Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:58:22.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

American Foreign Policy, The Politics of Missions and Josiah Strong, 1890–1900

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

James Eldin Reed
James Eldin Reed
Affiliation:
Mr. Reed lives in Medford, Massachusetts, and is currently working in the department of history, Harvard University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The revival of interest in American Protestant missionary activity is a remarkable feature of current historical writing in the United States. Two generations ago mission history was a flourishing enterprise, but was closely tied to the missionary movement itself. And when the fire went out of the crusade to evangelize the world in a single generation, the study of mission history was thereby virtually extinguished. With the exception of the distinguished writings of the late Kenneth Scott Latourette, the history of Christian missions in the modern period has been generally disregarded by American historians for most of this century. The renascence of mission history in a new, more modern and ostensibly more objective form began around a decade ago. Whether the present generation of historians will produce greater understanding of the missionary movement than did the generation of their grandfathers is an open question; in any event, the history of missions is once again the latest thing.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , June 1972 , pp. 230 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1900

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. An earlier version of this article was read in Professor William R. Hutchison's seminar on American religious history at the Harvard Divinity School in January 1971. The author is indebted to Professor Hutchison and the members of the seminar, as well as to Stephen Marini and Dena Willmore Reed, for many penetrating criticisms. These persons have a share in the merits of this article, while its defects remain those of the author alone.

2. The standard reference work is Latourette, Kenneth Scott, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, 7 vols. (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1937–1945).Google Scholar The best general study of missions in the Ottoman Empire is Richter, Julius, A History of Protestant Missions in the Near East (New York: Revell, 1910).Google Scholar Two examples of the newer scholarship, Tibawi, A. L., American Interests in Syria: A Study of Educational, Literary and Religious Work (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966)Google Scholar and Field, James A. Jr., America and the Mediterranean World 1776–1882 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969)Google Scholar , contain superb accounts of certain aspects of the American missionary effort in that part of the world. Also see Daniel, Robert L., American Philanthropy in the Near East, 1820–1960 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1970).Google ScholarGrabill, Joseph L., Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East: Missionary Influence on American Policy, 1810–1927 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971)Google Scholar , bears a misleading and overly ambitious title; it is in fact primarily a study of the Wilson era. For China, the monumental study by Latourette, , A History of Christian Missions in China (New York: Macmillan, 1929)Google Scholar is still enormously useful and in many ways authoritative. A newer approach can be found in Varg, Paul A., Missionaries, Chinese, and Diplomats: The American Protestant Missionary Movement in China, 1890–1952 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958)Google Scholar , the book that effectively reopened the field of American missionary history to academic inquiry. Books and articles on American missionaries in China are coming out all the time now. The relevant publications of the Harvard University Press are particularly important contributions to this growing field. Neill, Stephen, “The History of Missions: An Academic Discipline,” pp. 149–170, in The Mission of the Church and the Propagation of the Faith, Vol. 6 of Studies in Church History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970)Google Scholar , is an interesting essay. Unfortunately, there is no adequate modern study of the missionary movement as a religious phenomenon.

3. Fairbank, , “Assignment for the '70's,” American Historical Review, LXXIV (Feb. 1969), 876–879.Google Scholar

4. This article is based upon manuscript correspondence in the A.B.C.F.M. Archives, located at Houghton Library, Harvard University. Quoted by permission of the Harvard College Library. The author has consulted the Records of the Prudential Committee, Vols. 23–25 (1892–1900), maintained at Congregational House, Boston. Inspected and quoted by special permission of the United Church Board for World Ministries. The A.B.C.F.M. has been relatively well served by historians. Strong, William E., The Story of the American Board: An Account of the First Hundred Years of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1910)Google Scholar , is a useful survey based upon original materials. A comprehensive and scholarly treatment of the early period of Board history can be found in Jackson Phillips, Clifton, Protestant America and the Pagan World: The First Half Century of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, 1810–1860 (Cambridge: East Asian Research Center, Harvard University, 1969).Google Scholar For some account of the theological complexion of the Board see Swift, David Everett, “Conservative Versus Progressive Orthodoxy in Latter 19th Century Congregationalis,” Church History, XVI (Mar. 1947), 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The author wishes to acknowledge a personal interview with Dr. Fred Field Goodsell on January 4, 1971 in Boston. Dr. Goodsell served as a missionary in Turkey and was Executive Vice President of the American Board from 1930 to 1949. Of course, he is in no way responsible for the views expressed in this article.

