But for [the emancipated slaves] I see no future in this country. Avarice and cupidity and interest will do for their extinction what they have always done for an unprotected inferior race. Poverty, disease, intemperance will follow in their train and do the rest.
Stephen Elliott, May 1866
In February we published (in two parts) an 1862 sermon by the Rt. Rev. Stephen Elliott, bishop of Georgia, that lays out his understanding and defense of slavery as “a divine arrangement.” Elliott placed the godly purpose of slavery at the heart of the Civil War, another historical instrument by which, he believed, the Christian god was advancing his will in the world. God, he explained, “has caused the African race to be planted here under our political protection and under our christian nurture, for his own ultimate designs, and he will keep it here under that culture until the fulness of his own times.”
In Sewanee lore, however, Elliott often is venerated for the ways in which he accepted military defeat and urged his fellow Confederates to reconcile with the Union. The most familiar story used to characterize Elliott in this way was best told by the university’s chaplain Moultrie Guerry and published in the Sewanee Review in 1933:
The … incident occurred on the roof in his home in Savannah, where [Bishop Elliott] took his baby grandson, Stephen, to see an exquisite sunset. Opposite was a Federal arsenal, from the top of which waved the United States flag. The little boy was instantly attracted by the flag, so bright and waving in the gorgeous twilight, and with a cry of pleasure reached out for it. His mother, who was standing by, struck his hands down, saying “No! No! No!”. But the Bishop quickly stopped her. “That is his flag; he will never call another flag his own. Teach him to love it and to be loyal.”
The story, as told, is meant to show Elliott’s wise acceptance of the divine judgment of defeat, his nobility of character and generosity of spirit, all of which could have helped heal the wounded and divided nation had he not died only a few months later.
What Guerry made clear in his account — and other tellers of this story usually leave out — is that Elliott’s new loyalty to the Union was partnered with an undiminished loyalty to the South and the “Lost Cause,” which painted the destruction of the Confederacy as solely a military defeat. “We appealed to the God of Battles, and He has given His decision against us,” Elliott conceded. “We accept the result as the work, not of man, but of God.” However, the righteousness of its pre-war civilization remained undaunted and undefeated in his mind. Even if Elliott accepted the emancipation of some 4 million people in bondage as the will of heaven, but he gave no ground on his belief in the justness of the Confederate cause and the benevolence of slaveholders in raising an “inferior race” out of African barbarism. He further insisted that the enslaved, unless their minds had been “meddled” with by Northern abolitionists and opportunists, had remained “faithful and affectionate” toward their masters throughout the course of the war. The unyielding loyalty of slave to master, Elliott contended, was “the sublimest vindication of the institution of slavery” before the eyes of the world.
Elliott, of course, was profoundly wrong about the unquestioning loyalty of the enslaved. “The ‘faithful slave,” writes historian David Blight, “was of course not a complete fiction. The complex, ambivalent, fearful reaction of many slaves to the prospect of freedom and their often heroic protection of their owners’ property from Union forces all gave some basis to the claim of fidelity. But ignored [in celebrations of slave loyalty] were the myriad ways that blacks joined the revolution for their own freedom.” Most obviously, about 180,000 African Americans, most of them from the slave states, served in the Union military. Even more impressive, an estimated 500,000 to a million slaves bolted from plantations as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Countless others rebelled in less visible ways through acts of sabotage, collaboration with Federal forces, and other stealthy methods of resistance. Unwavering and wishful in his belief in black inferiority, Elliott could not fathom that African Americans freely chose to rebel against enslavement and emancipate themselves.
We conclude our series on this founding bishop “in his own words” with Elliott’s address to the Georgia diocesan convention in 1866. In this speech, Elliott offered his commentary on the war, slavery, race and emancipation so “that the past may be vindicated.” There is no apology in this address — no guilt, as he says — but he did mark out the grounds for a defense and even celebration of slavery and what later would be called the religion of the “Lost Cause.” This defense of the “southern way of life” had as its central plank the assertion that slavery, if rightly brought to an end, had never been evil but a moral and benevolent institution, as attested by the “faithful and affectionate” slaves who stayed loyal to their masters. It was not only possible but also necessary to love both the Union, as he told his grandson, and the lost world of slavery.
Stephen Elliott, Address Before the Fourth Annual Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the Diocese of Georgia, held in St. John’s Church, Savannah, commencing May 10th, 1866.
The emancipation of the slaves, which has practically taken place since our last meeting, has placed the Diocese of Georgia under no new obligations; it has rather freed her from a fearful responsibility. The Church in our Diocese needed no instruction from abroad upon her duty to the slaves within her border. She had always considered slavery as a trust to be held by her until taken out of her hands by permission of the same power who placed it there. Slavery was no institution of her making. Georgia protested against its introduction into her limits again and again, but it was thrust upon her by English and New England cupidity. When thus forced upon her, without her desire, its descent from father to son and its rapid increase make no difference in its guilt, if guilt there was. That still rested upon those who brought it here, following after them to judgment, where it will one day meet them. The duty of the Church was to act under certain circumstances in which she found herself—circumstances not created by herself, but permitted to exist for the trial of her faith and zeal. And wonderfully has she performed her work.
Never, in the history of the world, has there been such a rapid and effective missionary work as the Christian church has performed in this land in connection with slavery. For we must remember that the slaves when brought here, up to a period as late as 1808, were the same savages as our missionaries are now combatting, with so very little effect, upon the coast of Africa; were the same savages as are cutting each other’s throats, day after day, and perpetrating enormities which disgrace humanity, even upon their own soil, even in the very sight of missionary operations. And yet, within the period of two centuries, there has been made out of these savages a Christian people, having a clear discernment of right and wrong, understanding very distinctly the system of our religion, having educated teachers of their own color and their own race; gentle, kind, and, until they are meddled with, faithful and affectionate. The number of communicants in the various churches of the South far exceeds in proportion that of the whites. They had churches of their own in all the large cities, managed by themselves, containing thousands of communicants, and in the rural districts they were visited by missionaries appointed specially for their benefit, or they mingled in the same religious instruction with their owners, eating of the same consecrated bread, and drinking of the same consecrated wine. Their behavior doling the long, fierce war which has now terminated, is the sublimest vindication of the institution of slavery, as it existed among us, which could have been afforded to the world. With years of preliminary agitations about the rights of the slaves and the cruelty and barbarism of the masters; with hordes of deceitful fanatics scattered through the Southern country, some in the guise of teachers, some of peddlers, some of book agents, some of mechanics, and all alike tampering with the slaves; with a war which required the absence of all the able-bodied and the warlike from home; with a proclamation of emancipation sounded in their ear as early as 1862, and summoning them virtually to strike for their rights; with large armies of those who called themselves their friends traversing the country and thundering at their very doors, these people never once lifted their hands or their voices voluntarily against their owners, but with nobody to coerce and restrain them save weak women and infirm men, and boys too young for military purposes, they remained quiet, docile, industrious, obedient, exhibiting in no case, that I have ever heard of, insubordination or disorder. Any cruelty they may have since exhibited, they have learned from other teaching than ours—any barbarism into which they may have since relapsed, they have fallen into after they had passed from under our influence.
Where in the world’s history has there been a case like this of forbearance and quietness where an inferior race has been opposed by a superior, and had the means given it of vengeance? Our own times furnish us two instances in fearful contrast — the one of the ferocity of the French in their terrible overthrow of the Church, the monarchy and the aristocracy; and that of the negroes of St. Domingo, who have furnished to this age a name for everything inhuman and barbarous. One of two things is therefore clear—either that these people suffered no oppression worth the name, or that slavery has produced Christian virtues, through its teaching and discipline, of the most rare and striking character. This aspect of things leads to two important practical results. First, it vindicates the Christian Church in the South from the obloquy that has been poured upon it, as if it was winking at a barbarous and unchristian system, and doing nothing to ameliorate it—a vindication which it ought to have, and which I now lay humbly upon its altar. No people have ever labored more faithfully, more devotedly, with more self-denial, than have Southern Christians to do their best for the slaves committed to their trust. Very many have I known who have given up their lives for their religious instruction — many who have impoverished themselves that their slaves might be comfortable or free. Almost every minister for half a century past has devoted some of his time to these poorer members of his flock, and very many more would have kneeled at our altars, had they not preferred a more enthusiastic exhibition of their feelings than we allowed. I say without any fear of rightful contradiction, that if a slave did not receive religious instruction it was because he did not care about it, or because he was in some remote position, where the whites were as badly off as himself.
The other practical point is that we have no need to change our system of instruction because of his emancipation, or to call in any foreign help to our assistance. The Church in Georgia has always taught the colored race so far as the number of clergymen and the rivalry of other denominations would permit her. We must simply carry on the same plan in the future. We have always had Sunday schools for them; let us continue the same. We have always welcomed them to our churches and altars; let us continue the same. We have permitted them to organize churches for themselves — they have been free as all upon this point; let us continue the same. If those churches are organized as Episcopal churches, we shall be glad to assist them in the way of true goodliness. I see no necessity to change our course for the present; nor do I see that we need any help from abroad in their religious culture. We have Christian men and Christian women in abundance among us, who will undertake any work for the Church. Organize them in your various parishes, and they will do the work more efficiently than any others can.
None understand the colored race as well as we do — none have its confidence as fully as we have. My sincere conviction is that if any future good or blessing is to come for these people, it must be of home growth; it must be the continuation of the same kindly feeling between the races which has heretofore existed. Every person imported from abroad to instruct or teach these people is an influence, unintentionally perhaps, but really, widening the breach between the races. This work must be done by ourselves — done faithfully, earnestly and as in the sight of God. Love must go long with it; gratitude for their past services; memories of our infancy and childhood; thoughts of the glory which will accrue to us, when we shall lead these people, once our servants, but not now as servants, but above servants, as brethren beloved, and present them to Christ as our offering of repentance for what we have failed to fulfill, in the past, of our trust.
But it may be asked, do you regret the abolition of slavery? For myself and my race, No! I rather rejoice in it; but for them, most deeply. I sincerely believe it the greatest calamity which could have befallen them; the heaviest stroke which has been struck against the religious advancement in this land. I would not, if I could, have it restored for any benefit to me or mine, or my countrymen. I have met nobody who would. But for them I see no future in this country. Avarice and cupidity and interest will do for their extinction what they have always done for an unprotected inferior race. Poverty, disease, intemperance will follow in their train and do the rest. I say these things from no ill feeling against the race, for God is my witness, I have loved them and do love them, and have labored for them all my life, but because at this moment I think it my duty to put these opinions upon record, that the past may be vindicated and the future take none by surprise.
Elliott’s address is taken from a reprint in the Weekly Colusa (California) Sun, 8 September 1866, accessible through the California Digital Newspaper Collection, https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=WCS18660908.
Today we publish the second part of the sermon by the Right Rev. Stephen Elliott. Here, in his own words, he defends the institution of slavery as “a sacred trust from God,” the cause the Confederacy was founded to defend and protect, and the cause of the Civil War that had killed more than 200,000 by the time he spoke these words in September 1862. The bracketed numbers in the text here refer to the pages in the published sermon, which may be read in its entirety on this website.
A sermon preached in Christ Church, Savannah, on Thursday, September 18th, 1862, being the day set forth by the President of the Confederate States, as a day of prayer and thanksgiving, for our manifold victories, and especially for the fields of Manassas and Richmond, Ky.
