Newspapers / The Star of Zion … / Nov. 26, 1896, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Star of Zion (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
H'HEiSTAR OF ZION. REV. J. W. SMITH, D. D., Editor. REV. G. L. BLACKWELL, A. M., D. D., Business Manages. Published every Thursday at Charlotte, N . C. IMS. College St. Entered at the Post Office at Charlotte as sec ond-class mail matter. S CBSCRIPTIONRA TES: $1.00 per annum; six months, 60 cents; no three month's subecrip tW~ When you tee this paragraph marked, take notice that your subscription has expired, and with out renewal at once we shall be compelled to discon tinue your paner. &-A TO CORRESPONDENTS: To insure publica tion write with ink and extra carefulness on one sine of the sheet only: do not abbreviate; avoid 3: > tonalities; deal with live questions and give us items of chut 'A and race news; condense, so as to occupy a column or a half column: do not, if «* pot tible, exceed 650 words. When writing about re vivals, anniversaries, dedications, donations, mar riages, receptions, death of church members, Easter or Children's Day, and the like, write on postal cards. If yoil write long-winded articles, the Edi tor will “boil them down." Send all articles to the Editor and all business matter to the Manager. STAFF CORRESPONDENTS. Mrs. Bishop C. C. Pettey, Editor of Woman’s Column. Kev. G.W. Offley, D. D., Rev. E. O. Biddle, B. D., Kev. J. H. Anderson, Bev. J. E. Mason. D. D., Kev. W. H. Marshall, Rev. W. A. Blackwell, ' liev.G.S. Adams,DD, Rev. E. D. W. Jones, A. B., Kev. F. H. Hill, Prof. B. A. Johnson, A. M., Rov. J. H. McMullen, Rev. T. A. Weathington, Prof.E.L. Thornton,A.M.,Rev.J.H. Manley, D.D., Prof.U.W.Parker,A,B., Rev. J.A.D.Blolce, A.M., Prof. W.F.Fonvellle, A.B,Rev. C. W. Winfield, D.D. H.C.Weeden,Esq., Prof.W.M.Provlnder,A.B. „ Rov. H. W. smith, Ri-v. D. 0.-Co 'tagton. Thursday, November 26, 1896. EDITORIAL. PRA.I3E ye the Lord ! Give thanks unto His holy name! Let all the people this day rejoice and be glad! All letters, articles, papers and books marked Star of Zion or Rev. J. W. Smith belong to the Editor; and all letters, articles, papers and —. /book' marked A. M. E. Zion Publi eition House, Sunday-school Depart ment or Rev. G. L. Blackwell belong to the General Manager. In the lan guage of the Manager used iu last week’s Star—“If the above rules are properly regarded,” there will be, no misunderstanding Relative to our re ceiving our mail. The last issue of the Africo-Amer ican Presbyterian gave emphasis to the fact that Biddle University last June conferred upon the Hon. Geo. H. White, who has been recently elected to Congress from the Second District of North Carolina, the hon orary degree of LL. D. The Star would like to add that when Mr White went there last June to deliver the annual address, he went as Dr ®f""^Vhite; for Living$tone College and the Trustees had conferred that de gree upon Kim iu the early part of May, and he htyl accepted it. We mention this so as to refresh the memory of the public. That’s all. A Grave Misunderstanding, We differ with some of the “Point ers" written by tlfe Manager in last week’s Stab. In the management of the Star there seems to be a misun derstanding between the Manager and the Editor as to where one’s rights begin and tjie other’s end. He has defined our respective duties. He says we are responsible for every line or even word that goes in i to the Stab as reading matter. We are glad that he lists at last conceded tmsyjpr^we shall endeavor hereafter to keep out a certain class of trashy matter which has appeared in the pa per. The Editor is not only responsible for ail he writes, bait he has absolute power to reject whatever anybody else writes, even if it is a distasteful advertisement, | if it meets his disap proval. The "ruts adopted by the Board of Publication on the train coming from General Conference and amended at the Centennial in New York says, concerning the Stab and Quarterly, that the editors are re sponsible for the character of theii papers, and that nothing shall gp in to the columns of these papers with out first the inspection and approval of the respective editors. The words “nothing,” “inspection” and “approv al” take in the ‘Manager’s