by Paul R. Spitzzeri
Befitting a minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Rev. Jordan Allen was frequently reassigned to pastorates in Kansas from the mid-1870s though much of the early part of the following decade. He then headed west and spent a couple of years in Sacramento, California’s capital city, until the California Conference of the Church sent him south to Los Angeles, where he arrived late in September or early in October 1887, as the city and region were in the full ferment of the the Boom of the Eighties and the Angel City’s mayor was William H. Workman, to serve as pastor of the First A.M.E. Church.
Allen replaced Stephen Saven, who served as pastor for the previous two years and who was credited by the Los Angeles Tribune of 2 January 1887 of having raised the membership of First A.M.E.—of which the paper said “this body first met in 1854 to listen to the gospel from the lips of [Robert] ‘Uncle Bob’ Owen[s]” before a formal organization took place 15 years later, though it “after several years was discontinued.” The account then continued,
After lying in a dormant state for nine years, Rev. Stephen Saven took charge of the work in October, 1885, and has raised the membership from nothing to twenty-four.
Of course, Saven was not in suspended animation for almost a decade, the church, according to the paper, was! Notably, that revival occurred just after the late July marriage of Granville Huddleston and Ellen Mason Owens, the daughter of Biddy Mason, the prominent African-American woman who was a key founder of the Church, and widow of Robert Owens’ son Charles, who died in 1882. Moreover, the Huddlestons resided at 31 San Pedro Street, where the Church held its services and where Saven resided, as well.
The Los Angeles Times of 14 October 1887 made note of the fact that “the colored pastor” was “received by his congregation with open arms” as it reported that,
The members and congregation of the A.M.E. Church of this city, the only organized colored Methodist church here, gave their newly appointed pastor, the Rev. Jordan Allen, a reception last evening which was largely attended . . . The friends at the reception made a purse of $8.90, with groceries and other provisions, to start the pastor off in housekeeping.
The paper also observed that the minister moved from Kansas to California and was previously at the state capital “where he has done a great work for the upbuilding of his church and people.” After observing his appointment by the state A.M.E. conference in October, the Times added that “he comes to this charge strongly recommended by some of the best citizens of Sacramento.” We should also note the consistency of these events, in which money, food and other items were provided for the pastors, whose pay was low.
The Los Angeles Herald of 9 November reported on a meeting at the Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church South, conducted by Dr. Joseph P. Widney, a prominent physician, charter board member of the University of Southern California, which his brother Robert, an attorney, real estate developer and judge, co-founded and which Joseph later served as president. The confab was to further promote the cause of temperance, or abstention from drinking alcohol, and among those in attendance were Allen as well as the Rev. Tilghman Brown of the fledgling A.M.E. Zion Church and R.C.O. Benjamin, who will very soon be the subject of a post in this series.
The first located listing for services at the church under Allen’s pastorate is from the Tribune of 11 December, in which it was noted that, at the Huddleston residence, preaching was at 11 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. with the evening subject being “The Decrease of Real Power in the Church Today and Its Causes.”
Stephen Saven, during his pastorate of the First A.M.E., encouraged the migration of Black people to Los Angeles, feeling that the opportunities were good in the Angel City compared to the Southern states, which was under the terrible oppression of Jim Crow after the collapse of Reconstruction a decade before. Allen, however, wrote a lengthy letter with an opposing viewpoint to the Tribune, which published it in its 26 February 1888 “Letter Bag” column.
The minister began with that rhetorical query about whether it was better for African-Americans to settle here from the South, or elsewhere in the country, for that matter, and then noted that it was “a plain question, when considered in the light of facts.” The core fact, he claimed, was:
It is commonly conceded that the negros are doing better in South to-day than at any time in the history of the race. It is always advisable for any race or nation to remain where it can do the best . . . In the early history of the [post-Civil War] South, soon after the emancipation [in 1863 with the proclamation of President Abraham Lincoln], I was in favor of the negros leaving the South, but now I am decidedly opposed to it.
One reason, he offered, was that, following the 1857 Dred Scott decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that escaped slaves in free states could be returned to their owners, “the South retained the spirit . . . that a negro had no rights that a white man was bound to respect.” Consequently, there were the horrors of “the persecutions of white leagues, [the] Ku Klux [Klan] and mob violence” which visited “inconceivable outrages” upon Black people, especially by poor whites.