5. Several historians have noted the existence of a missionary lobby. See Tibawi, American Interests in Syria, passim; Varg, Missionaries, Chinese, and Diplomats, passim; and Grabill, Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East, passim.

6. Quoted in Tibawi, American Interests in Syria, p. 297.

7. See Muller, Dorothea R., “Josiah Strong and American Nationalism: A Reevaluation,” Journal of American History, LIII (Sept. 1966), 487–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar , and follow up her footnote references to the older interpretations of Strong.

8. Varg, Missionaries, Chinese, and Diplomats, p. 52.

9. McClellan, Robert F., “Missionary Influence on American Attitudes Toward China at the Turn of This Century,” Church History, XXXVIII (Dec. 1969), 475–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Goodsell, Fred Field, James Levi Barton: Dynamic World Christian Statesman (Boston: Congregational Christian Historical Society, 1964)Google Scholar ; Secretary of State John W. Foster, 28 Mar. 1890, to Dulles/A.B.C.F.M. Archives, Series ABC: 13, Vol. 2, Letter 9; E. H. Strobel, State Department, 7 Oct. 1893, to American Board Secretary Smith/ Ibid., Letter 67.

10. The following account draws heavily upon Langer, William L., The Diplomacy of Imperialism 1890–1902, 2nd. ed. (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1965)Google Scholar , especially chapters v, vii and x. This classic first appeared in 1935.

11. Edwards, Rosaline de Gregorio, “Relations Between the United States and Turkey 1893–1897,” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1952), p. 65.Google ScholarEarle, Edward Mead, “American Missions in the Near East,” Foreign Affairs, 7 (April 1929), 398–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar , and Gordon, Leland James, American Relations with Turkey 1830–1930: An Economic Interpretation (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932), pp. 221–251Google Scholar , are competent surveys of American Board work in Turkey and relations with the Ottoman government.

12. Gordon, American Relations with Turkey, p. 246. All authorities agree on this point. American capital investment was virtually nonexistent prior to World War I. In the 1890s the American Board investment in Turkey came to something like $6,000,000 (Earle, “American Missions in the Near East,” 409–410). In 1890 the American Board spent over $200,000 on its Turkish missions; in that year American exports to Turkey amounted to less than $50,000. (Missionary Herald, Nov. 1890, p. 472; Gordon, American Relations with Turkey, p. 47). These figures are cited only by way of illustration of the general point, since one can prove almost anything with statistics.

13. Minister Terrell, Constantinople, 27 Dec. 1895, to American Board Agent H.O. Dwight; Constantinople/ Series ABC: 13, Vol. 2, Letter 141; Tibawi, American Interests in Syria, p. 270.

14. Missionary Herald, Nov. 1896, pp. 479–480; Turkish Minister Mavroyeni Bey, Washington, 19 Dec. 1894, to Secretary of State Gresham: enclosed in Gresham, 31 Dec. 1894, to Smith/ Series ABC: 13, Vol.2, Letter 89; Secretary of State Olney, 30 Dec. 1895, to Smith/ Ibid., Letter 142; Smith, 1 Aug. 1895, to Olney/Series ABC: 1.1, Vol. 177, 227. In 1890 the American Board operated 19 mission stations in Turkey, employed a missionary force of 169 Americans and educated 17,440 students in the Turkish mission schools (Missionary Herald, Jan. 1890, p. 8). The term “ideal interest”, which will appear several times in this article, has been purloined from Max Weber.

15. The best published account of the American response to the Armenian Atrocities is Ernest May, R., Imperial Democracy: The Emergence of America as a Great Power (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961), pp. 27–29.Google Scholar For further detail see Cook, Ralph E., “The United States and the Armenian Question, 1894–1924” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, 1957).Google Scholar

16. Smith, 30 Mar. 1893, to Gresham/ Series ABC: 1.1, Vol. 159, 560; Barton, 22 Apr. 1895, to Blatchford/ Series ABC: 1.1, Vol. 175, 129; Barton, 30 Nov. 1894, to Gresham/ Series ABC: 1.1, Vol. 171, 249–253; Barton, 20 Dec. 1894, to May/ Ibid., 556–557.

17. Greene, The Armenian Crisis in Turkey (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1895), p. xii.

18. Ibid., pp. v–vi

19. J. Strong, 18 Sept. 1894, to Daniels/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 92, Letter 455. The author has been unable to consult Philip Jordan, D., “The Evangelical Alliance for the United States of America: An Evangelical Search for Identity in Ecumenicity During the Nineteenth Century” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1971).Google Scholar See dissertation abstract in Church History, 40 (June 1971), 201.Google Scholar

20. Strong, William E., Story of the American Board, pp. 392–394Google Scholar ; Gordon, American Relations with Turkey, p. 235; Edwards, “Relations Between the United States and Turkey,” passim.

