1  

The Methodist Church in Durham: The Segregation of All God’s Children Kate Wheelock Digital Durham

Spring 2011

2  

Introduction

In any town, public institutions play a vital role in the shaping of the community’s

culture. Numerous institutions, such as schools, libraries and even the Post Offices, have served

as gathering places for centuries. In the South after the Civil War and into the twentieth century,

the churches served as a significant gathering space for adults, families, and children. Because

Reconstruction was an extremely unsettled period, “religious faith offered southerners a source

of inner strength” (McMillen 3). Both black and white southerners turned to a variety of

denominational churches to express their faith and find a stable community.

The citizens of Durham were no exception to this trend. Church communities molded the

development of Durham (Childs 11), and the Methodist Church had a “definite influence in

shaping the tone of society and deciding certain moral issues in the community” (Boyd, 185).

The city was an intensely church-going town and might even be called “the capital of North

Carolina Methodism” due to the growth of the churches throughout the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries (Harrell 24). In some ways, the religion’s extension from West to East Durham

promoted unity. “The individual churches did not merely stand as separate units, but they

“worked as one” through “effective organization…[and] unity of effort” (Harrell 25).

Yet, this unity was not complete. The African Methodist Episcopal (A.M.E.) Church and

the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (M.E.C.S.) established nearly all of Durham’s Methodist

churches by the mid-1920s. Richard Allen, a slave from Philadelphia, founded the A.M.E.

church in 1816. He became a licensed clergyman and a free man in his twenties, and became

increasingly unhappy with the limits placed upon him in the Methodist Episcopal Church. After

much opposition and obstruction, he secured a charter for the new church to organize the A.M.E.

3  

denomination. Although followers adhere to the “25 Articles of Religion” adopted by other sects

of Methodism, there is a greater emphasis on race and equality in the A.M.E. church (Bailey 21)

The Methodist Episcopal Church, South was also formed around the issue of race. In

1845, delegates from southern slave-holding states organized their new church after clashing

with the anti-slavery faction (“The Slavery Question”). African-American membership of the

M.E.C.S. declined significantly during and after the war, and all remaining African-American

members were transferred to a new church, the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1870

(“The Slavery Question”).

Due to the racial context of the origins and membership of the two denominations, clear

divisions existed between congregations in Durham. These two sects have played a defining role

in the foundation of Durham and the development of its diverse neighborhoods. In some ways,

the Methodist church and their Sunday schools served as a uniting force that helped citizens

overcome significant racial and class boundaries after the Civil War. However, the churches and

their social programs perpetuated racial and class inequalities to a greater extent than they

equalized them by promoting segregated religious communities.

Historical Context: Methodism in the South

No other war in American history has had as significant an impact on any region as the

Civil War did on the South. Families were displaced, divided, and many were destroyed. North

Carolina’s losses equaled about two-thirds of all of the United States’ losses during the Vietnam

War (“An Uncertain Future”). Despite these setbacks, Durham grew rapidly after the Civil War,

and this growth is attributed to the boom of the tobacco industry. The need for churches

increased after the war; with a larger number of people in an area hit hard by the war, religious

4  

faith became increasingly important to the region (McMillen 4). Durham was characterized by

religious fervor in the 1890s, and the Methodist and Baptist churches represented “cultural

cornerstones” on which Durhamites built for decades (Anderson 132, 229).

The strictly religious component of the Methodist Church was not the only way in which

the churches influenced Durham’s culture and society. The churches played a significant role in

education. In fact, almost all of the M.E.C.S. churches in Durham were founded from Sunday

schools that were established first. Sunday schools and child programs were a crucial aspect of

all Methodist congregations, both black and white alike. Because “an impoverished State and

South were utterly unable to furnish public schooling for their children,” churches and other

local institutions “fill[ed] the gap” (Childs10).

