Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
On 19 January 1774, Joseph Müller was expelled from the town of Salem, North Carolina for becoming engaged to Sarah Hauser without the permission of the Elders Conference. On 23 August 1775 Mattheus Weiβ was likewise expelled forwriting a “bad letter” to friends in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and on 4 November 1789, Jacob Bonn Jr., who hadbeen struggling with chronic debt, was expelled for refusing to sell his house and accept a steward for his finances. Theexpulsion of inhabitants for such offenses seems odd in a century labelled the “age of enlightenment.” It might well be viewed by good American constitutionalists as an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of the individuals concerned. For the Moravian Brethren who built Salem on an ideal molded in Germany, the behavior of such offending Brethren represented a conflict between two different concepts of freedom: that of individual freedom, whichcame to be identified by both the European and American leadership of the Brethren as “American,” and that ofa spiritual freedom, which found expression in the submission to the good of the whole and obedience to Christ as literallord of the community. Historian A. G. Roeber has pointed out that many Germans were puzzled by “the American freedom” especially in the post-revolutionary years and did not always even agree among themselves over its precise meaning. Clearly, however, for many of them it represented a sharp departure from the more communal orientation of German society and government. Even the greater spiritual freedom offered by the lack of a state church was often viewed ambiguously. We can gain insight into the particular meaning of the conflict for the Brethren by first looking at the origins of the Moravian behavioral ideal, then at the way in which the dynamics of church/town discipline illustrate the tension between communal ideal and individual freedom, and finally by considering the specific impact of the translation of this ideal to an American setting.
I would like to thank Professor William Monter for his helpful comments on the paper from which this article originated. Thanks are also due to Professors Erik Midelfort and Steve Tripp as well as the two readers for Church History for their advice in revising this for publication. I appreciate their time and thought very much. I would also like to acknowledge the support and cooperation of the staff at the Archives of the Moravian Church Southern Province and the Central Archives of the Unity of the Brethren in Herrnhut.
1. Minutes of the Elders, Salem Conference (hereafter referred to as Min.EC), 19 Jan. 1774, no. 3; 23 Aug. 1775, no. 1; 4 Nov. 1789, no. 4. Moravian Archives-Southern Province, Winston-Salem, N.C. (hereafter referred to as MA-SP).Google Scholar
2. Unpublished paper by Roeber, A. G. entitled “Through a Glass, Darkly: Changing German ideas of American Freedom, 1776–1806.” I am very grateful to Professor Roeber for providing me a copy of his thoughtful analysis.Google Scholar
3. There are several general histories of the Renewed Unity of the Brethren available in English. The best contemporary account is Cranz's, DavidThe Ancient and Modern History of the Brethren, translated by LaTrobe, Benjamin, (London, 1780).Google ScholarThe most complete modern study is Hamilton's, Kenneth GardinerHistory of the Renewed Unitas Fratrum 1722–1957 (Bethlehem, Pa., Interprovincial Board of Christian Education, Moravian Church in America, 1967).Google ScholarThere is no comparable history of Salem, but an extensive selection of community records has been edited and translated by Fries, Adelaide, Records of the Moravians in North Carolina (Raleigh, N.C.: Publications of the North Carolina Historical Commission, 1925–1943).Google ScholarIn addition, the early years of the North Carolina settlement are covered in Thorpe's, DanielThe Moravian Community in Colonial North Carolina: Pluralism on the Southern Frontier (Knoxville, Tenn., 1989).Google ScholarNo specific studies of the German settlements are available in English although Gollin's, Gillian LindtMoravians in Two Worlds: A Study of Changing Communities (New York, 1967) contains much on Herrnhut.Google Scholar
4. Hahn, Hans-Christoph, Reichel, Helmut, eds., Zinzendorf und die Herrnhuter Brüder (Hamburg, 1977), p. 248.Google ScholarThe Brethren used a variety of means in consulting the lot. The most common methods consisted of writing down two statements expressing “the Saviour's will” (for instance, “The Saviour approves the proposal that Brother Heinz become Gemeine Diener” and “The Saviour does not approve” [etc.]). A member of the Elders Conference then drew one of these out of a container.Google Scholar
5. Minutes of the Synod of 1764, vol. 1, session 11, p. 583. Unity Archives, Herrnhut (hereafter referred to as UA-Herrnhut) R.2.B.44.1.c.Google Scholar
6. Extract from the Synod Report of 1749, n.pag. MA-SP.Google Scholar
7. Synod Report of 1764., Sect. no. 2, p. 4. MA-SP.Google Scholar
8. Reiter, Michael, “Moralische Subjektkonstitutionen im deutschen Pietismus,” in Der Innere Staat des Burgertums: Studien zur Entstehung bürgerlicher Hegemonie-Apparate im 17. und 18.Jahrhundert (West Berlin, 1987), p. 85.Google Scholar
9. Brüderliche Einverständniβ und Vortrag 1773, Sect. 5, Article 4. MA-SP.Google Scholar
10. Ibid., Sect. 7, Article 6; Sect. 5, Article 8. The children are described as being “eigentum des Heilands” (“property” or “possessions of the Saviour”).
