"Mr. Smith was a man of good gifts for the pulpit, and an able manager of the affairs of the Church; but his sentiments on the question then vexing the Church and nation were un-Wesleyan and provoking to a majority of the people comprising the communicants under his administration.

The membership was small, numbering hardly half a hundred, and any subject on which they could not harmonize, and especially the grave one at that time agitating the commonwealth, was next to a disaster, as its direct tendency was to hinder the most successful carrying on of evangelical work. The bitterness and asperity indulged in mere conversation were adverse to spiritual growth, and engendered animosity which has not yet been outgrown.

Mr. Smith's success was not what it should have been, and, most likely would have been, if his views had tallied with a controlling number of his people. Methodism failed for this and other reasons to get a prevailing hold on the citizens and hence suffered for want of adequate support, either financial or moral."²

Wm. M. Smith... ...succeeded better as presiding elder than as pastor, being a wise administrator, and not coming in such constant contact with the people as to make his political views offensive.³

This strong man seems to have been unable to either hold what he found, or build up the Church anywhere, owing to his want of tact in the expression of his political views.

However, this loss may be accounted for in part by the reaction that often follows times of great revival, such as attended Dr. Lemon's pastorate, or by the general adverse conditions that prevailed during the Civil War. As noted elsewhere, the entire Conference did little more than hold its own during the first three or four years of this period.⁴

It can not but be regretted that at this critical juncture a man like William M. Smith should have been appointed to follow T. B. Lemon, in April, 1865. Flushed with the victories being won by Grant, and a few days later maddened by indignation at the assassination of the beloved Lincoln, the people were intolerant of any want of sympathy with the Union cause than ever, yet this man stubbornly and offensively held on his way, as will be seen by the following related by Haynes:

"He chose as a text, I Cor. xi, 2: 'For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified,' and proceeded to preach. In the discourse he made no allusion either to the preparation of the room for the occasion nor to the taking off of the now dead chieftain, totally ignoring the sad and disappointed people who had met to honor his name and to do a most willing part in perpetuating a remembrance of his noble manhood and distinguished patriotism."

Mr. Smith was not willing to concede that he had made a mistake in paying no respect to the feelings or preferences of a large share of the people present; but the loyal and patriotic at once decided not to sustain a man, though appointed as a pastor, who would so brazenly offer an affront!

A few weeks later the Quarterly Conference met, and after proceeding with the business till the question was reached, 'What has been aised for the support of the ministry this quarter?' Answer: 'Nothing!' he presiding elder, who was present and in the chair, was informed that if he would remove the offending pastor, he would receive pay for the time he had served; otherwise he would get no salary.⁵

...It had come about in Nebraska as in all the North, that after the leaders of the Southern rebellion had become traitors, the loyal portion of the people were not quite satisfied with a non-committal attitude, but insisted on outspoken and unmistakable loyalty to the Government and approval of the Government in its effort to suppress rebellion and save the Union. Failure to do so sometimes brought on bitter conflicts in the locality and even in the Church. We have seen how one otherwise pious and strong preacher, Wm. M. Smith, was shorn of his power to do good by refusing to come out decidedly as a Union man.⁶