Column’ and “the regular advertisements” which we never see until they appear in print. Bo far as the Stab is concerned wc have simply and silently allowed the “Manager’s Column” and “the regu lar advertisements” to go in, becafisc we thought they might help the Pub lication House ; but when it comes tc a question of law, the law is on oui side. If he can find any law adoptee by this Board to read differently, wc should like to heir it. It is our dutj to edit the Star ; it is his duty tc publish and pay for it. Every col umn in the Star belongs to the Edr tor, and we cannot silently allow tb< Manager any longer to say how mud space we shall occupy, as he has beer doing. The General Conference/electee us editor and him publisher 0} all w< choose to put in' the Stab,/and w< |i>oth must fill our offices og quit toAi tee' now to give a ruling and to show the Manager that the defining and lim iting belong to us, whether it ap plies to his ‘‘Column” or to “the regu lar advertisements.” "he Manager says again that all moiey for the Stab, all donations for any purpose, must be sent to him. Tbit is all right, but what does he me in by “all donations for any pur pose?" That sentence looks suspi ciois, sounds peculiarly, and implies a v ant of confidence somewhere? If the Manager does not mean what we think, then all right; but it seems that a good deal of insinuationsjabout money migh't be left unsaid, fpr the Ma nager will get all the monejr that is intended for him. Berhaps he ma y claim money sent for the Star, Quirterly and Sunday-school litera tui e, but we cannot see how he can cla m “donations for any purpose.” Once more. Why didn’t the Man age r in last week’s Stab call for money for all of the Departments un dei his charge? Why single out the Star? They are all equals and are supposed to share and share alike. Th ^ Manager is supposed to run them all secure settlements' for all, and see that all are promptly published. He receives all moneys for his .special de oartment, (Sunday-school' Depart ment,) while the other two depart ment turn their money over to him. He is Business Manager over the St ir and Quarterly, and alsb over his own department. If he is to be Business Manager over our depart ments, then there ought to be the sane over his department. There ought to be some oversight over his de >artment the same as there is over t is ead and not for the beet] inter est of our Publishing Department thit there are strained relations in th< business and editorial manage ment between the two Editors and Mi nager. Personally we are mends; officially, we are not. There can^l be much harmony, neither can this Puoliehing House be built up. until the Manager and the two Editors feel tht y are brethren and equals, and the Golden Rule observed ; and until the clerks and p> inters ar^ taught to uri lerstand that no one man in this Department is boss, and that it is as mt ch their duty, even if _we do not pay them, (and whatever is paid col iea! not out of the pockets of the Editors and Manager,) to respect and ca: ry out our instructions relative to on • Departments as to carry out those of the ’Manager. If we do not pay off the clerks and printers, the influ ence of our pens help very largely in brj ng ng money to this Department. Sil ce the hiring and dismissal, the in ert asing and decreasing of salaries, of clerksi and printers come under the consideration of the Sul?-Advisory Bp rrei which is composed of Editors Dancy, Blackwell and Smith, Bishop Lc max being the chairman ex-officio, we are determined to see that this Bc ircl gives the “walking papers” to an r employee who treats our ipstruc tic ns with indifference. If clerks and pr nters are commanded and demand ed to obey only the Manager, regard less of what anybody else says, the Ec itor of the Stab, if there is no rei nedy to be found, will do his edit ing at home and send it through the ms ils to the foreman, and he will not st(pinto the A. M. E. Zion Fublica ticn House any more this side of the ne rt General Conference. There can be no “bossisnS,” and we do not pro pc ^e to remain in the office arid be a “f^ure-head.” lishops Pi Zion and Bethel as Societies. In this issue of the paper tile pub lic will find the replies of Rev, Dr. J. M, Henderson, of