Francis Asbury, one of the first two bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, believed

strongly in the importance of religious training for the youth (Bradham 7). Sunday schools were

beginning to rise in prominence in the 1820s, at the early period of the movement towards

common education in North Carolina (Bradham 7-8). The need for education and programs for

youth was recognized in the M.E.C.S. and the A.M.E. Church. The M.E.C.S., which was

predominately white, published detailed guidelines for superintendents and church leaders

regarding how to run their Sunday schools. The A.M.E. Church did not issue such strict policies,

through Sunday school education was equally, if not more, important to members of the A.M.E.

Church as it was to members of the M.E.C.S. The Sunday school offered one of the best

educational possibilities for African-Americans in the South due to limited opportunities in

public education caused by racism and a lack of funding (McMillen 164).

The disparity of schooling options between children of different races and socioeconomic

status was reflected in and challenged by Methodist Sunday schools throughout Durham.

5  

Prominent Methodists in Durham, such as Washington Duke and Julian Carr, made efforts to

promote churches and education for African-Americans and factory workers side-by-side with

middle and upper class white establishments. Although it could seem to some that there were

“no class distinctions” in the Methodist churches, class and race divisions were deeply seated in

the very foundation of the majority of A.M.E. and M.E.C.S. establishments (Boyd 208). The

churches and their Sunday schools promoted relatively autonomous communities for blacks,

middle class whites, and factory workers. Subsequent sections of this paper will describe the

youth programs in Durham’s Methodist churches and reveal the ways in which they united and

divided the greater community. “The best indication of the development of a true community is

the construction of schools and churches,” which demonstrates how we can learn about

Durham’s neighborhoods by analyzing it’s the functions of its churches and visa-versa (Roberts,

Lea, and Leary 50).

The M.E.C.S. and Durham’s Sunday Schools

The M.E.C.S. prospered throughout Durham after the Civil War and throughout the first

half of the twentieth century. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South was the largest Methodist

denomination in the area, and their churches spanned from West to East Durham and were

present in both wealthy and mill neighborhoods. In many ways, the fact that the M.E.C.S. was

able to transcend socioeconomic boundaries demonstrates a level of democracy that was a

distinctive feature of churches in Durham. Three specific aspects of the Church demonstrate the

ways in which it was able to unite the entire white community, the population that made up

almost all of its congregation: the spread of the M.E.C.S. into mill villages and working class

6  

neighborhoods, the strict guidelines for Sunday schools, and the support of the members to help

the sick, poor, and underprivileged in the city.

First, prominent community members, many of who were mill owners, focused on

providing religious and educational support for factory workers. By 1880, the number of

workers in textile mills had increased significantly since the period immediately after the Civil

War. Few of these textile workers owned their own land, and none had “exactly the same

interest in locality as the members of the church already established” (Boyd 197). Textile mills

were characterized by a combination of paternalism and economic sanctions that included long

hours, low wages, and poor living conditions, which created a need for new churches to fit the

ever-changing population (Roberts, Lea, and Leary 149). Although there was great disparity

between business owners and factory workers, the growth of numerous Sunday schools within

factories reflects “the theme of cooperation between affluent and influential men and common

people” that runs through the history of the Methodist Church in Durham (Dixon 21).

This theme is depicted in the records of the 1885 Quarterly Conference of Trinity

Church, an church with origins dating before the Civil War (Childs 6). At this conference,

building committees for new eastern and western churches were formed. In what was the

western end of town at the time, a Sunday school was organized in the Duke & Sons Tobacco

Factory in 1886. Bethany Sunday School became Main St. Church, and ultimately took the

name Duke Memorial Methodist Church (Boyd 197), as seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Duke Memorial Methodist Church’s origins and development

7  

Washington Duke was “among those deeply concerned about the spiritual welfare of the

new residents and ready to help them” (Dixon 21). Duke was not the only member of the

M.E.C.S. that sought to unite the community through the church and through education. In East

Durham, a Sunday school was organized around the factory of the Durham Cotton

Manufacturing Company, and this school eventually developed into Carr Church (Boyd 198).

Almost every establishment of the M.E.C.S. in Durham started as a Sunday school, and many

began with the support of wealthy citizens. This trend demonstrates one way in which the

church broke past class and socioeconomic barriers.

