the slaves themselves. It is less clear why the Mennonites could

exchange their labor for slave labor, since the slaves' masters would

profit in the form of receiving Mennonite labor.

The most important phrase for this discussion contained within

the answer on hiring slaves, however, is the statement which says the

Mennonites had "decided since" that they could not own or traffic in

slaves. This phrase in itself may allow an approximate date to be

established for the beginnings of the Mennonite position against

slavery. The phrase indicates the Mennonites had decided sometime

before the 1864 conference to take an anti-slavery position. There is

no mention of an anti-slavery position in any of the conference

25    ?Ibid., 6.

19

minutes before 1864, however, indicating the Mennonites had taken a

stance against slavery sometime before the minutes began being kept in

1860. It is very likely, therefore, that the Mennonites had taken an

anti-slavery position prior to the Civil War, just as the Tunkers had.

Another firm indication the Mennonites had taken a position

against slavery prior to the Civil War comes from a personal memoir

written by Peter S. Hartman. Hartman was a Mennonite who lived in

Rockingham County, Virginia when the Civil War erupted. He was in

constant jeopardy of being drafted by the Confederacy because he had

come of age during the war, and fled north with General Philip

Sheridan after his raid on the Shenandoah Valley in 1864. Hartman

went on to become a prominent member of the Mennonite church, and was

the primary advocate in the founding of Eastern Mennonite High School.

Towards the end of his life, Hartman wrote down his memories of the

early 1860's in a document entitled Reminiscences of the Civil War.

At the beginning of Hartman's memoir, the author takes the time

to explain the Mennonite position on slavery so the reader can have

some background before he elaborates on the experiences of the

denomination during the war. Hartman writes, "The Mennonite church

away back, almost one hundred years ago, at least, was opposed to

slavery and would not allow any of the members to hold slaves, neither

would it allow them to hire any unless the slaves themselves would get

the money."26 He continues, "The Mennonites could exchange work with

slave work, but did not hire or own slaves. Slavery was a great evil

and I believe I shall give you a couple of instances."27 Hartman,

26    ?Peter S. Hartman, Reminiscences of the Civil War (Lancaster, Pa. : Eastern Mennonite Associated Libraries and Archives, 1964), 5.

27    ?Ibid., 5.

20

therefore, confirms what was written about slavery in the Mennonite

Conference's minutes. The Mennonites could not own slaves, but could

hire them under certain circumstances.

Furthermore, Hartman writes the Mennonite church decided to

prohibit slavery "almost one hundred years ago." Considering the fact

that Hartman's memoir had to be written before his death in 1934, his

statement would put his projection of when the Mennonites prohibited

slavery at least as early as 1834, and possibly before. It is clear

therefore, that between the evidence presented in the minutes of the

Virginia Mennonite Conference and the evidence presented in Hartman's

memoir, it can be determined the Mennonites had taken a firm stance

against slavery prior to the Civil War.

Hartman himself shows a bit of the Mennonite sympathy held for

African Americans by trying to show within his memoirs why he believed

slavery to be unjust. Hartman writes that slavery was a "great evil,"

and that he wished to provide a "couple instances" to demonstrate how

this evil worked. The first instance Hartman gives is of a neighbor

and roadmaster named Mr. Harrison who owned slaves. One day, Hartman

reports that he saw Mr. Harrison hit a slave so hard he knocked the

slave over, and into a fence.28 On another nearby farm, Hartman also

witnessed the whipping of a slave. He describes the event as follows: I happened to be close by, when for some reason, unknown to me, he (the foreman) got mad at this slave, ran to a horse and unbuckled a leather line, folded it up, and walked up to this slave and thrashed him like a horse. I didn't even hear him grunt; he just took it all and did not say a word.29

The author, therefore, takes the time within a memoir primarily on the

28    ?Ibid., 6.

29    ?Ibid., 6.

21

Civil War to illustrate the evils of slavery. Most of the memoir is

about the Mennonites' struggle to get an exemption from military

service in the Confederate Army, so it can be seen that Hartman

thought it of an extra importance to show his fellow Mennonites the

evils of slavery. This act by Hartman, in fact, provides tangible

evidence the Mennonites had a sympathy for black Americans which was

unique in the South.