Bethel, to Bishop 'Walters and the Editor-of the Star. Si nce in fighting, Bishop Walters is filled with a larger proportion of bu rn in kindness than we are,. Dr. Hen dc rson is therefore more antious tc ru set him ; therefore he maken one oi tv o dashes at us and then lealps ovei in to Bishop Walters’ ring. Knowing in this discuss si ice we quoted his bishops, hi sn't a logical leg to stand on, hi eyes ol him tc gets hii bril< ti ies to throw dust into the tl e people so that they may lqse sight oi the main points by telling then tl at we are “too gruff and abusive tco “ugly with epithets’’ for fc ol with / and then when he sicond mind he says we are lj int ’’ and “courteous,” “fair and hou eit/'and that he would, when thii d scussion ends, like to discuss oui “ Episcopacy” with us, since . g irds us as a “foeman worthy of anj n an'e steel.” In the above-adjectjves, which shall a c consider sincere—those of piraise oi t lose of denunciation ? In their p ir dear brother in himself &s on and that hf our first reply f^f^^was suffering with indigestion and bad dreams'. We now go further and say he is certain ly afflicted with the nightmare, and in charging us with using language which is distasteful to his sense of decency he is aspiring to a reputation for grotesque humor. Whoever has read the controversies of Dr. Hender son will say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If his deli cate sensibilities have actually been touched by our irritating and exas perating comments, then Bethel and Zion instead of sitting back and wink ing*and sniggering should rise up and sing the doxology. We feel like shed ding a few crocodile tears for Dr. Heuderson because his tender feel ings have been crushed by our “gruff tones;” but before doing so, we de sire to inform him that when we start out on the warpath we seldom return without a scalp or two hanging to our belt. Dr. Henderson says there isn’t much in our first editorial to answer. In his first article he got to talking about when Bethel was “incorporat ed.” We told him that Zion was in corporated in New York City in 1801. We told him what court incorporated us, in what book he could find the ar ticles of incorporation, and the name of the clerk of the court at the time. I We asked him to be as minute and fell U3 when and where was Bethel j incorporated, etc. In his reply to ns 1 he doesn’t say one word about it. He | is as silent as the grave, and as we | said in the beginning of this editorial | he tries to throw dust into your eyes ■ sO that you can’t see, or will forget this point, knowing that he cannot give place and dates, which gives Zion an advantage over Bethel, he jumps up and says we are abusive, and that there isn’t much in our edi torial to answer. This is a mighty big question to answer, and whatever else Zion may forget, we hope they not forget this fact. Whenever bethel get$. to blowing off, just take them aside and ask them quietly when were they incorpor ated. You will throw them into such a horror until they will feel cold chills galloping up and down their backs. Dr. Henderson doesn’t care to talk with the editor on this question of incorporation, but he says a little something to Bishop Walters about it. Look again at his reply to Bishop Walters. He is Sor ry now—ifhe is not, bis denomina tion which is .watching this discus sion is—that he sprung this question. Whoever plays with fire i3 liable to be burned. It is bad to monkey with a buzz-saw. Ul, JUCUUCIBUII Oixyo CVCIJ V>UiU that we quote from Bishops Payne and Tanner is correct and is disputed by no one of whom he has ever fact, did such preaching as their abilities permitted. Heifce when the separate .organization wala formed there wee f considerable ntimber of the brethrer who were quite bFofipi§nt speakers; some of these were ^flgnlarlv licensed to p* .preach, even before izatiou was formed; heard. ' He Fays we have quoted what they say about the Organization of Bethel as a Connection and not what they say about the first Society out of which Bethel Connection evolved. He says the discussion in no wise concerns the origin of Bethel and Zion Connections, but of Bethel and Zion as Societies. Well, we will let Dr. Henderson change the* issue and we