"Crisis of 1755-56" in Colonial Pennsylvania History: a Study of the Quaker" Reformation" and the Rise of Quaker Pacifism

Home , History of the Quakers, Holy Experiment

THE "CRISIS OF 1755-56" IN COLONIAL PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY: A STUDY OF THE QUAKER" REFORMATION" AND THE RISE OF QUAKER PACIFISM

Tetsuko KAWAHARA

INTRODUCTION In June, 1756,several Quakermembers of the colonialPennsyl- vania Assembly resignedtheir seats ostensiblyin protestagainst what they regarded as militarymeasures which the Assembly had adopted andwhich in theireyes contradictedthe Quaker stance ofnot taking arms. What has become known as the "crisisof 1755-56" in colonial Pennsylvania history,centering onthe Quakers'withdrawal from the Assembly in June, 1756, has attractedhistorians' attention because of itsimpact both on the politics ofcolonial Pennsylvania and on the Society of Friends (the officialname of the Quaker denomination). The incident,the main issue ofwhich was pacifism,is often discussed in terms of conflictbetween idealismand realism.1) This paper aims to examine the Quaker experiencein Pennsyl- vania around 1755-56. The originsand the nature of the "Holy Ex- periment," the factors-both external and internal-that brought it to an end, and the legacy that it leftare the topicsdiscussed. In the process,the Quaker dilemma and the Quaker "reformation"will be looked into. And the questionof Quaker sectarianismand pacifism willalso be analyzed in relationto the "crisisof 1755-56."

174 I

The colony of Pennsylvania was founded by a Quaker visionary , Wilham Penn, to fulfill his dream of building an ideal community in

the wildemess of America . In payment of the old debt of £ 16,000 to

Penn's father, Charles II gave Penn part of his territory in America

in 1681. It was in the form of proprietary grant which was sublected

only to royal veto and the Navigation Acts. The Quakers, beinga

dissenting denomination that had arisen during the English Revolu-

tion, were desirous of escaping religious persecution in England and

finding a safe refuge in the newly-settled America. Their wish was

realized by William Penn's colonizing enterprise in 1682.

The colonization in Pennsylvania was for Penn more than provid-

ing the refuge for his fellow Quakers. He had a design to make the

colony "a haven for the religiously oppressed everywhere," and he

expected that"the people of Pennsylvania were to be filled with the

same spirit of love and Christian fellowship which motivated Christians

in the days of the Apostolic Church." The colony was, thus, to serve

as a model for mankind to demonstrate what men can achieve if they

strictly observe the code of Christian ethics. Penn initiated his coloniz-

ing enterprise with a heightened religious fervor. He called the whole

project a "Holy Experiment" with good reason.2)

Quakerism was originally an experimental religion, its core princi. ples being "the faith of the inner voice of Christ" and "the realization that no outward thing can help man achieve peace with God." Holding a simple belief which stressed spontaneous expression of faith, the

Quakers adopted a unique mode of worship-waiting for God in silence.3)

There were about 60,000 Quakers by 1682. Quakerism of early days consisted mainly of four elements: mysticism, prophetism, per- fectionism and universalism. The first element, mysticism, meant that man could feel "the Spirit of God." By prophetism, it was meant that the Quakers had to preach their faith enthusiastically. Thirdly, per- fectionism came from their assumption that feeling "the Spirit of God"