* * *

One question which comes up if the stances of Tunkers and

Mennonites against slavery are considered, is what exactly was the

nature of the denominations' resistance to slavery? Was the

resistance vocal or quiet? Was it locally disruptive, or locally

invisible? Very few historians have noted the Mennonites' and

Tunkers' resistance to the peculiar institution in the South, and none

have documented the nature of this resistance, so the question seems

like a pertinent one to answer.

One way in which to consider this question is to try to determine

the number of black church members each denomination had before the

Civil War. If either denomination actually had black members, after

all, the fact would have been a visible demonstration to the local

populations that the denomination had liberal attitudes regarding

race. The question of vocal demonstrations against slavery will be

discussed later.

Evidence which suggests blacks joined the Tunker denomination

does exist in various resources. First of all, as mentioned earlier,

a query was brought before the annual meeting of the Brethren in 1835

concerning whether or not blacks could join the denomination. The

Tunkers decided blacks could receive the "equality of a full

22

membership."30 This fact suggests that at least one black applied for

and received membership at that time, and possibly a great deal more.

Brethren historian Freeman Ankrum, in fact, has indicated his research

led him to believe there were already black church members in Maryland

by 1835, although Ankrum does not indicate how he arrived at this

conclusion.31 It is possible Ankrum believed this just on the basis

of hearsay.

The next solid proof of an African American being received as a

member of the Brethren church comes in 1843. In that year, a freed

slave named Samuel Weir was baptized in Virginia by Tunker minister

Peter Nead.32 The story of Samuel Weir has become a famous one among

the Brethren. Weir had originally been the slave of Andrew McClure's

family in Bath County, Virginia. When McClure and his wife applied to

join a Tunker church in the region, however, the McClures were told

they would have to set Weir free. The McClures complied with this

requirement, and Weir was so impressed by his emancipation, and the

fact that the McClures gave him material assistance upon his release,

that Weir applied to join the local Tunker church as well.

Weir went on to become a prominent member of the Tunker church in

Ohio. In August of 1849, the former slave applied to open a Tunker

mission for African Americans in Frankfort, Ohio.33 Weir was approved

to open this mission, but had to labor until 1865 before he registered

his first official black converts. In 1872, Weir was approved to

30    ?Brethren Minutes, 60.

31    ?Freeman Ankrum, Sidelights on Brethren History (Elgin, Il. : The Brethren Press, 1962), 92.

32    ?Ibid., 75.

33    ?Ibid., 75.

23

conduct the baptism and marriage ceremonies for the Tunkers, and in

1881, he was ordained to the position of church elder. The story of

Samuel Weir, therefore, is not just the story of one black church

member, but the story of a church member who sought to bring other

blacks into the Brethren denomination. He began his church membership

in Virginia, and then moved to Ohio where he became a successful

Tunker minister.

The story of a black man named John T. Lewis is similar to that

of Weir. Lewis, like Weir, was impressed with the teachings and

actions of the Tunkers as a young man. In 1853, at the age of 18,

Lewis became a member of the Tunker church in Pipe Creek, Maryland.34

Stories about Lewis have become famous like those of Weir. The first

reason for Lewis' fame is that in 1877 Lewis made a daring rescue of

Mrs. General Charles Langdon, her daughter Julia, and a family nurse.

The three women were trapped in a carriage pulled by a runaway horse

in Elmira, Maryland, and Lewis leapt from his own carriage into the

runaway carriage to save them. The second reason for Lewis' fame is

that through his contact with the Langdons, he became a lifelong

friend of writer Mark Twain. Twain, in fact, once wrote on the back

of a picture of Lewis: The colored man ... is John T. Lewis, a friend of mine. These many years - thirty-four in fact. ... I have not known an honester man nor a more respect-worthy one. Twenty-seven years ago, by the prompt and intelligent exercise of his courage, presence of mind and extraordinary strength, he saved the lives of three relatives of mine, whom a runaway horse was hurrying to destruction. Naturally I hold him in high and greatful regard.35

34    ?Ibid., 118.

35    ?Ibid., 119.

24

The stories of Samuel Weir and John T. Lewis are but two examples

of blacks who joined the Tunker denomination before the Civil War.