will meet him on the word “Society.” We have before us the histories of Bethel and Zion and we are prepared to feed him. He claims that Bethel as a Society began in 1787. Well, let it go so. Hu gets his facts from the histories written by Bethel bishops. We sup pose we will be allowed to gather our facts from the histories of Zion bish ops. If Bethel as a Society began in 1787, then Zion as a Society is seven years older than Bethel. Turn tc “One Hundred years of the A. M. E. Zion Church,” written by Bishop J, W. Hood, D. D., LL. D., page 57. We read: “While as an organisation separate from the Methodist Episcopal Church, it dates only hack to 1796, yet the exis tence of its nucleus as class or classes in the Methodist Episcopal Church dates very much further back. We see in the minutes of the Methodist Episco pal Conferences that the colored mem bers met by themselves to hold class and prayer meetings as early as 1780, and that occasionally Mr. Asbury, or some one appointed by him, preached at the meetings, , > “The major part of those who first formed the Zion Church hid long beer members of the Jobn-street Methodisi Episcopal Church, the parent church oJ that connection; some of them had beer members of that church from its begin ning. When these became a considera ble number they were permitted to hold meetings by'themselves in the interval oi the regular service. These meetings were regarded as prayer meetings, but the leaders freauentlv gave exhortations—in abilities paratt was p brer some -s the founders of Zion Church as a body of Christian be fevers had an existence nearly as early as the formation of the John-street Church. Susan Williams and her husband, Samuel Williams, were members of John-street church from the time that church was first erected. If, therefore,we should date our church from the time the members, as a body, began to hold separate meetings, we might have held our Centennial celebration as early as 1880. But the objection to this is that the meetings were held in the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The true date is the period at which the new title was taken, and at which time the meetings began to be held without any regard to the authority of the Methodist Episcopal Church, under the new organ ization.n In order to throw more light on our title, turn to page 56 and read, “The body oil believers now known by this title was formed in the city of New York, State of New York, in the year A. D. 1796, Its title at its organization was ‘The African Methodist Episcopal Church.’ Under this title it was incor porated in the year 1801.” Dr. Henderson and the public may ask how “Zion” got attached to that title. - On page 134 we read : “But because the first church (which we built in New York, at the corner of Church and Lombard Streets, page 56,) was called Zion, and to distinguish our selves from Bethel Church, which took the same title* “Zion” was added as a part of the Connectional title.” But let us retrocede a little in our discussion. We have proven from his tories of Bethel and Zion that Zion as a Society dates her existence as far back as 1'780, while Dr. Henderson says Bethel began in 1787—seven years later. Dr. Henderson and the fel lows of his church will say we still belonged to the M. E. Churcn while they had withdrawn. Let ua see about this. How follow us closely while we quote Bishop Hood’s book' agaiD, page 136: “Since it has been shown that 1796 was the date of the organization of Zion Church, some men in Bethel Church have attempted to get behind that date and to claim that the first movement for the or ganization of Bethel Church was in 1787; and an attempt was made to get up a Centennial celebration in 1887, but it proved a most ridiculous failure because it was knoWn to be a sham. Their his tory shows that Richard Allen, their founder and their first bishop was a mem ber of the Quarterly Conference of the Meth odist Episcopal Church in 1804. If he founded a separate Church in 1787, how was it that he continued a member of the Quarterly Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1804? It will not do to make, a make a man too many* things at once.” These are tough, unsavory facts which Bethel cannot deny. We woi.ld like foil Dr. Henderson to an swer the question of our Senior Bish op, namely: If Allen founded a sep arate church :jn 1787 ; if in that year he asserted his mauhood, shook the dust from his %ot, and pulled out of the M. E. 