11. Ibid., Sect.7, Articles 12, 2, 3, and 7.
12. This pattern of difficulties in the second and third generations of religious communities has been the subject of much study and debate particularly among the scholars of American Puritanism. Perhaps the study most relevant to the discussion at hand is that of Caldwell, Patricia, The Puritan Conversion Narrative: The Beginnings of American Expression (New York, 1983).Google ScholarSee also Miller, Perry, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass.: 1982)Google Scholar, and Middlekauf, Robert, The Mathers: Three Generations of Puritan Intellectuals, 1596–1728 (New York, 1971).Google Scholar
13. These figures were reached by comparing the number of those taking Communion with the number of those eligible to take Communion. A margin of error exists as a result of such factors as illness and absences from Salem.Google Scholar
14. The population figures have been adjusted to exclude children under twelve who were not subject to expulsion or eligible for Communion. The total adult population of Salem in 1801 was 180. This figure only accounts for those who were official inhabitants and does not include day laborers or “strangers.” Preliminary studies show a similar chronological pattern of expulsion in Herrnhut with a distinct rise in the number of people expelled in the 1780s.Google Scholar
15. For a more detailed analysis of the leadership see Sommer, Elisabeth, “Serving Two Masters: Authority, Faith, and Community among the Moravian Brethren in Germany and Salem, North Carolina in the Eighteenth Century” (Ph.D. Diss. University of Virginia, 1991), chapter five, pp. 262–272.Google Scholar
16. I have used this decade because it is the only one in which the Minutes of the Elders Conference list all the individuals abstaining or excluded from Communion (in other decades they often will only give the total number with no specific names listed). The figure reached in 1786 held steady until 1789 when it dropped back to five. In that year, however, at least two of these siblings left Salem, which would account for some of the drop.Google Scholar
17. Min.EC, 20 Feb. 1788, no. 8; 11 Nov. 1795, no. 4.Google Scholar
18. Ibid., 11 Apr. 1792, no. 3.
19. Although in his study of village discourse in early modern Germany, Sabean, David W. points to a distinction between Geschwätz, or casual gossip (of which the authorities took no notice), and Geschrei, or directed rumor, the Brethren made no such distinction. In their eyes Geschwätz was no casual matter since it was not edifying and did not contribute to the Savior“s glory.Google ScholarSabean, David Warren, Power in the Blood: Popular Culture and Village Discourse in Early Modern Germany (New York, 1984).Google Scholar
20. Min. EC., June 10, 1789, no. 4; 9July 1794 (no no.).Google Scholar
21. Ibid., 12 Dec. 1783 (no no.).
22. Minutes of the Salem Aufseher Collegium., 2 Aug. 1791, no. 2;Google Scholaribid., 10 Dec. 1800, no. 2. MA-SP 22.
23. The figures cited for the increase in courtships etc. err on the side of caution, since two of the cases cited for the 1780s involved more than one couple (in one case, five were involved), and one incident in the 1790s involved four couples.Google Scholar
24. Min.EC., 2 Aug. 1780, no. 2.Google Scholar
25. Minutes of the Salem Gemeine Council (hereafter referred to as Min.GC.)., 4 Aug. 1785, no. 4.Google Scholar
26. Walker, Mack, German Home Towns: Community, State, and General Estate, 1648–1871, (Ithaca, N.Y., 1971), p. 134.Google Scholar
27. Andreas Schober to Friedrich Wilhelm von Marshall, 21 Mar. 1773. MA-SP.Google Scholar
28. Marschall to Brother von Lüdecke, 12 July 1783. UA-Herrnhut, R14Bb11a.Google Scholar
29. Marschall to Christian Gregor, 26 June 1788. UA-Herrnhut, R14Bb11a.Google Scholar
30. Minutes of the Unity Elders Conference, 21 Mar. 1796, no. 6, p. 407. UA-Herrnhut, R3B4f.Google Scholar
31. Min.GC., 10 Sept 1789, no. 1. The text reads: “manchen Gemeingliedern an Willigkeit fehlt, sich dem Regiment des Heilands zu überlaβen, and dagegen eine Neigung ihren Gang und Umständen selbst zu dirigiren; und daβ es ferner an Willigkeit fehlt, sich zu den Gemein-Ordnungen und Einrichtungen zu bequemen, … Dabey zeige sich bey manchen die Idee, als ob man hier, als in einem freyen Lande, nicht so nötig hätte, sich nach den Gemeinordnungen zu richten als etwa in den Europäischen Gemeinen, wenn man nur die [sic] Landes Gesetz befolgte.”Google Scholar
32. The text in question reads: “When the citizens in the Gemeinen make outward prosperity their chief concern [ Haupt-Augenmerk[ and consider the marriage and civil development of their sons and daughters on the basis of this principle, it could not be otherwise than that an objection arises among them to the Saviour's free government in the Brüdergemeine through the lot, and that moreover they wish to be able to manage all their business according to their own insight.“ The Compendium of the Four Synods, 1764, 1769, 1775, and 1782. Sects. 189 and 190, pp.226–227. MA-SP.Google Scholar
33. Heinrich 39th Reuβ to Baumeister and Winkler, 29 Dec. 1787. UA-Herrnhut, R6.D.I.b.12 no. 160.Google Scholar
34. Jonathan Briant tojohann Christian Geisler, 5 Mar. 1795. UA-Herrnhut, R.7.C.I.a. 12.a no. 11.Google Scholar
