Learning about the architecture of a specific place in a specific time requires one to place it into context by examining similar places in the same time span. In the following paper, I wish to examine the impressions visitors had on the manners and etiquette of church services in the city of Athens, GA, in the early to mid nineteenth century, compared to other churches in other cities of Antebellum America. Information about how congregations behaved has been recorded in the form of editorials written in local Athens newspapers by townspeople and visitors, and sometimes, though not as often from the travel accounts of foreign visitors. Another way to explore the mannerisms of the Antebellum United States is to look at etiquette books, a genre growing in popularity throughout the United States in general, and cities in particular. These books can help us to see what behaviors were appropriate at differing social engagements, giving instructions on how to dress, groom, and act in public. It is argued that, although there were specific complaints about the behavior of congregations at specific churches in Athens, GA, on the whole, these congregations differed very little from the congregations of other cities at the time.
Much of what we know about behavior in the church comes from editorials submitted by various people in local newspapers. Many of these editorials came in the form of formal complaints against congregations. Visitors from the country-side as well as fresh university graduates would complain of young men who sat in the seats designated for the women and not giving their seats up to the women when no room remained, who came to church dressed for the sake of looking fashionable, not for the sake of being respectful of the church, and who loitered around the church building after the service ended in order to watch the passing young ladies.1 2 Perhaps most despicable of all (to us) was the frequent spitting of tobacco juice onto the floor in at least one of Athens’ church buildings.
Unfortunately, these accounts do not list the specific church that each occurred at, so it’s rather impossible to say whether there are differences between the churches in Athens or if this behavior was seen at all places of worship within the city. We must also keep in mind that a visitor to the town and a recent graduate are probably going to be quite different from the usual church crowds in Athens, at least in their acceptance of behavior. There was much rhetorical rivalry between the various and emerging Christian sects at this time and it would be faulty to ignore the fact that the authors of these accounts may have been actively looking for flaws in these churches in order to give them a fouled image. For this, though, we cannot be certain. The fact that such proclamations about the manners in houses of worship were relatively rare suggests that, overall, the churches in Athens were probably no more immoral than the churches of other cities. Indeed, accounts of rude behavior in church have been documented in the newspapers of other cities as well. An article in the Columbian Star, the country’s first religious newspaper, founded in Washington, D.C. explained how churchgoers were not resting on the Sabbath, as they should. According to the article, after morning service, many church-goers would have a large meal, replete with alcohol and heated talk of politics, after which they would return to church for an afternoon service, too tired to pay attention to the sermon.3 And a contributor to an 1824 edition of the New York Religious Chronicle complained of congregation members being unable to pay attention during worship, being distracted by the slightest sounds or movement not coming from the speaker.4
We must also take into account where the authors of editorials criticizing Athens churches came from. The author of “The Way They do Things in Athens” admits that he is of “country manners and dress” and that he was afraid that the congregation was laughing at him for his clothing and “awkward gait.”5 It seems that he is uncomfortable in this environment and because of this he may feel hostile towards the crowd. If this were the case, it would make sense that he would have negative comments to make about the congregation. As for being from the country, many, if not most, Americans who lived in a rural setting worshipped at home because there were no church buildings and people generally lived too far apart for a large congregation to gather. In fact, there were no church buildings in Athens until around 1820.6 If it took until this time for churches to emerge in a bustling little city like Athens, then the country-side was probably still without them in 1831, when the author was writing his complaint. It’s very likely that this man has had very little experience with a formal church setting, and probably had an ideal worked out in his head of how a congregation should behave. When that ideal didn’t manifest itself in the church he visited, surely he was disillusioned, if not utterly appalled, which would lead him to criticize the congregation. Similarly, those writing for Christian periodicals such as the Columbian Star and the Religious Monitor and Evangelical Repository no doubt held higher standards for behavior than the average American, being writers for religious periodicals. And the “mechanic” that wrote his editorial against the recent college graduate was voicing an opinion that many people still have of recent university graduates: that they act somehow superior to less educated citizens.