'church in Philadelphia, how could he, (according to Bethel history) be a member of the same M. E. Cuurch anjl its quarterly confer ence until 1B04? While you_will tell us when and where Bethel was “incorporated,” please do not forget to answer thiii important question. If Zion as a separate Society remained in the M. E. Church until 1796, how could Bethel jBociety as a in 1787 be separate and distinct when Allen, its founder, was a member of the M. E. Church until 1804? While you are preparing your answer, we hope Zion and Bethel Will excuse us a few min utes while wet go around the corn-r and smile. But Bishop Hood, who, in a discussion, is as outspoken as Amos anihas cold, logical and stern as Haggai says, page 136: African p» finding t was such' of erectin the priuei “There was a movement about 1787, but it was not the Bethel movement, nor did it result in establishing an African Methodist Episcopal Church. It is quite likely that it had that object in view in its inception; but if it had, it was tujrned aside from its purposo. About this pe riod, or a little later, a considerable num T)er of members of the M. E. Church in Philadelphia desired to have a church and a preacher of their own. The au thorities of the M. E. Church refused to grant their request. They appealed to Bishop White of the ‘Protestant Episcopal Church.' He agreed to their request, provided they would unite with lhis Church' They agreed, and Absalom Jones was taken under course of instruc tion, and ordaiDed first a deacon and af terward a priest. Thus was formed St. Thqmas’ Protestant Episcopal Church. This was the result of the movement in 1787, or later, of which historians of the A. M. E. Church have made so much, and which they have tried to make peo ple believe had some .connection with the history of the formation of their Church which, according to their own history, took place 29 years later.” On page 138 we read : “Bishop Allen, .according to his own statement, given by Bishop I>. A. Payne in his History of the A. M. E. Church, volume 1, chapter XI, made no attempt to organize an A. M. E. Church until 1793, and that proved a failure. Bishop Allen speaking of the church erected at fhat timpsayfi; 'We intended it for the eaching house or church; but e elder stationed in the city of our proceedings with us, we held an election to know wk&i religions denomination we would unite with. At thiB election it was de termined. There were two in favor of the Methodist, Rev. Absalom Jones and myself, and a large majority in favor of the Church of England. This majority carried.’” > Dr. Henderson and his deluded Church pan see as well as Zion from the above history of Allen that his ef fort to erect a preaching house for col ored Methodists was a big failure. When the election came, only he and Absalom Jones were in favor of re maining in the Methodist Episcopal Church. As soon as Bishop White agreed to ordain Absalom Jones a deacon'and make him the pastor of this colored congregation in the Prot estant Episcopal Church, he accepted and left Allen standing alone. Now if Allen intended to establish an in dependent A. M. E. Church, why did he in 1793 hold an election to decide what denomination he and his follow ers should join or adhere to ? In 1794 when Allen bought the blacksmith-shop and fitted it up for a preaching place, he was, according to Betters history, still a member of the M. E. Church and’its quarterly con ference—remained so until 1804— and when everything was in readi ness he asked Bishop Asbury to ac cept it as a place of worship. If Al len had asserted his manhood and left the M. E. Church and established an independent Society, as Dr. Hen-, derson says, why did he go back and beg (begging doesn’t show independ ence) Bishop Asbury to recognize it as a church ? Bishop Asbury heard his cry and answered it by preaching occasionally for him and encouraging the work; and since Allen had not, like Absalom Jones, left the M. E. Church,, Bishop Asbury thought kindly of him and ordained him a deacon in 