Samuel Simon Schmucker
This past weekend, reader/blogger Vince (of Lancaster at War) suggested something that sounded worth further investigation… and I was soon on the hunt, looking to see how Samuel Simon Schmucker may have impacted Lutheran ministers in the Shenandoah Valley.
Since Schmucker was head of the Gettysburg Seminary during the decades (to be specific, 1826-1864) leading-up to the war, it seemed likely that future Lutheran ministers of the Valley may have cycled through the seminary during this time. Still, what sort of influence might he have had on them… if any at all?
To be specific, Schmucker was an abolitionist.
Still, before I go too far into his abolitionist sentiment, I think his connections with the Shenandoah Valley need further consideration. As a matter of fact, Schmucker’s influence there was not so indirect as most of his online biographies reflect.
For one, Schmucker may have been born in Hagerstown, but his “New World” roots were in the Shenandoah Valley. When a more popular Lutheran in Valley memory, Paul Henkel, made a connection with the Schmucker family, in the latter 1700s, they lived just west of Woodstock, in Shenandoah County. The immigrant Schmucker’s son, John George Schmucker (Samuel Simon Schmucker’s father), was of particular interest to Henkel, as he wished to learn theology. After a year with Henkel, J.G. Schmucker went to Philadelphia, where he continued to pursue his studies. After licensed, in 1800, the elder Schmucker served the Church in both Pennsylvania and Maryland. It was during his time in Maryland when Samuel S. Schmucker was born, in 1799.*
Samuel went on to graduate from Princeton, and then attended the seminary of the Presbyterian Church, but then… made his way into the Shenandoah Valley, at New Market (1820), where he served as pastor (at the Davidsburg Church from 1820-25 and St. Matthews, from 1821-25) for five years. It was also during this time that he headed (beginning in 1823) a small seminary which produced six candidates** to the ministry and was the forerunner of the seminary that would be developed in Gettysburg.
It looks great on paper up until this point, but Schmucker’s time in New Market wasn’t entirely pleasant. To the older, more conservative Lutherans, Schmucker’s teachings and preachings were more radical than they preferred. The resulting impact was a rift in the Davidsburg congregation which sent the more conservative practitioners to churches further to the south of New Market. It’s very interesting, but to go much further would be to digress…
Perhaps more significant in relation to his views on slavery was the fact that, in October 1825, through his marriage to Mary Steenbergen… he involuntarily became a slaveholder.
It was another 15 years before Schmucker, at the request of the seminary students at Gettysburg, prepared propositions on the subject of slavery.
My question is… what was/were Schmucker’s motivation(s)? Was he influenced as early as his years at Princeton, during his time in the Shenandoah Valley (and as an involuntary inheritor of slaves), or after his relocation at Gettysburg? That’s something I don’t know… at least not yet.
But, for further consideration of his ideology, consider these propositions (as modified prior to submission to the Western Pennsylvania Synod, in 1845)[Source]:
OF SLAVERY
(March 24th, 1840)
Propositions on the subject of Slavery
Samuel Simon SchmuckerProposition 1
We believe that God has of one blood created all nations to dwell on the face of the earth, has endowed them all with the powers of moral agency and invested them all with certain inalienable rights and obligations, e.g., life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the discharge of what they believe to be their religious duties.Proposition 2
No man or set of men has a right to acquire or exercise such a control over others, as is detrimental to the inalienable rights and obligations of the individual.Proposition 3
Each association, whether a civil government or a literary society or a domestic institution, can rightfully exercise a control over its subjects only under this limitation: only so far as it is not detrimental to the inalienable rights and obligations of individuals.Proposition 4
Every instance or institution which violates the inalienable rights and obligations of individuals is in its own nature an evil. Further, all who materially and knowingly establish it, or who finding it previously fail sincerely to desire and faithfully to labor for its extinction, are guilty of sin.Proposition 5
Such evils exist in some of the political governments of Europe, which restrict the freedom of religious worship or violate any other inalienable right or obligation.Proposition 6
Slavery as it is legally authorized in the United States, and until recently was authorized in the British West Indies, is the very worst form of such an evil, because by converting the moral agent of God, into a mere chattel, the person into a mere thing, the immortal being into a mere article of property, it in theory strips him of all his personal rights, and places it in the power of his master, in practice to deny him the enjoyment of all the inalienable rights which God bestowed on him, and to prevent higher performance of those inalienable duties which God has imposed.Proposition 7
Experience proves that whilst there are thousands of humane and Christian masters, who treat their slaves with kindness and work them moderately, yet even in their hands the system itself unavoidably leads to the intellectual and moral degradation of the slave, whilst in the hands of a majority of masters the practice is nearly and often fully as bad as the theory will allow.Proposition 8
Slavery either essentially embraces or naturally or unavoidably leads to the following evils.a) It virtually destroys the matrimonial relations, which God has instituted and commanded because it acknowledges no such relation in law, affords no legal protection to it, but puts it in the power of the master at any time and for any reason and even without any to separate those whom God, by the mutual covenant of the parties, hath joined together.
