<\/p>\n
Last week we left Charles Keith at his 36th birthday in June, 1852. That was the year when serious dissension hit the Winslow church, and right at the center of That controversy were the Garlands. The Garlands themselves were not all on one side, and as we look back on the situation from the perspective of more than a hundred years, we can see that there was right on both sides. So as we now listen to what Charles Keith had to say about it, let us not be hasty in our judgement. let us only feel as many Winslow people must have felt at the time: what a shame that differences of opinion on an important national issue made so much trouble in that fine old Winslow church.<\/p>\n
The first reference to this controversy in the Keith diaries was recorded by Charles Keith on January 24, 1852. He wrote: “It is very strange that any men of good sense as I have always thought T.I. and J. Garland to be, should take the course they have taken. It is now several years since they began to send communications to the church, tending to induce ridicule or anger, according to the temperament of the hearers. I have been on a committee of the church and have carefully examined every communication, whether in the form of complaint or protest and I can see no excuse for writing them, unless it be worked up by the particular kind of reading they have perused, such as the “liberator” and other fantastic publications. sincerely pity Deacon T.I. Garland, as he seems to act from a sense of duty. Today we examined some of these papers that they have read. Deacon Garland asks forgiveness if he has done wrong, but insists he had occasion to write as he did and does not regret it. Jonathan Garland read for more than an hour, blaming the church for the course it had taken, saying the committee was unfit to transact such business. He read a long treatise on abolition of his own manufacture. He manifested no sorrow for the course he has pursued, but on the contrary seemed proud of it. I will not judge his motives, but I daily seek wisdom from above that I may never fall into the same error. The preaching and practice of the radical Abolitionists have a tendency to distract and divide the church, destroy government, annul the marriage contract, and produce infidelity in its worst forms allover the land. It behooves all truly regenerate men to do all in their power to stop the spread of such principles.”<\/p>\n
There you have it. For several years previous to 1852 the two Garlands had been demanding that the Winslow church take a definite stand favoring the abolition of slavery. The church refused to take any such stand.<\/p>\n
Does that surprise you? A full 15 years before the issue came to a head in the Winslow church, a young man from Albion, Maine, only a few miles from Winslow, had been killed in a mob in Alton, Illinois, because he insisted on publishing articles demanding the abolition of slavery. Evidently Charles Keith did not approve of Elijah Parish Lovejoy. We have just noted Keith’s general statement about abolitionists, and Lovejoy was a thorough abolitionist. Keith wrote, let me remind you: “It behooves all truly regenerate men” (that is, all men who call themselves born again as Christians) “to do all in their power to stop the spread of abolition principles.”<\/p>\n
Now the point is just this. The cause of abolition was not the prevailing cause in 1852. Even Abraham Lincoln thought the abolitionists were doing harm, were probably plunging the nation toward war. Of course abolitionist societies had sprung up in Maine. One such had its birth on the campus of Waterville College as early as 1845. But most of the church bodies in Maine, at least in their official capacity, hoped for peaceful, Christian settlement of the vexing question of slavery, and sincerely believed, just as Charles Keith did, that the abolitionists tended to “distract and divide the church and destroy the government.”<\/p>\n
But let us not forget two things. The cause which the two Garlands espoused was a just, Christian cause, and it was the cause which eventually prevailed, although the cost was a bloody war, whose scars have not yet been erased after nearly a hundred years. The abolition views were simply too precipitous and too violent to win popular approval before the guns of war were released at Fort Sumter.<\/p>\n
Things came to a head fast in the Winslow church. A month after the long entry we have just read, Charles Keith put down in his diary on February 23, 1852 these words: “Deacon T.I. Garland was excluded from the church by unanimous vote. All members seemed sincere I y to regret the necessity.” A fortnight later, on March 7, Charles wrote: “Sunday the sacrament was administered in a solemn and effective manner. Deacon Garland and his wife sat in silence, she having withdrawn fellowship by letter yesterday.”<\/p>\n
There is evidence of true Christian spirit. Although voted out of membership, Deacon Garland continued to exercise his citizen’s right to attend the church services. He and his wife were denied communion, but as Charles Keith put it, they ‘”sat in silence”.<\/p>\n
On March 15 the church also excluded Jonathan Garland.<\/p>\n
In August Charles escorted two of his Hayden relatives to the college commencement across the river. He said: “Orlando and Ophelia Hayden came here last night and we all went to Waterville to commencement. Six students spoke, and one former graduate spoke for his master’s degree. Degrees were conferred on eight graduates of the present year. A greater number of people were in the village than I ever saw before. The caravan and circus were also there.”<\/p>\n
You will recall that Charles spent the winter of 1852-53 as a teacher in Massachusetts, but he was back in Winslow when spring came, and on May 15 his diary alluded again to the difficulty in the church. He wrote: “Deacon Garland seems very unhappy and tries to make all others so. He and his wife attacked several members of the church tonight. He said he had made a written request to the church, through its clerk, to refer the difficulty between him and the church to a council, I\u00a0 am sure no such request has ever been made. My own feelings were very much disturbed. I fear I committed sin, though I said nothing but the truth and what it was my duty to say. But the spirit I was in, fear, was not what it should be. I pity him and his wife, and pray that their eyes may be opened.”<\/p>\n