Another group of writers speaking about the American worship ethic were not from the countryside nor were they from the religious publications: they were foreign travelers. Many travelers from Europe left extensive journals of their experiences. The opinions gathered by foreign writers can be a good reference because they can see American culture in a way that no American could see it. Behaviors that are normal or everyday to us may not even be seen by us, where as, if they differ from European standards, these visitors would be quick to notice them (and hopefully to write them down). There is also a negative side to using their experiences as a reference. Many Europeans thought that Americans were barbarous people at this time. They heard tales of the wild frontier and about how uncivilized many Americans, especially in the south and on the frontier, behaved. Also, we must keep in mind that in this time period to be able to read, write, and travel to foreign countries across the Atlantic Ocean typically meant that one had the wealth to do so. Therefore upper-class tourists, who probably were biased, and most likely traveled mainly to locations and churches that would be occupied by the upper class, logged many of these travel accounts. Among foreigners who kept travel accounts of America were Harriet Martineau and Frances Trollope. Their accounts said little about specific manners in the church. Martineau speaks of the four weddings she attended during her stay. The only criticism she has of any church service was that at a church in Montgomery, Alabama, “the quietness of the children was not to be boasted of.”8 No other observation of the congregations of any of the churches that she visits was recorded; most of her was directed toward the ministers. Trollope merely points out to her reader that the churches of America have a “strong hold upon the women” but not on the men.9 She explains how the church is like a form of relaxation for women, being one of their only outlets (if not their sole outlet) from their day-to-day lives. Women of this time rarely were allowed to participate in secular social occasions, so the church became a primary institution in many of their lives. Having the realm of politics to themselves, and being free to enter theatres, taverns, college lectures, etc., men were less involved in the church. A large feminine presence at churches probably helped to keep the congregation relatively civil. However, Trollope, like Martineau, doesn’t discuss the manners or etiquette of the congregation. The reason these foreign visitors may have neglected to speak on such issues may be the same reason that etiquette books avoided the topic: they just didn’t want to mesh the secular with the sacred, or perhaps they didn’t see any social misdeeds in the congregations they worshipped with.
The antebellum period saw the beginning of a secularization of the churches. To be sure, the Protestant churches were more grounded in worldly affairs than, say, the Catholic church: most Americans today will recognize the idea of the Protestant work ethic, for which there is no Catholic accompaniment. Protestant clergy were working hard to keep up with the ever-changing modern world, and they focused less on the traditional components of their religions in order to explain to their congregations how they fit into the emerging new world. Churches during this time were used for meetings other than just worship: including science-based lyceum lectures and town hall meetings. Because of this, the church must have seemed less of a sacred spot and more of some general meeting place for the community. One major ideology to come out of the increasing secularization of America in the early nineteenth century is that man should not act one way one day of the week and another way for the remainder of the week. Man should always try his hardest to be a decent and reverent member of church and society and it was considered hypocritical for man to change his behavior based on religious beliefs only on occasion. Although the intent of this ideology was obviously for members of the church to treat everyday as the lord’s day, it instead fostered the idea that what was acceptable behavior on Monday should also be acceptable behavior on the Sabbath. It may have been rationalized that if you had a habit six days of the week, why not have it seven? If a young man found it in his character to dress stylishly for the ladies, why limit that to the workweek? And why should someone smoke or spit tobacco on the floor Monday through Saturday, but refrain on Sunday?10
Tobacco use was widespread throughout all sectors of society in the Antebellum period and its use was limited only to “places frequented by men,” which was everywhere from colleges to churches to the White House.11 The stranger visiting the Athens church and being disgusted by tobacco’s presence pointed out in his letter that tobacco use was not simply a problem inside the church, but that all over the city tobacco was being used.12 It’s not so much that churchgoers in Athens were being disrespectful of the buildings of worship; it was simply the normal thing to do! And tobacco use in places of worship was not merely an Athens anomaly: in around 1845, the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi had such a problem with it that they had to publicly announce in their newspaper that smoking was prohibited in all of their churches.13 It’s unclear, however by this pronouncement whether tobacco spitting was also prohibited, or if it was a problem at all, but it helps show that tobacco use in urban churches was not limited to the city of Athens, and that it was most likely an issue that carried with it some controversy in cities throughout the Antebellum United States.