b) It tends to promote promiscuous concubinage by destroying the inviolability of the conjugal relation, and by frequent separations teaching the slave to regard it as less sacred by denying anything like legal protection to female chastity, it places the whole race of females at the mercy of the licentious master, and other licentious men.
c) It violates the parental relation by taking children from the control of their parents, then making it impossible for their parents to direct their destination in life, or to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
d) It is habitual injustice to the slave, and violation of the inspired precepts that the laborer is worthy of his hire.
e) It destroys the motives to industry and honesty by extorting labor without wages.
f) It in a great measure shuts out the written word of God from the slave by making it unusual to teach him to read, and thus it renders it impossible for him to discharge the duty enjoined on all to search the scriptures.
Proposition 9
That a system compounded of elements so immoral and so clearly opposed to the character of God, finds any sanction in his word can be asserted only from want of careful and adequate examination, or from ignorance or prejudice, or insincerity. The facts of the case are these: the word “slave” occurs but twice in our English Bible. In the first passage, Jeremiah 2:14, there is no Hebrew word at all corresponding to it, and the ellipsis to be supplied was “servant.” In the other case, Revelation 18:13, the Greek word is somaton (bodies) and should have been so rendered. The terms actually used in scripture ebed, douloV, are generic terms, actually used and equivalent to servant, they are also applied to the ancient prophets and kings (1 Kings 12:6,7; 2 Chronicles 12:7, 8, 9, 13). They are also applied to Christians who are termed servants and to Christ himself (Isaiah 42:1). As to the thing itself, slavery in the American sense of the term had no existence under the Old Test. dispensation. There was indeed a species of servitude, but that servitude was very different from American slavery.a) It was in all cases temporary; the Hebrew could not be kept longer than six years (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:121314) except when sold for debts, where he might be kept until the year of jubilee (Leviticus 25:40). Some Jewish writers assert that this could be done only when the jubilee occurred within the ensuing 6 years. The foreign servant that was purchased could be contracted for till the year of jubilee and no longer (Leviticus 25:10). The term “forever” which is sometimes applied to these foreign servants appears to indicate only an indefinite time and does not see beyond the jubilee in which all servants were commanded to be set at liberty without exception. But if any servant was ill treated, or for any reason was dissatisfied with situation, he could move off and dwell in any place where it liked him best and the Israelite was commanded not to deliver him to his master (Deuteronomy 23:16). John 8:35 says the servant abideth not forever, but the son does.