Five years later, in 1858, this matter had an interesting aftermath and one in which Charles Keith got the worst of it. That fal I Charles was Winslow’s school supervisor. Joseph Garland, son of David Garland, applied for a certificate to teach. Keith refused to grant it. He gave as his reason: “I believe reliable reports that he uses profane language. Today his father and uncle came to see me, the former feel ing very hurt. He said that I had made a thrust at his fami Iy that could never be healed. I did not think that he would give way to such passion nor be so blind to the faults of his chi Idren. They produced a certificate of moral character for Joseph from Deacon Bassett, one of the selectmen, who sided with Mr. David Garland that, in judging moral character, one ought to know personally of any transgressions, rather than judge on hearsay. Deciding from what they said that their opinion was shared by most people, I gave him a certificate, though against my own judgement.”<\/p>\n
That ought to have been the end of it, but Keith would not give up. Four days later he recorded in his diary: “I pity the family, but feel it is my duty to prevent J .G. from teaching, though he has a certificate.”<\/p>\n
It seems that Joseph got a teaching position after al I, and right in Winslow where Keith was supervisor. Almost exactly a month after the latter had written that he was still determined to keep the young man from teaching in Winslow, he wrote this on December 10: “Visited the school of Joseph Garland in District 3. Numerous charges were proferred against him, all of which related to his school of last winter. Though I had no doubt of the truth of many of them, I could do nothing but advise him to be peaceable and quiet.”<\/p>\n
Fifteen months later in March, 1860, chickens came home to roost. Charles Keith was defeated for re-election as school supervisor. And you need only one guess to know who beat him at town meeting. Yes, it was Joseph Garland. Let us see how Charles recorded it in the diary: “Town meeting. Joseph Garland chosen School Supervisor. I have never known so uproarious a meeting. A set of rowdies, led by a few men of some influence, who had been inflaming one another for months, were numerous enough to be in a majority. Consistency is a jewel, and principles are far more valuable than all the offices in town or state. My labors as an officer cease, with a consciousness of having done my duty.”<\/p>\n
One senses just a bit of sour grapes in that statement. Anyhow the young man to whom Charles Keith had at first refused a teaching certificate now had Keith’s job as supervisor of schools.<\/p>\n
In February of 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, and more than ten years after the church had taken action against two members of the Garland family, Keith thought he had reason to bring the subject up again. He wrote in his diary: “We were annoyed by the Gar lands who were removed from the church several years ago. It seems they are determined to burden the church in any attempt to be a blessing to the community. I may be somewhat prejudiced against them, but I desire not to be. would willingly meet with them in prayer meeting, but think it absurd of them to take part.”<\/p>\n
The pity of all this is that by 1863 there were very few people in Winslow who were against abolition of slaves. It was a Maine man, Hannibal Hamlin, then Vice President of the U. S., who had persuaded Abraham Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Most thinking persons understood that the underlying issue of the war was slavery, and that only its abolition could settle the great conflict. Yet, when at last the preponderance of opinion was on the side that had been staunchly defended by the two Garlands, when they were in the minority, the feud was still going on. It was certainly time for that particular hatchet to be buried.<\/p>\n
As I said earl ier in this broadcast, there was in the beginning something to be said for both sides. So we do not pass judgement. We simply report what happened in the Winslow church a hundred years ago, and will only comment that that fine old church was strong enough to weather any such controversy and maintain its high position and strong influence for another hundred years.<\/p>\n
Let us close tonight with a few items which appeared in the Boston Herald almost exactly 75 years ago, on March 22, 1883. Jordan Marsh was conducting a shirt sale. The Great Wonder Shirt 50\u00a2. The Patent Globe Shirt $1.00. Night shirts 50\u00a2, 67\u00a2, 83\u00a2. Gents’ night shirts with collars and pockets and elegantly trimmed with white and colored ruffling, $1.25. Three styles of pure linen collars, turn down, $1.00 a dozen. Special bargains in cuffs from $2.00 to $3.00 a dozen.<\/p>\n
R. H. White and Co. had 1,500 pairs of ladies’ white gloves, from the three button kind at a dollar a pair to the 8 button at $1.75. Shepard, Nowell & Co. offered 91 pieces of black Spanish lace, 3i inches wide, in a beautiful design, at 17\u00a2 a yard, with other laces up to their prize item, 27 inch cream and black Spanish laces, suitable for overdresses, at $1.50 per yard. The company also announced that it had received by the last steamer 200 dozen ladies’ fancy polka dot bordered, hemstitched handkerchiefs, which would be sold for 12\u00a2 a piece; and with that bargain, we say good night for old times’ sake.<\/p>\n
Year: 1958<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Read the script for “Little Talks” program #369, Broadcast on February 23, 1958<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":405,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[744,35296],"tags":[],"builder_content":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7831"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/405"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}