21. Smith, 24 Dec. 1895, to Secretary of State Olney/ Series ABC: 1.1, Vol. 180, 126–128; Olney, 30 Dec. 1895, to Smith/ Series ABC: 13, Vol. 2, Letter 142.

22. Dennis, 26 Dec. 1895, to Smith/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 85, Letter 153. In September 1896, Joseph Chamberlain inquired of Secretary Olney whether the United States was prepared to back Britain in, the Near East. Olney replied that “if England should now seriously set about putting the Armenian charnel-house in order, there can be little doubt that the United States would consider the moment opportune for vigorous exertion on behalf of American citizens and interests in Turkey. It would feel itself entitled to demand full indemnity for past injuries to them as well as adequate security against the like injuries in the future. It would support such demands by all the physical force at its disposal.…” But nothing actually transpired ( Dennis, Alfred L. P., Adventures in American Diplomacy 1896–1906 [New York: E.P. Dutton, 1928], p. 450).Google Scholar

23. May, Imperial Democracy, p.29.

24. See Cook, “United States and the Armenian Question,” passim.

25. May, Imperial Democracy, p. 29.

26. Cook, “United States and the Armenian Question,” pp. 40–43.

27. J. Strong, 5 May 1896, to Daniels/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 92, Letter 461; J. Strong, 13 May 1896, to Barton/Ibid., Letter 462; J. Strong, 4 Jan. 1898, to Barton/ Ibid., Letter 497; Missionary Herald, Nov. 1896, p. 505, pp. 510–511; Angell, 26 Oct. 1896, to Daniels/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 82, Letter 118; Smith, 14 Dec. 1896, to McKinley/ SeriesABC: 1.1, Vol. 188, 392–394.

28. Records of the Prudential Committee, Vol. 24, 533–534. Entry for 15 Dec. 1896; J. Strong, 7 Dec. 1896, to Smith/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 92, Letter 469; Dodge, 30 Nov. 1896, to Webb/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 85, Letter 229.

29. J. Strong, 19 Feb. 1897, to Smith/ SeriesABC: 10, Vol. 92, Letter 474.

30. Ibid.; Barton, 5 Mar. 1897, to Ellinwood/ Series ABC: 1.1, Vol. 190, 474–477; Ellinwood, 20 Mar. 1897, to Barton/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 85, Letter 421. A staunch Presbyterian, Foster was a lifelong friend of Christian missions ( Castle, William R. Jr., “John Watson Foster,” p. 208Google Scholar in Vol. VIII of The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy, ed. Bemis, Samuel Flagg[New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1963]Google Scholar . First published in 1928).

31. See J. Strong, 13 Dec. 1897, to Barton/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 92, Letter 495.

32. Quoted in Cook, “United States and the Armenian Question,” p. 79.

33. Strong, J., Our Country, ed. Herbst, Jurgen (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The first edition appeared in 1885. The modern edition reproduces the revised edition of 1891.

34. J. Strong, 13 Dec. 1897, to Barton/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 92, Letter 495.

35. Barton, 19 Jan. 1898, to McKinley/ Series ABC: 1.1, Vol. 198, 235–239; Barton, 5 Mar.1897, to Ellinood/ Series ABC: 1.1, Vol. 190, 474–477.

36. Barton, 3 Apr. 1897, to Daniels/ Series ABC: 11, Vol. 11, Letter 43.

37. Ibid.

38. Records of the Prudential Committee, Vol. 24, 606. Entry for 13 Apr. 1897.

39. Angell, 26 Apr. 1897, to Barton/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 82, Letter 122.

40. Quoted in Tibawi, American Interests in Syria, p. 297. See footnotes on that page. A brief account of the indemnity issue and related matters from the vantage-point of the Presbyterian missions in Syria can be found on pp. 295–298. For more information on Angell, see The Dictionary of American Biography, I, 304–309.Google Scholar For an inside view of Angell's mission to the Ottoman Empire see [Angell], The Reminiscences of James Burrill Angell (New York and London: Longmans, Green, 1912), pp. 188–224.Google Scholar