b) This servitude was generally voluntary; it could not well be otherwise, as not only the manstealer was punished with death, but also every person in whose possession any one thus taken was found (Exodus 1:15). Manstealing is forcibly taking and selling another, or seducing him to bondage. Now, if it could not be done forcibly, it must be done voluntarily if at all, excepting cases where the law provided for the sale of persons involuntarily for debt, which case it is however not certain that it did occur (Leviticus 25:29) and all servants could terminate their servitude by absconding. The Hebrew sold himself (Leviticus 25:47) seeming to imply the legality of involuntary sale for debt, though Gesenius renders this passage makar “sold himself” like in verse 47 where even our own Common Version renders the same word “sell himself.” The Egyptians sold themselves to Pharaoh for bread (Genesis 47:49).
c) The conjugal relation was acknowledged and not severed; when the servant’s time had expired he took his wife with him, if he had been married before his indenture or servantship, and if he married afterward in his master’s family, his master was compelled to keep him if he desired to remain even after his time had expired (Exodus 21:32).
d) The religious privileges of servants were equal to those of their masters (Genesis17:1317; Exodus 20:30; Deuteronomy 5:14).
e) They were on equality with their masters in many respects; thus, they were entrusted with arms (Genesis 14:14, 32:6, 33:1).
f) They sometimes married into their master’s family (1 Chronicles 2:323435).
g) They partook of the feasts with their masters (Deuteronomy 12:1718, 16:11).
h) Paul says that the heir whilst a child or minor differs not from a servant; i.e. he asserts that their situation was in general similar, a thing which no one could with propriety assert of the condition of American slaves (Galatians 4:1).
Proposition 10
Whilst the New Testament does not denounce slavery by name any more than it does gambling, or piracy, or polygamy, or the Olympic Games, or the Eleucinian mysteries, or the despotism of Tiberius or Nero; it does in numerous passages condemn each of the ingredients of which slavery is composed, urging the slave to accept of his liberty if he can obtain it (1 Corinthians 7:21); urging masters to give their slaves what is just and equal (Colossians 4:1); not to keep back the wages of the hireling (James 5:4); not to separate husband and wife—to remember that they also have a master in heaven—and to treat the servant “no longer as a slave” (Philippians 6:16), but above a slave as a brother beloved.Proposition 11
Involuntary slave holding is not sinful so long as it is strictly of this character. This embracesa) first, persons convinced of the evils of slavery, but on whom slaves have been entailed by inheritance or marriage. By inheritance persons may become slaveholders in their sleep, as they may become owners of property or money made by gambling or other illegal traffic. The innocence of this slaveholding can continue only until there has been time for the master to execute deeds of manumission; or if the laws do not allow emancipation on the soil; until they can be transported to a place of safety or free state, or country.
b) In the former times of ignorance on this subject persons who had but little knowledge of human institutions themselves and had never been admonished on this subject, and who treated their slaves as they ought (viz., gave them religious instruction, governed them by moral motives) held slaves in comparative, though not absolute innocence; just as good men formerly drank ardent spirits moderately.
c) Those who before the sinfulness of slavery had been discussed, did actually acknowledge the inviolable rights and obligations of man in their slaves and they
made slavery far different in practice from what the theory of the law makes it, may have held slaves in comparative innocence.Proposition 12
All voluntary slaveholding is sinful. This embraces almost the entire extent of actual slavery at the present day of light and discussion.Proposition 13
The degree of guilt in the case of each individual slave holder, in addition to the guilt of holding human beings in slavery at all, is proportionate to the degree in which he in fact violates the unalienable right of man in his slaves and in which he impedes their performance of their inviolable obligations as husbands and wives, as children and parents, as free subjects of God’s moral government.Proposition 14
It is the duty of every individual himself immediately to abstain from all violation of the inalienable rights and obligations of his fellow man in practice. Further, in order that neither he nor they after him may be able to practice these violations hereafter, it is his duty by immediate emancipation to relinquish that legal right and temptation to its practice, which the law gives to the master over his slave.Proposition 15
It is the duty of every Christian and friend of civil and religious liberty, to exert his influence in every beneficial way to vindicate the right of all God’s rational creatures, and by peaceable means and Christian appeals to their consciences, patriotism and humanity to influence those who are violating those rights (Leviticus 19:17; Proverbs 31:89; Jeremiah 22:13; Matthew 5:43; 7:12).