Second, the national Sunday school movement within the M.E.C.S. united churches

throughout Durham. However, in order to examine this movement, it is necessary to understand

the importance of education in the Methodist Church. In 1825, the Committee on Education in

the Methodist Episcopal Church passed a bill to promote legislative aid to “instruct the young

and ignorant children of the indigent, and others indiscriminately” (Bradham 8). Methodist

doctrine promoted religious education for members of all levels of society, not just the wealthy,

and early Sunday schools focused on teaching students without other means to read and write

(Bradham 12). At the 1866 General Conference of the M.E.C.S., members made the Sunday

school an official arm of the church (McMillen 69). The Sunday school organization became

increasingly centralized, and at the turn of the century, a new era of prosperity began in the

movement (Bradham 29). In 1904, Sunday school membership in the M.E.C.S. exceeded total

church membership, demonstrating the prominence of education within the church (Schisler 70).

The Sunday school movement continued through the beginning of the twentieth century.

The Sunday school acquired national significant in the post-bellum South and contributed to the

process of building the evangelical institution throughout the region (McMillen 169). The rise of

8  

the Sunday school was a part of “the movement of the age which has organized the common

school system of the world, and is everywhere marshaling the forces of civilized peoples and

governments for the education of the rising generation” (Wardle 171).

The movement within the M.E.C.S. brought a level of unity in churches throughout

Durham. Sunday schools in affluent neighborhoods, such as Lakewood Methodist Church in the

western suburb, and in mill communities, such as Carr Methodist Church, were connected

through uniform lessons. The Church, through their own published agents, mass-produced

uniform lessons and guidelines to be used throughout the nation. By using these lessons, many

southerners intended for God’s word to bypass regional, racial, and sectarian divisions

(McMillen 137).

A compilation of Sunday school lessons, published in 1927, depicts the ways in which

the M.E.C.S. promoted unity for students at all levels. The pamphlets included stories of parents

teaching young children how to pray, modern examples of how to overcome the urge to sin, and

quotes from the Bible. One particular lesson reveals how children were taught about inequalities

and injustice. In the “International Group Lessons” pamphlet for students aged fifteen to

seventeen, a lesson was published to teach about the value of human life. According to the

pamphlet, the teachings of Jesus “meant the abolition of slavery…[the] protection of the weak,

care for the sick, conservation of the lives of babies and children” (“Sunday School Lessons”

46). In this same lesson, children were taught that during Jesus’ time, there was no equality; “the

rich became richer, the poor became poorer.” The lesson taught students that this was

unacceptable, and it was the students’ job, as young Christians, to stop inequality in the name of

Jesus. Although there is no way to know if each and every Sunday school in Durham used these

9  

uniform lessons, instructors surely used the guides to plan their lessons (McMillen 137). The

M.E.C.S. urged young students to fight inequality.

A Bethany Sunday School songbook, published in 1884, demonstrates the ways in which

the school promoted interaction between the students, the impoverished, the dying, and the poor

(“Bethany Sunday School Order of Services” 16, 32). In a number of songs, such as “Rescue the

Perishing,” children sing about helping others that are worse-off through the love of Jesus

because material possessions are worthless in the kingdom of God. There is no way to know if

the congregation promoted these Christian values in action, but the songbook demonstrates the

ideals of the Church transcending socioeconomic barriers.

The M.E.C.S. published more than just uniform lessons. The Superintendent’s Guide of

1925 and the Programs of Work for Sunday Schools from 1929 illustrate other ways in which the

Church promoted Sunday schools in all neighborhoods, despite a lack of funding or resources.

Both works document guidelines for superintendents of all levels of schools, from “Type E” to

“Type B”. “Type E” was defined as a Sunday school in a one-room schoolhouse with less than

fifty students, while “Type B” had at least seven organized departments and six or more

assembly rooms (Programs of Work). The guidelines varied due to the huge differences in

congregations, but the fact that the M.E.C.S. promoted education at all levels demonstrates a

commitment to Sunday schools regardless of class or financial differences. In The Memorial

Church Messenger from December of 1915, Pastor North explained “poor and rich alike, male

and female, the white man, the black man, and the yellow; the good news comes to all people”

(“The Memorial Church Messenger” 51).