They are, in fact, the well known stories, which indicates there were

probably other blacks who joined the denomination as well. Further

evidence of black members in Tunker churches comes from the

denominational decision in 1845 that Tunkers should welcome black

members with the holy kiss. This fact indicates, like the decision to

allow black members in 1835, that at least some blacks applied to

become members of the denomination and were accepted. The Tunkers,

therefore, had indeed made a statement against slavery before the

Civil War by providing a visual example of their liberal attitudes

towards race which could be seen by other whites. It is not clear,

however, whether or not the Tunkers purposefully did this to try to

influence other whites. It is also not clear whether or not there were

many black church members in Virginia, since Samuel Weir himself left

the state and moved to Ohio. Weir, it was rumored, said he left

Virginia because he felt the local population would not give him a

chance to establish a good life.36 Virginia may have provided a

climate which was not very hospitable to black freedman.

Regarding the Mennonites, little to no evidence exists showing

their denomination had black members either before or immediately

following the Civil War. The minutes of the Virginia Mennonite

Conference do not record that any questions concerning black

membership were discussed before, during, or immediately after the

war. This does not mean, however, there were no black church members

before the Civil War, but it does make the possibility less likely.

One written document which can be considered besides the

36    ?Ibid., 75.

25

conference minutes when looking for evidence of black members in the

Mennonite church is a report the Confederate War Department made when

72 Mennonite and Tunker men were arrested for allegedly trying to

escape north during the Civil War. Sydney S. Baxter of the

Confederate War Department wrote the report, and no where in it does

he mention there were any blacks with the Mennonites and Tunkers when

they were arrested. The report read: I have examined a number of persons, fugitives from Rockingham and Augusta Counties, who were arrested at Petersburg in Hardy County ... One of the main tenants of those churches is that the law of God forbids shedding human blood in battle and this doctrine is uniformly taught all their people. As all these persons are members in good standing in these churches and bear good characters as citizens and Christians, I cannot doubt the sincerity of their declaration; that they left home to avoid the militia and under the belief that by the draft they would be compelled to violate their consciences.37

Baxter went to conclude that: "All of them are friendly to the South

and they express a willingness to contribute all their property if

necessary to establish our liberties. ... I recommend that all the

persons in the annexed be discharged on taking the oath of allegiance

and agreeing to submit to the laws of Virginia and the Confederate

States in all things except taking arms in war."38

The fact that Baxter does not mention the Mennonites and Tunkers

as having black men with their party when they were arrested is

important because one would suspect that if this were the case, Baxter

would almost certainly would have mentioned it because the fact would

37    ?Sydney S. Baxter, "Report on the Mennonites and Tunkers, March 31, 1862" Letters Received, Confederate Secretary of War, National Archives, 444-B-1862, Record Group 109.

38    ?Ibid., 444-B-1862, Record Group 109.

26

have appeared suspicious to the Confederate War Department. Baxter,

in fact, does not even mention the Mennonites' and Tunkers' stances

against slavery. He instead portrays the Mennonites and Tunkers as

"friendly to the South," and willing to contribute to the Confederate

cause. The War Department representative appears not to have

discovered during his interviews that the two denominations were

opposed to the southern institution. By no means, of course, does

such a simple analysis of Baxter's report rule out the possibility

that there might have been black members in the Mennonite churches of

Virginia, but it does shed some additional doubt upon the idea.

Furthermore, the report also adds doubt to the idea that the Tunker

churches of Virginia had black members.

* * *

If the Mennonites and Tunkers of Virginia had few and possibly no

visual examples of their liberal attitudes regarding race in the form

of black members, the question must be asked of whether or not the two

denominations were making any verbal protests against slavery to

Virginians? The two groups most certainly were making verbal protests

to slave owners who applied for membership within their denominations,

but did they actually preach to the general public against slavery?

Were they a group of southern abolitionists? The report by Sydney S.

Baxter indicates that some of the Tunkers and Mennonites did not even

mention their beliefs against slavery when they were arrested in May

of 1863. This fact alone, however, does not prove the denominations

were not trying to persuade the general public of the evils of

slavery. A more in-depth approach must be taken to arrive at this

conclusion.

One piece of evidence that the Mennonites and Tunkers were not

27

very vocal regarding their views against slavery comes from a series

of letters written by Tunker elder John Kline. Kline was a Tunker who

was appointed to negotiate with the Confederate government during the

Civil War, but he also took up the causes of the Mennonites in his

letters and meetings. The two denominations, in fact, fought side-by-

side for an exemption from military service in the Confederate army.

They both believed the Scriptures prohibited killing one's fellow man,

and they had both descended from Anabaptist groups in Germany which

had similar anti-war teachings.

