How did the Quaker peace testimony contribute to the negative attitudes of non-Quakers towards the Society?
Quakers in the Military and Conscription Laws Affecting Quakers
The initial stages of Quakersim in England during 1650s saw the coexistence of Quaker soldiers and at least a few Quaker pacifists. George Fox, founder of Quakerism, was responsible for introducing pacifist theory into the sect, however initially he never tried to persuade his coreligionists to lay down their arms. However, the spread of the Quaker religion among soldiers brought about a wholesale expulsion of the "undisciplined" converts from the armed forces, particularly from the Cromwellian army in Ireland and Scotland. The Society's emerging peace testimony preached just war rather than total rejection of it and the purging of Quaker soldiers from the forces was taken offensively by many early Friends. Isaac Pennington professed the righteousness of the Quaker cause while maintaining the right of governments to bear arms when necessary and in a just manner: "I speak not this against any magistrate's or people's defending themselves against foreign invasions, or making use of the sword to suppress the violent and evil-doers within their borders... but yet there is a better state which the Lord hath already brought some into, and which nations are to expect to travel towards." [KW1]1
At length unable to reconcile his religious beliefs with the participation of Quakers in the military, Fox and Richard Hubberthorne drew up the Declaration of 1661 stating the principles of Quaker pacifism and proclaiming it an official tenet of the sect. William Penn, Fox's colonial counterpart, defined the essence of the Quaker peace testimony as "not fighting, but suffering."2 Quakers returned to this theme of suffering recurrently in the face of persecution. John Pemberton writes in his Epistle of 1776: "Let not the fear of suffering, either in person or property, prevail on any to join with or promote any work or preparation for war."3
As conscientious objection to military service became a more widespread practice among Friends the popularity of Quakers decreased significantly in the colonies, where military defense was crucial to the survival of the settlements. As early as 1658 the pacifist propaganda of Quaker missionaries in Maryland generated a considerable amount of clamor from the other colonists. Anti-Quakers perceived Quaker encouragement of noncompliance with military discipline as a threat to colonial safety in the face of the Indian raids and invasions by armadas of enemy European countries. According to John Seymour, governor of Maryland during the War of Spanish Succession, Quakers just "sit at home without the least concern of the public safety or welfare."4
Generally, however, Quaker religious abstention from fighting was met with a fair degree of toleration. During the early part of the eighteenth century a number of provincial governments drafted conscription laws which included a clause exempting Quaker objectors, usually substituting some sort of fine for service. In many cases however the Quakers' convictions would not permit them even to pay the fine (since refusal to serve was dictated by a higher law), in which case most objectors suffered heavy property distresses. "We, as a religious Society, have declared to the World that we [cannot] not for Conscience Sake bear Arms, nor be concerned in warlike Preparations, either by personal Service or by paying any Fines, Penalties or Asessaments, imposed in Condsideration of our Exemption from such Services."5
During the French and Indian War (1756-1763) the Quakers in New England were presented with a new dilemma. A poll tax was levied in direct connection with the conflict but formed part of the general provincial tax. Thus Quakers objectors might refuse to pay the tax on the same grounds for which they felt obligated not to pay the militia fine; on the other hand, the tax resembled a tax 'in the mixture', the ready payment of which was a long-standing tradition of the Quakers dating back to England. By substituting the poll tax for the conscription of Friends, legislatures additionally angered non-Quaker citizens who felt they shouldered more than their share of the military burden while Quakers were spared.
Pennsylvania Pacifist Efforts
Quaker Pennsylvania, inevitably drawn into the conflict, came to the forefront in the struggle to defend the Society's peace testimony. Friends played an active role in the Pennsylvania government since its inception and the approach of a seemingly unavoidable war proved the ultimate test of the pacifist ethic in Quaker leadership.
In Penn's eyes Pennsylvania served as an experiment and a model of an ideal Christian commonwealth where all citizens could enjoy the "most essential of all Privileges," liberty of conscience (one such right of conscious of course was freedom from service in the militia).6 From the outset Penn faced a conflict of interests in his duties as magistrate of the British colony. The terms of the Charter authorized Penn "to make war... as well by sea as by land, yea, even without the limits of the... province, ...and to do all and every other act and thing, which to the charge and office of a Captain-General of an army, belongeth."7 Whereas among coreligionists and in his contracts with Indians Penn emphasized the peaceable code of conduct on which he founded the colony, he minimized its significance in negotiations with the Crown and in efforts to attract non-Quaker settlers, including French Calvinists and Scottish Presbyterians.8 Penn's enemies contended that his pacifist position as a Quaker rendered him incapable of rulership of the province.
Beginning in summer of 1747 the non-Quaker community of Pennsylvania, inspired by fears of invasion on the part of the French and Spanish fleets, increased its pressure on the Assembly to establish at least a voluntary militia. Loyalty to the English Crown required Pennsylvania to uphold its role as a strategic link in Britain's defense system. Yet in its opposition to war, defensive as well as offensive, the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting reaffirmed the need for strict observance of the peace testimony. A revival movement took root in the mid-1740s as Quakers became increasingly disturbed by the readiness of fellow Friends to contribute financially to war. Controversy on the defense issue was compounded by an influx of non-Quaker settlers into the province and the subsequent decline of the Quaker representation in the Assembly.