Sure, these may have been his views after 1840, but having left Virginia, could Schmucker have still impacted ideology in the Shenandoah Valley, especially if none of the operating ministers of the 1840s and 50s had been students of the new seminary in Gettysburg?
The answer to that is… yes. He very well could have impacted thinking among Shenandoah Valley Lutherans. I say this because his reach even impacted the founding of Roanoke College. Take, for example, David F. Bittle, who was one of the two men instrumental in founding the college (1842), and had been a student of the Gettysburg Seminary, in the mid 1830s. I briefly quote from the history of Roanoke College (The First Hundred Years: An Authentic History of Roanoke College):
The two years following graduation [1835] David Bittle spent in studying theology at Gettysburg Seminary. Here he came under the full sweep of Prof. S.S. Schmucker’s personality as that distinguished scholar lectured on all courses in the curriculum except Greek and Hebrew.
So, Bittle was exposed to Schmucker’s ideology as late as 1837/38… only two years before Schmucker drafted his propositions on slavery. But did it carry over to what was being taught at Roanoke College?
Bottom line… there’s a good deal more work involved in this, but I still believe that there were various factors that may have swayed many a Valley Lutheran against embracing the Confederacy. Granted, many did… but I suspect they were the more youthful (and I’m aware of students at Roanoke College who sided with the Confederacy… a third great grand uncle of mine, from the central Shenandoah Valley, being among them, and having served as a company commander in the Stonewall Brigade ), and those that resisted may have tended more against secession and the Confederacy, founded primarily on their views of slavery.
Keep in mind also that this examination is a by-product of an interest in digging deeper into Southern Unionism in the Shenandoah Valley, and the different factors that may have influenced people here.
*John George Schmucker’s brothers, John Nicholas Schmucker and John Peter Schmucker. J.N. Schmucker ministered in Woodstock, beginning in 1806, while J.P.S. ministered in North Carolina. J.N.S.’s son, George, later ministered in the Valley and northern Virginia, but concentrated most of his time in both Hardy and Pendleton counties (later part of West Virginia).
**One of those future ministers was Samuel K. Houshour, who I know married (in Shepherdstown) at least one set of my ancestors. Houshour took Schmucker’s place when he left New Market to head the new seminary in Gettysburg.
Cenantua's Blog 
John M. Rudy
September 28, 2012
I like the path you’re heading down here, with one quibbling caveat. In my estimation of “abolitionism,” there is a fundamental difference between call and action. The difference expresses itself through action. I cannot find a reliable source which ever ascribes physical action against slavery to Schmucker.
It seems like a picky little detail, but there is a definite schism in American intellectualism in the 1850s between those who avow and espouse anti-slavery thoughts and those who physically act on behalf of ending the institution outright. The later group are rightly called “Abolitionists,” as they were actively fighting to destroy the institution. The former are better termed, “antislavery,” in so much as they abhorred the institution but failed to act in any appreciable way to alleviate suffering on the part of slaves.
Schmucker’s ultimate call for action is fundamentally a call to words, not for the breaking chains. (“…by peaceable means and Christian appeals to their consciences, patriotism and humanity…”)
This all comes up because Gettysburg College, in recent years, for PR purposes has played up Schmucker’s anti-slavery thought (appended to Thaddeus Stevens’ charter of Penna. College) as proof that the college was a progressive, Abolitionist institution. But that is far from the cut-and-dry case. Just as Schmucker’s thought-virus might have infected the Shenandoah Valley, that road runs both ways. Gettysburg’s cultural allegiances tend to tug southward because of our carriage industry’s chief marketplace.
If someone can produce that smoking gun of an account of Schmucker assisting a slave on the UGRR, corroborate it with some more evidence from sources like William Still or Rochester/Syracuse/Buffalo/Boston newspapers, then I’ll be comfortable labeling him as an Abolitionist. Until then, he simply espoused anti-slavery sentiments and verbally agitated for change.
