Please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Seating of Black Students at the Congregational Church

Charles C. Burleigh

The Unionist 1:5 (August 29, 1833)

Unionist content

Transcription

From the (Brooklyn) Unionist, August 29

The last Advertiser declares that the story of the exclusion of Miss Crandall’s scholars from the meeting house “is wholly false.” We expressed surprise at a declaration so unqualified, and whether we had not some cause to do so, we leave our readers to decide, after they have read the following correspondence and the statement subjoined to it.

We say nothing of the feelings which must have dictated such a course, except that we envy not their possessor. We wish merely to put on  record the simple fact, that Miss Crandall’s pupils cannot attend public worship on the sabbath, in the only church within three miles of Miss C’s residence, without being called in question for so doing,—nay more—that they are virtually excluded from that place of worship, though some of them it is said are members of the church which regularly assembles there for public worship. And this is a land professedly Christian, in a State which boasts of its benevolent efforts to diffuse the blessings of the gospel among the distant heathen.”

——

To Miss PRUDENCE CRANDALL.

When the committee visited you last February, stating their objections to your school, they understood from you, by your voluntary suggestion, that you should never desire, and never would put your coloured scholars into the meeting house — that you could have preaching at your own house, either black or white, and you also added, that the citizens of Canterbury need have no anxiety on that account, they might be assured, no such request would ever be made.

It appears now, that you have departed from this voluntary declaration and put your colored scholars into pews ever occupied by the white females of the parish. We ask you to inform us soon, by whose license, you have thus taken possession of that part of the meeting house.  Canterbury July 26th 1833

SOLOMON PAYNE,

ANDREW HARRIS,

ISAAC KNIGHT.

Society Com'tee.

(A true copy.)                                                July 20, 1833.

   Please inform Dr. Harris to-day.

——

Canterbury, July 29, 1833.

TO SOLOMON PAYNE, ANDREW HARRIS, and ISAAC KNIGHT,

   Gentlemen—I received a letter from you on the 27 th in which you asked me to inform you soon by whose licence I have taken possession of that part of the meeting house that was occupied by my colored scholars on the sabbath previous.

   I can inform you that the authority, whether lawful or unlawful, by which I permitted my family to enter the gallery of your church, was permission received from two of the Society’s committee, viz. Dr. Harris and Deacon Bacon.

   On Saturday the 6 th of this month I sent a verbal request by Samuel L. Hough to the gentlemen whom I address, asking your permission to attend Divine worship with you on the sabbath. I asked Captain Hough to inform you that I would purchase seats sufficient for my scholars if agreeable to you, if not, any part or portion of the meeting house you might see fit for us to occupy, would be acceptable. Of this Mr. Hough said he informed you. Dr. Harris, in answer, said we might occupy the seat in the gallery appropriated to colored persons. Mr. Hough then remarked that the seat would not be sufficient for the scholars—Deacon Bacon then replied, that we might take the next pews until we had enough to be seated.

   Truly I said to the Committee that visited me in February last—The scholars who come here shall not trouble you on the Sabbath, for we can have preaching, either by colored or white ministers in our own house. The committee made me no reply at the time if I am not mistaken, and I think I am not.

   Upon mature consideration (as regular preaching here was not very readily obtained) I considered that I had done entirely wrong in depriving my scholars of the privilege of attending religious worship in this village.

   These are my reasons for asking the privilege of entering your church; and all the licence I have received is as given above.

                                                                                     Yours with respect,

P. CRANDALL.

   Shortly after the above answer was sent by Miss Crandall to the foregoing communication, she received a verbal message, by Samuel L. Hough, Esq. from SOLOMON PAYNE, Esq. directing her not to go into the meeting house again with her pupils. For the truth of this last statement we rely upon the declaration of Samuel L. Hough, Esq.

About this Item

Church attendance, and church membership, were valorized cultural norms. Church seating was institutionalized as a marker of white supremacy, with African-Americans most often being limited to seats in the balcony. In fact, this very issue had led to the walkout by Black leaders Richard Allen and Absalom Jones from St. George's Methodist Church in Philadelphia that launched the [northern Black independent chuch movement] (http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/community/text3/allenmethodism.pdf). Therefore this particular battle in Canterbury carried great emotional and strategic weight. For those reading about this controversy in the press - including The Unionist - the idea of denying the students access to attending church created an informal litmus test: spiritual equality before God (favoring the students) or preserving caste privilege in the key social institution that was the Congregational Church in Connecticut.

Item Details