It is very curious and very striking, in this connexion, to trace out the history of slavery in this country, and to observe  God’s providential care over it ever since its introduction. Strange to say, African slavery, upon this Continent, had its origin in an act of mercy. The negro was first brought across the ocean to save the Indian from a toil which was destroying him, but while the Indian has perished, the substitute who was brought to die in his place, has lived, prospered and multiplied. When the slave trade had become so hateful to all civilized nations, because of the horrors which accompanied it, that with one consent it was abolished and put under the ban of the world, that which was supposed to have dealt a fatal blow to slavery proved its salvation and rapid increase. The inability any longer to procure slaves through importation, forced upon masters in these States a greater attention to the comforts and morals of their slaves. The family relation was fostered, the marriage tie grew in importance, and the eight hundred thousand slaves who inhabited these States at the closing of our ports in 1808, have, in the short space of fifty years, grown into four millions! When slavery was once again endangered by the very scanty profits which were yielded to the planters by their old staples of indigo and rice, articles of only partial consumption, God permitted a new staple to be introduced — men called it an happy accident — the staple of cotton, which seems to have no limit to its consumption, and which cannot be increased too fast for the wants of the world. When the border States, which could not profitably grow this staple, were calculating the value of the slave institution for themselves, and were actually debating, in conventions, its speedy extinction, a sudden and unexpected value was given to their old staples of wheat and tobacco — men called it again an happy accident — and the slave rose once again into importance, and God used self-interest to check the disposition towards emancipation. When the false philanthropy of Europe was making many converts to its views, even in the Southern States, and earnest minds were deeply agitated upon the question of the sinfulness of slavery, God permitted a Christian nation to try the experiment of emancipation upon a small scale — to try it in the face of the world — and the wretched and ruinous  result of idleness, of dissipation, of anarchy which followed in the most fertile and beautiful Islands of the globe, satisfied our people that it was the veriest mistake ever made by a wise nation. When, in these still more recent times, the institution was denounced as unscriptural, and contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and the finger of scorn was pointed at us and we were unchurched for our adherence to it, and were called to bear the shock of opinion striking upon us from the christian world, such an host of writers from every department of literature sprang into the arena — statesmen, economists, philosophers, divines, as if raised up by God — and refuted those calumnies so overwhelmingly, that the public mind became settled to an unusual degree, and we were prepared to contend for it as for one of our most sacred domestic relations. God protected it at every point, made all assaults upon it to turn to its more permanent establishment, caused the laws of nature to work in its behalf, furnished new products to ensure its continuance and, at the same time, ameliorate its circumstances, made its bitterest antagonists to furnish arguments against its destruction, and raised up advocates who placed it, through reasoning drawn directly from the Bible, upon an impregnable basis of truth and necessity, connecting it, as we have shewn you, with sublime spiritual purposes in the future. And, finally, when the deeply-laid conspiracy of Black Republicanism threatened to undermine this divinely-guarded institution, God produced for its defence within the more Southern States an unanimity of sentiment, and a devoted spirit of self-sacrifice almost unexampled in the world and has so directed affairs as to discipline into a like sympathy those border States which were not at first prepared to risk a revolution in its defence. We have been gathered together to-day by a proclamation of our President to return thanks to Almighty God for a series of brilliant victories won by our gallant soldiers over the invaders of our soil. Most fervently do we thank Him for his presence with us upon those fields of terrible conflict, for the skill of our commanding generals, for the heroism of our officers of every grade, for the valour and self-sacrifice of our  soldiers, for the glorious results which have followed upon the success of our arms. Most devoutly do we praise and bless His holy name, this day, for the deliverance of our country from the polluting tread of the enemy and for the punishment which he has seen fit to inflict upon those who vainly boasted that they would devour us. We give all the glory to Him, while we cannot forget the living heroes whose inspired courage led them triumphant over fields of desperate carnage, nor the martyred dead who have poured out the gushing tide of their young and noble life-blood for the sacred cause which carried them to the battle field. But battles, at last, even with all the dazzling halo which surrounds them, are but fields of slaughter, unless made illustrious by the principles which they involved or by the spirit which animated and ruled over them. The meeting of barbaric hordes upon fields of blood, of which history is full, where men fought with the instinct and ferocity of beasts, simply for hatred’s sake or the love of war, is disgusting to the noble mind, and carries with it no idea save that of brutality. We could not thank God for victories such as those, and therefore, in keeping this Holy Festival our thankfulness must rest more upon the cause for which he has called us to arms, upon the spirit which has accompanied it, and upon the guardianship which he has established over us, than upon the mere triumphs of the battle field.
We do not place our cause upon its highest level until we grasp the idea that God has made us the guardians and champions of a people whom he is preparing for his own purposes and against whom the whole world is banded. The most solemn relation upon earth is that between parent and child, because in it immortal souls are committed to the training of man not only for time but for eternity. There is no measure to its sublimity, for it stretches upwards to the throne of God and links us with immortality. We tremble when we meditate upon it and cry for divine help when we weigh its responsibilities. What shall we think, then, of the relation which subsists between a dominant race professing to believe in God  and to acknowledge Christ and a subject race, brought from their distant homes and placed under its charge for culture, for elevation and for salvation, and while so placed contributing by its labor to the welfare and comfort of the world. What a trust from God! What reliance has he placed upon our faithfulness and our integrity! What a sure confidence does it give us in his protection and favor! His divine arrangements are placed in our keeping. Will he not preserve them? His divine purposes seem to be intermingled with our success. Will he not be careful to give us that success and just in the way that he shall see to be best for us? His purposes are yea and amen in Christ Jesus and cannot be overturned by man. It places our warfare above any estimate which unspiritual minds can make of it. While many other motives are urging us to the battle-field and we rush forward to defend our liberties, our homes, our altars, God is super-adding this other motive — the secret of his own will — is making it to produce within us, unconsciously perhaps to ourselves, a power which is irresistible. Our conscience in this war is thus made right towards God and towards man; our heart is filled with his fear and his love; our arm is nerved with almost super-human strength, and we have reason to thank him, not only for what he has done for us, but for what he has restrained us from doing for ourselves and others from doing for us. This noble cause has made him our guide and our overruling governor, and we are moving forward, as I firmly believe, as truly under his direction, as did the people of Israel when he led them with a pillar of cloud by clay and of fire by night….
We have great cause, moreover, to be thankful to Almighty God that he has restrained the powers of Europe from any interference in our behalf, and has permitted us to gain these glorious victories under his auspices alone. It was highly important for our future to prove the strength of our institutions and to convince the world that the African with us was not a source of weakness or an object of fear, but was a comfort and a help. And in no manner could this have been so fully demonstrated as by leaving us to struggle alone with the mighty power which has been endeavoring to crush us, while this people was in the midst of us, almost equal in numbers and unrestrained by the presence of armies. ’Tis true that in some districts they have flocked to the banner of freedom, which they consider equivalent to idleness, just as children would rush after any new thing or boys would be tempted by a holiday. But nowhere has any disaffection manifested itself or any hatred to the white race been developed. They have mingled freely in all our counsels, have been restrained in no unusual degree, have been permitted to go in and out very much as they pleased, have followed their masters to the field and been faithful to them in danger, in suffering and in death. They have shewn themselves a docile, and, in many instances, a most affectionate race, and have sadly disappointed those who counted upon their alliance and co-operation. This circumstance has already impressed itself not only upon Europe but upon our very antagonists, and they have been forced to confess that the slave was not as ready to embrace freedom as they had supposed him.* The interference of European powers  could have done us no service and might have done us great mischief, and what, at one time, we considered injustice and selfishness, has turned out for us the richest mercy. We can now say confidently to the world, “God has protected us in the hour of our necessity and has made this people, whom you calumniated and vilified as an oppressed and down-trodden people, to honor us in the face of all the nations, and to refute for us the slanders of politicians and the lies of hypocrisy. They have adhered to us in our difficulties, have borne with us our poverty, have comforted us in our sorrows, have never once lifted their arms against us and now testify to the world that our culture has changed them from savages into servants, from barbarians into men of Christian feeling and Christian sympathy.”
I cannot see, as yet, the termination of this war because I do not think that all the moral results have been produced which are to come out of it. We have yet much trouble before us and many trials to endure ere it shall be ended. God does not permit his creatures, especially those who are bound to him in the bond of the Christian covenant, to be slaughtered as they have been slaughtered in this war without meaning to produce effects adequate to the punishment. If the armies which have been brought into the field have at all approached in numbers what they have been officially reported to be, then I cannot be far wrong when I affirm that already, in the brief space of eighteen months, a quarter of a million of human beings have been swept away by disease, by wounds and by death upon the battle field. What a terrible reckoning! It cannot be for nothing! And it must go on until England shall be convinced that slavery, as we hold it here, is essential to the welfare of the world, until the North shall find that her fanaticism was a madness and delusion, until we ourselves shall learn to value the institution above any estimate we have ever placed upon it, and to treat it as a sacred trust from God, until all shall acknowledge, with one consent, that it is a divinely guarded system, planted by God, protected by  God and arranged for his own wise purposes in the future of him, with whom one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The great revolution [of Civil War] through which we are passing certainly turns upon this point of slavery, and our future destiny is bound up with it.
Stephen Elliott, September 4, 1862
Of the three Episcopal bishops who launched the campaign in 1856 to found a “Southern university,” Georgia’s Stephen Elliott has received less recognition than Leonidas Polk of Louisiana and James Hervey Otey of Tennessee. But Elliott deserves greater attention especially for his eloquence in articulating a Christian mission for human bondage and for his influence in designing the University of the South as an instrument in the realization of that mission.
Elliott (1806-1866) was born in Beaufort, South Carolina, an heir to the immense wealth, social prestige, and refinement of one of the Low Country’s most powerful slaveholding families. He studied for a year at Harvard College, returned to South Carolina to finish his degree at the state university, then pursued a career in law. However, like Otey and Polk, he was swept into the wave of religious awakenings that washed over the nation in the 1830s. A conversion experience in response to a revival sermon in 1831 led him to prepare for the priesthood. He was ordained in 1836; five years later he was made Georgia’s first Episcopal bishop.
Elliott’s defense of the slaveholding civilization of the South affiliated him more closely with his friend Leonidas Polk than with Otey of Tennessee. By the mid-1850s Elliott and Polk were ardent southern nationalists. Together they passionately argued in defense of slavery and used their priestly and ecclesiastical authority to advocate for the formation of the slave states into their own separate nation. Otey, on the other hand, believed the American nation could yet be redeemed and saved and wished to preserve the original union. But on one thing they all agreed: the rightness of slavery in the eyes of their god. All three of the bishops — Otey, Polk, and Elliott — imagined the University of the South as a bulwark against the greatest dangers of the age: fanaticism and infidelity. Both words were synonyms for what religious defenders of slavery denounced as the cruel and atheistic ravings of abolitionism.
Even before the university campaign began in 1856, the three bishops worked hard to persuade their communicants — most of whom were slaveholders — to stop their usual practice of neglecting the souls of their “servants” and to evangelize them. Doing so, they believed, would demonstrate the positive good of slavery because it uplifted persons of African descent out of barbarism and into the light of true religion. (Christian slaves, they and other defenders of slavery contended, also would be more pliant and productive workers.) But Elliott was especially outspoken and eloquent in arguing that human bondage had an even larger divinely appointed purpose in advancing the will of his god and hastening the arrival of the Kingdom of Christ on earth.
Consider, for instance, this sermon, delivered in the midst of the Civil War in the late summer of 1862. After victories over Federal forces at the Second Manassas and Richmond, Kentucky, the Confederate President Jefferson Davis called on churches across the South to celebrate a day of prayer and thanksgiving, “not now in the garb of fasting and sorrow, but with joy and gladness.” On September 18th, the Right Rev. Elliott did that and more. In the thanksgiving sermon we are republishing here, Elliott placed the divine purpose of slavery at the heart of the Civil War, another historical instrument by which, he believed, the Christian god was advancing his will in the world. Slavery, according to Elliott, was the cause of the war in two senses of the word. Slavery caused the war to be fought even as it also was the divine cause for which white southerners were fighting. Read on to see how, in Elliott’s belief, slavery positively served his god’s “ultimate designs.”
We are publishing this edited version of Elliott’s own words in two parts because of its length. The second part will appear on Meridiana on February 11, 2020. The bracketed numbers in the text here refer to the pages in the published sermon, which may be read in its entirety on this website.
A sermon preached in Christ Church, Savannah, on Thursday, September 18th, 1862, being the day set forth by the President of the Confederate States, as a day of prayer and thanksgiving, for our manifold victories, and especially for the fields of Manassas and Richmond, KY.
If the affairs of the world are regulated at all by God, we cannot suppose that the destiny of a great Christian nation,  such as these United States were, would be disregarded by him or unaffected by his control. It was rapidly becoming, at the moment when this civil convulsion began, a mighty power in the earth, a controlling element in the progress of the world. A century more would have made it not only the mightiest nation of modern times, but would have exalted it to an equality with the greatest Empires which have ever swayed the earth. Vast then must have been the interest which was permitted to shatter it while yet ascending to its greatness; heinous the sin which could deserve such a punishment as is now scourging it from its one ocean to the other. We can find that interest only in the institution of slavery which was the immediate cause of this revolution. We can find the sin only in that presumptuous interference with the will and ways of God, which, beginning in an overmuch righteousness, coalesced rapidly with infidelity, and ended in a bold defiance of the word of God, and of the principles of his moral government.