1799J'- From 1787 to 1816 Allen worked like a beaver to build up the white M. E. Church, and al though not a member of the annual conference ot that Church, he was for many years a traveling evangelist in said Chiirch. Had the white min isters not treated Allen with such in tolerable meanness between the years of 1787 and 1816, instead of estab lishing an independent A. M. E. So ciety or Church in 1816, he would have lived and died in the M. E. Church. Society elates were connected We have followed Dr. Hendersons advice and discussed Zion and Bethel as Societies and not as Organizations, and we have shown that Zion as a Society dates back to 1780, and Dr. Henderson shows that Bethel as a back to 1787. Both with the M. E. Church. Bishop Arnett in his Cen tennial address delivered in Philadel phia, Nov. 20, 1887, at 11 a. m., says Allen’s congregation remained under general pastoral supervision wilh St. George’s Church until 1815 when va rious difficulties having arisen, a con vention was called to meet in Phila delphia in April, 1816, when an or ganization was effected. Remember that Bishop Arnett, (a Bethel Bish op) says this Society was “under gen eral pastoral supervision of the M. E. Church until 1815.” T. McCants Stewart, once one of the most prominent divines of Bethel, now an able lawyer of the New York bar and still a prominent laymen of Bethel Church, who belpngs to Dr. Henderson’s Church, said in his Cen tennial speech delivered in Philadel phia, Nov. 25, 1887, (referring to Allen’s Society) that the colored peo ple, though worshipping alone, still felt themselves to be "under the juris diction and control of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” Bishop Simpson in his Cyclopaedia of Methodism says: “This colored Society was under the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church until 1816. It then became independent and was organized with other churches into the African Meth odist Episcopal Church with Richard Allen, one of their principal local preachers, as bishop.” - The above three authorities—one white Bishop of the M. E. Church, one colored Bishop and one layman of Bethel—men who are highly- re vered byjheir respective denomina tions—proved beyond contradiction that Bethel while a Society, like Zion while a Society, Was underIhe gener al supervision of the great M. E. Church until they became independ ent and organized into denominations —Zion in 1796 and Bethel in 1816. Dr. Henderson can grow red in'the collar as much as he pleases, but he will have to walk and gather up the history and speeches of Bishops Simp son and Arpett and lawyer Stewart and burn them, and then wait for ages on tqp of ages for a new genera^ tion before he can convince any 00 that Bethel as a Society was inde pendent before 1816. We^^se-feiry doubts it, let him keep looking down the-barrel of our gun. He says in his reply to Bishop Walters that he doubts the genuine ness of our Episcopacy. Greater minds than his in Bethel and Zion discussed and settled this question in 1864, and possibly at a time when he was shooting marbles and riding cornstalks. Bishop Jones, who was then an elder, “downed” the learned Bishop Payne in a debate on this very question, and made Bishop Payne acknowledge before that au dience that our Episcopacy is as legal as Bethel’s. That flooring ot Bishop Payne elected S. T. Jones a bishop four years later. If Dr. Hen derson wishes to play with this dyna mite now, let him drive ahead, and the episcopacy of Bethel will be un covered as it has never been before by one in Zion who is well booked up on this subject. Bethel claims that Richard Allen was the first Negro Bishop. We-are prepared to show that Peter Spencer was a founder*of a Negro Church be fore Allen ; was a bishop before Al len, and that Daniel Coke was the first bishop Bethel ever elected, and that Allen is the third bishop elected by Afro-Americans. Zion i s not burning for a fight with Bethel, but she will not run away from one. Let the band play. Rntherfordton Notes. BY REV. S. D. WATKINS. We are yet alive and doing all we can for God and Zion. Our quarterly conference convened in August in St. John church, and Presiding Elder M. V. Marable preached one of his soul-stirring sermons. The district