10  

Although the Pastor preached of equality, his church congregation did not promote

equality to a great extent. In fact, the pulpit was originally between two large doors, with a

section roped off in the back for the colored people (Harrell 13).

Third, care for the poor was almost exclusively a function of the church (Boyd 207). The

Main St. Methodist Church, which is presently the Duke Memorial Methodist Church, had a

special committee on the Board of Stewards dedicated to providing support for the sick and poor

in the neighborhood (“List of Committees”). Collecting money for missions and for the poor

was a main obligation of Sunday school classes in numerous Durham schools.

While the M.E.C.S. promoted education in all types of Sunday schools in Durham, they

also perpetuated inequality. The published guide to Sunday School Lessons did not include a

single photograph of an African-American child, and African-Americans were only mentioned

when in reference to international missions (“Sunday School Lessons”).

Furthermore, congregations were considerably divided because they were founded to

serve already segregated neighborhoods. Generally, congregations consisted of members that

lived in close proximity to a church. Because of the difficulty of travel, it was typical for

churches to form in order to meet a need in a certain area (Dixon 21). Therefore, racially and

financially segregated areas led to segregated congregations of the M.E.C.S. Lakewood

Methodist Church, for example, was located in Lakewood, a prosperous, predominately white

suburb, and its members fit the mold of the neighborhood (Roberts, Lea, and Leary 245). As

previously mentioned, factory workers made up the congregations of other churches in West and

East Durham. Some churches, such as Duke Memorial Methodist Church located in the Central

Business District, attracted members from outside of traditional neighborhood boundaries (“The

Memorial Church Messenger” 2). Yet, this was unusual at the time.

11  

The fact that almost every white neighborhood in Durham had it’s own Methodist

Church, among other churches and schools, demonstrates a level of autonomy of each

neighborhood. “Typically, the earliest evidence of a cohesive community appears in the

establishment of institutions, particularly churches,” and the neighborhoods of Durham were no

exception (Roberts, Lea, and Leary 113). Whether a neighborhood was predominately wealthy

or working class, its Methodist church members typically were too. The M.E.C.S. did little to

promote interaction between races and classes in Durham; equality in practice was not realized to

the same extent as it was preached.

The A.M.E. Church and the Community Center

The African Methodist Episcopal Church stemmed from the same religious denomination

as the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, yet the two were just as different as their names

suggested. While the leaders and governing members of the M.E.C.S. church leaned toward the

pro-slavery side of the political spectrum, the A.M.E. Church was founded in the early

nineteenth century to give African-Americans a place to feel free of limits. Richard Allen, an

original founder of the denomination, preached his four basic ideals. The first was to promote a

church without a color barrier, and the third was to “foster educational leadership for the Negro

people” (Bailey 23). In The Doctrines and Disciplines of the African Methodist Episcopal

Church, published in 1817, an entire section was devoted to the education of youth. The

document stated that church members were obligated to meet with their children at least one

every two weeks to preach and pray.

Compared to the M.E.C.S. congregations, however, the A.M.E. Sunday schools in

Durham were not nearly as documented, directed, or developed. The A.M.E. churches in

12  

Durham did not form from Sunday schools, but this does not mean that they did not impact

children. Having the means to learn was critical, and the ability to gain an education could break

down racial and class barriers. Limited documentation exists about Sunday schools in Durham’s

A.M.E. churches. Yet, in a pamphlet from St. Joseph’s Church published in the 1950s, an entire

section is devoted to pictures of various Sunday school classes and church organizations (Bailey

18).

A.M.E. churches in Durham formed due to a need for a center of community life in

growing African-American communities. African-American citizens were not the only citizens

supporting the growth of their churches. Washington Duke, General Julian Carr, W. T.