As the world draws towards its end, the hand of God becomes more visible in its affairs. Even in human arrangements where a scheme or a policy is complicated, ordinary men can understand but little of them in their beginning or during much of their progress. But when they draw near to their consummation, the purpose becomes more evident, the converging movements more perceptible, the final result more clear and determined…. But as the period approaches when God’s economy of grace is to be consummated, then are we permitted to gather up all the interlacing threads and to distinguish the glorious pattern which the Almighty Artist has been working out through the instruments which he is wielding, and has been wielding for ages. That work is the regeneration of a fallen world, and that regeneration is to be wrought out through the preaching of the gospel to every creature, through his opening all the Continents of the earth to the influence of the religion of Jesus Christ. When this shall have been accomplished, when the gospel shall have been preached as a witness to all the world, then will the end come, and Christ shall be set upon his Holy Hill of Zion.
If we examine the religious condition of the world, keeping this purpose in our view, we will perceive that paramount Christian influences are steadily at work every where else except in Africa. Europe is Christian in its entire length and breadth, that is, has had the gospel preached as a witness to all her various kingdoms and empires. America has been repeopled altogether from Christian nations, and the cross is adored over all her wide area, save where the rapidly expiring Indian tribes yet break its continuity…. Africa alone is uninfluenced by Christianity, and whence is that influence to proceed? ’Tis true, that here and there, along her outward limits, Christian Churches have  planted their feeble settlements, and Christian missionaries have devoted themselves in faith to the service of the Lord. But they have gone, for the most part, only to die, and have made no impression upon that vast interior which swarms with life and knows no religion save that of Nature, or the fraudulent devices of man. How, then, is that dark spot upon the world’s surface to be enlightened? Who is to pierce those pestilential regions and preach the everlasting Gospel, even though it be only for a witness? And echo answers who? for all have attempted it, and all alike have failed. The self-denying missionaries of Rome — men who have gained a foothold in all other regions — have tried it, but have been swept away before the flood of barbarism and incivility. The highly educated missionaries of the English Church have tried it, and neither their knowledge, nor their devotion, nor the prestige of English power, have availed any thing against climate and disease. The indomitable missionaries of the Moravian Church have tried it until Sierra Leone has been a very Golgotha to them. The enterprising missionaries of the American Churches have tried it, and while their previous knowledge of the African in this country had, in a measure, prepared them for their work, they too have failed, because the Caucasian blood has not been able to bear the enervating heats and destructive fevers of the torrid zone. Whence, then, is their regeneration to come, for come it must, if the Bible be the word of God, ere the present economy of things shall terminate? We are driven to look for it from some agency which shall be able, through national affinities, through a like physiological structure, through a oneness of blood and of race, to bear the burden of this work, and ultimately, in God’s own time, to plant the gospel in their Father-land, after they themselves shall have been prepared, through a proper discipline, for the performance of this duty. And I find this agency in the African slaves now dwelling upon this Continent and educating among ourselves. I see here the instruments whom God is preparing, in his own inscrutable way, to co-operate with the other instruments who  are at work upon the other Continents to bring in the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and it is this conviction, and not any merit in ourselves, which makes me confident that we shall be safely preserved through this conflict.
Most of you are looking to other causes for our success and our preservation, to the valor of our troops, to the skill of our generals, to the extent of our territorial surface, to foreign influence, to the power of commerce and of trade. I am looking to the poor despised slave as the source of our security, because I firmly believe that God will not permit his purposes to be overthrown or his arrangements to be interfered with. He has caused the African race to be planted here under our political protection and under our christian nurture, for his own ultimate designs, and he will keep it here under that culture until the fulness of his own times, and any people which strives against this divine arrangement will find that it is running against the thick bosses of Jehovah’s buckler. Those who have looked at slavery superficially, have permitted themselves to be moved away from scriptural decrees by such trivial things as are the necessary accompaniments of all bondage, and have rashly yielded to their sensibilities the conclusions which ought to be drawn exclusively from the word of God. They have passionately decided that God could have nothing to do with an institution bearing upon its face the evils and miseries which attend the enslavement of any people. They seem strangely to forget that he kept his own chosen people — the descendants after the flesh of that Abraham whom he called his friend — the children of that Jacob whom he surnamed a Prince with God — in bondage to Egypt for four hundred years, until they were disciplined to go forth and become a nation among the nations. What cared He, in his stern, unbending preparation of a people educating for divine ends and for immortal purposes, for such trivial things as slavery, as toil, as the sufferings of a subject race? There were they kept under the yoke until he saw fit to break it and to carry them, a humbled and prepared people, into the land which had been marked out for them as the scene of their  future glory — a glory of spiritual triumphs. Will man learn nothing from the past? Shall God unveil his purposes and his dealings to his sight, and will he forever turn away besotted and without perception? With this treatment by God of his own chosen people full in their view, with a clear perception of the necessity of a people, of African lineage, to be disciplined and educated for the work of the Lord, will Christian nations be yet so blinded by their passions, and so deceived by their sensibilities, as to combine to overturn a divine missionary scheme, and blot it out from the face of the earth? But it will be all in vain, and the Church of the future will see and confess that as Egypt was the land of refuge and the school of nurture for the race of Israel, so were these Southern States first the home and then the nursing mother of those who were to go forth and regenerate the dark recesses of a benighted Continent.
The great revolution through which we are passing certainly turns upon this point of slavery, and our future destiny is bound up with it. As we deal with it, so shall we prosper, or so shall we suffer. The responsibility is upon us, and if we rise up, in a true Christian temper, to the sublime work which God has committed to us of educating a subject nation for his divine purposes, we shall be blessed of him as Joseph was, and he will say to us, “Blessed of the Lord be thy land, for the precious things of Heaven, for the clew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, and for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, and for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush.” But if contrariwise, we shall misunderstand our relations and shall assume the dominion of masters without remembering the duties thereof, God will “make them pricks in our eyes and thorns in our sides, and shall vex us in the land wherein we dwell.”
“Simply put, American history cannot be understood without slavery.” — Ira Berlin, late professor of history, University of Maryland
From the Editors:
Many of us today have difficulty fathoming the central importance of slavery to the founding of the University of the South in the years from 1856 to 1861. This difficulty is not surprising. Our resistance to understanding that chattel bondage was fundamental to the origins of the Sewanee we know and love differs little from the ways most Americans react to the history of slavery in general. “Americans see themselves as a freedom-loving people,” the historian James Oliver Horton has observed. The history of slavery in the United States does not comport with that. “For a nation steeped in this self-image,” Horton continues, “it is embarrassing, guilt-producing, and disillusioning to consider the role that race and slavery played in shaping the national narrative.” It should come as no surprise, then, that many of us resist knowing or believing that slavery shaped the history of our own university or the Episcopal Church.
But, to borrow and modify the words of the eminent historian Ira Berlin, Sewanee’s history cannot be understood without slavery. The university was founded by slaveholding men — many of them Episcopal bishops and priests — for the purpose of serving, protecting, and advancing the interests of a civilization built on bondage.
By studying and learning more about Sewanee’s past — before, during, and after the Civil War — we stand to gain a deeper and more complicated understanding of our own university’s history and of slavery’s core importance to the history of the United States and the world in the nineteenth century. From that study and with that greater understanding, we believe, the broader Sewanee community of people who have worked, lived, or studied here may better discern what that history obligates us to do in order to foster a more just and inclusive community on this mountain and beyond.
With these thoughts in mind, the Roberson Project on Slavery, Race, and Reconciliation launches a new series called In Their Own Words for our Meridiana blog. Periodically we will publish key documents produced by the first generations of founders of the university — the men and women who brought the idea of the University of the South into existence. In Their Own Words will focus initially on the founders’ thoughts about slavery and slaveholding. In many instances, these documents will be linked to the Project’s crowdsourced transcription site, From the Page, so that you can read the original documents produced by the founders.
Our first In Their Own Words will feature a sermon preached in September 1862 by the Right Rev. Stephen Elliott, one of the three bishops who led in launching the campaign for the “southern university” in 1857-58. In the 1850s and until his death in 1866, Elliott was the Episcopal Bishop of Georgia, but at the time of his sermon, he also served as the Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America. With the formation of the Confederacy, he had been a leader in establishing the southern Episcopal Church independent of the national church. For the bishop, slavery was not a proximate cause of the war. In his own words to the parishioners of Savannah’s Christ Church, “The great revolution [of Civil War] through which we are passing certainly turns upon this point of slavery, and our future destiny is bound up with it.” To understand how and why, read Elliott’s sermon, “Our Cause in Harmony with the Purposes of God in Jesus Christ,” which will be published on February 4.
By Colton Williams, C’21 Research Assistant for the Roberson Project on Slavery, Race, and Reconciliation, Summer 2019
In Woodville, Wilkinson County, Mississippi, fourteen years before the state seceded from the Union, the planter and slaveholder Daniel Prosser and his wife Sarah welcomed their son into the world. Ralph Hylton Prosser’s birth in 1847 may seem unfortunate in terms of historical timing, but by the time he came of age Prosser saw it as an opportunity. Prosser was sixteen years old and enrolled at the Virginia Military Institute when the Civil War erupted. With his father’s permission, he left VMI and enlisted in the Confederate Army as a private. He served in Company F of the 43rd Virginia Cavalry, better known as Mosby’s Rangers.[i] On October 8, 1864 — Prosser’s seventeenth birthday — he was captured by Union forces and held at the Old Capitol Prison in Washington, D.C., and later in Boston Harbor, where he remained until war’s end in June 1865. By this time, Prosser was still a young man, four months shy of both his eighteenth birthday and the anniversary of his capture. But he was not a young man destined to return home according to the now-familiar trope of the destitute and threadbare Confederate, vowing as Scarlett O’Hara did to “never be hungry again.”[ii] That was not in Prosser’s future. Prosser already had the prestige of serving with the Gray Ghost himself, the mythologized John Mosby, and had studied at VMI, a premier military institution for Southern boys of high social standing. With that record, and a changing world before him, Ralph Hylton Prosser’s next step was to prepare for the Episcopal priesthood. In order to do so, in 1869 he became the thirty-sixth student to matriculate at the new University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee.[iii]
Prosser’s story, though unique, was not unusual. He came to Sewanee for a reason. Like most students in those early years, he ended up leaving before earning a degree. Still, his story sheds light on what the university was in 1869, when it was but an idea being put to the test. For a university steeped so deeply in the histories it tells about itself, there has been a notable absence of study of the very people who were essential in making the university a university: the students. As one myself, I have always felt — in fact, know — that the way students see the university and the culture of Sewanee is often quite different from the official view.
This summer, as I worked as a research assistant for the Roberson Project on Slavery, Race, and Reconciliation, I focused on capturing the profiles of the university’s first generation of students. One question that spurred me forward was what did Sewanee’s first students think about the university’s identity? Claims are often made about what Sewanee was at its ‘refounding’ in 1868, as opposed to the original founding of the university in 1858, the year of its charter. How did the students make and reflect the culture of Sewanee after the ‘refounding’? This question is a slippery one. Over the years those who have studied and written about Sewanee have given greater emphasis to the later, as opposed to the earlier, founding, and sought to explain what that post-war and post-emancipation history has meant to the university’s identity. In celebration of the university’s sesquicentennial moments, books have been published about the ‘refounding,’ the general history of the university, the history of the liberal arts at Sewanee, Reconstruction at Sewanee, and ‘Sewanee places.’ Today, students touch the fabled cornerstone from 1860 before signing the honor code and symbolically enrolling in the university, making a connection to the earliest days of the university when its founders imagined that the “South” the university would encompass — “the land of the sun and the slave,” they proclaimed it — would last forever.[iv] Students like Ralph Hylton Prosser are a crucial link in the history of Sewanee, and yet they often are left out.
Stories of students are usually ancillary to some other point, whether it is about the founders, the curriculum, sports, or the mystique of Sewanee itself. But if we are to understand both the most basic and the most complex questions about this place — for instance, what did people in 1868 think were the ideas that defined the university? — it is imperative to study the students who entered the university in its early years for their own sake and for what they can suggest about the formation of the institution in its post-Civil War years.