175 or "the Inner Light" would bring man into a state ofsinless perfec- tion. And lastly,the universalism ofQuakerism was evidenced in theirbelief that there is some of God in every man. With the belief in "that of God" in every man, the earlyQuakers did notregard them- selvesas "a chosen people set apart from mankind.4) The ethicalposition of the Quakers was based on "the Sermon on the Mount," the fundamental teachingsof which were equality,simplicityand peace (or non-resistance).Their ethicalconcern was well reflectedin theiropposition to slavetyand to war and violence.5) The discussionof the "Holy Experiment" is hardly complete without mentioning the Quakers' interestand concern for activeparticipa- tion in secularaffairs.It was what FrederickB. Tolleshas calledthe "residualCalvinism" that urged the Quakers to undertake a "Holy Experiment"-"to dominate and transform the 'world' instead of withdrawing from it." In holding the view that religionand lifeshould be integrated,the Quakers retaineda semblance of the Calvinisttradi- tion. The Quakers would agree with the Calviniststhat "Christians had positiveresponsibilities in government" and that "the righteous should seek control ofboth the church and the state."But the Quakers were differentfrom the Calvinistsin that they regarded "the New Testament ethicof liveand nonresistance"as "a binding part ofthe divine command" while the latterdid not. On the other hand, the Quakers would not quite agree with the Anabaptistsand the Mennon- iteswho believed that "Christianityshould be completely separated from the socialorder." In other words, unlike the Anabaptists and the Mennonites,they did not escape into the "Gemeinshaft"to reahze the teachings of"the Sermon on the Mount."6)

II The generaloutline ofthe "crisis of 1755-56"may be given.7)By and large,the PhiladelphiaQuakers dominated the colony'spolitical, economic and culturallife since its foundation. ("The Philadelphia Quakers" is used in a broader meaning in thispaper includingnot only those in the city ofPhiladelhia but alsothose in neighboringcounties

176 and towns of Pennsylvania and New Jersey .) Though their proportion in the over-all population of Pennsylvania had dwindled to a fifth by

1755. they occupied two-thirds of the seats in the colonial Assembly . The leadership in the Quaker meetings and in civil government over- lapPed, although the state and the church were defined separately.

There were issues occurring from time to time which tested their utopian vision and in which the basic assumptions of their religious ideahsm came to be questioned. The frontier defense was one such issue, and it was later to culminate in the "crisis of 1755-56."

Opposition to war and violence had been a well-known Quaker testimony. But it met with an ordeal in colonial Pennsylvania. For seventy-five years, the Philadelphia Quakers kept away from direct participation in war. They would not erect defense against attack. Because of this, the Quakers in Pennsylvania had been accused from time to time of irresponsibly leaving the colony defenseless. The accusation against them had become especially vehement during the

French and Indian War, when the front was in Pennsylvania. The defense of its western region was thought a critical matter by many- especially by non-Quaker settlers, mostly Scotch-Irish and German.

Braddock's defeat in July, 1755, set the pro-French Indians free to advance on the English settlements. The Delaware Indians started attacking the frontiersmen. All this development made military defense the prime issue at the Assembly in which the Quakers were a majority.

The Govemor summoned the Assembly, and urged passage of a mihtary supply bill and a mihtia bill. The Assembly passed an act to appropriate

£50,000 for defense by taxation on all estates including the proprietary lands. The bill was, however, vetoed by the Governor, who claimed the exemption of proprietary lands from the property taxes. The Assembly in turn rejected a militia act. Having done so, it adjourned itself and the colony remained without protection.

In an annual October election of 1755, though pressure was put against them by the Govemor and his followers most of whom were

Anglicans, all the Quaker members were re-elected. To face the Indian uprising and consequent appeal for more aggressive war measures from

177 the frontiersmen, the new Assembly enacted both bills to tax estates for war purposes and to raise militia.

The circumstances of the passing of the bills were as follows. The news reached Philadelphia about this time (November22, 1755) that the proprietors back home would offer agift of £5,000 toward the defense if the Assembly passed an appropriation bill with the proprietary exemption. This gift of £ 5,000 was, however, to come from uncollect- able and long-overdue quitrents owed to the proprietors. It was stipu- lated that the Assembly wast ocollect it. In the meantime, a crowd of four hundred angry Germans demanding military protection marched into Philadelphia to protest on November 24. The city council of

Philadelphia issued, on the morning of November 25, a "remonstrance," which complained against "the delays involved in the Assembly's power struggle with the executive." On the evening of the same day, the As- sembly finally decided to appropriate £ 60,000 for defense. A militia act was passed in December also under the strong Pressure by the frontiersmen who were mostly Dutch and who had protested to the

