Rearing Wolves to Our Own Destruction: Slavery in Richmond Virginia, 1782–1865 by Midori Takagi

congregation. Although black church members initially chose the candidates through a voting process, their choices were subject to the white congregation's approval. Ordination of black preachers and those who desired to "speak in the pulpit" was decided in an even less democratic way. In this case congregants did not vote. Instead, the church committee made up largely of white members designated which laymen could publicly preach. In 1826 the committee chose five black members to preach and seven black laymen to "speak in public by ways of exhortation but not to take texts." But these twelve men enjoyed their status for only a brief period. In an effort to demonstrate the authority of the committee, in 1829 all preaching privileges were revoked, and all black speakers were forced to reapply. 77
In addition to the aforementioned powers, the church committee had the authority to appoint congregants to various ad hoc committees. The result was that in spite of the overwhelming number of black church members, few blacks were appointed to these committees. In 1827, for example, a committee to take collections for the pastor's salary consisted of "ten white male members, five white female members and [five] coloured male members." 78 Not only were blacks outnumbered, but, as was often the case, slave and free black women were excluded completely.
Finally, white church members sought to maintain control in a manner that blatantly violated the spirit of the Baptist religion; they tried to

 

Page 57
limit the number of black members who could attend services. By requiring slaves and free blacks to sit in the galleries of the church, white members in effect capped the number of black congregants and made religion inaccessible to many. 79 Black members unable to find seats were turned away from the services and forced to attend a different sermon later that day or week when space was available.
Although church records indicate that white members held enormous power over their black brethren, they also show that black congregants did not passively accept the treatment they received. Slave and free black parishioners strongly resisted the forced standards of moral behavior, the undemocratic methods of choosing preachers, and the restrictive seating arrangements, thereby ending any illusions that black congregants could be easily controlled. An example of this can be found in the lengthy lists of slave exclusions for gambling and drinking; on the one hand the lists suggest ''inappropriate" behavior and mayhem, and on the other hand, they clearly indicate that a portion of the congregation refused to adhere to the bans and did not find the deacons' threat of exclusion a deterrent. Another good example is the 1829 revocation of preaching certificates for black members. By forcing black preachers to reapply for licenses, the committee appeared to be demonstrating its power to confer such a privilege. The events leading to that incident, however, suggest that power was tenuous at best. According to church records, the committee revoked the licenses not because the certified preachers were doing poorly but because other black members were preaching without church approval and did not bother with the certification process. 80
Slave and free black members attacked white congregational control in more fundamental ways than just breaking moral codes. Black congregants managed to assert their interests by integrating their interpretation of the Baptist religion into the church services, which included, among other things, a form of music, movement, and speech. During services slave and free black parishioners shouted, sang, moved their bodies, and clapped their hands as if possessed by the spirit of God. When the pastor's words struck a chord within them, they did not hesitate to punctuate the particular phrase or moment with "loud ejaculations and groans." 81 Black Baptists also gave their own slant to the hymns and psalms sung in church, with