is in a better condition this year than it ever has been and the brethren are doing more work. About six years ago you couldn’t find but two church es on this district. They were old log houses; but they have been torn down and new ones built. We had about one good parsonage ; tq-day we have about seven On this district, No wonder we called this the banner district, for we have the banner men. We are looking after Zion. The ministers of the Statdsville dis trict are building churches and par sonages. We want to take nothing and make something ; this wa3 a mis sion district but to-day she is ths banner district. This speaks well for her presiding elder and ministers. They have gone out with willing hearts and hands. Newby, Coving ton, Byers, Mayo, Pharr and others went out bare-handed and accom plished this grand work. Every minister in Zion conference ought tc be tried on missions to see whether he earn stand the storm. They should do something before they receive something. Try them awhile and thus treat all alike. We are moving along on all lines. The writer has been on this district about nine years. We are making ready for the annual conference which will convene here on the 1st Wednes day in December. The members are in high spirits looking for that time. Presiding Elder M. Y. Marable and the writer were at Dogett’s Grove on the 10th of August. We found the members there engaged in building a new church. They have been hav ing service in a log church about 25 years. They have all the lumber planed and hauled. Writer was au thorized by tbe Presiding Elder Mar able to take charge of this church in July. I thought the best plan was to go ahead and have the church built. I called the congregation together and raised quite a sum of money. This encouraged the members to go ahead. The members are able to build a fine church. It would pay for our Faculty at Livingstone Col lege to give us a call. Other schools are drawing them by the hundred. Presiding Elder Marable is a man of good morals, sound judgment, and a lover of Zion. Let us all be like wise and then Zion will move on. Georgia Conference Appointments. Athens district, L. G. Hemphill, P. E.; Simpkins and Washington, A. D. Dun bar; Wynns and Green Chapel, B. J, Jones; St. Paul and Athens Mission, W, J. Smith; Jones Chapel and Grove Town, L. Q. Rowland; Social Chapel and Au gusta Mission, A. J. Williams; Craw ford, C. H. Mallory; Sweet Waters and Carlton, M. P. Pye } Blith and Stephen Grove, H. P. Thomas ; Long Creek and Washington, F. C. Collins; Clinton Mis sion, Willie Edwards. Augusta District, R. 8. Sing, P. E Augusta, to be supplied'; Smith Chapel P. McCullough; Bingham Temple and Roben Mission, J. E. Springs; Mt. Car mel and Wayneboro Mission, S. R- Tread well-j Green Grove and Rolling Grove, . Tillman; Fulwood Chapel, Whala rove, and Williams Grove, to he sup supplied : £' lied ; Ms1,1 ” It. Nebo, Factory, J. 8a. Richmond On the evening of November 11th, 1396, Mr. J. D. Barfield of Newbern, N. C., led to the hymeneal altar Miss Annie E. Smith of Pleasant Hill, Craven County, N. C. Mr. Barfield is a prominent wholesale and retail merchant, who by dint of energy and strict attention to business, has amassed a small fortune and now be gins housekeeping with exceedingly bright prospects for the future. Miss Smith, his bride is a clever, unassum ing and modest young lady. Both ranking high socially, it was not at all surprising to behold about fifty carriages leaving the city for the A. M. E. Zion Church of Pleasant Hill, just six miles from the city. Promptly at six p. m. while the choir softly chanted a fine selection, j the groom, supported by his best man, Mr. C. E. Physic, entered the east door and proceeded to the chancel. Mr. J. T. Barber, of Trenton, N. C., came slowly up the central aisle fol lowed by Miss Carrie E. Pearson, of Newbern, and Miss Sarah F. Hill, of Pleasant Hill, maids of honor. Then the blushing bride, enveloped in rib bons, flowers and laces and wearing a rich cream dress with flowing train and long bridal veil looped graceful ly with orange blossoms, entered the front door leaning on the arm of her elder brother, who presented her to the groom at the chancel. Dr. R. S. Rives, assisted by Rev. J. E. Hussey, performed