The effect of this historical oversight is highlighted by Sewanee Perspectives, the 2008 volume of essays on the university’s history, which is dedicated to “the nine students who matriculated on September 18, 1868 in the Junior Department of the University of the South.”[v] To my surprise I discovered that nowhere in the volume are the histories of those nine students examined. They are important, of course, but the symbolic weight they carry has been assigned to them without studying them in any thorough manner.
Between 1868-1870, 226 students enrolled in the university. Almost none of them graduated with a degree; many left after a single term or year. By studying the early students of Sewanee, we can learn more about what the students who enrolled thought and expected about their education and how they may have shaped the university when it began operations in 1868. Did it still conform to the visions of the founders to create a “body of scholars of whom no country need be ashamed”?[vi] Or did it represent a new enterprise?
Looking at the 226 students from 1868-1870 is not an arbitrary time frame. They represent the first two years of the Rt. Rev. Charles Quintard’s Vice-Chancellorship and contain a large enough sample to make some provisional conclusions about the students during that time. Quintard, who was present at the original laying of the cornerstone, is considered a founder of the university, while his successor, Josiah Gorgas, is rarely, if ever, given that title.[vii] By looking at the students arriving during Quintard’s tenure, more can be learned about what the ‘second founding’ meant in actuality, particularly for the students who came here. Was Sewanee to be a new, modern university for a new south, or did it cater specially to former Confederates, slaveholders, and their progeny? Did the establishment (or re-establishment) of the university in 1868 represent a break with the pre-war political and social order or serve to revive and maintain that order under new circumstances, in the vein of ‘Redeemers’ intent on “dismantling the Reconstruction state”?[viii] Quintard, quoted in the Charleston Evening Record in 1873, explained, “There is something worse than war — something worse than pestilence and famine — something worse than death. It is worse to see a people of high culture, of noble lineage, bow down their backs and become hewers of wood and drawers of water, and in the depths of an overwhelming despair descend from the high position they have occupied and adorned… We need and society needs an educated class.”[ix] In Quintard’s view, it seems, Sewanee was a university with a particular and conservative charge. My research shows that few who went to Sewanee in 1868 were hewing wood and drawing water. They were the sons of the wealthy, the connected, the aristocratic. The sons of Confederates, they were sometimes, like Prosser, Confederates themselves. If Quintard imagined a university that would pick up the charge of a conquered elite and save them from embarrassment and subjugation, did that way of thinking transmit to the first students who obtained their education at Sewanee? Were they, too, afraid of becoming “hewers of wood,” and did they see education — and an education at the University of the South in particular — as the way to reclaim their pre-war position and that of their families?
Most of the students would have fit within this vision of a reborn southern elite. The first students to enter the university came from a fairly representative geographical cross-section of the former Confederacy. Of the 226 students to matriculate from 1868-1870, only 4 were from outside the region.[x] (The trend continued; only 12 of the first 726 students from 1868-1878 were non-southerners):
Students’ Home States, 1868-1870
Number of Students, 1868-1870
While it may seem obvious why almost all students were white ‘southerners,’ the fact that such young men went to Sewanee was not predetermined. There was a reason. Geographic proximity certainly played a part, but many wealthy southern boys already were going to colleges far away from home, if they were going at all. At VMI, Prosser was a long way from Woodville, Mississippi. While the location of the University of the South was chosen in part because of its centrality to the southern dioceses of the Episcopal Church, it still required effort and money to get to Sewanee. Eight students from 1868-1870 hailed from Galveston, Texas, quite a world away from the top of the Cumberland Plateau. Southern it was, but close it was not. Many of the early students were, of course, Episcopalians, and it seems likely that many came specifically for the church affiliation. But designating their religious affiliation alone as their reason for coming to Sewanee obscures the larger context within which the Episcopal Church operated in the southern region. The Protestant Episcopal Church of the Confederate States of America was the official, sanctioned church of the seceded states during the Civil War. Its first and only Presiding Bishop was Stephen Elliott of Georgia, an instrumental original founder of Sewanee. To be an Episcopalian in the South, even after the Confederate Church no longer existed, was not solely a religious affiliation. It was a hallmark of patrician Southern identity, which had always been tied fundamentally to slavery. Stephen Elliott made this link explicit, saying that what was at stake during the war was “the whole framework of our social life.”[xi]
Higher education at Sewanee in 1868-70 only vaguely resembled the university of today. Students were organized into groups of Gownsmen (18 years of age or older) and Juniors (younger students). In addition to a college, the university consisted of a grammar, or preparatory, school and a theological department for training priests. Most who entered the university were between the ages of 14 and 18.[xii] For this article, I excluded only the grammar school students from my review; I relied on the 1870-1871 Arts and Sciences Catalog for basic information on the first generation of matriculants.[xiii]
Sixty-one of the 185 students were matched with their parents through a combination of census records, gravesite data, and information pulled from the students’ biographical files. Of these, 35 fathers were confirmed as slaveholders in the 1860 U.S. Census Slave Schedule. These 35 were the fathers of 45 students, due to siblings matriculating at the same time. This small sample size allows for preliminary conclusions only, although I expect that as I continue my research and match additional students with their parents, the results will show similar patterns. It is unlikely that the 61 students I was able to identify would be disproportionately the offspring of slaveholding parents.
So what?, might be the response. After all, this was the University of the South, so we would expect the people who attended in 1868, 1869, and 1870 to have been the sons of former slaveholders. While this argument does get one point right — that the region had been a slave society, built on “wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces”[xiv] — that observation misses the larger point. According to the 1860 U.S. Census, roughly 25% of households in the South owned slaves.[xv] This is a marked contrast to the 74% of Sewanee students from the confirmed data set who came from slaveholding households. For instance, Sewanee student Burton Bellamy (M’69)[xvi] from Monticello, Florida, was born into a slaveholding family. He lived as a young master until his early teenage years, as his family enslaved 97 persons, from a one-year-old girl to a 55-year-old woman. The family of Thomas Barnett (M’69), from Montgomery, Alabama, enslaved people, too, and so did that of Philip Marbury (M’68) from McMinnville, Tennessee. The list goes on. These students, the scions of the master class and race, were the students the founders originally had in mind. The former “masters” in Sewanee weren’t just the faculty and residents, but the students themselves.
How did the experiences and backgrounds of these students affect the character of Sewanee after the ‘refounding’? Did their pasts as slaveholders leave a mark on the atmosphere of the university? John Bradford, one of the few students to matriculate from outside of the South, remembers the complicated environment at Sewanee in 1869. Bradford came to Sewanee from Springfield, Illinois, persuaded to enter the college by an Episcopal priest in his hometown. In 1937 Bradford recalled that Sewanee boys were of “gentle birth and breeding,” yet he still remembered being “taunted with having come from the home of Abraham Lincoln and being too friendly with the negro servants.” He remembered that he “loafed in the kitchen and made myself solid with Old Isaac the cook and got an extra piece of pie and some cold biscuit.” Bradford’s story suggests he was the only one doing this. He had no problem with befriending ‘Old Isaac,’ a step none of the other students deigned to take. Bradford also had no problem with befriending the boys who likely had enslaved many persons like ‘Old Isaac’ only a few years before.[xvii]
Slavery was not in the distant past for these students. It was not in the periphery of their lives. It was foundational to the fact that they were even at a university, especially one called the University of the South. How would a university founded to prove “that a slaveholding people” could be of “high moral and intellectual culture,” as Bishops Polk and Elliott wrote in an 1859 fundraising pamphlet, adapt to a world without slavery? To what degree would a university founded to assert slaveholders’ “rightful place among the learned of the earth” position itself in relation to the political, economic, and moral order of its slaveholding past?[xviii] Without their slaves, where did these original, foundational principles and the social order they underwrote go when the university opened its doors in 1868? The change necessitated a different goal. It was no longer Elliott’s vision, but Quintard’s. Sewanee was not to prove slaveholders’ “high intellectual and moral culture,” but to save the Southern elite from “something worse than death,” to save them from “the depths of an overwhelming despair” by losing their social position. The University of the South was the way to do that.
Higher education was, for these students and their families, a way of maintaining or recovering their standing. While slaveholding families experienced unprecedented wealth losses in the decade after the Civil War, these economic setbacks were not transmitted to their sons’ generation. Instead, a group of scholars recently argued, “sons that grew up in slaveholding households quickly surpassed the economic status of sons of comparable households.” By 1880, the sons of slaveholders had accumulated wealth on par with the sons of similarly wealthy non-slaveholding households. But by 1900, the sons of slaveholders had surpassed all of their counterparts in terms of occupation-based wealth and earnings.[xix]
This increase in wealth is likely not attributable to superior industriousness, entrepreneurial zeal, or intelligence on the part of the sons of slaveholders. Nor would we expect the sons of slaveholders to have been endowed with more business acumen and ability than their similarly wealthy non-slaveholding counterparts. Instead, sons of slaveholders were able to increase their wealth through social capital, access to credit, and family connections. University represented an opportunity to strengthen existing social networks and create new ones.
Of the 185 students with biographical files, I was able to confirm the careers or subsequent occupations of 67 of them. They are broken down in the chart below:
of Students Engaged in Work
Again, these conclusions must be preliminary due to the incompleteness of my research thus far. However, there does seem to have been a trend. With the exception perhaps of the lone dairyman in New Orleans, all of these students pursued white collar work after their time at Sewanee. Careers variously listed as “cotton broker,” “cotton business,” “cotton,” “planter,” and “farmer” were all put into one category for the assumptions one must make if a college-educated male in 1870 was going into farming. He was likely not himself the one behind the plow. This data conflicts with the myth of a devastated and reconstructed South post-war. The sons of slaveholders remade their wealth in new ways. Whether they were keeping the status quo by engaging in the ‘cotton business’ or entering into law, real estate, the clergy, or medicine, these Sewanee students seem to have maintained or reconstituted their position and wealth in the post-war world.
One might reasonably make the argument that anyone going to college at the time would subsequently be engaged in white collar work. This may be true, but that fact in and of itself gives way to a larger truth about early Sewanee: the creation of the university in a slaveholding society allowed for wealthy sons of slaveholders to be educated at Sewanee and maintain their wealth and status. It meant something for former slaveholders to send their sons to Sewanee, and those sons turned around with their Sewanee education and entered society with a status not much changed from their fathers’. They were clergymen with prestigious positions like Charles McIlvaine Gray (M’69). They were members of the Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901 like Cecil Browne (M’70). They were physicians in Mexico like Cornelius Gregg (M’70). They ran mining companies, lumber companies, worked in real estate acquisition, were financiers, and entered politics. They were able to do all of this, undoubtedly, because they had a leg up. They emerged from a society based on the institution of slavery, and they were the generational inheritors of wealth, power, and prestige built on slavery. It was no meritocracy.
The students understood Sewanee as an institution of the South, too. They considered Sewanee a continuation of the old order, not a break from it. John Sharp Williams (M’70), who went on to become a U.S. Senator from Mississippi, observed as much in 1919: “Nor must we forget that the very name ‘University of the South’ suggests the idea that ‘the South’ faces a new era and has an important part to play in the work of social reorganization. I, for one, have never known any ‘New South!’ I know only the same Old South, and I want its leaders to be like the traditional leaders of the South always have been — men of high ideals, honest purpose, of noble instincts, of gentlemanly conduct, even though they were not always men of clear insight into the future of the world. An alumnus of the University of the South myself, although I spent a very short time there, I earnestly bespeak for her, for her work and for her mission your full consideration and your help.”[xx]
Written in a fundraising letter in 1919, Williams’s words were influenced by his own time. Nearly 50 years after Williams matriculated, the Lost Cause mythology had taken root and gained general acceptance among white Americans across the United States. But for these early students, their own words are often what has to be relied on. It struck Williams as a key selling point that Sewanee was an institution of the “same Old South,” and he knew it would appeal to the readers of the letter if he wrote about never knowing any “New South!” and that Sewanee has an important role to play in “social reorganization.” To whatever degree his thinking was molded by the South of 1919, he saw Sewanee in the same light: Sewanee was still as it was in 1870, that is, a place that more than anywhere else resembled 1850.