41. J. Strong, 13 Dec. 1897, to Barton/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 92, Letter 495.

42. Barton, 22 Jan. 1898, to Webb/ Series ABC: 1.1, Vol. 198, 323.

43. Barton, 19 Jan. 1898, to McKinley/ Ibid., 235–239.

44. J. Strong, 23 Apr. 1898, to Barton/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 92, Letter 500.

45. Barton, 13 May 1898, to Angell, Constantinople/ Series ABC: 2.1, Vol. 192, 41–43; J. Strong, 6 June 1898, to Barton/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 92, Letter 504; Tibawi, American Interests in Syria, p. 297n.; Strong, W. E., Story of the American Board, p. 398.Google Scholar For an account of treaty rights in the Ottoman Empire see Angell, , “The Turkish Capitulations,” American Historical Review, VI (Jan. 1901), 254–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. For the revisionist interpretation see two articles by Muller, Dorothea R.: “The Social Philosophy of Josiah Strong: Social Christianity and American Progressivism,” Church History, XXVIII (June 1959), 183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; and “Josiah Strong and American Nationalism: A Reevaluation,” Journal of American History, LIII (Sept. 1966), 487–503.Google Scholar

47. Muller, “Josiah Strong and American Nationalism,” 496, 502.

48. The discussion sometimes comes down to questions of: “Josiah Strong, imperialist or humanitarian social Christian” or “Josiah Strong, nationalist or internationalist?” or (what is usually implied), “Josiah Strong,hero or villain?” Muller's articles are particularly given to this mode of analysis. They make an important contribution to our understanding of Strong, but they neglect the insights of the older interpretation.

49. See footnote 18.

50. J. Strong, 11 Mar. 1898, to Barton/ Series ABC: 10, Vol. 92, Letter 499.

51. Strong, J., Expansion, Under New World-Conditions (New York: Baker and Taylor, 1900), p. 248.Google Scholar

52. Ibid., pp. 248–49.

53. See Mead, Sidney E., The Lively Experiment: The Shaping of Christianity in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), pp. 134–155.Google Scholar

54. The best study of the general problem is Neill, Stephen, Colonialism and Christian Missions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966).Google Scholar The book deals with European imperialism. There is no comparable work for American history.

55. This interpretation is sometimes presented explicitly, but more often merely assumed.It is one of those unexamined assumptions that constitute the general intellectual atmosphere of our own day. Indeed, one suspects that the long periodof neglect of mission history derived in part from general acceptance of the reductionist view in historical circles. If a phenomenon can be assumed to be very simple, there is little reason to study it. As noted above, the reductionist view of missions is actually shared by a cluster of interpretations. The proposition that Christian missions functioned as the ideological rationale for imperialism can mean many things. It can also mean nothing. Moreover, even when a particular reductionist view happens to be true, it frequently does not really tell us very much. For a recent example of one kind of reductionist view (based on a model drawn from classical functionalist sociology) see McClellan, Robert F., “Missionary Influence on American Attitudes Toward China at the Turn of This Century,” Church History, XXXVIII (Dec. 1969), 475–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. Israel, Jerry, “‘For God, for China and for Yale’—The Open Door in Action,” American Historical Review, LXXV (Feb. 1970), 796–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar , argues against the reductionist view. The article shows how the different aspects of expansionism complemented and interpenetrated one another to produce the American policy towards China. Kitzan, Laurence, “The London Missionary Society and the Problem of Authority in India, 1798–1833,” Church History, 40 (Dec. 1971), 457–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar , describes tensions and conflicts between the East India Company and the L.M.S. For comparative-historical purposes several other works should also be consulted. Cady, John F., The Roots of French Imperialism in Eastern Asia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1954)Google Scholar , emphasizes the missionary motiveand other non-material factors. For a brilliant study of missions and Spanish colonial expansion see Ricard, Robert, The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico: An Essay on the Apostolate and the Evangelizing Methods of the Mendicant Orders in New Spain, 1523–1572, trans. Simpson, Leslie Byrd (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966).Google Scholar Perhaps the best mission history ever written, this work first appeared in French in 1933.

57. For other views see Varg, Paul A., “Motives in Protestant Missions, 1890–1917,” Church History, XXIII (Mar. 1954), 68–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar , and Beaver, R. Pierce, “Missionary Motivation through Three Centuries,” pp. 113–151 in Reinterpretation in American Church History, Vol. V of Essays in Divinity, ed. Brauer, Jerald C. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1968).Google Scholar For a discussion of “cultural interpretation” in American religious history andan interesting case study see Hutchison, William R., “Cultural Strain and Protestant Liberalism,” American Historical Review, LXXVI (Apr. 1971), 386–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58. Fairbank, “Assignment for the '70's,” 877.