One way to uncover what behavior was appropriate in this time period is to consult contemporary etiquette manuals, which were starting to become a popular form of writing in the 19th century. These guides gained popularity through the rise in use of the printing press and the burgeoning urban middle class. Not much is said about the use of tobacco in most of these books. One etiquette guide only mentions tobacco to explain how one can rid oneself of bad breath caused by smoking, and the section ends with an explanation of how tobacco can be good for curing a toothache.14 Tobacco use was not really criticized in these etiquette guides until later in the nineteenth century.15 The use of tobacco was widespread at this time though. For this reason, it is assumed that tobacco use was not yet much of a moral issue.
Less frequently discussed in etiquette manuals than tobacco was behavior in the church or at worship.16 Virtually no etiquette book even touches the issue of etiquette in the church, and when they do, they say very little at all unless addressing manners at a wedding or funeral. Many writers of these books wanted to avoid speaking of religion in order to keep secular and sacred matters separate. Church etiquette was not something you learned about through etiquette guides or other forms of secular instruction, but something that you observed at a church and conformed to. Surely, if prior to 1830 Americans held their church service in their homes during the first part of the nineteenth century, they were probably used to worshipping in a comfortable setting, where something like tobacco chewing probably wasn’t an issue of etiquette. If these kinds of behavior were acceptable in the home, then it seems likely that a family may these behaviors with them when people began worshipping in churches.
The information gathered for this paper doesn’t support any argument about the behavior of congregations very clearly. It has become apparent to this researcher that many writers of the early and mid nineteenth century, from etiquette book writers, to foreign tourists to citizens writing editorials to their local newspaper, were very careful about what they said about specific churches. America as a whole was a religious place at this time, certainly a Christian domain, but the fact that so many different sects of the religion existed put pressure on writers to be cautious with their criticisms. The etiquette books ignored religion almost entirely, as if there were no proper behavior to be expected of a person at a worship service. Indeed, there were so many different Christian practices at this time, how could the etiquette writers make broad generalizations about congregational behavior? Foreign writers wrote about wedding and funeral rituals, but said very little about actual worship services and the congregations that were present for them. More important to them it seems was what the minister was preaching on, not how the church members presented themselves. Then again, perhaps the visitors were afraid of offending the Americans and just avoided the topic. Americans writing in newspapers were more free to criticize than foreign tourists, but they still rarely felt obliged to give names of specific churches or specific ministers (this writer is aware that these censures may have been made not by the authors, but by the editors of the papers). Given the information available, it seems that the churches of Athens were not very different from the churches of other cities in the same time. The complaints logged against Athenian churches were relatively rare, as they were for churches in other cities. And without further proof that the churches of Athens were significantly more or less barbarous, then we cannot say that they differed. Future research on the topic of manners and their role in the congregation should focus extensively on contemporary periodicals. Archives from one university library are not enough to build a complete picture of this topic. Also any future attempt to find how and if the churches differed needs to look at the specific denominations prevalent in the cities in the antebellum years and see how their congregations compared.
1. 1830."To a friend of politeness." Athenian, 14 September, 2.
2. 1831. "The way they do things in Athens." Athenian, 5 July, 2.
3. "From the Columbian Star." Religious Monitor and Evangelical Repository, 1824, v.1, 111.
4. New York Religious Chronicle, 30 April, 1825. v3, n18, 69.
5. Athenian, 1831.
6. Michael John Gagnon. 1999. Transition to an Industrial South: Athens, Georgia 1830-1870. Emory University.
7. Harriet Martineau. Society in America. (Paris. Baudry's European Library, 1837), 220.
8. Frances Trollope. Domestic Manners of the Americans. (New York. Knopf, 1832), 61.
9. Trollope, 67.
10. R. Laurence Moore. "Religion, Secularization, and the Shaping of the Culture of industry in Antebellum America." American Quarterly.41, 2, 216-242.
11. John Kasson. Rudeness and Civility: manners in nineteenth century urban America. (New York, Hill and Wang), 125-126.
12. "For the Southern Banner." Southern Banner, 16 March 1833, 3.
13. Common School Journal, 1845
14. W. Marshal (ed.). A Manual of Politeness, comprising of the principles of etiquette, and rules of behavior in genteel society, for persons of both sexes. (Philadelphia, W. Marshal and Co., 1837), 97.
15. Kasson, 126
16. Kasson, 54