Again, it’s all semantics. To a Shenandoah Valley slaveholder (or a rebel soldier looking for some fun destroying books and plaster busts in a professor’s library) the two look nearly identical.
Welcome to Pennsylvania College history. Prepare to dive deep, it only gets more complicated from here on out.
Vince
September 29, 2012
John, just out of curiosity, has anyone characterized (or do you know) the relationship, if any, between Thaddeus Stevens and Samuel Simon Schmucker while they were both in Gettysburg?
Vince
October 1, 2012
Also, I’m not sure where the practice of using different meanings for “anti-slavery” and “abolitionist” comes from, but it seems like a bad idea to use different meanings for two words that should mean exactly the same thing. Can’t adjectives or using those words as adjectives better accomplish the distinction? With an academic career possibly in my future, I bristle at the notion that a professor needs to put his ideas into practice to be considered a proponent of those ideas.
Robert Moore
October 1, 2012
“Also, I’m not sure where the practice of using different meanings for ‘anti-slavery’ and ‘abolitionist’ comes from, but it seems like a bad idea to use different meanings for two words that should mean exactly the same thing.”
I see the difference in the two as modern distinctions to help us unravel what always seems to be a more complex past than what we were led to understand growing up. Of course, on a personal note, I think I overuse the word “complex” when describing people and their sentiments, from that time. I could use a thesaurus, but… why bother? 🙂
Depending on the person, to some at that time, the meaning could have been one in the same.
JMRudy
October 1, 2012
I think one of the reasons you’re having some trouble with the thought, Vince, is that in a popular vein we often view both the war and American intellectualism on the whole as a stark contrast between one polar extreme or another.
The North being “anti-slavery,” and the South being, “pro-slavery,” work as cribnotes versions of the past very rarely, but crops up so often. But I like the complication that Robert’s research throws into the mix and the fact that he tries to present it in a public fashion.
Just because someone feels that slavery is wrong, that it is a moral, social, political or ethical sin, does not mean that person is an Abolitionist. Abolitionists believed in the effacement of slavery from the American landscape through overt social action, some of which was violent/catastrophic/immediate (Douglass, Garrison, Smith, Stevens, Brown) and some of which was gradual (early Lincoln, most compensationists, some colonizationists).
Anti-slavery is far less committed to effecting the concept of social change on the landscape. It’s the raw sentiment without the motivation to action. This could be akin to NIMBY vocal outcries in the modern world. You can be anti-slavery and never physically assist a slave in kind or take a concrete action to end slavery in the world around you. There is the dividing line for my working definition: talk about how bad slavery is over dinner, you’re anti-slavery; feed a runaway slave dinner, you’re an Abolitionist.
What makes the distinction so frustrating is that the movement itself saw these distinctions (the great schism between Douglass and Garrison in 1854 being the most notable moment of self-awareness) but the outside forces which were fighting to maintain slavery viewed an Abolitionist as an Abolitionist, no matter what stripe.
But I’m still hashing this all out. Like Robert said, that’s why we have conversations. This ain’t no peer-reviewed journal… 😉
Vince
October 2, 2012
I understand that there was a complex range of thoughts and actions regarding slavery. I just think that using different definitions for two words that are denotatively equivalent takes history in the direction of being esoteric–something that I’m assuming is especially bad for public history. There has to be a more natural, intuitive way of making the distinction between thinkers and doers than calling one-group “anti-slavery” and the other group “abolitionist.”
In my mind, it would even make more sense to call the thinkers “abolitionists” because the suffix -ism is predominantly used for beliefs and principles, making “anti-slavery” a more natural term for those whose physical actions oppose slavery.
Robert Moore
September 29, 2012
Hi John, thanks for commenting! You bring up some excellent points that merit further consideration and discussion.
I had actually considered a follow-up post to this one, going into the reasons why the Schmucker theory might encounter problems, but… maybe we can begin to tackle that right here.