Blackwell, and Mrs. Eugene Morehead, all of who were white, gave thousands of dollars to the

establishment of St. Joseph’s A.M.E. Church (Bailey 12).

Although some white citizens supported black congregations, interactions between

blacks and whites in the church were limited. In African-American churches throughout the

nation in the beginning of the twentieth century, “it [was] a social center, it [was] a club, it [was]

an arena for the exercise of one’s capabilities and powers, world in which one may achieve a

self-realization and preferment” (Mays and Nicholson 867). Although African-Americans were

legally freed from slavery after the Civil War, Jim Crow laws, racism, and discrimination

plagued southern communities. In the church, the feeling of freedom was magnified due to the

social limits placed on African-Americans outside of it (Mays and Nicholson 867). The racial

climate caused African-Americans to be “thrown more and more on their own resources”

(Anderson 222). Churches were a place for people to mobilize and work together to help the

community prosper.

13  

W.E.B. Dubois noted that the “unusual inner organization of this group of men, women,

and children” characterized the rise of the African-American throughout the South; their closed

community circle was prosperous, but escaped the notice of the white community (DuBois). He

noticed a greater level of cooperation in “church, school, and grocery store” between blacks in

Durham than most other groups.

Specifically, St. Joseph’s A.M.E. Church was vitally important to the black community in

Durham (Anderson 138). It was one of the two largest black churches in Durham. The

centrality of the church in people’s lives gave the earliest churches in Hayti, an African-

American business and residential community near downtown Durham, great importance and

influence (Anderson 160). The community grew around the church, with roots in the area dating

back to 1891 (“Our History”). While black business and industry continued to grow, as

represented by the prosperity of the North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance company, the church

remained at the center of the neighborhood (Anderson 224).

The A.M.E. church was a community center in other neighborhoods as well. In 1923,

Emmanuel A.M.E. Church was located in the West End neighborhood. Racial divisions plagued

West End, and blacks made up most of its population south of Chapel Hill Street (Roberts, Lea,

and Leary 131). Kent Street was the center of West End’s black community due to its higher

land plots. Emmanuel Church, an important gathering place, was located at the very center of

this neighborhood—south of Chapel Hill Street near Kent Street (Roberts, Lea, and Leary 132).

This location demonstrates the key role that the A.M.E. church played in African-American

communities. The fact that completely separate churches existed for blacks and whites in a

single neighborhood, such as East Durham, demonstrates the deep racial segregation that existed

into the twentieth century.

14  

In fact, all of the A.M.E. churches in Durham were located on predominately black

streets, even if that street was isolated in a white neighborhood. Similarly, nearly every single

M.E.C.S. building in Durham in 1923 was located on a predominately white street in a white

neighborhood, as seen in Figures 2 and 3.

Racial segregation was not the only division that plagued the A.M.E. Church in Durham.

As between M.E.C.S. congregations, class and socioeconomic status inequalities were divisive.

Increasing wealth and education of some African-American citizens caused rifts in the

community. Specifically, “those lucky enough to obtain them were turning away from the old

forms of worship to more intellectual, restrained, unemotional services, and they wanted their

clergy to be educated men” (Anderson 224). In his thesis, A comparative socio-economic study

of two negro churches in Durham, James William McGinnis describes the differences between

two A.M.E. churches—Mt. Olive and St. Joseph’s. He used the two churches as a case study to

understand class and educational differences between African-American neighborhoods.

First, Mt. Olive A.M.E. was located in the south of the West End neighborhood. The

majority of the church’s members lived between the East and West Campuses of Duke

Figure 2: All of the A.M.E. Churches listed in the 1923 Hill’s Directory were located on predominately black streets.

Figure 3: All of the M.E.C.S. buildings listed in the 1923 Hill’s Directory were located on predominately white streets.

15  

University, clustered around the church. Their jobs depended on physical labor (McGinnis 17).

Their average number of years of schooling was only 7.28 for the 150 members of the

congregation. The Church was the focus of their activities and allowed members to express “to

the highest degree their feelings, emotions, and attitudes” (McGinnis 29). The public schools

were similar institutions, but the “white man…had to be reckoned with” in the schools.