Once African-American laborers began to leave the South, Allen continued, “the planters of the South decided to protect their negroes . . . bringing about a better state of affairs.” One illustration the minister cited was that Blacks in Georgia owned property valued at some $10 million, while the amount for the South as a whole was about ten times that figure. He also mentioned a Texas family that were worth nearly $50 million and concluded that “these facts themselves should refute the idea of the negros emigrating from the South to better their conditions.”
The pastor’s next reason was that “the negroes of the South are adapted to the climate, ways and customs of that region and to move them from the work to which they are most adapted, that of raising cotton and [sugar] cane, would prove fatal.” He added that, if migrants were to come west, “we would like to see the wealthier class coming with the poorer, so as to be some use to them,” but lamented that those who were better off were not doing so.
There was also a political matter, as Allen opined that “as a general thing an exodus comes on the eve of every presidential campaign,” though he felt that, “this State is already strong enough Republican to carry victory on its banner this fall, provided the right man is at the head of the ticket.” The minister promoted the candidacy of United States Senator (and former California governor) Leland Stanford as he felt that the Southern Pacific Railroad tycoon could lead the Grand Old Party to victory—the Republican nominee was Benjamin Harrison, who defeated incumbent Democrat Grover Cleveland.
Reiterating the question, the pastor posited that, even as African-Americans grew in population “and must naturally drift elsewhere . . . the mistake they make in emigrating to other States is that they concentrate too much in one locality” and “by so doing, they break down good wages,” though it is worth noting whether Black settlers had all that much choice about where they lived and worked. Labor, in fact, led to Allen’s “greatest and last reason I have to advance why the negros of the South, or any other locality, should not emigrate to this State in large numbers”:
Almost every avenue is filled with Chinamen, and the Chinaman has the preference, from the fact of his cheap labor. It is an undeniable fact, that no race can compete with the Chinese so far as living is concerned, for a Chinaman can live three days on what a man of any other nationality would destroy in one. Hence, they can afford to work for cheaper wages, because they can live on much less than can other laborers. When the Pacific coast shall be rid of its present pest, then I shall favor our people emigrating to this State in much larger numbers.
The minister approved of the position of Stanford on the matter—there was a long history of anti-Chinese sentiment in the Golden State, including the horrific massacre, by white and Latinos, of eighteen men and a teenage boy in October 1871 and, nationally, as manifested in the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
Allen suggested to labor agents, such as those encouraged by Saven, that they “scatter [Black immigrants] to all favorable localities where they may at once obtain a sufficient amount of labor to amply support them, and attain wealth as fast as possible. The pastor then concluded his letter by asserting that,
Nothing will tend more to breaking down the prejudices that exist between the Caucasian and the Etheopian [sic], than the attaining of wealth on the part of the latter. Live economically, attain wealth, and the bar of prejudices will fall, and social equality will take care of itself.
Allen’s letter drew a swift, lengthy and biting rejoinder from R.C.O. Benjamin, but we’ll save the response for our post about the attorney. When the summer came, the A.M.E. pastor dove further into the trouble political waters of the 1888 campaign, including an early August tent meeting of the Republicans among the African-American community in which, reported the Times of the following day, speakers, including Allen, “handled the Prohibition and Democratic parties and the independent colored movement without [kid] gloves” as the Harrison campaign was cheered.
Writing again to the Tribune, which was co-owned by former prominent photographer Henry T. Payne and which devoted more coverage and seemed more sympathetic to the Angel City’s Black community than other papers, Allen offered a letter that appeared on 6 September under the heading of “There are No Colored Democrats.”
This was an answer to the claim of the Los Angeles Herald that a recent meeting of the Colored Men’s Republican Protective League, which included the minister, Rev. Brown of the A.M.E. Zion Church, and several others, and the resolutions that were passed, resulted in the interpretation that “the Colored man and brother refuses to be longer a chattel of the G.O.P.” and that the Republicans were “no longer to lead the colored voter around with a ring in his nose.”