I agree that there is a difference between being an abolitionist and one who is anti-slavery. What I think I’m seeing is a tendency, in Schmucker’s example, to be more like Valley Anabaptists, such as Elder John Kline; less (or, none) activism, and more ideology. It may be that he felt more at ease in speaking out, just a little more (without going to the further side, with abolition) after he arrived in Gettysburg. It’s not clear. I failed to mention one thing I encountered regarding Schmucker’s “abolitionism”, and that is the belief he supposedly held early on, and then how his views evolved… more outspoken later (1840) than earlier… but not to the point of becoming “activist”. I don’t, however, think I’d call his propositions a result of “intellectualism”. The foundations for his thinking were clearly rooted in the Bible (thanks to his use of notes attached to various propositions), and I did find it quite interesting to see how different his use of the Bible was, than that of Presbyterian Joseph Ruggles Wilson. You’ll also notice that I mentioned nothing about his participation in the Underground Railroad because nothing has been proven to show that he actually hid slaves in his barn and house in Gettysburg. There’s just too much of that being tossed around these days, without any evidence to support many of the places that lay claim to being “terminals” on the UGRR.
Also, my focus isn’t so much on Gettysburg College, but the ideology of the man… that Schmucker (and perhaps some of its professors) may have embedded in their lectures. I suspect that, despite his list of propositions, these men still took care not to cross a line and be considered extremists. For the most, much of this is theoretical. There are sufficient morsels to raise the pulse, but we need to keep in mind that our initial excitement over finds is tempered by the nature of a historian to be critical, even of his/her own suspicions/theories. We have to look for the flaws because we know others will be looking. As you stated, however, you “like the path” I’m headed down, thereby acknowledging that a blog post reflects a stream of thinking, but does not necessarily mean it is a conclusion. (Overall, a fun subject to discuss all by itself). *I mention this, not in response to you, but because I know that (… and experience blogging for four years has revealed this to me…) some folks don’t make the distinction.
To be honest, I wonder more about Schmucker’s position while he was in the Valley, than I do about his reach into the Valley, through others, while he served at the head of the Gettysburg Seminary. Once again, nothing proven, but I suspect that any sentiment toward abolition was held in check. Even discussion of being, in any way, anti-slavery, may have been hazardous to one’s health. I think we can see the example of John Henry Kagi, during his time in Hawkinstown, in Shenandoah County, as a good case study as to why it was not a good thing to speak the mind on the subject. For that matter, perish the thought(!!!!) of speaking of any such sentiments after October 1859! I also think that ministers… if they did have anti-slavery sentiment… needed to take care in the Valley. Granted, it wasn’t the Tidewater, but there was enough, culturally (and thinking back to my first post, regarding how, even in the communities that were thick with people of German descent, many had been thoroughly “Anglicized”), behind slavery, that it may have been more important to teach the word of God without dividing congregations by complicating preachings that would suggest an anti-slavery tilt against the laws of the Commonwealth.
You mention things only getting complicated from here on out… but I don’t know when things aren’t complicated when it comes to trying to put one’s thumb on sentiments, especially in the absence of any documentation showing that any number of folks in the Valley, at any point in time, stated… “We believed Schmucker right in his feelings about slavery, and therefore did not find it right to support the Confederacy.” If there be any, those “smoking guns” lay silently, buried in graves… in the minds of any who actually felt anything near to that.
Good stuff, John, and an invigorating exchange so far! I have one more path down which I’d like to take this. It may or may not help us to see things more clearly, but, I have to say, this “ride” is entertaining. Looking forward to hearing Vince comment further, and more from you as well, I hope.
** For the benefit of anyone reading, who might not fully understand Southern Unionism, I should probably also add that abolitionism and anti-slavery were not essential elements in defining Southern Unionists. There were those with those sentiments who were Southern Unionists, but there were also those who still believed in slavery and were Southern Unionists.