Members sought racial freedom and equality while at church, without the “white man’s

presence” (McGinnis 29).

On the other hand, St. Joseph’s Church was located in the middle of Hayti, a more

prosperous and booming African-American community. The congregation included over 850

members, including students from the North Carolina College for Negros, with 18.6 years of

schooling on average (McGinnis 43). The congregation was generally more educated and

wealthier than at Mt. Olive. The differences between these two churches reflect the division

within the A.M.E. Church in Durham. Although churches were viewed as community centers

for African-Americans to express themselves and escape prejudice from the outside, prejudice

existed due to socioeconomic differences between and within churches. Specifically, the grand

steeple and structure of St. Joseph’s A.M.E. church represented the prosperity of African-

Americans in Hayti. This prosperity was not felt to the same extend by all African-Americans in

Durham. Although churches offered a place for blacks to feel free and express themselves

without racial prejudice, socioeconomic differences could not be erased.

In 1927 and 1929, black and white experts assembled to analyze the status of blacks in

Durham. They fount that black churches could do more for the community and promote greater

social involvement (Anderson 366). Due to socioeconomic differences, among other factors,

16  

Methodist churches within the African-American community did not promote equality as much

as maintained the segregated “status quo.”

Conclusion

The Methodist church in Durham was fundamentally divided. African-American

Methodists generally stayed within their segregated communities and attended A.M.E. churches,

and white Methodists did not typically have to travel far to find a M.E.C.S. congregation.

Although aspects of the church, such as uniform Sunday school lessons, seemed to promote

equality and tolerance, the rise of churches in Durham did more to keep the races in completely

independent communities than unite them. Furthermore, socioeconomic divisions existed in

both the black and white communities. These tensions further divided Durham into a town of

distinct and divided neighborhoods.

The history of Methodism in Durham cannot be completely understood through a one-

dimensional narrative. The maps embedded in this document show the locations of Durham’s

Methodist churches in 1923. The churches’ positions give clues about the churches themselves

and their congregations. Durham’s neighborhoods impacted churches, and visa-versa.

The outlines of neighborhoods formed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries remain in

Durham today, and they impact local and regional politics. Segregation may have been legally

outlawed in 1954, but these divisions have kept Durham’s population disconnected between

races and classes into the new millennium.

Today, the role of churches and Sunday schools in Southern society has radically

changed. Every child is supposed to have the same educational opportunities through public

education, and the United States has an increasingly atheist and agnostic population (“U.S.

17  

Religious Landscape Survey”). On a whole, the Methodist Church has become increasingly less

important in people’s lives; membership has decreased by seven and five percent in the past two

decades, respectively (“United Methodist Membership”). Though the Methodist Church

perpetuated segregation in Durham at the turn of the century, is the diminished role of the church

in our society a solution to problems we face today? Will these changes unite or further divide

people across race and socioeconomic status lines?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18  

Bibliography

"An Uncertain Future." North Carolina and the Civil War. North Carolina Museum of History,

2005. Web. 28 Apr. 2011.

Bailey, Snow. Dedication of the Edian D. Markham Memorial Building and Parsonage

April 20-27, 1952. Durham: Service Printing Company. Print.

“Bethany Sunday School Order of Services.” 1884. Duke University Rare Book,

Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Durham, NC.

Boyd, William. The Story of Durham. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1927. Print.

Brabham, William. A History of Sunday School Work in the North Carolina Conference.

Greensboro, NC: North Carolina Christian Advocate, 1925. Print.

Brinton, Hugh. "The Negro in Durham." Philosophy University of North Carolina, 1930.

Print.Chapel Hill, NC.

Dixon, Wyatt T. “Ninety Years of Duke Memorial Church 1886-1976.” 1977.

19  

DuBois, William Edward Burghardt. "The Upbuilding of Black Durham: The Success of the

Negroes and Their Value to a Tolerant and Helpful Southern City. Documenting the

American South. University of North Carolina, 29 Apr. 2011.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/dubois/menu.html3.