Williams’s remarks underscore the need to study Sewanee’s post-Civil War history as just as fraught and complex as any pre-war history. There is a lot to be uncovered and examined in a Sewanee history that incorporates the people who attended the university — and without which the university would not have existed — along with the usual emphasis on the lives of Vice-Chancellors and founders and benefactors. Knowing who comprised the student body and who those people really were is integral to understanding the history of the university as a whole. This work isn’t final or definitive, though it does attempt to put some evidence to the story. More study ought to be done and will be done on the early students of Sewanee, how they shaped the university, and how the university shaped them. Instead of conjecture and assumption about what the early students believed and what they did, instead of using the students to further one idea of the university’s past or another, their histories can actually be discovered. In my estimation, the more we learn about the students, the more we will learn about the university. Some students can provide small windows into the university’s past, others larger entryways. Sometimes, the stories speak for themselves.
After Sewanee, Ralph Prosser finished his education at Nashotah House, an Episcopal seminary in Wisconsin. But he returned South again, as he always had, and was ordained in his native Mississippi by a legendary Sewanee man, Bishop William Mercer Green. He spent the rest of his life as a priest in the Diocese of Louisiana, before succumbing to blood poisoning in 1923. “Ever a loyal confederate,” Prosser never let go of the Southern cause. He was chosen by fellow former Confederates as the Chaplain General of the Louisiana Division of Confederate Veterans, a position he proudly held until his death. It had been nearly 60 years since teenaged Prosser’s brief enlistment in the Confederate military, even longer since he was a young master of at least twenty enslaved persons, but as he was buried, his coffin was lowered into the grave draped in a Confederate battle flag. Prosser had no qualms about who he was or what it meant to have fought to preserve the right to enslave black people. A verse from 2 Timothy closed out his obituary: “I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith.”[xxi]
Notes to the Text
Thank you to the University Archives and Special Collections at Sewanee for the images used in this story.
[i] Prosser’s father served in the Confederate military, too, and as early as 1850 he had signed his name to a letter in the Woodville Republican decrying the “struggle between Northern might and Southern right.” Letter, “To Hon. Jefferson Davis,” Woodville (Miss.) Republican, November 26, 1850, Newspapers.com, accessed October 21, 2019, https://www.newspapers.com/image/334868864/?terms=Prosser.
[ii]Gone With the Wind, directed by Victor Fleming (Burbank, CA: Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.,
[iii] “A Loyal Soldier Goes to Receive his Award,” copy of article that appeared in Episcopal Church Paper, “The Diocese of Louisiana, Vol. 28, No. 3, published at New Orleans September 1923, which issue was dedicated to Sewanee”; R.H. Prosser biographical file, William R. Laurie University Archives and Special Collections, Sewanee, Tennessee, USA (hereafter cited as UA).
[iv]Address of the Board of Trustees of the University of the South, to the Southern Dioceses, in Reference to Its Choice of the Site for the University (Savannah: George H. Nichols, 1858), 104.
[v] Dedication, Sewanee Perspectives: On the History of the University of the South, ed. Gerald L. Smith and Samuel R. Williamson, Jr. (Sewanee: Sesquicentennial History Project, 2008).
[vi] “Address of the Commissioners for Raising the Endowment of the University of the South,” February 24, 1859, quoted in Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., “Aspirations, Success, and Civil War, 1832-1865” in Sewanee Sesquicentennial History: The Making of the University of the South (Sewanee: Sesquicentennial History Project, 2008), 8.
[vii] Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., “Quintard: The Third Founder and His Colleagues, 1865-1866,” in The ReFounding of Sewanee, eds. Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., Gerald L. Smith, and John M. McCardell, Jr. (Sewanee: Sesquicentennial History Project, 2018), 41.
[viii] Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), 588.
[x] University of the South Arts and Sciences Catalog, 1870-71, College of Arts and Sciences Catalog and Announcements, UA.
[xi] Eugene D. Genovese, A Consuming Fire: The Fall of the Confederacy in the Mind of the White
Christian South (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1998), 3.
[xii] Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., “Success, Frustration, and at Last a Glimpse of a University, 1869-1870,” in The ReFounding of Sewanee, 122.
[xiii] The catalog supplied basic information such as the students’ names, hometowns, and matriculation year. In addition, 185 of the 226 students had “biographical files” at the University Archives, which contained the students’ registration cards (names, matriculation years, hometowns, etc.) and some additional information if it was available, such as subsequent careers and death dates. Some files included correspondence with university officials, newspaper clippings, photographs, letters, and information filled out by relatives or descendants.
[xiv] Abraham Lincoln, “Second
Inaugural Address,” The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and
Diplomacy, accessed July 11, 2019,
[xv] Joseph P. Glatthaar, Soldiering in the Army of Northern Virginia:
A Statistical Portrait of the Troops Who Served Under Robert E. Lee (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011), 154.
[xvi] “M’” for ‘matriculated,’ as in “C’” for class graduation year.
[xvii] Letter, “A Backward View of Sewanee,” October 1, 1937, John S. Bradford biographical file, UA.
[xix] Philipp Ager, Leah Platt
Boustan, Katherine Eriksson, “The Intergenerational Effects of a Large Wealth
Stock: White Southerners After the Civil War,” National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2019.
[xx] Letter to Rev. N. Logan, Pass Christian, Mississippi, October 18, 1919, John Sharp Williams biographical file, UA.
[xxi] “A Loyal Soldier Goes to Receive his Award”; Prosser biographical file.
We had a productive summer kicking off our Save Sewanee Black History initiative. The Roberson Project on Slavery, Race, and Reconciliation hosted two “digitization days” for present and former residents of the historical African American community of Sewanee and their descendants. The events have been made possible in part by a major grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities: Common Heritage Grant.
The goal of the events was to build a foundation for a community-based archive of Sewanee’s African American history by capturing and preserving the historical records and memories that are mostly missing from the official stories of Sewanee.
The two digitization days were hosted on Memorial Day and July 5th, traditional times for “Sewaneeians” to return to the Mountain. Current and past residents and their families who came to the St. Mark’s Community Center on Alabama Avenue were incredibly generous in sharing their histories and artifacts. Volunteers (college and seminary students, university faculty and staff, and community members) staffed the three main stations. They recorded oral histories, took down stories for a community mapping, and scanned an impressive array of photographs and memorabilia.
With food and music, the atmosphere was festive as folks shared their memories, pointing out where they grew up on the community map, bringing in family scrapbooks to be scanned, or telling their story in the oral history booth set up in Doug Cameron’s cozy camper outside. In addition to the digitization stations, each day featured a van tour of the historic African American neighborhood in Sewanee with stops at the site of the pool, the cemetery, and the Kennerly School.
In addition to the work of staff, the Project had three energetic undergraduate Research Assistants — Maddy Parks, Colton Williams, and Klarke Stricklen — who helped in a myriad of ways. The planning for both days was done over the course of months with a committee of community members. The Project is particularly grateful to Carl Hill, Jr., Jimmy Staten, Shirley Taylor, Sandra Turner, Jackie Duncan, and Elmore Torbert for their efforts spreading the word and making each day a memorable success. Nor could we have launched this work without the contributions and good cheer of Doug Cameron, Rob Lamborn, and Otey Memorial Parish Church. And, of course, NEH funding was critical to building the foundation for this and future efforts to record and preserve Sewanee Black History.
Overall, the digitization days were a great success in building awareness of Sewanee’s black history and in seeding the community-based archive project. Over 100 African Americans with ties to Sewanee returned to the Mountain over the two days to participate. This was the first step in building this community archive, but efforts will continue this year with a permanent scanning station in the new Roberson Project offices in the university’s Gailor Hall.
Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article or in the funded project do not necessarily represent those of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
By Hannah Pommersheim, T’19 Research Assistant for the Project on Slavery, Race, and Reconciliation, Summer 2018
[Editor’s note: Hannah Pommersheim here adds a reflection that follows from her earlier post on the resignation of eight of the faculty members of the School of Theology over the university’s decision not to desegregate its graduate program. She urges us to reconsider these events, not as a “crisis” that the university was fortunate to survive, but as an example of Christian witness that remains powerfully meaningful to the Sewanee community today. It is the sacrifice, not the crisis, that Sewanee needs to remember. Read Part 1 here.]
During orientation when I entered the School of Theology in 2016, the new class of students was sent home one night with a copy of the Sewanee Theological Review from 2003 and instructed to read it. Within these pages, I found a surprising story about the racial desegregation of the School of Theology in 1953. I learned that the process of change was instigated in part by the willingness of the Theology faculty to stand up to the university’s governing Trustees and ask for Christian action. When in June 1952 the university refused to desegregate the School of Theology, the Theology faculty published a letter asking the university to reconsider. The letter was not well received by the administration, and under duress from the Vice-Chancellor and the board, the faculty resigned, all leaving before actual desegregation took place in June 1953. This blip in my seminary orientation stuck with me. It seemed to be a story everyone knew, vaguely, but that we didn’t discuss much outside of orientation and Church History class.
These troubling impressions were still on my mind this past summer when I had the opportunity to be a researcher for the Sewanee Project on Slavery, Race, and Reconciliation. I wanted to spend my summer helping to advance the goals of the Project, yes, but I also wanted to better understand what the actions to dismantle Sewanee’s color line had meant to these professors and what it meant to the School of Theology then and now. I spent two months delving deep into the history of the School of Theology during the early 1950s.
The stories I am interested in are those that are hidden between the lines of our official histories. It has been nearly seven months since I completed my full-time research, and I now realize that I was not able to fully answer my original questions about who these professors were and how this action affected their students. Why? I answered many other questions — how the events unfolded in 1952-53, who the major players in Sewanee were, what underlying concerns and prejudices motivated those who wanted to keep Sewanee securely white. This institutional history is important, not insignificant. Yet what I did not find in my research is equally significant. I did not find the fully realized voices of the professors who resigned. I did not find the voices of the School of Theology students who supported them. I did not find the stories of what day-to-day seminary life was like in the wake of this “crisis.”
In June when I began my research, I created a folder on my computer to store my notes and named it “Sewanee Integration Crisis.” My choice of this heading is telling. In our institutional history at Sewanee, these events of 1952-53 are always referred to as a “crisis.”  I, unconsciously, adopted the same terminology. Now, though, I wonder about this framing. Surely it was a tumultuous time at Sewanee and, to the administration, an identity and public relations crisis. Sewanee’s actions and missteps were described not only in the church press, but also in the national press. Vice-Chancellor Edward McCrady received a slew of letters from both sides advising him on how Sewanee should act. In December 1952, six months after the original letter from the faculty, McCrady wrote to Bishop Charles Carpenter of Alabama, “I am convinced that the Seminary has been injured immeasurably and inexcusably by the action of the present protestors.”  But why do we continue to remember it as such? Naming this year as a crisis elides, in my opinion, the faithful and courageous actions taken by the School of Theology professors as well as the ultimate triumph of their cause. Sewanee did desegregate. It was a triumph of Christian witness. Instead of emphasizing the crisis, what if we focused on the courage of the professors and those first African American students who broke the color line at Sewanee? There are many troubled and troubling incidents in Sewanee’s long racial history, but this one, I believe, is one we can be proud of in retrospect.
The position of this history can be visualized in our built landscape. This period has not been officially commemorated or remembered in Sewanee, a place that loves to memorialize its history. How do we commemorate these professors or the first African American students who attended Sewanee? How do we remember this costly history? Largely, if not completely, they are absent from the built landscape of Sewanee, even if they exist in memory.
By contrast, memorials to those figures who either vehemently opposed the professors’ action and the later desegregation or resisted dismantling the color line at Sewanee are found everywhere. I have spent much of my summer researching this period within the walls of the Jessie Ball duPont Library, a testament to the enormous sums of money she gave to Sewanee in the years after World War II. In fact, in 1954, a year after formally desegregating, the Board of Regents accepted a large financial gift from Mrs. duPont with the stipulation that the funds be used for “whites only.” Bishops of Sewanee are likewise commemorated around campus, nowhere more prominently than the gymnasium named for Frank Juhan, the legendary Sewanee athlete, Bishop of Florida, chancellor, and close friend of Mrs. duPont. But there are numerous others, including Carpenter Circle, the street named for Alabama Bishop Charles Carpenter, and St. Augustine’s Chapel, given in honor of Bishop Bland Mitchell of Arkansas. The reasoning goes that these were all loyal Sewanee bishops, some chancellors, and they deserve remembrance for their loyalty and contributions to the life of the university. A plaque for Bland Mitchell in All Saints’ refers to him as a “Loyal Son of Sewanee.” These bishops were on a spectrum in their stances towards desegregation, yet the fact remains that all opposed not only the desegregation of the seminary but the “methods” that the faculty employed to fight for desegregation.
The only marker reminding us of the events of this period and their larger meaning comes from a seminary student publication at the time called The Theo-Log. In the spring of 1953, the student editor James Fenhagen and his colleagues commissioned the well-known African American and Episcopal artist Allan Crite to create brush paintings for their issue.  They asked him to paint images of Jesus, using Sewanee’s campus, and in particular the seminary chapel, St. Luke’s, as the backdrop.  In Crite’s black and white depictions, Christ is black. Framed copies of these drawings are hung on the walls of the School of Theology, although there is no description of the context in which they were made. Beyond these remarkable and moving images, no markers exist to remind us of the events of 1952 and 1953: no plaques, no framed copy of the professors’ letter, no memorial, and, above all, nothing about the African American students who later enrolled at Sewanee. 
What, I wonder, is lost for those of us studying for ordained ministry by this absence? If Sewanee as a community still frames desegregation as a “crisis” that the university survived, then perhaps that is one reason we have not moved towards reclaiming these histories. We are formed by stories and by silences. As a seminarian studying for priesthood, I feel alienated by the priestly models that Sewanee most commonly valorizes, such as the antebellum founding Episcopal bishops, all of whom were slaveholders. Yet what I have learned through my work with the Project is that alternative examples of priestly ministry exist within the Sewanee canon, but have been buried. There are examples of those who spoke out on the side of justice and of those first African Americans who passed through Sewanee’s doors. There are examples of those still working to make the world of Sewanee more completely reflect the expansive diversity of the people of God. My hope for Sewanee — as an institution of higher education, as a leader in theological training, and as a community — is that we would abandon the “crisis” version of these events and more deeply consider whose stories are missing from our histories and begin the vital work of reclaiming them not just individually but communally.
In an effort to fill in the spaces, I offer one story I uncovered in the archives this summer. Professor Howard A. Johnson resigned along with eight others in 1952. A decade later, he was invited to return to Sewanee for a summer program. Johnson initially considered the invitation, but decided to turn it down after reading an issue of The Sewanee News that contained an article on “Sewanee and Segregation.” In declining, Johnson cited Sewanee’s slow progress towards integration in 1962 as the reason. Since leaving Sewanee, Johnson had spent two years traveling around the world visiting the countries of the Anglican Communion. In a letter addressed to Arthur Ben Chitty, Director of Public Relations and Alumni Secretary at Sewanee, Johnson said, “I trust you are aware that Sewanee is an embarrassment to the whole Anglican Communion. In the course of my two-year trip around the world, I, as an American Episcopalian, was asked anguished questions about Sewanee a thousand times — and the questions came from people who did not realize that I had once been a member of the University.” Chitty’s wife, Elizabeth Nick, responded to Johnson by outlining the strides Sewanee had made towards integration, pointing out that Sewanee was the “first major private formerly all-white college in the South to desegregate at all” and ahead of other church-affiliated schools like Davidson, Duke, or Wake Forest. 
Johnson thanked her for the letter, but countered that “When one stands in history, however, the pace seems maddeningly slow. And to me the most distressing aspect of Sewanee’s present stance is its ambiguity. You may want to take me to task for this, but I cannot escape the impression that the University talks out of both sides of its mouth, that it says one thing to the people who chiefly foot its bills and that it says something rather different to the Church at large from whom it needs signs of recognition, respectability, and reconciliation.”  He concludes, “In short, Sewanee seems to me to equivocate.” To those in Sewanee like the Chittys, who were fighting hard for integration, this response did not seem to acknowledge their hard work. Johnson said he hoped one day to return to Sewanee. Alas, this was never to happen. He died unexpectedly in 1974.
This exchange has stayed with me all through and since the summer because I identify with both perspectives. Johnson and the Chittys both loved Sewanee and wanted to see it change, but they went about seeking that change in different ways. As someone training for priesthood, I often think about our moral obligations to speak out but also to stay and improve the places we love. Should Johnson have returned to Sewanee to spread the message that Sewanee’s reputation across the Anglican Communion was suffering greatly because of its slow progress? Or was Johnson’s refusal to associate with a place he saw equivocating on such important Gospel values the greater witness?
Perhaps there is not one right answer to these questions. This past summer I have been reflecting on the lives of the professors who resigned from the School of Theology in 1952 amid their prophetic call for ending segregation. This action was consequential — they put their livelihoods and families on the line. Three of them were alumni, and yet through this action, were effectively disowned. According to Vice-Chancellor McCrady, “the protesters have done the University a great injustice which only time will heal.”  They committed the greatest sin – disloyalty – in the eyes of the University. The only professor who did not participate in the protest, Bayard Hale Jones, dismissively referred to his colleagues as “self-canonized Martyrs.”  Such comments must have been painful to those men. I am simultaneously proud of the seminary I attend because of the example and witness of these professors and ashamed and embarrassed to be a part of a larger institution that conspired in forcing nine talented and principled scholars into exile in defense of upholding segregation.
In the words of Howard Johnson, I, too, often find the pace of progress at Sewanee “maddeningly slow.” But I hope, as he and the other professors who resigned did, to be an agent of accelerating the pace of progress. May we remember the names of those involved, the nine witnessing professors: Craighill Brown, Bob Grant, Lansing Hicks, Bob McNair, Allen Reddick, Claude Guthrie, Dick Wilmer, Jr., Howard Johnson, and Fritz Shafer. And may we uncover and commemorate the first African American students at Sewanee — John Moncrief, Samuel Rudder, Joseph Green and others — so that by honoring and reflecting on their examples, we might see what more work needs to be done at Sewanee today.
 See former Vice-Chancellor Samuel R. Williamson’s comment, “no crisis in the university’s long history has received more public notice or more discussion” than that over integrating the School of Theology, in Sewanee Sesquicentennial History: The Making of the University of the South (Sewanee, Tenn., 2008), 262; or former Professor of Church History Don Armentrout’s account in the Sewanee Theological Review entitled, “A Documentary History of the Integration Crisis at the School of Theology 1951-53.”
 Letter from Edward McCrady to Bishop Charles Carpenter, 16 Dec. 1952, in University Archives and Special Collections, Sewanee, Tenn. (hereafter UASC).
 More research into Allan Crite and his Sewanee connections is certainly needed!
 James C. Fenhagen, “Sewanee in 1953: A Reminiscence,” in Sewanee Theological Review 46:2 (Easter 2003), 225.
 There are two other traces of commemoration. Dean Brown, like all of the seminary deans, has a portrait hanging at Hamilton Hall. (Bob Grant was also an interim Dean, so he has a portrait as well.) Also, when Dean Brown died, two torches in the seminary chapel were dedicated to his memory by his former student Duncan Gray.
 Letter from Howard Johnson to Arthur Ben Chitty, 29 June 1962 (Howard A. Johnson Bio File), UASC.
 Letter from Elizabeth Nick Chitty to Howard Johnson, 2 July 1962 (Howard A. Johnson Bio File), UASC.
 Letter from Howard A. Johnson to Elizabeth Nick Chitty, 10 July 1962 (Howard A. Johnson Bio File), UASC.
 Letter from Howard A. Johnson to Elizabeth Nick Chitty, 10 July 1962 (Howard A. Johnson Bio File), UASC.
 Letter from Edward McCrady to the Rt. Rev. Thomas N. Carruthers, 18 March 1953, UASC.
 Letter from Bayard Jones to Margaret Myers, 22 July 1952, UASC.
By Hannah Pommersheim, T’19
Research Assistant for the Project on Slavery, Race, and Reconciliation, Summer 2018
This summer I had the privilege of serving as a researcher for the Sewanee Project on Slavery, Race, and Reconciliation. As I am a student at the School of Theology training for Episcopal priesthood, this internship was perhaps not the most obvious way to spend a summer. Yet it was my position as a seminarian that interested me most in this work. From this research, I have written two posts. Part One, below, is a historical account of what occurred in 1952-1953 and led to the desegregation of the School of Theology at Sewanee. My approach differs from more familiar accounts because it focuses on the faculty who protested Sewanee’s racial segregation, how they framed their dissent, and how Sewanee leaders’ veneration of the university’s antebellum founders was used to oppose desegregation. Part Two, which will be published later, is a more personal post, in which I grapple with my position as a seminarian relating to this history. What unites these posts is my desire to reframe our memory of this period by recovering the perspective of the professors whose protests led them to leave the university. What I seek to uncover in my two posts are the underlying principles at stake for the seminary faculty. What were the protesting faculty fighting for? How did students’ and university leaders’ understanding of Sewanee’s history and its founders’ vision shape their defense of segregation? How important were questions of Christian ethics and witness to the protests and conflicts?
In their own words, the protesting faculty were motivated by their sense of Christian discipleship, by their vocation as clergy in the Episcopal Church, and by their desire to see the institution that they worked for stand up for Christian principles. In refocusing our memories on these professors, I believe we can see this episode in light of Christian ethics and what they mean for our communal ideals and obligations. For those who view Sewanee’s connection with the Episcopal Church as an impediment to social progress on campus, I hope this episode demonstrates the ways in which our Episcopal identity has been a force for justice in our history. There is much work to be done to recover the voices of those first African American men who enrolled and broke the color line at Sewanee – Episcopal priests themselves, I might add – and the Project at large is pursuing that history. This post is a starting place to shift away from the passive construction (Sewanee was desegregated) and toward a more accurate historical account of how the seminary’s faculty and a handful of courageous and determined young African American priests forced the University of the South to end its whites-only educational practices. From my position as a student training for priesthood, the events of 1952-1953 also present an opportunity to celebrate the moral imagination and Christian witness of those professors whose actions forced Sewanee to desegregate.
Questioning the Crisis
During those two decades of racial strife [in Mississippi], I watched opponents of integration resort over and over again to criticism of the “methods” and “motivations” of those advocating change rather than dealing with the issue itself—just as so many of the trustees and regents, and the administration itself, had done in my senior year [at the School of Theology]. And, certainly, over and over again, the real issue was evaded by attacking the character and personal behavior of those on the side of integration—just as happened on ‘the Mountain’ in 1952-1953.
The Right Rev. Duncan M. Gray, Jr. (1926-2016), Bishop of Mississippi and Chancellor of the University of the South [i]
The years 1952 and 1953 were some of the most turbulent in the history of the University of the South. At the end of the Easter (spring) term in 1953, all but one of the faculty of the School of Theology, the university’s chaplain, and the head of the Religion Department at the College resigned and left the Mountain because Sewanee’s Board of Trustees, fully supported by its administration, had voted not to admit African American men to its School of Theology. Shortly after the resignations, the Trustees reversed themselves, officially desegregating the School of Theology (although not the undergraduate College of Arts and Sciences). The Trustees’ resolution from June 1953 stated that all applicants for the School of Theology would be considered “regardless of race.” That summer, John M. Moncrief, Jr., a priest in Orangeburg, S.C., became the first African American student at the University of the South when he enrolled in a summer program for clergy at the Graduate School of Theology.
Moncrief’s matriculation capped a year of fierce and destructive debate about the identity, vision, and purpose of the University of the South and its Episcopal seminary. But damage already had been done. Over sixty percent of its student body had transferred. [ii] In academic terms, the School of Theology had lost a roster of distinguished and accomplished theologians and now had to rebuild the faculty from the ground up. Off the mountain, newspapers and church publications nationwide had portrayed the university as an institution of the Episcopal church determined to resist challenges to the segregated social order of the South.
Most often writers who focus on this time in Sewanee’s history have described these events as a “crisis” for the university, which it was fortunate to survive. (For examples see former Vice-Chancellor Sam Williamson’s Sesquicentennial History chapter on “The McCrady Years,” or former School of Theology Church History Professor Don Armentrout’s article, “A Documentary History of the Integration Crisis at the School of Theology 1951-53” in the Sewanee Theological Review. [iii])
But my research has shown me that framing the story as a “crisis” tends to privilege the perspectives and priorities of the university’s leaders. It tends to fixate on the administrative “ins and outs” of managing the conflict and protecting institutional interests.