JMRudy
October 1, 2012
“I don’t, however, think I’d call his propositions a result of ‘intellectualism’. The foundations for his thinking were clearly rooted in the Bible…”
*Drops to Knees* No! Don’t fall into that trap! 😉
Biblical scholarship and moral philosophy are the deep-seated home of American intellectualism for over a century. Schmucker and the bulk of the ministers of America are firmly in the category of “intellectual” precisely because they were wrestling with the philosophical language of their age: the nature of God. That spirit of intellectual inquiry expresses itself through the very dissonance you’re feeling between Schmucker’s use of scripture and Wilson’s.
The barn story has so many holes it is laughable. But the problem is that it has become almost received truth within certain circles in Gettysburg. I get chided for scoffing at some of the chestnuts of UGRR stories in town because I demand evidence. Christopher Hitchens summed up how we should approach UGRR stories nicely, albeit in an entirely different field: “…extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” But I’ve actually been challenged to prove UGRR stories false by some folks hovering around the Gettysburg scene, many of whom seem wedded to the tales because their ancestor cooked them up in the newspaper. So, in short, I’m glad you’re digging into and broadcasting what you’re finding of the actual Schmucker as opposed to the imagined Schmucker who seems to be the predominate figure in Seminary and College literature, local historical lore and imagination.
I know that you’re staying with the Valley, but Pennsylvania College tends to drift down there every so often, as you point out through Bittle and others. I’ve found some 1860s resonance between the two institutions in the guise of a Confederate deserter. It would be interesting to see how many more of Bittle’s former charges from Roanoke were wavering in their support of the Confederate cause and decided to abandon the slaveholder’s rebellion as weeks shifted to months and months shifted to years. But Roanoke is not in my geographical wheelhouse.
And complication is a wondrous thing, isn’t it?
Robert Moore
October 2, 2012
Lol! Not to worry, John. I should have worded that differently.
Janet
September 29, 2012
That is real interesting, and the longer posts give a better picture of the topic. I had looked for information on this before but couldn’t find much.
A brief summary of the Lutheran Organizations affecting Virginia is given by a Waynesboro church. The Tennessee and Missouri Synods are mentioned. The text is hard to read, so has to be highlighted.
“During all this time, there were other Lutheran Synods. The Pennsylvania , the North Carolina , New York , Maryland , Ohio, German Reformed of PA, East PA , and the General Synod.”
http://www.bethanylutheranwaynesboro.org/about-us/our-history/52-how-did-missouri-join-us
A readable timeline with a list of petitions, resolutions, obituaries, etc, of one particular group is given online. These show the issues of the times, and list places throughout the Shenandoah Valley:
History of the Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod, By Socrates Henkel – Google Books
Vince
September 29, 2012
Fascinating post, Robert. Proposition 8 really sticks out to me, and probably didn’t make him many friends. That proposition actually reminded me of Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg’s private reaction to slavery when he visited colonial South Carolina (illiterate slaves can’t read the Bible & a lot of slaves have very light skin).
Regarding Schmucker and speaking out, keep in mind that Schmucker and others of his day dreamed passionately about not just a united Lutheran church in America but a united Protestant church (which led to his expressing weaker doctrinal beliefs that others, including his son Beale, essentially revolted against). The Lutherans didn’t even split until the war had started.
It seems like a natural avenue of investigation would be sampling wartime Lutheran pastors in the Valley and checking out their biographies. Were churches using sons of the Shenandoah Valley around the time of the Civil War, or were they still relying on Germany or powerhouse synods like the Ministerium of PA or the Western PA Synod?
Robert Moore
September 30, 2012
I know Schmucker was interested in changing a good deal of German writings into English (and he started on these projects while in New Market), and his ideology being defined as “radical”, in my opinion, shows that the dream of forming a united Lutheran or Protestant church may have resulted in more division that unification (then again, I guess one would have to see the actual number of churches that held firm, and those that became more progressive). Ironically, the very folks (Henkel) who had started Schmucker’s father down the trail toward ministry were among the ones who resisted change. The Henkel Press was printing several items in German well into the mid-18th century, and therefore helped to facilitate the tradition of carrying down “Deutsch sprechen” even that far into the timeline.