the ceremony. The church was beautifully decorated; and a large wedding bell made of flowers rich and rare was suspended just above the bride and groom. The maids of honor were beautifully dressed While the groom with his attendants and ushers wore the conventional black. After the ceremony was over the happy couple drove to the city where a grand reception awaited them. It was a beautiful night, much like an Indian Summer night and the silvery beams from the queen of night royally lighted the pathway to the city. - From nine until eleven o’clock the many friends showered congratu lations and good washes upon the new ly wedded pair. Mrs. Henrietta Ptussey deserves special mentionjqr the very exeellect manner in which she arranged and managed the whole affair. The presents, which were cost ly and numerous, were as follows: The groom presented the bride a beau tiful two-story house with kitchen at tached, furnished and carpeted through out. Mr. and Mrs. R. W. Williamson, silver Sugar spoon; Mr. J. R. Parker, Jr,, silver sugar dish; Mr. John Sutor, wall pocket; McDaniel and Gaskill, large rocking chair; Mr. and Mrs. R. C, Bak-‘ er, set of knives, forks and spoons; Mrs. Caroline Davis, one picture; Mr. Edward Short, pair of andirons; Mr. and Mrs. Luke Burney, pair of andirons; Mrs. Catharine Banton, set of tea plates; Mr, J E. Shepard, bowl and pitcher; Mrs. Mary E.Wethington, half-dozen napkins; Sheriff J. L. Hahn, large parlor lamp ; Miss Maggie Gaston, pair vases jj Mr. and Mrs. J. H. Fisher, half-dozen napkins and one soup dish; Mrs. M. E. Taylor, pair of towels; Mrs. Geo. Hi Williams, one fruit dish; Mr. and Mrs E. Fisher, pair of spittoons; Mrs Dem nis Borrow, butter dish; Mr. John', Brown, cake plates; Miss S. J. Rivers; set of fruit plates; Mrs. Lucy Jones bowl, pitcher and plate; Miss Emma Small, flower jar; Dr. and Mrs, R. S. Etives, pickle dish; Mrs. R. Sawyer bowl and pitcher; Miss Annie Oxley nn A cfinnoi* . W i* X T rPA1n._ „ cup and saucer; Mr. J. J. Tolson, set o glasses; Mr. and Mrs. Whitley, fru dish ; Miss Sarah Smith, pair of tow els \ Mr. E. Wadsworth, set of fruit dishes j Mr. and Mrs. Battle, pitcher ; Mr. and . Mrs. J. G. Sutton, Sr-, silver butter knife? Mr. and Mrs. J. E. O’Hara, set of glasses; Mr. F. Ulrich, glass pitcher; Miss M. A. Franks, silver salt and pepper bdxes: Mr. and Mrs. W. F. Allen, fruit dish and stiver butter knife; Mrs. M. P. Holly, soup dish; Miss Annie C. Morton, butter dish ; Mr. E. Bryan, butter dish;.Mr. i. • W. Eubank and mother, Cut glass wait er, pitcher and half-dozen glasses; Mr. El. B. Duffy, clock; Mr. John- Dunn, parlor lamp ; Mr.^and Mrs., V. S. Bryan, f ruit plates; Mr. and Mrs. C. R. Robbins, set of tea plates; Mrs. Louisa Hargett, cake plate; Misses C. and C. Rhone, ta ble cover; Messrs. E. and W. H. Bryan, parlor lamp; Mr. Thos. Fisher, bouquet holder; Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Thompson, night lamp; Mrs. Ella Fisher, pan- of pillow shams; Mrs. Alice Stewart,cover dish; Mrs. Fannie Holliday, lamp; Mr. and Mrs. W. H. Johnson, set of fruit plates; Miss Hettie Brown, cake plates; Miss Rebeeca Davis, cut glass pitcher and glasses; Hackburn and Willett, parlor lamp;. Mr. J. L. Rhem and Son, tin bed room set ; Mr. Claudius Parker, fruit stand and cut flowers; Mrs. Tincey Da vis, silk easel scarf; Mr. and Mrs Geo. P. Dudley, set of fruit plates; Prof. L H. Smith, pitcher; Miss Louisa Whit; field, pickle dish; Mr. and Mrs. HamiL ton, milk pitcher and sugar dish; Mr. and Mrs. W. H. Burton, dish and mats; Miss Mary Nelson, milk pitcher ; Master Charlie Nelson, set of individual butter dishes; Mr. Chas. Nelson, crumb pan and brush; Mr. and Mrs. W. W. Law rence, fruit plate; Mrs. Samuel Bryah, cake; Miss Frances Langston, set of wine glasses; Mr. George Richardson, cake; Miss Emma Williams, cake plate; Mrs. E. Jackson, cake; Mr. Chas. Nel-: con, toilet set; Mr. and Mrs. J Physic, set of dishes ; Mrs. Mary : lamp) Mrs. Sarah Oxley, quilt; 15. Hussey, pin cushionfBishops 0. C. Pettey, set of china cups i cers; Mr. W. P. Jones, wall ] Annanias Foavielle, mie Douglass, sag ind cream i
The Star of Zion (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 26, 1896, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75