Apparently, the Democratic-supporting Herald drew this supposition by statements made in the resolutions by the League about the facts that “proscription becomes odious,” “men and parties when they grow strong become intolerant, and turn a deaf ear to the petitions of the weak and struggling,” and that “the education, culture and prejudice of the American people” meant that African-Americans were “only deserving of such consideration as that narrow, selfish and foolish bigotry is willing to accord.”
Moreover, the League affirmed that “we support only such men as will advance the material interests of our country in general and advance the political interests of our race in particular” because its stated objective was “to unite our forces that we may be prepared to act intelligently on all matters which affect the progress and elevation of the race.” The Herald seemed to believe this was, in some manner, a rejection of Republicanism, even as the resolutions clearly stated that League members “renew our fidelity to the Republican party by endorsing the National ticket” led by Harrison.
In his missive in the Tribune, Allen stated “The Herald would have its few readers believe that the greater portion of colored voters in this city is dissatisfied” but “such is not the case.” As for his alleged status as a “bolter” from the G.O.P., the pastor affirmed “I am a Republican, through and through” and that “I want it distinctly understood that I can always be found in the ranks of the grand old party that made the negro free.” He continued with passion,
No colored man can consistently and conscientiously have anything to do with the Democratic party of the Solid South, whose members murder my people upon every possible occasion. The government, which at present is run by Democrats [for the first time since the Civil War], gives us no protection in the South. Its backbone needs stiffening . . . Naturally, there are a few unsound politicians among us, but as a whole the colored people of America, in general, and Los Angeles, in particular, are solidly arrayed upon the side of the party of freedom, the Republican party, which brought us out of danger in the time of peril.
In the 9 September (the 38th anniversary of California statehood) edition of the Times, Allen addressed the same question, but with more brevity and a recognition, not stated in the Tribune, that there was some kind of “sidetrack movement against the grand old party” at the League confab. The minister also stated “my name did not appear in that article without [sic] my consent” though he added “I am no longer a party to such movement,” which seemed to suggest that he was initially part of a group of dissidents.
He went on to proclaim, “I want it distinctly understood that the true nature of the said movement having so plainly come to light, it becomes my duty to say that the grand old party is good enough for me.” His interpretation of the League gathering was that it was “a call for a mass meeting to adopt plans, as Republicans, for the protection of a race.” Consequently, he concluded, “I mean to stay in the old party and kick for my rights, and when I can stay no longer I will take an independent stand and kick, ‘and don’t you forget it.'”
There was, however, a clear schism among the African-American (male) voting community as represented by the establishment of competing Black-owned newspapers, as the Times of 8 September observed:
The majority of the colored people have been dissatisfied with the course of the Observer, a weekly newspaper started by R.C.O. Benjamin and John Jacob Astor Soares. The Observer started out as an organ for the whole colored population of Los Angeles county, and the colored people at first were inclined to give it a liberal patronage. The Observer early in the [election] campaign exhibited strange tendencies towards Republican candidates, first severely criticising [sic] one candidate and then another, seemingly taking pains to misrepresent them. Then the Observer commenced an unwarranted attack on the Republican County Central Committee . . .
Beyond this, the paper recorded that the Eureka Republican Club, formed as the election campaign began, “was formed by the colored people, but a considerable number of them, disgusted by the course pursued by Benjamin and others, withdrew and formed the Harrison and [future Vice-President Levi P.] Morton Club.”
Thomas Pearson, who was not only a county party delegate, but one at the state level, joined Benjamin in forming an Independent Colored Club that stated it would support the Republicans in the national election, but “avowing an intention to be independent on the State and county tickets.” In response, Allen, Robert C. Owens, Allen Smith and others, “will publish the Republican Advocate,” a weekly with C.C. Hodge as the city editor and opposed to the Observer.
Yet, concluded the Times,
Inquiry among several prominent colored people has elicited the facts that the only trouble among them has arisen from an insatiate desire on the part of several would-be leaders to rule or ruin, upon whom the most conservative element have gently but heavily seated themselves.
As noted above, the G.O.P. candidate, Harrison, grandson of a president and a Civil War general, unseated Cleveland, the first Democrat to hold the office in a quarter century. The political infighting among the Black male voters of Los Angeles, increased with the boom and including more recent migrants, subsided and we’ll return with a concluding part three tomorrow to continue some of the remarkable life and career of the Rev. Allen.