I see you mention Beale. I haven’t looked at him very much, but was he more of a traditionalist?
I have a fairly good collection of works relating to Lutheranism in the Valley, and will have to start probing to see if I can come up with a listing of pastors who were around at the time of the war.
Vince
October 1, 2012
Just a note, when examining 19th century Lutheranism (and Protestantism in America), terms like radical/conservative/liberal/traditionalist are difficult because it’s hard to track which direction is up. Is the guy who wants to keep things the way they were for the past 100 years the conservative, or is it the guy who wants to dramatically change things to the way things were 200-300 years ago the conservative? Better terms to use are:
Pietist = Proponents of “New Measures” = “American Lutheran” = led by SS Schmucker
vs.
Confessionalist = Symbolist = “Old Lutheran” = led by Charles Porterfield Krauth
With that said, you’re right that the Lutheran Church became more fractured as a result of Schmucker’s efforts, especially when he (I think these details are correct) led an attempt to formally change the Augsburg Confession something called the “Definite Synodical Platform” via an anonymous mass mailing in 1855. Before the war (and the Lutherans’ statement against slavery), the major debate was whether to admit a weakly Lutheran staunchly abolitionist synod but the issue was moot as this synod would not join unless the Lutherans condemned slavery. So, the 1862 convention at which slavery was condemned led to the following events in 1864-1867: (events subject to my memory)
This weakly Lutheran synod applies to belong to the General Synod => Old Lutherans (led by the Ministerium of PA) walk out in protest => Old Lutheran secede from General Synod and form General Council => Old Lutherans try to join with Midwest Confessionalists => Missouri Synod rejects advances of General Council.
The end result is three strands of Lutherans: Schmucker’s pietists (the General Synod), the moderate Confessionalists (General Council), and the severe(?) Confessionalists (Missouri).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Council_(Lutheran)
Also, translating from German to English could be either a pietist or confessionalist effort, depending on what book was being translated and who the intended audience was. For the mid-Atlantic region, I think the German language issue had been resolved long before the Civil War and, contentious as it could be, I don’t think it had dramatic theological consequences.
Beale Schmucker was part of the confessionalist revolt against his father’s pietist views, and worked hard to revive formal Lutheran liturgy. Much of what we think of today as a “traditional” Lutheran worship service (liturgy, gowns, etc.) probably had its birth (or rebirth) in the 1850s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beale_M._Schmucker
Robert Moore
October 1, 2012
“Just a note, when examining 19th century Lutheranism (and Protestantism in America), terms like radical/conservative/liberal/traditionalist are difficult because it’s hard to track which direction is up.”
I also agree for the reason that, despite an effort to step back from the modern and look at a point in history, the meaning of these terms can be corrupted by contemporary politics. My use of the terms has nothing to do with the modern, and more appropriately reflects the sentiment of some folks in that time in the past.
Vince
October 1, 2012
Ah, yes, for anyone under the Henkels’ influence, Schmucker and the “New Measures” would have been seen as radical.
More general, though, perhaps I should have written “which direction *was* up,” as Schmucker and his contemporaries actively debated who was conservative/traditionalist and the faithful heir to Luther and, more immediately, the missionary labors of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg.
Thus began the first efforts chronicling the history of Lutheranism in America in the 1840s and 1850s as very direct theological-political statements. For example, one book I really like is Schmucker’s 1845 book _The Patriarchs of American Lutheranism_ where his frames his church practices as fully aligned with those of the church fathers.
http://books.google.com/books?id=UpDTAAAAMAAJ&ots=1b3eTO4tCl&dq=The%20patriarchs%20of%20American%20Lutheranism&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=The%20patriarchs%20of%20American%20Lutheranism&f=false