The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1850-09-03
Alisfellaneous pepart,nerlt.
From the Savannah Republican.
The Methodist Church llNorth and South,

sy between the North and the South is Of in.
terest to our readers at this time, and as the dis
pute between the Northern and South srn por-
tions of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which
resulted in the division Of that Church, is per-
haps not generally understood, we have con-
cluded to present the prominent features 'ofthe
dispute as another illustration of the injustice of
the North towards the South in all matters re-
lating to slavery, whether in Church or State.
At the General Conference held in New York
Nav 1914 the following resolution was adopt
ed against Bishop Andrews, who resided in
this State simply because he married:a lady
who owned slaves: 2,
Rrsolred, That it is the sense oflhis General
Conference that he desist from the exercise of
this Office (of Bishop,) SO long as this impede
ment remains.
The Southern members of the General Con-
ference presented protest against the action;
and declaration that the interests Of the
Church in the slaveholding States demanded
separation The matterwas referredto Com
mittee with instructions, that If they could not
devise plan to adjust the difficulty, "they de-
wise if possible, constitutional plan for mu-
tual and friendly division ofthe Church" The
Comnlitte reported plan for the division OF the
Church which was adopted.
The first resolution 10 this plan leaves the
question to the Annual Conference in the slave,
holding States to decide whether they would
organize separate Church or not, and pro.
ceeGs to.-speciiy the rule that should regulate
tie boundary line between the two Churches
should tic ,c "a .a.i,,l AXE rlaee This Feso.
lr..ioa va; alcP:sd. yeas iS5 and mas o.
I'ue len e;:ea goes Oh t. fIorila to' az seoul
table G;.is:oa OF toe hDo.. coucern ard lie
chartered iuad," which passed BY vote Of
yeas l49, nays TO-
The Annual Conferences in the slaveholding
States, excepting Maryland and Delaware,
elected delegates to Convention, which met
in Louisville, KY, May, 1s45, to decide upon
the necessity of separation under the above
cited elan. The Conference were fully repre-
sentei, and after mature delberation and free
discussion, the Conventien by:a vote OF yeas
81 and nays3,
'ResoIred, That it is right, expedient, and
necessary to erect the Annual Conferences rep
resented in this Convention, into distinct &C.
cleSiaSticc connection"
The three in the negative were from the Ken.
lucky Conference. a..
Anxious still to keep up friendly and frater-
nal feelings and intercourse with the North, the
Church South, thus organized, appointed DR..
L. Pierce, Of Georgia, delegate to the next Gen.
eral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church North, to tender the Christian saluta-
tions of the Church South /; but he was un'
tremendously rejected
Three Commissioners were appointed by the
General Conference in 1914, a "like number to
be appointed by the Church South should one
be formed" to make the division of the proper.
ty as provided for by the plan of separation
then adopted. The Convention of the South,
alterresolving to separate, appointed three Com
missioners to act for the Church South, il
carrying outthe division of the property. But
the Commissioners for the Church North retu-
sed to act This left the question unsettled till
the General Conference of the Church North
met in lS4S, when the Conference assumed to
annul the whole proceedings of the General
Conference of 1914, touching the plan of sepa.
ration, and utterly refused to give the Church
South particle of the property. Cut off from
all hope of Justice at the hands of the Church
North tho Commissioners for the Church South
commenced suit for the funds, according to
the plan of separation of 1914. Suits are now
pending in the Courts of Ohio, Philadelphia and
New York, where portions Of the property are
located.
The Church South, then, are suing for their
of funds which they held jointly with the whole
Church. and which the General Conference of
the whole Church, by q vote OF l47 to 10 in
2S44, declared was the due of the Church South
should they separate. The Church South did
separate according to the plan adopted by the
General Conference Of the whole Church; and
now, the Northern portion of tho Church refuses
to abide by the contract Having possession,
they mean to keep it, unless the strong arm of
tue law can unclench their grasp, This is
Northern Christian Justice! 1t is to be hoped
that the law will force them to do the Church
South justice, if their code O; mora Is will not.
A local casa in Alexandria, and another in
Maysvilic, ky.. have been tried in their civil
courts have decided that the parties should be
governed by the plan of separation adopted in
lS44, aud under which the Church South
claims the funds in suit.
We have thought it proper to say this much
about this controversy between the North and
South, in this numerous and influential dencmi
nation uI Christians. to gle specimen ol how
tie Suutn is treated rei,eiouslv, by the North,
as well as politically We are Informed that