Something important gets lost in such accounts — what Duncan Gray, himself a seminarian at that time, called “the real issue.” He had learned the hard but valuable lesson during his last year in seminary that in defense of racial supremacy, even the most enlightened and educated of southern whites would attack “the character and personal behavior of those on the side of integration” instead of confronting “the real issue” of how racial hierarchies stood in light of Christian principles and ethics. For Duncan Gray, the real issue was how a Christian ought to think and act in the face of racial injustice.
From my perspective, what needs recovering from these turbulent years and added to the communal memory of the so-called “crisis” is how the Theology professors grounded their arguments and actions in Christian ethics — how they insisted that the Trustees and administrators not speak of segregation or desegregation as merely a business or practical matter, but to name “any Christian principle involved” in the preservation of the status quo. Expanding our understanding in this way enables us to see these events not just as a crisis averted or survived. We also can see them as leading to a triumph over racial injustice — a triumph made possible by the actions and sacrifices of the protesting faculty members who resigned.
The “Sewanee Integration Crisis,” as it was later known, had its origins in broader church politics of the late 1940s and early 1950s. At the national level, the Episcopal Church was debating how best to provide for the education of African American clergy in the South after the only all-black seminary, Bishop Payne Divinity School in Virginia, closed in 1949. Rather than opening a new all-black seminary, the Synod of the Fourth Province of the Episcopal Church (Province IV consists of the southern-most Episcopal districts, or “dioceses,” which own the university; sometimes it is called the “Sewanee Province”) passed a resolution in the fall of 1951 calling on Sewanee to desegregate to provide for training of black clergy. In June 1952, the Sewanee Trustees were responding to this resolution from Province IV. Before the vote, there was evidence that several prominent bishops from Province IV opposed desegregation, the foremost of whom was Bishop Frank Juhan of Florida. Juhan wrote to all the Trustees before the June 1952 vote to let them know of his opposition to desegregation. [iv]
On June 6, 1952, the Trustees passed a resolution stating “there is nothing in the ordinances of the University to prevent the admission of Negroes…but [we] are of the opinion that the encouragement of the enrollment of such students now is inadvisable.” [v] They cited two reasons for continued segregation. First, Tennessee state law prohibited integrated education. Second, the seminary was part of a wider university and not a standalone institution; to end segregation in the graduate school would effectively end it in the undergraduate college, too. In closing, they said, “we are of the opinion that furtherance of the Church’s work and the happiness and mutual good will of both races will not now be served” by admitting black seminarians. [vi]
Newspapers in the South and across the nation immediately reported the Trustees’ action. “Sewanee Rules Against Negro Theology Class” read the front-page headline of the Nashville Tennessean on June 7. The School of Theology faculty, having learned of the Trustees’ resolution from such media coverage, drafted their response on the evening of June 9. On June 11, a letter signed by eight faculty members dissenting from the Trustees’ decision not to desegregate was published in the New York Times. [vii] The faculty appealed to Christian ethics in support of desegregation, citing an encyclical from the 1948 Lambeth Conference, a meeting of bishops from across the worldwide Anglican Communion. Additionally, the faculty cited the need to train African American clergy for the church and their own integrity as faculty and priests. They listed their reasons and petitioned the Trustees as follows:
We therefore request a reconsideration of this question by the Trustees. We request that the public be informed that the issue is being considered. We request a statement from the Trustees, not later than their next regular meeting, that they approve in principle the relevant resolutions of the Lambeth Conference and that they are prepared to allow admission of qualified Negro students to the School of Theology … If our request is ignored or if the assurance sought is refused, we are without exception prepared to resign our positions and terminate our connection with the University in June 1953.
As Bishop Gray recalled, the response at Sewanee focused on the “methods” and “motivations” of the dissenting faculty instead of the larger issue of desegregation in light of Christian ethics and the church’s own resolutions. Critics made much of the fact that the protestors released their letter to the press instead of first sending it to the Trustees. In fact, they had sent the letter to the Chancellor, the Bishop of Arkansas Bland Mitchell, and Vice-Chancellor Edward McCrady, but the press received it at virtually the same time. Although the administration claimed they had been blindsided, the position of the theological faculty was well-known to the bishop Trustees. The Theological faculty had met with the bishops to discuss the “negro question” on June 7. Matters had apparently gotten so heated that Chancellor Mitchell told a faculty member, “Well, if you don’t like things the way they are, you can leave!” The faculty members interpreted Mitchell’s statement as a threat. [viii]
Another point of contention was whether the closing statement of the faculty letter constituted an ultimatum or a strike-threat. Vice-Chancellor McCrady and Chancellor Mitchell interpreted it as both and went on the defensive. They criticized the faculty members in the Sewanee community for their methods and tactics, which were equated with communist strategies. Important donor and segregationist Jessie Ball duPont wrote that the faculty’s ultimatum constituted a “communistic act” and compared the professors to Stalin. [ix] Red-baiting or labeling integrationists as communists was a common tactic in the 1950s for silencing progressive views. “In the South,” writes historian Michael K. Honey, “the accelerating anticommunist rhetoric had the effect of cloaking segregationist and anti-union appeals with a new degree of patriotic responsibility.” [x]
In a letter to the Dean of the School of Theology, Craighill Brown, Bishop Juhan said, “I honestly don’t believe any group of freshmen could have done anything more inconsiderate, unethical, and stupid…”[xi]Vice-Chancellor McCrady commented, “Trial by press, deliberate cultivation of ill will by name calling, and high pressure techniques in general may serve the purpose of a Hitler or a Stalin but do not, I think, extend the Kingdom of God on earth.”[xii]In response to these hostile reactions on the Mountain, the dissenting faculty issued a “Statement of Clarification” on June 21, rebutting the claim that their original letter constituted an ultimatum.
By contrast, outside of Sewanee, the press was widely supportive of the faculty. Hodding Carter, the well-known editor of the Delta Democrat-Times in Greenville, Mississippi, wrote an editorial titled “Eight Courageous Men of God,” which was then reprinted in The Living Church. [xiii] Newspapers around the country, from The Atlanta Constitution and The Nashville Tennessean to The New York Times, published accounts of the faculty’s letter. Pressure from the Episcopal Church at large was an important factor in the entire episode. The church press all vocally supported the protesters. The deans of Episcopal seminaries wrote a supportive letter as did several Episcopal dioceses and local church vestries and organizations. Other letters from around the country poured in to Vice-Chancellor McCrady’s office, offering opinions, advice, support, and admonishment.
A Tumultuous Time
At the end of July 1952, Chancellor Mitchell called a special session of the Board of Regents, during which he appointed a special committee to investigate admitting black students to the School of Theology. Bishop Edwin Penick of North Carolina, a known supporter of desegregation, chaired the committee. The Penick Committee, as it would be known, began their work immediately, but they did not submit a report until the following May of 1953. During this meeting, at the suggestion of Bishop Edmund Dandridge of Tennessee, the Regents met with the faculty and prayed together as a show of unity during a very tumultuous time. A statement released by the Regents after this meeting added a note of optimism: “both groups [Regents and faculty] feel assured of the cooperation and harmonious operation of the School of Theology during the coming academic year.” [xiv] A truce of sorts had been agreed upon, but it did not hold for long.
When school began in the fall, the seminary students returned to a hostile environment left by the controversy over the summer. In response, on September 23, the School of Theology student body passed a series of resolutions in support of their faculty. Notably, one of the staunchest supporters of the faculty was student Duncan Gray Jr., president of School of Theology student body and future bishop. Gray found himself in a difficult position: His father was the Bishop of Mississippi, making him an owning bishop and trustee, while Vice-Chancellor McCrady was his maternal uncle. Yet Gray was set in his allegiances. He supported his professors, whom he later named the most important theological influences in his life. [xv] Looking back later, Gray said the events of his senior year at the School of Theology (1952-53) schooled him well for his ministry and Civil Rights activism as a priest in Mississippi. In conversations “with students, alumni, trustees and regents,” Gray recalled, “I heard every argument possible for preserving segregation in all areas of public life.” This aspect of his education, he said, “prepared [me] for every argument that I ever heard in the next twenty years back in Mississippi. There was nothing new.” [xvi]
The Professors Resign
Two important factors worked together to convince the faculty that their resignations needed to be submitted sooner than their original deadline of June 1953. First was the ousting of Professor Bob Grant. As one of the older and most distinguished faculty members, Grant had served as Interim Dean and had won a Guggenheim Fellowship. In September, Vice-Chancellor McCrady confronted Grant with the charge of public drunkenness. The incident in question had taken place six years earlier, and the segregationist Bishop Juhan was the chief accuser. [xvii] Grant did not dispute the charges and, rather than face his accusers, resigned. In addition to Grant, rumors of misconduct also circulated about Professors Bob McNair and Allen Reddick. The professors apparently believed the administration to be the source of the rumors, leading McNair to write to Chancellor Mitchell asking him to substantiate the charges against him. Chancellor Mitchell responded not by presenting proof, but by asking McNair if he knew in his heart he was guilty: “My understanding of Christian ethics and moral theology is that the guilt or sin in any act or course lies in the doing of it and not in whether the guilt or sin is alleged or proved.”[xviii]The faculty believed they were the targets of a larger scheme by the supporters of segregation to discredit them personally in order to undermine the case they made for desegregation. McCrady, the Vice-Chancellor, later denied any such operation, but a letter from Jessie Ball duPont to Bishop Mitchell in August 1952 suggests otherwise. “The elimination process one by one,” she wrote, “sounds very wise. I trust it has already begun.” [xix]
A second matter that disturbed the faculty involved Professor McNair. At the Trustees meeting in June 1952, they had voted to promote McNair to Full Professor, which carried with it tenure. After the faculty published their letter on June 9, the McCrady administration decided to withhold the promotion. When McNair learned of this in September, he filed a complaint with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which investigated. The AAUP also was warned of the firing of Grant, but he did not wish to pursue the matter, so they only investigated the circumstances of McNair’s promotion. The AAUP report concluded that the only reason the promotion was withheld was that McNair had signed the June 9 letter of protest. Therefore, the AAUP reported, the action was a serious threat to “academic freedom” at Sewanee. Withholding the promotion, they observed, “was a step that could scarcely fail to create, in the protesting group, deep uncertainty as to the intentions and the good will of the University.” [xx]
In response to these pressures, as well as the general atmosphere at Sewanee, the professors tendered their resignations on October 6, 1952. Initially, the Vice-Chancellor did not accept them, but he relented in late October when Dean Brown threatened to make the resignations public if they were not accepted. While all the professors agreed to serve out the rest of the 1952-1953 school year, the School of Theology faced a potentially disastrous situation: It had only one professor returning for the following fall. The process of seeking a new School of Theology faculty as well as a new University Chaplain began. In February, the university announced it had assembled a new faculty with Bishop Dandridge of Tennessee as Dean. [xxi] With the question of desegregation as yet unresolved, the hiring of a new faculty was met with derision by some. In the Episcopal Churchnews, the Rev. John Krumm, Chaplain at Columbia University, referred to these newly hired faculty members as “scabs,” continuing the theme of labor language. [xxii]
At the School of Theology, the spring of 1953 was one of deep uncertainty. Concerned that there might not be a new faculty in place for the following year, some seminary professors who were leaving taught their senior level classes in the evenings for the current middlers (second year seminarians) so they would be prepared for their ordination exams.[xxiii]In the end, many bishops including Penick of North Carolina pulled their students from Sewanee: Of the 56 rising middlers and seniors, 35 transferred and 21 remained.
Desegregation at Last
In June 1953, the Trustees met again in a special session to consider desegregation. They had before them the Penick Committee Report, a relatively comprehensive document that included data about the number of African American students at other Episcopal seminaries (there were not many), opinions of faculty, staff, and students, legal matters, and discussions with seminaries that had desegregated about their experiences. A letter from Bishop Thomas Carruthers of South Carolina to McCrady expressed the wider church support for the faculty who had resigned: “the General Church will accept but one answer” on the matter of desegregation. [xxiv]
Those who wanted to maintain Sewanee as an all-white institution often justified their positions by citing Sewanee’s founders. The university was founded by Episcopal Bishops in 1856-1860 to defend and advance the interests of the South’s slaveholding civilization. The 1950s critics alluded to preserving the southern way of life envisaged by those founders. Vice-Chancellor McCrady himself said that desegregation would violate “the founders’ spirit and intention.” [xxv] The Selma branch of the Sewanee alumni association argued that desegregation would be to “abolish forever the ideas of Southern culture of Bishops Polk, Otey and Quintard.” [xxvi] The chief opponent of desegregation on the seminary faculty, Professor Bayard Jones, made exactly this point in a letter to McCrady: “the Sewanee envisaged by the Founders could not survive the experiment which is urged.” [xxvii]
Yet in the end, a different vision of Sewanee won out. “In this instance the church influence proved decisive,” writes Vice-Chancellor Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., “overriding the chancellor, the vice-chancellor, the Board of Regents, and the college faculty.” [xxviii] As of June 1953, the School of Theology was officially desegregated, a victory for the faculty who were no longer there to see it. Yet the actual work of desegregation was done by the Rev. John Moncrief and the brave African American priests who followed in his footsteps, breaking down the color line at Sewanee. The School of Theology, the university, the students, and the faculty involved were forever changed. Perhaps, we are only now beginning to learn the lessons we ought from this time, by moving beyond a narrative of institutional crisis and rediscovering the powerful Christian witnesses in our communal history.
About the author: Hannah Pommersheim is a third-year Masters of Divinity student at the School of Theology. She is a Candidate for Holy Orders from the Diocese of Texas. Originally from South Dakota and a graduate of Davidson College, Hannah lives in Sewanee with her husband.
Appendix: The full text of the faculty letter of June 9, 1952:
To the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees of the University of the South
We, the Dean and Members of the Faculty of the School of Theology, the Chaplain of the University, and the Department of Religion of the College of Arts and Sciences, of the University of the South, are deeply disturbed by the statement in the public press reporting the negative action taken by the Board of Trustees on the resolution from the Synod of the Province of Sewanee, asking for the admission of Negro students to the School of Theology.
We therefore wish to put on record our convictions on this matter,
First, we deplore the Trustees’ failure to state any Christian principle involved, with the consequent reduction of the whole issue to the level of expediency only.
Second, the position taken seems to us untenable in the light of Christian ethics and of the teaching of the Anglican Communion;
“God has given man responsibility. To exercise it, he must have freedom. The Christian Church therefore demands essential human rights for all, irrespective of race or colour. There are unhappily countries in the world where such rights are denied. We are grateful for the work which is being done by the Commission of the United Nations on Human Rights.We pledge ourselves to work for the removal of the injustice and oppression, and, in particular, to stand by those whose right to religious liberty is threatened.” (The Encyclical Letter, The Lambeth Conference, 1948)
Third, the statement that there are ten other Episcopal seminaries which do accept Negro students, together with the implication in the Chancellor’s remark that the Sewanee Trustees’ refusal to admit Negroes now is in “the furtherance of the Church’s work and the happiness and mutual good will or both races”, can only mean that the ministry to the Negro members of the twenty-two owning Dioceses and the training of clergy or their needs is no concern of the University.
Fourth, we believe that the statement of the Trustees, as reported, if not re-examined and revised will do irreparable harm to the reputation of Sewanee as a center of Christian education,
Fifth, the action of the Trustees undermines our effectiveness as teachers of the Christian faith and way of life. It compromises us as priests and teachers in this University, which is owned and operated by the Episcopal Church.
We therefore request a reconsideration of this question by the Trustees. We request that the public be informed that the issue is being considered. We request a statement from the Trustees, not later than their next regular meeting, that they approve in principle the relevant resolutions of the Lambeth Conference and that they are prepared to allow admission of qualified Negro students to the School of Theology. Meanwhile, we shall do our best to servethe Church in training men for the Ministry, though under adverse circumstances which we protest.
If our request is ignored or if the assurance sought is refused, we are without exception prepared to resign our positions and terminate our connection with the University in June 1953.
[The following signed the letter: The Very Reverend F. Craighill Brown, D, D., Dean; the Reverend Robert M. Grant, Th.D., Professor of New Testament; the Reverend R. Lansing Hicks, B.D., Associate Professor of Old Testament; the Reverend Robert M. McNair, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics and Moral Theology; Allen Reddick, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Church History; the Reverend Claude E. Guthrie, B.D., Instructor in Practical Theology; the Reverend Richard H. Wilmer, Jr., D. Phil., Chaplain of the University and Professor of English Bible; and the Reverend Frederick Q. Shafer, S.T.D., head of the Department of Religion in the College of Arts and Sciences.
NOTES TO THE TEXT.
Thank you to the University Archives and Special Collections at Sewanee for the images used in this story. The McCrady Papers and the School of Theology Integration Papers are both housed in the University Archives.
[i] Duncan M. Gray, Jr., “Sewanee: There and Back Again,” Sewanee Theological Review (Easter 2003), 218.
[ii] Donald S. Armentrout, “A Documentary History of the Integration Crisis at the School of Theology 1951-53,” Sewanee Theological Review (Easter 2003), 210. Of the 56 rising middlers and seniors, 35 transferred and 21 remained.
[iii] Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., Sewanee Sesquicentennial History: The Making of the University of the South, 262, and Armentrout, “A Documentary History of the Integration Crisis at the School of Theology 1951-53.”
[iv] Letter from Alfred P. Chambliss, Jr. to Edward McCrady, January 9, 1952, McCrady Papers, Box 81. He says, “I was very shocked and distressed over a letter which I received from Bishop Juhan, and I suppose he sent it to all members of the Board of Trustees. In this letter, he expressed his own opinion that the resolution passed by the Provincial Synod, requesting the admission of Negro students to the School of Theology at Sewanee, should be turned down by the Board.”
[v] Resolution passed by the Board of Trustees on June 6, 1952, McCrady Papers, Box 100.
[vi] Resolution passed by the Board of Trustees on June 6, 1952, McCrady Papers, Box 100.
[vii] Two School of Theology professors were away from the Mountain at the time. Bayard Hale Jones denounced his fellow faculty members and Howard A. Johnson immediately added his name to the letter, bringing the total number of signers to nine.
[viii] All of this is recalled in a letter from Bayard Hale Jones to Edward McCrady, August 19, 1952, McCrady Papers, Box 81.
[ix] Letter from Jessie Ball duPont to Edward McCrady, July 1, 1952, McCrady Papers, Box 81.
[x] Michael K. Honey, “Operation Dixie, the Red Scare, and the Defeat of Southern Labor Organizing,” in American Labor and the Cold War, edited by Cherny, Issel, and Taylors, 226.
[xi] Letter from Bishop Juhan to F. Craighill Brown, June 21, 1952, McCrady Papers, Box 81.
[xii] Letter from Edward McCrady to H. L. Graham, February 25, 1953, McCrady Papers, Box 81.
[xiii] The Living Church, June 29, 1952, School of Theology Integration Files, Box 2.
[xiv] Press release from “Sewanee News Room,” August 1, 1952, School of Theology Integration Files, Box 2.
[xv] Gray, 218.
[xvi] Gray, 218.
[xvii] Araminta Stone Johnston, And One Was a Priest: The Life and Times of Duncan M. Gray, Jr., 107.
[xviii] Letter from Bland Mitchell to Robert McNair, November 26, 1952, McCrady Papers, Box 81.
[xix] Williamson, 260. Quotations are from her authorized biography, Richard Greening Hewlett, Jessie Ball duPont.
[xx] AAUP report, undated, School of Theology Integration Files, Box 2.
[xxi] “Bishop E. P. Dandridge Elected Seminary Dean,” Sewanee Alumni News, February 15, 1953, 3.
[xxii] Armentrout, 207. Krumm quotation from Episcopal Churchnews, March 1, 1953.
[xxiii] Thomas H. Carson, “The Way We Were: Life at Sewanee in 1953,” Sewanee Theological Review (Easter 2003), 214.
[xxiv] Letter from Rt. Rev. Thomas N. Carruthers of South Carolina to Edward McCrady, January 14, 1953, McCrady Papers, Box 81.
[xxv] Letter from Edward McCrady to Mrs. Allen August 2, 1953, McCrady Papers, Box 81.
[xxvi] Houston Roberson, “The Problem of the Twentieth Century: Sewanee, Race, and Race Relations,” in Sewanee Perspectives: On the History of the University of the South, edited by Gerald L. Smith and Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., 487. Roberson is quoting a letter from the Selma Sewanee Alumni.
[xxvii] Letter from Bayard Hale Jones to Edward McCrady August 19, 1952, McCrady Papers, Box 81.
[Click here to go directly to the interactive map.]
Across the United States today, many of the nation’s oldest universities and colleges have, for the first time, begun researching their historical ties to slavery and uncovering the ways their institutions relied on enslaved persons for the labor performed on their campuses or as the basis of fortunes they tapped for funding.
The University of the South is at the start of its own six-year investigation, led by its Project on Slavery, Race, and Reconciliation. Today the Project shares part of the research it has amassed by introducing an interactive map feature entitled ‘Within the Pale of the Plantation States’: Slavery and the Governance of the University of the South in 1860.
Our aim with the publication of this mapis to gain a better understanding of the significance of slavery in the campaign to establish the University of the South. The Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana, Leonidas Polk, launched that drive in July 1856, when he wrote a letter to nine of his fellow southern bishops, rallying them to join forces in founding a southern and Episcopal university. This great center of learning would be the equal of any other in the world and centrally located, he explained, “within the pale of the plantation states.”
With that telling phrase, Polk rooted the identity of the planned university in the region defined by slave-based plantation agriculture, its enslaved population numbering some 4 million persons, and the phenomenal wealth it generated. Polk’s bold proposal later materialized as The University of the South, chartered in 1858.
The ten “plantation states” the bishop identified are represented in the interactive map compiled here. Save for Virginia, which does not appear here because it was not included in Polk’s campaign, the states corresponded to those of the Confederacy later formed in 1861.
The interactive maplocates the home counties of the thirty-seven white men – Episcopal bishops, clergymen, and laymen – who served in 1860 as the original Trustees and governed the new University of the South. Clicking on the highlighted counties allows a closer inspection, revealing a more detailed demographic profile of the respective counties and each individual Trustee, including their assessed wealth and the number of persons they enslaved. (Links to the U.S. Census documents from which the information is drawn are provided, too.) You may click through the biographies on the left side or explore the map itself by selecting a county.
The map incorporates extensive research by Tanner Potts, C’15, the Project’s research associate, who worked closely with Molly Elkins, C’18, and Will Godsey, C’17, technicians in the university’s Landscape Analysis Lab, in preparing the illustration.
What we see in this accounting is that virtually all of the university’s early leaders held persons in bondage; in some cases, they held hundreds captive as slaves. Most hailed from counties where the enslaved population was comparatively large, and in some cases the numerical majority. The map’s profiling of the original leadership cadre indicates the university’s indebtedness to the wealth and power of persons whose fortunes were grounded in the slave-based plantation economy.
The map represents the initial phase of a larger project of “social geography” that uses Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping technology to profile and examine the university’s first generation of organizers and boosters in light of their connections with and investments in slavery. Succeeding versions of the map will incorporate our ongoing research into the biographies of the nearly 300 persons who pledged upwards of $1 million to endow the University of the South.
The map translated statistical information taken from the 1860 Census into a visual form, a process known today as “statistical cartography.” The map’s principal designer shaded each county according to the density of the enslaved population, the darkest indicating counties where slaves constituted 80 percent or more of the inhabitants. Doing so produced a picture of slavery and an argument against it that no one had ever seen or imagined before – a kind of “heat map” that linked the hotbeds of secessionist fervor to the areas of densest enslaved populations.
By overlaying our data on the 1861 map, we produce a revealing picture of the antebellum University of the South, its leadership class, and the slavery-defined “pale of the plantation states” that gave the university its first identity.
By Tanner Potts Research Associate Sewanee Project on Slavery, Race, and Reconciliation
How well do we really know our campus landmarks?
For example, take Thompson Union. Standing on University Avenue directly across from All Saints’ Chapel, it is one of the Sewanee campus’s legendary and most recognizable buildings. Originally a science hall and later the storied student union and still the location of the SUT (Sewanee’s movie theater), it has served the last two decades or more as the home of the university’s fundraising arm.
But how did it come about? And whom does its name honor?
In this interactive slideshow (available at this link), the Project’s researcher Tanner Potts, C’15, shows why we need to follow his lead in taking much “closer looks” at this building and our campus as a whole to understand the histories of the memorials it retains to the leaders of the antebellum slaveholding order and to their resurgence to wealth, power, and influence as they succeeded in defeating Reconstruction.