Harrell, Costen. The Methodist Church in Durham. Durham, NC:, 1915. Print.

McMillan, Sally. To Raise Up the South. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press,

1944. Print.

Hill Directory Co.'s Durham, N.C. City Directory. Richmond, VA: Hill Directory Co.,

Inc., Publishers, 1923. Internet Archive. Web. 29 Apr. 2011.

<http://www.archive.org/details/hilldirectorycos1923hill>.

 

“History of Duke Memorial Methodist Episcopal Church, South.” 1886-1932. United

Methodist Church Records, Box NCC41, Duke University Rare Book,

Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Durham, NC.

K, G. "Carr United Methodist." Endangered Durham. N.p., 18 March 2012. Web. 29

Apr. 2011. <http://endangereddurham.blogspot.com/2011/03/carr-united-

methodist-107-n-driver.html>.

20  

K, G. "Edgemont." Endangered Durham. N.p., 2 Dec. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2011.

<http://endangereddurham.blogspot.com/2010/12/edgemont.html>.

K, G. "St. Mark’s AME." Endangered Durham. N.p., 15 Dec. 2008. Web. 29 Apr.

2011.<http://endangereddurham.blogspot.com/2008/12/st-marks-ame-529 >.

“List of Committees on the Board of Stewards of the Main St. Church, 1891-1908.”

United Methodist Church Records, Box N6, Duke University Rare Book,

Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Durham, NC.

Mays, Benjamin Elijah, and Joseph William Nicholson. The Negro's Church. 1933. Print.

McGinnis, James William. "A comparative socio-economic study of two negro churches in

Durham, North Carolina ." Diss. Duke University, 1945. Print.

"Our History." The Hayti Heritage Center. St. Joseph's Historical Foundation, 2008.

Web. 29 Apr. 2011. <http://www.hayti.org/our-organization/our-history/>.

Programs of Work for Sunday Schools. Nashville, TN:, 1929. Print.

“Report of Conference Superintendent, Sunday School Board of the North Carolina

21  

Conference Methodist Episcopal Church, South.” Nov. 1926. United Methodist Church

Records Collection, Box NCC20. Duke University Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special

Collections Library, Durham, NC.

"Report of the Historian of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." Nov. 1914. United

Methodist Church Records, Duke University Rare Book, Manuscript, and

Special Collections Library, Durha m, NC.

Roberts, Claudia, Diane Lea, and Robert Leary. The Durham Architectural and Historic

Inventory. Durham, NC: The City of Durham, 1982. Print.

Schisler, John. Christian Education in Local Methodist Churches. Nashville, TN:

Abingdon Press, 1969. Print.

Smither, Ethel, and Jessie Moore. Sunday School Lessons. 1st ed. 2 Vol. Cincinnati, OH:

The Methodist Book Concern, 1927. Print.

The Doctrines and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Philadelphia:

Richard Allen and Jacob Tapisco, 1817. Documenting the American South.

Web. 28 Apr. 2011. <http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/ame/ame.html>.

The Memorial Church Messenger. 1st ed. 1 Vol. Durham, NC:, 1915. Print.

22  

"The Slavery Question and Civil War, 1844-1865." The United Methodist Church. N.p., 2011.

Web. 28 Apr. 2011.<http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=

lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5399351&ct=6470777¬oc=1>.

The Superintendent's Guide for 1925. Richmond, VA: Lamar & Barton, 1924. Print.

Childs, Benjamin. Centennial History of Trinity Methodist Church. Durham, NC: The

Seeman Printery, 1961. Print.

"United Methodist Membership." General Commission on Archives and History. The United

Methodist Church, 2008. Web. 29 Apr. 2011.

<http://www.gcah.org/site/pp.aspx?c=ghKJI0PHIoE&b=3828783>

"U.S. Religious Landscape Survey." The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2010. Web. 29

Apr. 2011. <http://religions.pewforum.org/reports>.

Wardle, Addie Grace. History of the Sunday School Movement in the Methodist Episcopal

Church. New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1918. Print.