As the reform platform gained strength it insisted that the Assembly avoid all action that might imply a Quakerly involvement in war. "We, therefore, exhort, admonish, and caution all who make religious profession with us, and especially our beloved youth, to stand fast in that liberty, wherewith, through the manifold sufferings of our predecessors, we have been favoured, and steadily to bear our [peace] testimony against every attempt to deprive us of it."9 With the onset of the French and Indian war, Quakers serving on the Assembly were ultimately faced with two alternatives: to either withdraw from politics in order to preserve their pacifist stance, thereby choosing 'suffering', or to abandon their Society's peace testimony in executing military defense measures.10 Many Quakers felt that to withdraw from politics would put at risk the colony's political freedom and religious toleration safeguarded through the years by Quaker rule. But if the Quaker Assembly elected to give financial support to Britain's war effort or impose military service even on the nonpacifist section of the population it would be a clear violation of the principles of the Society.
In November of 1755, despite pleas of reformers to reject it, the Assembly passed a supplies bill appropriating £60,000 'for the king's use', claiming that precedent required them to do so. One of the Society's leading reformers, John Woolman, headed up the first major tax refusal movement in the history of the Society of Friends by issuing An Epistle of Tender Love and Caution to Friends in Pennsylvania on December 12, 1755. Although Friends had traditionally prided themselves on the suffering they endured as a result of their conscientious law breaking, they had never before broken laws made by Quaker legislators. A rift in the Society developed between tax assenters and tax objectors, each claiming to have the best interests of the Quakers at heart. Thus the internal unity of the Society so carefully fostered by its founders was shattered: Friends were confiscating the property of other Friends and even sending them to prison for their objection. Opponents of the Society rejoiced at the dissension among its members.
In the year 1756, savage attacks by the Indians, now French allies, heightened animosity towards the Quakers who were cursed along with the Indians for not joining in the war to destroy their foes. Such perceptions of the Quakers naturally lent a negative connotation to Quakerism as a whole including the Pennsylvania government under its control. Many Friends felt Quaker Assemblymen should yield to pressures to give up their seats, thereby freeing the Society of the implications of any military activity it might take. Ten Quakers resigned from the Assembly in the following months and for the first time the Society represented a political minority.
As a surrogate for politics many Quakers became involved with the reformers in working towards the cultivation of good relations with the Indians. Quakers took advantage of the hostilities between the Indians and the administration to invest in a fruitful business with the natives. In 1756 Quakers established The Friendly Association for Regaining and Preserving Peace with the Indians by Pacific Measures, terminated eight years later in response to the Paxton Riots of 1764. The Scotch-Irish Presbyterians initiated the riots, blaming the Quakers for the recent loss of life and property at the hands of the Indians. A number of Quakers, especially youth, took up arms in response to the violent threat of the 'Paxton Boys', and in contradicting the Society's peace principles cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Quaker cause. Numerous anti-Quaker pamphlets were circulated recounting the hypocritical behavior of the Society.
Both the Paxton Riots and the total withdrawal of Friends from politics remained unresolved issues for some time and were finally ended inconclusively at the Yearly Meeting of 1764. Continuing to serve on the Assembly, Quaker politicians support for military measures, unavoidable in a time of war, seriously compromised the Society's integrity. Despite continuing persecution and opposition Quakers continued to uphold the righteousness of their cause: "Our profession and principles are founded on that Spirit which is contrary to, and will in time put an end to all wars, and bring everlasting righteousness."11
1 Isaac Penington, Somewhat spoken to a Weighty Question, concerning the Magistrate's Protection of the Innocent (1661), quoted in Peter Brock, The Quaker Peace Testimony 1660 to 1914, York, 1990, p. 27.
2 Brock, p. 31.
3 Friends, Society of. Philadelphia Meeting for Sufferings, 1776. An Epistle... Signed the 20th Day of the Twelfth Month, 1776. [Philadelphia, 1776.] 2pp.
4 Brock, p. 48.
5 Friends, Society of. Philadelphia Meeting for Sufferings, 1775. Philadelphia, 27th Tenth Month, 1775. A Committee of Ten... [Philadelphia, 1775.] 2 pp.
6 Friends, Society of. Philadelphia Meeting for Sufferings, 1775. Philadelphia, 27th Tenth Month, 1775. A Committee of Ten... [Philadelphia, 1775.] 2 pp.
7 George Staughton et al., Charter to William Penn, and Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania passed between the Years 1682 and 1700, quoted in Brock, p. 90.
8 Brock, p. 91.
9 Friends, Society of. Philadelphia Meeting for Sufferings, 1776. An Epistle... Signed the 20th Day of the Twelfth Month, 1776. [Philadelphia, 1776.] 2pp.
10 Brock, p. 95.
11 Friends, Society of. Philadelphia Meeting for Sufferings, 1776. An Epistle... Signed the 20th Day of the Twelfth Month, 1776.
Return to our
Page