Assembly for more aggressive war measures. They brought to Phila- delphia the bodies of their fellow countrymen who had been scalped by the Indians. The act was passed with only four dissenting votes.8)

The £ 60,000 appropriation was the largest amount that the As- sembly had ever raised for war and defense. The Quaker Assembly had not always been able to refuse the royal request of money for war provisions. It had in fact been contributing the money with the ex- cuses such as for "the King's use" or "the purchase of Bread, Beef,

Pork, Flour, Wheat or other Grain [i.e., gunpowder]." This was also the first time that the Assembly voted a militia bill. But the appointment of a "Committee of Defense" by the Assembly was a more signifi- cant innovation. It was to be appionted from the members of the As- sembly, and was empowered to spend money on whatever war measures it deemed necessary. Such action meant that the Assembly now ac- knowledged its responsibility for the use of money, contrary to the previous practice of passing the responsibility to the Crown and his agents under the pretext of providing money "for the King's use."9)

178 On April 14, 1756, an ever more drasticmeasure was taken. Governor Morris and his Council declaredwar againstthe Delaware Indians. Now Pennsylvania was officiallyat war. Rewards were announced to be paid for Indian captivesand theirscalps . There were at this time twenty-sixacknowledged Quakers in the Assembly of thirty-sixseats. This Assembly had passed the legislations which were apparentlyagainst the Quakers' peace testimony. In.these circumstances,six Quaker Assemblymen voluntarilyresigned their seatsfor the sake oftheir faith on June 4, 1756,stating "that the present Situationof Public Affairscall [s]upon us forServices in a militaryWay, which, from a Conviction of Judgment, after mature Deliberation, we cannot comply with."10) Some declinedto stand for the annual October election of1756. Twelve Quakers were elected.Five days afterthe election,two Quaker emissariesfrom England, John Hunt and Christopher Wilson,arrived. The purpose of theircoming was to persuade the PhiladelphiaQuakers to withdraw from the Assembly. Four of the newly electedQuaker Assemblymen resignedtheir seats; eight compromising did not.11) This political"crisis" forced the Quakers to re-assesstheir relation with the government.12) In 1757, the PhiladelphiaYearly Meeting discussedthe payment of a directtax forwar and defense. (The yearly meeting is the Quaker equivalent ofa generalsynod or council.)In 1758,it cautionedits members againstany oggice-holdingin the government. A minute of the 1764 Yearly Meeting tellssomething about the resultand the wisdom of the Quakers' experiencein Pennsylvania. It urged the members to turn theireyes to "the spirituality of profes-our sion;that by livingnear the divine principleof Truth our testim0ny thereto may be preferredto every temporal consideration,and the profitsand honours of the world neithersought after,nor too readily accepted."13)The Quakers seem to have triednot to go into politics thistime. What happened to theirpositive attitude "to dominate and transform the 'world'instead ofwithdrawing from it"? The recogni- tion of the failure ofthe "Holy Experiment" came with thispolitical crisis.It was the defenseproblem that gave the finalblow to the Quaker

179 experiment in Pennsylvania. The year of1756 was a turning Point for the Society ofFriends in otherspheres oflife as well as in politics.

III The "crisis"was no lessapoliticalone; it was basicallyare ligious one as well.14)The PhiladelphiaQuakers, eitherin the Assembly or outside,were facinga dilemma. They were caught between the demands of politicalpower and the dictatesof theirfaith-the dilemma of private ethical orderversus public responsibihty.Why did the Quaker members ofthe Assembly now agree along with the rest ofthe members to pass what amounted to militarybills? To answer this question wll lead us to a consideration ofwhat may be calledthe Quaker dilemma. Isaac Sharplessis oneearly historianwho touches onthis matter. While praisingthe "spirit of outwardactivity" which characterized the foundersof Pennsylvania,he does not failto point outits danger. He writesthat such spiritwas "dangerous to the inner life."Acc0rding to Sharpless,to withdraw from the Assembly was an unfortunatebut necessary decisionin order for the Quakers to retain their Quaker principles.15) If Sharpless'view was too partisan,that of Frederick B. