Among the things that happened this past week in the American Restoration Heritage history:
May 24, 1879 – A pioneer preacher, summing up his experiences to his son, speaks of what was and what should be.
Nathan Williamson Smith is one of the earliest preachers from within the Restoration Heritage to minister in the state of Georgia, serving there since the mid-1830’s. In a series of six letters written to a son, sixty-five year-old Smith relates what life for him was like “back in the day.” These letters are then published in the May and June issues of the Christian Standard. The fourth of the six letters is published today. In that letter Smith writes, in part:
“In 1836 I spent the summer months in traveling and preaching in some of the adjacent counties; but with very little success. Also in 1838 I spent about half of the year evangelizing; received four dollars for my salary, but thank the Lord that year, among others, I immersed two of the best of brothers we ever had in Georgia. One is gone to his reward with the Lord; the other is away in Texas, proclaiming the glad tidings as his health will permit; has been sorely afflicted of late.
“In 1849 I traveled around at my own expense, and got up the first cooperation meeting held by our brethren in the State. The delegation was small, and nothing practical accomplished, more than to make a beginning in that direction, and appoint another meeting for the same place twelve months thereafter.”
Smith continues this same thought in his next letter (May 31):
“Since the year 1849 there have been several cooperation or yearly meetings. But as far as my information extends, they have not been very successful in their results. And if I had to guess the reason, would say, too many resolutions, only on paper.
“During my labor as preacher I have served as pastor in different places, 14 churches in Georgia, when not engaged as an evangelist. While some of them paid a very small salary and some paid nothing, I do not think I exaggerate by saying that near one half my labors have been given to the good cause gratuitously; but do not complain at all, although I am now old and afflicted, and not able to support my family by manual labor.”
Smith’s final letter (June 7) gives us a snapshot of the state of things for our heritage at the time in Georgia, as well as some of Smith’s take on it all:
“So far as my information extends there are abut twenty-five preachers now in Georgia, and about six of them are devoting all their time to preaching. The rest are laboring now in various callings to support themselves and family, some of them preaching monthly pretty regularly, others preaching very little. …
“I am not able to say positively how many organized churches we have in our State, but I would say, to the best of my knowledge there are between fifty and seventy-five, varying in numbers, some of them not having a great many, and others from one to two hundred. During my observations our churches have lost many members, both by death and emigration to the West. There are a goodly number of brethren that are scattered in the country, not convenient to any church for worship. I am sorry to say that among the churches very few of them meet regularly on each Lord’s day to worship, read, and study the Scriptures; and furthermore, I am sorry to say that there is not that interest manifested in the Sunday-school cause, that I would like to see and know. Oh, when will our brethren learn that their spiritual life, grow in grace, peace and prosperity as churches, does not depend entirely on this old fashioned way of monthly meetings, waiting and depending on the preacher to come and do the work? If allowed to express an opinion, I must say that I do not think that our Georgia churches have increased and prospered as they might, even with the many difficulties they have had to encounter. I know the opposition has been courageous, more zealous, more humble and devoted, and, withal, more benevolent to the poor and more liberal with our means in sustaining the cause of the Lord – his word and his word alone.”
What advice would Smith offer to young preachers in preparation for ministry? Marry well. In his first letter (May 7), Smith says:
“In the year 1834 I married your mother in the county of Wilkes, Georgia … She was an orphan whose parents both died when she was a child. She, like myself, had but a very limited chance to go to school and improve her mind when young. But possessing naturally a strong mind and untiring energy, she was well calculated for a preacher’s wife, for a truth, I confess, that I am more indebted to my wife for what I am and what I have done as a preacher, than any other human instrumental in it. And I would say to all young men that expect to preach, be careful as to the disposition of the lady you choose for a wife. Many a good preacher’s usefulness is destroyed by the conduct of his wife. I knew once a very talented and fine preacher, whose wife would use every stratagem in her power to keep him at home, and from going to his appointments. One Saturday, trying to prevail on him not to go to meeting, and finding she was not successful, she secretly got some fire and went out and set the woods on fire, so that her husband had to go to fighting fire to save his fence.”
After penning these letters, Smith lives another twenty years. His body is buried in Cobb County, Georgia. His ministry took him to forty of Georgia’s counties and at different times, he was the only preacher from among the Restoration Heritage in those counties.
May 25, 1894 – Today, the author of the first “study Bible” produced by a Restoration Heritage author goes on to be with the Lord and his body is buried in Oskaloosa, Iowa. Or, to put it another way: today, a man who helped shaped the mind of many of your church members with gray hair today, passes on.
The man is B.W. Johnson. His initials stand for his namesake: “Barton Warren” Stone. His mind is largely shaped by his education at Bethany College, the president of which is Alexander Campbell. His professors there include such men as Robert Milligan, W. K. Pendleton, and Robert Richardson. In 1863 he serves as the corresponding secretary of the American Missionary Society (let the reader understand). He works for years as the editor of the paper begun by Walter Scott, The Evangelist (aka: the Christian Evangelist).
And in 1891, the second volume of the first edition of Johnson’s two-volume work entitled The People’s New Testament: The Common and Revised Versions with References and Colored Maps, with Explanatory Notes, rolls off the press. Johnson’s Notes, as the work comes to be popularly known, quickly becomes a part of the library of many an average-Joe-in-the-pew within Restoration Heritage churches. This holds true for something close to a century in time.
I can’t recall with certainty if a copy of Johnson’s Notes was given to me as a gift by a fellow church member or if I purchased it at the recommendation of one of the staff ministers with our congregation (me thinks it was likely the latter), but I do recall it was one of the very first books to be added to my library upon my baptism at the age of seventeen. In the same way one never notices just how many cars on the road are identical to your own until you own a particular car, I never noticed how many fellow church members toted a one-volume edition of Johnson’s notes to Sunday class and worship services until I acquired my copy. At the time, the fact struck me that this was something like “the Church of Christ Bible.” Nearly forty years have passed since my baptism and I now live over four hundred miles further south, but I still occasionally encounter a church member referencing or quoting Johnson’s Notes today.
May 26, 1833 – Today, a preacher learns that his writing has led people unknown to him to a closer walk with the Lord and has resulted in the planting of a church.
In faraway Calloway County, Missouri, a man by the name of Greenup Jackson sits down and pens a letter to Alexander Campbell. He writes:
“I have your Christian Baptist and a few numbers of the Millennial Harbinger; also your Debates with Owen and M’Calla, and have read them with peculiar delight. I have been more instructed in the Christian religion by them than by any other composition of human origin. I have laid aside my ‘Discipline,’ to which I have been a slave for four years, and have vowed allegiance to the King of kings and Lord of lords. Seven of us have been immersed in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of our sins, and are trying to exhibit the primitive order of Christianity. We expect a considerable increase.”
May 27, 1893 – One Bible scholar hammers another – rather, a whole group of others – with satire today.
In the late 1870’s, Julius Wellhausen publishes two volumes that come to dominate the field of Old Testament scholarship for decades following. The first volume concerns the JEDP theory of the source origins of the Pentateuch and the second volume deals with the history of the people of Israel. The effects of Wellhausen’s work reverberates throughout Christendom, the Restoration Heritage being no exception.
Within the Restoration Heritage, J.W. McGarvey is deemed the champion of conservative Biblical scholarship. And, by means of articles published on a weekly basis in the Christian Standard, McGarvey continually takes liberal scholarship to the woodshed. Today, a certain “Professor Nordell” [presumably P.A. Nordell] is McGarvey’s whipping boy.
May 27, 1893
“I commend to the consideration of Professor Nordell and his class of critics a specimen of criticism on an English classic, which he has probably never seen, and which may be of service to him in his future efforts at literary criticism. As the document has not yet been copyrighted, I will not disclose the name of the book from which it is an extract. It is entitled “The Literary Analysis of an Ancient Poem.” As the poem is a brief one, we shall quote it in full:
“‘Old Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard,
To get her poor dog a bone.
When she got there, the cupboard was bare,
And so the poor dog had none.’
“In the uncritical ages of the past this poem was believed to be the composition of a single person — a very ancient English woman by the name of Goose. Whether we should style her Mrs. Goose, or Miss Goose, we have no means of deciding with certainty, for the stories which have come down to historical times concerning her are mostly legendary. It might be supposed that the title “mother” would settle this difficult question; but, as in certain convents of our own day, venerable spinsters are styled Mother, so may it have been in the days of Goose.
“But, leaving this interesting question as one for further historical inquiry, we turn to the poem itself, and by applying to it the scientific process of literary analysis, we find that the document did not originate, as our fathers have supposed, from a single author, but that it is a composite structure, at least two original documents having been combined within it by a Redactor. This appears from the incongruities between the two traditions which evidently underlie the poem.
“One of these traditions represents the heroine of the poem, a venerable Mrs. Hubbard, as a benevolent woman, who loved her dog, as appears from the fact that she went to the cupboard to get him some food. If we had the whole of this story, we should doubtless find that she did this every time the dog was hungry, and as she would surely not go to the cupboard for the dog’s food unless she knew there was some in the cupboard, we can easily fill out the story of her benevolence by assuming that she put something away for the dog when she ate her own meals.
“Now, in direct conflict with this, the other tradition had it that she kept the dog “poor;” for he is called her “poor dog;” and, in keeping with this fact, instead of giving him meat, she gave him nothing but bones. Indeed, so extreme was her stinginess toward the poor dog that, according to this tradition, she actually put away the bones in the cupboard with which to mock the poor dog’s hunger.
“A woman could scarcely be represented more inconsistently than Mrs. Hubbard was by these two traditions; and consequently none but those who are fettered by tradition, can fail to see that the two must have originated from two different authors. For the sake of distinction, we shall style one of these authors, Goose A, and the other, Goose B. In these two forms, then, the traditions concerning this ancient owner of a dog came down from prehistoric times. At length there arose a literary age in England, and then R put together in one the accounts written by the two gooses, but failed to conceal their incongruities, so that unto this day Mother Hubbard is placed in the ridiculous light of going to the cupboard when there was nothing in it; of going there, notwithstanding her kindness to her dog, to tantalize him by getting him a mere bone; and, to cap the climax, of going all the way to the cupboard to get the bone when she knew very well that not a bone was there.
“Some people are unscientific enough to think, that in thus analyzing the poem, we are seeking to destroy its value, but every one who has the critical faculty developed, can see that this ancient household lyric is much more precious to our souls since we have come to understand its structure; and that, contradictory as its two source documents were, it is a blessed thing that, in the providence of God, both have been preserved in such a form that critical analysis is capable of separating and restoring them.”
May 28, 1830 – Today, a law is passed that results in the death of thousands upon thousands of people in the United States … and the resulting virtual silence on the matter by prominent leaders of the Restoration Heritage is deafening today.
Today, United States President Andrew Jackson signs the Indian Removal Act (IRA) into law. The bill has been a controversial measure, passing the House and Senate by a total of only thirteen votes. However, its passage now gives Jackson the authority to do what he wants done: the removal of all Native Americans living east of the Mississippi River and their relocation to what is known today as Oklahoma. Though the IRA is extremely popular with Southerners, the result of the IRA’s implementation is devastating to Native Americans, resulting in, among other things, what is known as “The Trail of Tears.”
While I am anything but a top-shelf Restoration Heritage historian or researcher, I have been reading my eyes out and Googling my fingers off … and have yet to find much at all penned by one of the primary leaders of the early years of the Restoration Heritage regarding the relocation, and resulting decimation, of Native American people. However, one article has been pointed out to me, an article penned by Alexander Campbell not quite six months before the passage of the IRA. And significantly, this article, entitled “The Cherokees,” appears in the very first issue of Campbell’s paper, the Millennial Harbinger (Jan. 4, 1830; vol.1, no.1). Campbell’s take on things is 180 degrees opposite of those of President Jackson. The article reads:
“The ‘rights of man,’ one would think, are any thing and every thing which any body and every body pleases to make them, if we yield to the opinions of those who maintain that any state in this Union has a right to seize the property and exile or banish the owner, because he is red, or yellow, or some other unfashionable color. But that is not the question–it is this: Have treaties any sanction, any validity, any faith? Have the parties to any covenant or compact any right? Or is it the right of the strong always to plunder the property and insult the person of the weak. Has one man, because he is rich and has many friends, the right to seize the farm of his poor neighbor and give him a tract in the moon, or in ‘No Man’s Island’ for it, just as he pleases? All this, and even more than this, is assumed by Georgia in reference to the Cherokee Indians, as I understand her wishes respecting this most important community of the aborigines, to whom God gave this continent. I am glad that the eyes of christendom and of the world, are now upon the representatives of this nation of republics–this government of principles and laws; for if none but the eyes of God were upon some of them, I think they would send these poor defenceless Indians beyond the Rocky Mountains, if it would not cost too much.
“On the question whether the Cherokees, in part civilized, and some say, in part a christianized tribe of Indians, now residing within the territory of Georgia, are under its jurisdiction, ipso facto, in despite of all treaty, Mr. [William Lloyd] Garrison, junior editor of the Genius of Universal Emancipation [a Quaker, abolitionist newspaper in Baltimore, Maryland] makes the following very pertinent and forcible remarks:–
“‘Questions of national justice are above the spirit of party: their discussion, therefore, is within the province, and becomes the duty, of every editor. In the selections of candidates men may honestly differ, without impeaching their integrity or discernment; but the principles of equity are too broad and palpable to be misapprehended, or to render division excusable.
“‘The question of INDIAN RIGHTS should unite the hearts and voices of the American people, from Maine to the Rocky Mountains. It is simple, significant, weighty. It is not whether the Indians would gain or lose by emigration–whether their removal would better secure the safety of Georgia or Alabama–whether they have cultivated ten or ten thousand acres of their lands–whether they have been reclaimed from their former savage habits, and are now a civilized and christian people; but it is simply, Whether the faith of the United States is not only solemnly plighted to protect them, for ever, from invasion, violence, and fraud? Expediency and policy are convertible terms, full of dishonesty and oppression. Justice is eternal, and its demands cannot safely be evaded.”
“‘It is not a fact that the Cherokees are within the jurisdiction of Georgia, or of any other state. They are as distinct as any member of the Union, and as national and independent as Great Britain itself. A hundred and fifty treaties can be produced to sustain their pretensions. The laws of Georgia can no more be justly imposed on them, than upon individuals residing in Massachusetts or Maine, or in the Persian Empire. They have never submitted themselves to the government of the whites–they probably never will submit–and no power, we trust, will compel them to submit. They do not infringe upon state or national rights. Their location interferes with nothing but the avarice of Georgia, and a better one, for themselves and the country, cannot be found this side of the Pacific. In fine, their forcible removal would brand this country with eternal infamy, and expose it to the accumulated vengeance of heaven.’
“I humbly trust there is yet so much justice, so much pure republicanism, so much regard to truth and national faith, in the bosoms of the American people and of their representatives in congress, as will not permit them to give up an innocent and harmless nation to the cupidity of a few capitalists in Georgia or any where else.”
The preacher in me enjoys Campbell’s alliteration in his sentence of summation: “the cupidity of a few capitalists.” And the historian in me appreciates Campbell quoting from Benjamin Lundy‘s paper, The Genius of Universal Emancipation. Lundy’s name is not well-remembered today, but he was a loud voice crying in the wilderness in his time, arguably the first person in the U.S. to deliver lectures in speaking tours across the country against slavery. It is Lundy who, just a very few years later, helps carry the flag, as it were, in the denunciation of the Texas Revolution. Why? Because he believes he sees it for what it is actually about: an attempt to continue, and further, slavery (Mexico having outlawed it). Lundy, if anything, is a consistent and courageous man, and these are traits that Campbell greatly admires.
While Campbell apparently said precious little regarding the eviction of Native Americans from their homes after the publication of this article, one wonders what else could have been said. Campbell’s position is candid and clear, leaving no room for compromise. Indeed, it makes this part-Cherokee proud that he said what he did and when he did. Jackson had outlined his policy in his Second Annual Message to Congress less than a month earlier (Dec. 6, 1829) and this article, in effect, is Campbell’s “reply” to Jackson. That Campbell spoke at all, especially with the knowledge that his position would be exceedingly unpopular with many – and would prove to be in vain – is significant. Campbell spoke at the crucial moment, while the matter was still yet to be decided, and in a prominent way, in the first issue of his new paper. No small thing.
And yet, there were more leaders in the Restoration Heritage than Campbell who write and/or who were editors – and where were their voices on this matter? We can’t help but wonder what future generations will wonder about our near silence today on matters that will appear large in their eyes.
May 29, 1913 – Death, like life, can be very complicated. And today, by means of words of eulogy, we learn a strong lesson in honesty, grace, humility, hope, and brotherly love through the complicated, intertwined lives of two brothers in Christ: one a courageous pacifist, the other a military hero.
Richard Montgomery (“R.M”) Gano is the most prominent of Restoration Heritage veterans who served the Confederacy. And during the Civil War, there is hardly a more vocal pacifist in our heritage than David Lipscomb. During the war, Gano leads no small number of the men Lipscomb had helped lead to the Lord to their deaths in combat. Men Lipscomb taught to be peacemakers, Gano trained to become killers, and in a great many instances we know, killers of fellow brothers in Christ. A significant portion of that fighting took place in the heart of Lipscomb’s primary place of influence: Middle Tennessee. Make no mistake about it: there is a pool of blood, deep and wide, between R.M. Gano and David Lipscomb.
However, aside from Gano’s and Lipscomb’s dramatic differences as to the relationship of the Christian toward military service, there is no question as to either man’s sincerity, service, and strength in the Lord Jesus Christ. The fruit of the Spirit is obvious to all in the lives of them both. And, Lipscomb owes Gano much in that after the war he helped lead some of Lipscomb’s kin to the Lord … and thousands of others. Yes, here is another pool of blood.
And so, upon Gano’s death, David Lipscomb, editor of the brotherhood’s most prominent paper, the Gospel Advocate, must say something; he cannot not write about the passing of such a figure. But, what will he say and how will he say it? Lipscomb writes:
“We have seen notice of the death of Gen. R.M. Gano, of Dallas, Texas. He was in his eighty-fourth year. He was born in Bourbon County, Ky., a son of John Allen Gano, a preacher of force and power. The Ganos were of a family of preachers. They were from the French Huguenots. Two or three members of the family were Baptist preachers of note in New York before and during the Revolutionary War. Some of the family removed to the blue-grass region of Kentucky; and when the division between the Baptists and disciple of Christ came up, John A. Gano, the father of R.M. Gano, stood with the disciples firmly for the sufficiency of the word of God to lead and guide men in the way of righteousness and truth.
“The Ganos, so far as their lives are known, possessed a happy combination of qualities and characteristics. They were men gentle and kind in spirit, with true courage of convictions and strength and force of character. They could be strong and firm for the truth and the right, yet kind and gentle toward all men, especially toward those who opposed the truth. The Christian religion is intended by God to school and train men for these qualities, that they may be effective in exhorting and persuading men to become Christians. It is a happy condition when men inherit these helpful qualities. They could speak in kind and gentle tones, yet be steadfast in their convictions. Such men make good exhorters and are successful in persuading men to do their duty. The Ganos were good exhorters and successful preachers. General Gano was gentle and suave in his manner, but firm in his convictions and steadfast in his purposes.
“He graduated at Bethany College with a degree of honor, studied medicine, and began practice at Baton Rouge, La. Though no a preacher at that time, he soon gathered a band of disciples who met to worship God. After a year or so he moved to Grapevine, Texas. The Indians gave the people trouble, and he raised a company of soldiers and began a military life. About this time he was elected to the Legislature of Texas and served a term in this position.
“The Civil War came on; he entered the army, was put forward as a soldier, and made for himself a military character. He was through Middle Tennessee, and figured at Lebanon, Gallatin, and Hartsville. He was pleasant and popular as an officer with the soldiers and with the people.
“After the close for the war, he went to preaching. His reputation as a soldier commended him to the mass of the people in this country, and he held meetings at the placed mentioned and in Odd Fellows’ Hall in East Nashville, which gave the churches of Christ a start in East Nashville. Prof. James F. Lipscomb [one of David Lipscomb’s older brothers], who died in Texas a few years ago; Horace G. Lipscomb [another older brother of Lipscomb], who died in this city about a year ago; and Mrs. L.V. Clough, of Fort Worth, Texas [relationship unknown to me], were staying at my house, and all, with others, became obedient to the faith during this meeting. I became well acquainted with General Gano during the meeting and learned to respect and honor him for his earnestness and fidelity to what he thought was right. I used to boast sometimes of abstemious habits; that I had never drunk a cup of coffee, smoked a cigar, or took a chew of tobacco or a drink of spirits as a beverage. I told this to the general. If I mistake not, he added that he never had drunk a cup of tea, in addition to my restraints. I yielded the palm of praise to him, as he had been through the war, and especially as he had been in the Legislature. He was entitled to higher credit than I could claim.
“There was a year’s difference in our ages. He spent the years of the war in fighting for his country and took and active interest in the political affairs of the country. I spent the years of the war in teaching that Christians cannot fight for the kingdoms of earth and give their lives to building up these kingdoms. I trust God for approval of my course. I hope the General may be justified and saved. This my seem strange, ‘But with God all things are possible.’ (Matt. 19:26). The last years of this life he served as an elder in the church of Christ in Dallas, Texas and died respected and honored by those who knew him.”
As one who has read hundreds and hundreds of death notices of Civil War veterans, I can say this eulogy is truly unique; I have seen nothing quite like it anywhere else. Conspicuously absent are any words lauding the veteran’s exploits in the military. Rather, the emphasis here is on the man’s exploits in the harvest fields for Christ. No mention is made of what the veteran gave for his patriotic beliefs; instead, it is Gano’s faith in Christ and his submission to him in even the smallest of matters of conscience that is highlighted. There is no name-dropping or list of associations, only how Gano helped steer men and women to the One who alone is Great. And in place of remarks as to how noble it was for Gano to “serve his country” for some days, there is stress on how the deceased sought to serve Christ as he saw best until his dying day.
What Lipscomb did in this piece, in effect, is nothing short of turning a frequently used template for a veteran’s funeral service on its head! This reversal of praise would certainly not be lost to the general public of 1913. I have to wonder what Lipscomb’s contemporaries said to him about it. I suspect it received a mixed review: some thinking it inspiring and others likely seeing it as insufficient. To me it comes across as one Lipscomb’s finest pieces of writing; indeed, it is my personal favorite. It’s gutsy, grateful, gracious, personal, and real; not glib, grasping, grandiose, distant, and forced … as some eulogies were then, and are now. And in it all, Lipscomb honors the truly best of his brother in Christ while not watering down or compromising any of his own convictions. Such is very difficult ground to traverse, but Lipscomb stumbles not at all, rather, he blazes the trail for us to follow.
Lipscomb himself dies four years later in 1917. I wish I knew what the Gano family said of Lipscomb at his passing.
Among the things that happened on this day in American Restoration Heritage history:
* May 30, 1810 – Today, Eliza (Campbell) Stone, Barton W. Stone, Sr.’s first wife, dies at the age of twenty-six. Stone is now a widower at the age of thirty-seven. Years later, Stone writes of Eliza:
“In the winter of 1809, my only son, Barton Warren, died; and in the spring following, May 30, my dear companion Eliza, triumphantly followed. She was pious, intelligent and cheerful, truly a help-meet to me in all my troubles and difficulties. Nothing could depress her, not even sickness, nor death itself. I will relate an incident respecting her of interest to me, and may be to her children. When my mind began to think deeply on the subject of the Atonement, I was entirely absorbed in it, yet dared not mention it to any, lest it might involve other minds in similar perplexities. She discovered that something uncommon oppressed me. I was laboring in my field — she came to me and affectionately besought me not to conceal, but plainly declare the cause of my oppression. We sat down, and I told her my thoughts on the Atonement. When I had concluded, she sprang up and praised God aloud most fervently for the truth. From that day till her death, she never doubted of its truth.
“At her death, four little daughters were left to me, the eldest not more than eight years old. I broke up housekeeping, and boarded my children with brethren, devoting my whole time gratuitously to the churches, scattered far and near. My companion and fellow laborer was Reuben Dooley, of fervent piety, and engaging address. Like myself he had lately lost his companion, and ceased house-keeping, and boarded our his little children. We preached and founded churches throughout the Western States of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Occasionally we visited our children. All my daughters when young, professed faith in Jesus, and were baptized. The youngest, Eliza, has long since triumphantly entered into rest.” [cf. the post for March 11 in this series for more information regarding this preaching tour of Dooley and Stone]
Oh, and did you know that Eliza (Campbell) Stone was a niece of Patrick Henry (yes, that Patrick Henry; the “Give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry)? ‘Tis true: Barton W. Stone, Sr.’s mother-in-law, Elizabeth Henry Campbell Russell, was a younger sister of Patrick Henry.
The year following the death of his wife and his preaching tour with Dooley (1811), Stone remarries. His second wife, Celia Wilson (Bowen) Stone, is one of Eliza’s cousins. God will grant them several children, one of them a son, whom they name “Barton Warren Stone, Jr.”
* May 30, 1856 – Today, in an address before the Henry Female Seminary in New Castle, Kentucky, Alexander Campbell tells us that women are the “better half” of humanity – although he does qualify his statement – and he then goes on to specify precisely why.
“What is woman? She is … only the one-half of humanity. But she is, or may be, the better half. She is of a finer tissue, in body, soul, and spirit. The last, and, we think … that she is decidedly the better half. … in delicacy of thought, in sensitiveness of feeling, in patient endurance, in constancy of affection, in moral courage, and in soul-absorbing devotion.”