Why did some American Protestant denominations experience slavery-related schism during the nineteenth century, while others appear to have been unaffected by slavery conflict? I conduct a comparative case study of four national Protestant denominations and find that slavery-related schism was not a consequence of a particular theological orientation, but instead occurred when denominational leaders lacked the capacity to repress abolitionism. In all four denominations, leaders attempted to stifle the abolition movement to avoid conflict. Their capacities to do so differed, however: in some denominations, diffusely distributed authority created openings for abolitionist mobilization, eventually leading to irreconcilable conflict and schism. In other denominations, concentrated authority enabled repression, leaders blocked abolitionist mobilization, and schism was avoided. This research shows that non-state targets of social movements can use “soft” forms of repression to undermine movement mobilization, but that their capacity to do so is constrained by organizational characteristics. It also demonstrates the critical role of organizational dynamics in shaping religious responses to contentious issues more broadly.

为什么一些美国新教教派在 19 世纪经历了与奴隶制相关的分裂，而其他教派似乎并未受到奴隶制冲突的影响？我对四个国家的新教教派进行了比较案例研究，发现与奴隶制相关的分裂不是特定神学取向的结果，而是在教派领袖缺乏压制废奴主义的能力时发生的。在所有四个教派中，领导人都试图扼杀废奴运动以避免冲突。然而，他们这样做的能力有所不同：在一些教派中，分散分布的权力为废奴主义动员创造了机会，最终导致不可调和的冲突和分裂。在其他教派中，权力集中导致镇压，领导人阻止废奴主义动员，避免了分裂。这项研究表明，社会运动的非国家目标可以使用“软”形式的镇压来破坏运动动员，但他们这样做的能力受到组织特征的限制。它还展示了组织动态在更广泛地塑造宗教对有争议问题的反应方面的关键作用。