Kline's letters were an attempt by him to convince first the

Virginian government, and then the Confederate government to give the

denominations exemptions from conscription acts. The amazing thing

about the letters for this discussion, however, is their entire text

is spent explaining the two denominations' anti-war positions, and

then elaborating on the loyalty of the two groups. No where in

Kline's descriptions of the denominations does a mention of their

positions against slavery appear. It appears as if Kline, in fact,

did not want to mention the denominations' anti-slavery positions

because he was trying to convince the Confederate government the two

denominations were completely loyal. The Tunker elder did not wish to

jeopardize the denominations' chance for an exemption from military

service.

One example of Kline's letters reads as follows, and is printed

in its entirety so the reader can judge Kline's intent: Bowman's Mill, Rockingham County, Virginia July 23, 1862.

Much esteemed friend Col. John Baldwin: I seat myself in behalf of my Brotherhood, the German Baptists, so called Tunkers, to drop a few lines in order to give you a correct view of our faith toward our God, and in consequence of that, our

28

unpleasant standing in and under our government which we now live. As there is now a session of Congress of the Confederate States on hand of which you are a member and the representative of our immediate district, I wish to enlist you to advocate our cause in that body. I wish to be as short as possible. I will, therefore, at once inform you that we are a noncombatant people. We believe most conscientiously that it is the doctrine taught by our Lord in the New Testament which we feel bound to obey. Having made in our conversion a most solemn vow to be faithful to God in all his commandments, it is and should be regarded by us as the first in importance and above all made by man to man or to earthly government. Hence we feel rather to suffer persecution, bonds, and death than break the vow made to our God. Yet as touching things and obligations, which in our view do not come into conflict with the law of God, in whatever way our government may demand of us we feel always ready and willing to do. Such as paying our dues and taxes imposed upon us and assisting in internal improvements, our profession binds us to do. Paying unto the government that which is due it, but that which is due to God we wish to give to him. Through his Son and the apostles, he says `recompense to no man evil for evil.' To him we feel to render obedience and therefore are bound not to take up carnal weapons to destroy our fellow man whom he teaches us to love. We have noticed that those who have been made prisoners and paroled, their oath is regarded by the government. They are let alone and no one presses them into the army. This obligation is only made to man. Why then should not that solemn obligation be regarded by our government, which we have made to our God without any earthly interest whatsoever? Why not leave that class of men at their homes who can not, for conscience sake, make soldiers to kill others, that they may make provisions for the sustenance of life, which is as necessary to any government as soldiers? It seems that the late Conscript law made by the Confederate Congress, whether so intended or not, is made use of to overrule or nullify our state law. This law was made by our State legislature to exempt us from military duty provided each one pays a tax of $500 and two per cent on all taxable property. This, though as oppressive as it is, we were willing to pay, hard as it went with some. Now as we are informed through the above cited conscript act of Congress, we are again to be troubled. Our rights given to us by our kind legislature, for which we have paid so dearly, is to be made null and void. Please use all your powers and influence in behalf of us, so that the Conscript law or all other Confederate laws be so constructed that Christian conscience be so protected that the south shall not be polluted with bloody persecution. We as a people try to be as little burdensome to the government as possible. We believe that all the precepts and ordinances of our Lord should be equally regarded and should be practically obeyed according as given to us by the Master. We believe it be our duty, but of love,

29

to contribute to the poor and needy, and consequently we maintain our poor members and let none of them become dependent upon the country parish. These are some of our tenants given in general terms. In brief, we take the New Testament for our guide and Jesus Christ the man of our religious faith. Please give this, our request, a candid consideration. At least so much as to write to me your opinion. If we can not get protection of our Christian liberty in the south, the home of our nativity, we will be compelled to seek shelter in some other place, or suffer bonds and persecutions as did many of our forefathers. For we can not take up carnal weapons of warfare and fight our fellow man to kill him.

Yours with highest esteem, John Kline39

The letter, as can be seen, focuses primarily on the stance of

the Tunkers against making war on one's fellow humanity. An example

of Kline writing for the Mennonites will be given shortly to show how

they were portrayed. The key to this letter, however, is that no

where in it does Kline mention the Tunkers' stance against slavery.

On the contrary, the Brethren are portrayed as citizens with perfectly

normal southern opinions except for the fact they won't take up arms.

The Tunker elder even writes: "Why not leave that class of men at

their homes who can not, for conscience sake, make soldiers to kill

others, that they make provisions for the sustenance of life, which is

as necessary to any government as soldiers?" Kline, in other words,

is offering Tunker assistance to grow produce and raise livestock for

the Confederate government, which they actually did throughout the

course of the war. The elder also makes another offer of assistance.

He writes, "Yet as touching things and obligations, which in our view

do not come into conflict with the law of God, in whatever way our

government may demand of us we are always ready and willing to do.

Such as paying our dues and taxes imposed upon us and assisting in

internal improvements, our profession bind us to do." Kline, 39    ?Zigler, Brethren in Virginia, 115.

30

therefore, attempted to portray the Tunkers as completely loyal to the

Confederacy in his letter to Col. Baldwin, while at the same time

managing to avoid mentioning the Tunker's anti-slavery position.

The trend of trying to portray the Tunkers and Mennonites in the

most mainstream light possible continued in other Kline letters. One

such letter was written to the editor of the Rockingham Register on

April 15, 1862. The letter is particularly important because in it,

Kline attempts to defend the Mennonites and Tunkers against Register

accusations that the two groups contain "Union Men." The letter reads

as follows, and is again written in its entirety so the reader can

judge its intent: Large Jury Room, Court House of Rockingham, Virginia. April 15, 1862. Mr. Editor of the Register: In your issue of the 11th inst. I see an article headed Union Men Taken. In the article several names are mentioned who are known to have strong Union proclivities. Otherwise, the article made no nominal charge against us, which of course, it was out of your power to do but the article carries with it a strong insinuation as though we had used our influence against the Confederacy. If this has been so, why not come out and point to the place where, or when and what the act, or deed, and if this cannot be done, which I know it can not, then why shut us up in the gaurdhouse? Why make such false insinuations against good and innocent citizens, and publish them to the world? Why contrary to the constitution take up men without their accusers making affidavit that the thing charged was to their knowledge true? But all that is now necessary, is for some vague fiend to raise a falsehood and tell it to some of his captains who have no better principle than themselves, and law and constitution is at an end. If this is the kind of laws that we are contending for, then may the Lord save us from it. But I think by the quivolous movement so far transacted there has been more done to make Union men and against the South than all the influence of the Union men ever did, because they were inactive. This influence is active: 1. Because near all those men that are taken are known to be innocent. 2. It shows to the world that those who are engaged in arresting such men on nothing but falsehood and misrepresentation are acting under a cowardly fear of being overcome.

31

3. It is keeping all such out of employment and usefulness at home, preventing them from making provisions for man and beast. 4. It is keeping just so many men out of the army as are engaged in guarding those and weakening the army that much. 5. It makes a considerable expense upon the government which all could be avoided, besides that many other privledges and usefulness to both their families and neighborhoods.40

The letter from Kline to the editor of the Register clearly

denies the accusation that the Brethren are disloyal to the South.

Kline admits there are a few Union men who are members of the Brethren

church, but say these Union men have been "inactive." He also says

the Tunkers had not used "influence against the Confederacy," and

challenges the Register to provide any evidence of this accusation

against them. To reinforce the idea of Tunker loyalty, Kline makes

several statements at the end of the letter to show how the Tunkers

were providing aid to the Confederacy. One statement is: "It is

keeping all such out of employment and usefulness at home, preventing

them from making provisions for man and beast." This statement, of

course, refers to the fact that the Tunkers were growing food for the

use of the Confederate government. Another statement is that the

Tunkers provide "usefulness to both their families and neighborhoods."

No where in the letter, again, does Kline mention the Tunkers' views

against slavery. The Tunker elder instead portrays the denomination

in the most loyal light possible.

One of the best examples of Kline's attempts to show the loyalty

of the Mennonites and Tunkers comes from a petition he wrote to the

Confederate Congress in April 1862. The petition was an effort by the

two denominations to get the Confederate Congress to pass a religious

40    ? John Kline, "30 letter Kline received, ca. 1861" Special Collections, Alexander Mack Memorial Library, Bridgewater College, Va.

32

exemption from the nationwide conscription act, since the

denominations had already been exempted from Virginia's state

conscription act. Kline's petition starts out by once again

explaining the nature of the two denominations' religious objections

to war. "The undersigned members of the Tunker and Mennonite Churches

in the State of Virginia ... ," Kline writes, "established Creed or

faith of our churches, against bearing arms. This doctrine is coequal

with the foundation of our Churches, and is we think and feel, the

Command of God."41

Later in the document, however, is where Kline makes a concerted

effort to address the issue of Tunker and Mennonite loyalty. "It may

not be amiss to state here," the elder writes, "that under the

excitement of the hour, indiscreet, and inconsiderate persons have

preferred the charge of disloyalty against our Churches. This charge

has not the semblance of truth, in fact, and has doubtless originated

from our faith against bearing arms."42 Kline, therefore,

specifically tried to fight off the charge of disloyalty in a document

signed by both the Tunkers and Mennonites. The petition, in fact, was

the document which helped the Confederate Congress push through the

Confederate Exemption Law for religious objectors on October 11, 1862.

Once again, however, Kline did not mention the two groups he

represented were out-of-line with the Confederate government's

policies regarding slavery. The Tunker was not being untruthful, but

did seem to be following a policy of not telling the Confederate

government what they didn't ask. In this way, Kline managed not to

endanger the possibility that the two denominations might receive an

41    ?Zigler, Brethren in Virginia, 119.

42    ?Ibid., 119.

33

exemption from the Confederate Conscription Act.

The nature of Mennonite and Tunker opposition to slavery as

represented in John Kline's letters, therefore, seems to have been a

quiet opposition to the institution. The two religious groups did not

preach to the public concerning the issue, and did not exhort the

public to take the same position which they themselves had taken. The

Tunkers and Mennonites, in short, did not want to jeopardize the

safety of their families and community by taking a strong public

stance against slavery. They instead handled the issue of slavery

within their own denominations, and according to their own separate

denominational doctrines. This, of course, did not prevent the

occasional potential member from learning a church's creed on slavery,

but it probably did prevent the churches from receiving widespread

accusations of disloyalty to the South.

There are a couple other pieces of evidence besides the letters

of John Kline which support the hypothesis that the Tunkers and

Mennonites maintained only a quiet opposition to slavery. The first

piece of evidence comes from the personal notes of Kline. At one

point during the notes, in September 1856, Kline writes about a

meeting held at Linville Creek Church in Rockingham County. The

meeting was called to decide what to do about a few local church

members who had not complied with the denominational order in 1854 to

free slaves.43 Kline writes in his notes that the meeting decided

slavery was "a very delicate matter to act upon in the present

sensitive condition of public feeling on slavery."44 He concludes,

"But it is the aim of the Brethren here not to offend popular feeling,

43    ?Ibid., 88.

44    ?Ibid., 88.

34

so long as that feeling does not attempt any interference with what

they regard and hold sacred as their line of Christian duty."45

Kline, therefore, actually wrote in his notes that it was Tunker

policy not to be so vocal about their anti-slavery position as to

offend public opinion. The Brethren were instead going to treat the

issue quietly unless their church policies were interfered with from

the outside.

The second piece of evidence that the Mennonites and Tunkers were

not very demonstrative about their anti-slavery positions comes from a

series of articles written about the two denominations in the

Rockingham Register. The articles were written during the Civil War,

and fluctuate between claiming the denominations were loyal or

disloyal to the Confederacy. The most interesting thing about the

articles for this discussion, however, is that one of them reveals the

editors of the Register discovered the Tunkers' position against

slavery, but were given non-provocative reasons for the position by

the Tunkers. The Tunkers, in fact, claimed they had only banned

slavery within their churches for economic reasons.

A Register article which appeared on May 17, 1861 eventually lead

to the editors' discovery that the Tunkers were against slavery. The

article is titled "To The Polls: To The Polls!," and focuses on who

will vote for and against secession in Rockingham County. The only

groups who are mentioned within the article as possibly being traitors

to the Confederacy are the Mennonites and Tunkers. The article

states: We have heard that some of our peaceful, orderly, law- loving fellow-citizens, the Germans (Mennonites and Tunkers), will vote against it, or not vote at all. They have a right to do this, of course, and we hope

45    ?Ibid., 88.

35

they will do it, so that their names and their record will be committed to posterity. We would like the world to know who is true and loyal to Virginia now, in this day of her trial and her struggle for liberty and independence.46

The two denominations, therefore, are encouraged to cast votes against

secession so the local population will know they are disloyal. In the

next article in that same newspaper, interestingly enough, the editors

write what should be done with traitors. "They should be hung as high

as Haman."47

The Tunkers apparently took offense at the remarks made against

them in the May 21 issue of the newspaper, and invited the newspaper's

editors to come to their annual meeting held at Beaver Creek Church in

Rockingham County. The article which results from the editors' visit

is the one in which the Tunkers state their only objection to slavery

is an economic one. The Tunkers also add, interestingly enough, that

the Virginian Tunkers have no link to the abolitionists of the North.

The article reads as follows: Let no man question the loyalty of their State and section of the Tunkers living in the South. As a matter of economy, their Church has nothing to do with our peculiar institution, but they interfere with nobody who sees proper to hold slaves. ... They have no sympathy with abolitionists and abolitionism; and their brethren from the free States will have to let this delicate subject alone when they come to see them, or they will be openly rebuked. In our intercourse with with the intelligent members of the ministers of the Church at Beaver Creek, we heard more than one express his disapprobation of the course of the abolitionists in the Church in the Northern and Western States.48

46    ?"To the Polls: To the Polls!," Register (Rockingham), 17 May 1861, front page.

47    ?"Beware of Traitors," Register (Rockingham), 17 May 1861, front page.

48    ?"The Tunkers," Register (Rockingham), 24 May 1861, front

36

It appears the Tunkers of Virginia, therefore, had a policy which

required them to "interfere with nobody who sees proper to hold

slaves." This policy, however, seems to have been different from that

held by Tunkers in the northern and western states, who are described

as "abolitionists in the Church" of whom the southern Tunkers

disapprove.

This new information raises the question, of course, of whether

or not the Tunkers in Virginia actually allowed some of their members

to own slaves? The Tunker ministers of Beaver Creek Church did, after

all, tell the editors of the newspaper they did not interfere with

anybody who owned slaves. Something else the ministers said, however,

indicates the Virginian Tunkers did not hold slaves. The ministers

said the Tunkers of the South did not own slaves out of "a matter of

economy." The Beaver Creek ministers, therefore, were explicitly

trying to justify why the editors of the Register did not see southern

Tunkers with slaves.

A second question comes up from this new information as well, and

it is whether or not the Tunkers of Virginia primarily had economic

objections to slavery as they claimed? Evidence suggests the

Virginian Tunkers' objection to slavery was based primarily on moral

and Scriptural bases, and not on an economic basis at they told the

Register's editors. This evidence comes from the minutes of a meeting

held prior to the Civil War at Linville Creek Church in Rockingham

County. The meeting was not an annual denominational meeting, but was

instead a meeting of Tunker church representatives from the counties

page.

37

of Virginia.49

The Linville Creek meeting was held on March 2, 1855 to discuss

how to enforce a denominational decision to make sure all slaves were

freed passed at the denominational meeting the year before. The

minutes of the meeting show that the Tunker churches of Virginia had

Scriptural and moral objections to slavery, but does not record

economic objections. The minutes read that: We, the Brethren of Augusta, Upper and Lower Rockingham, Shenandoah and Hardy counties having, in general council meeting assembled in the church on Linville Creek; and having under consideration the following question concerning those Brethren that are holding slaves at this time and who have not complied with the requisition of Annual Meeting of 1854, conclude 1. That they make speedy preparation to liberate them either by emancipation or by will, that this evil may be banished from among us, as we look on slavery as dangerous ... and as a great injury to the cause of Christ and the progress of the church. ... Furthermore, concerning Brethren hiring a slave or slaves and paying wages to their owners, we do not approve of it.50

The Brethren of Virginia, therefore, had taken it upon themselves to

band together and follow the advice of denominational meetings to end

slavery in all Tunker churches. Furthermore, they had banded together

not because of a matter of economy, but because they felt slavery was

"a great injury to the cause of Christ." The Tunkers of Virginia

undoubtedly felt that slavery violated the teachings of Christ found

in the Scriptures, and were morally outraged by this fact. If they

had an economic objection to slavery, they did not mention it at this

meeting, and surely it took a secondary position to the Scriptural

objection of a Christian church.

49    ?Zigler, Brethren in Virginia, 87.

50    ?Ibid., 87.

38

A question which ultimately comes up as a result of reading the

minutes of the Linville Creek meeting in 1855, consequently, is why

did the ministers of Beaver Creek Church later tell the editors of the

Register that the Virginian Tunkers had only an economic objection to

slavery? The answer is clear. The Beaver Creek ministers were simply

following the policy the Virginian Tunkers had of maintaining a quiet

resistance to slavery. The ministers did not wish to jeopardize the

safety of their families and communities when asked why Virginian

Tunkers did not hold slaves, so they simply covered up the fact that

the Virginian Tunkers had a moral objection to slavery. This moral

objection, the ministers reasoned, might outrage the editors of the

Register, and cause a negative article to be printed about the

Brethren. The Beaver Creek ministers succeeded in keeping the issue

of slavery within denominational limits that day in 1861.

There is less evidence the Mennonites were following a policy of

not being overtly verbal about their anti-slavery position. Chances

are, however, that since the Mennonites let John Kline represent them

during the Civil War, they had a policy similar to the Tunkers' own

policy on slavery. Kline, in fact, would probably not have

represented a religious group which spoke loudly against slavery

because it would have jeopardized his own denomination's chances for

an exemption from military service.

None of the Virginia Mennonite Conference's minutes reflect

whether or not the Mennonites had an aggressive verbal policy

regarding their anti-slavery position. The minutes do record,

however, that the Mennonites were still allowed to hire slaves under

certain conditions during the Civil War. This fact indicates the

Mennonites' anti-slavery rhetoric was probably not as strong as that

39

of the Tunkers, who had completely prohibited the hiring of slaves in

1845. The Mennonites of Virginia, consequently, probably took an even

quieter position against the institution of slavery than the Tunkers

took.

* * *

In conclusion, the Mennonites and Tunkers of Virginia both took

stances against slavery long before the Civil War, and continued to

hold these positions throughout the duration of the war. The two

denominations believed slavery was wrong according to the teachings of

Christ, and banished it from their churches. The Brethren

accomplished this feat as early as 1782, and possibly before, but no

minutes exist of their annual meetings before 1782 to prove such a

claim. Concerning the Mennonites, it can only be safely determined

that slavery was abolished in their denomination sometime before 1860.

Peter Hartman claimed slavery was banned long before this date, but

little other collaborating evidence exists on the subject.

The Tunkers of Virginia showed an amazing sympathy for the plight

of African Americans which was not commonly found among other whites

of the South. The Tunkers showed this sympathy by requiring slave-

owners to educate their slave children before emancipation, and then

to provide the freedman with new clothes and travel money. The

Brethren also took the step of allowing blacks to become full members

of their churches in 1835. It cannot be determined whether the

Virginian Tunkers followed these policies to the letter, but it can be

determined that the Tunkers enforced the policy requiring slave-owners

emancipate their slaves. This in itself, of course, was no small

accomplishment in a land dominated by pro-slavery sentiment. The

Tunkers, therefore, distinguished themselves from other white

40

Virginians in this regard.

The Mennonites also showed they had a unique sympathy for the

plight of blacks which was not commonly found among other Southerners.

They too had banned slavery within their denomination before the Civil

War. "The Mennonite Church away back," Peter Hartman wrote, "almost

one hundred years ago, at least, was opposed to slavery and would not

allow any of the members to hold slaves. ... "51 Mennonites did not,

however, totally prohibit the hiring of slaves, which may indicate

they were not as staunchly opposed to the peculiar institution as the

Tunkers were. There also is some evidence that Mennonite-hired slaves

received wages for their work, however, which may lesson my claim that

they weren’t as staunchly opposed to slavery as the Tunkers. No

evidence exists that the Mennonites required the education of slave

children, or gave freedmen new clothes upon release.

For both denominations, however, members must have labored under

extreme difficulty to end slavery within their churches in a slave

state. The odds were stacked against the Mennonites and Tunkers

succeeding, and yet both churches attempted to do so before the Civil

War. The Tunkers, in fact, had some fluctuations in their

denominational policy against slavery in the 1790's, probably due to

the influence of southern sentiment. These fluctuations show the type

of opposition the denominations must have been up against. For the

Mennonites, it is much harder to determine whether they had any

fluctuations in their policy against slavery, since the denomination

kept very few records of its activities before 1860. One thing which

can be determined about both groups, however, is they both maintained

quiet stances in their opposition to slavery. This, perhaps, is the

51    ?Peter S. Hartman, Reminiscences, 5.

41

greatest influence southern sentiment had upon Mennonite and Tunker

church practices. The denominations felt it was too risky to take

vocal stances against slavery in the South, so they simply kept their

opposition to slavery within their own churches. The Mennonites and

Tunkers of Virginia, therefore, were abolitionists in the sense of

desiring to see the end of slavery, but were only silent

abolitionists. The lives of their family members were on the line,

and their communities were in constant danger, so they found it often

difficult to publicly condemn the outrage of slavery.

End.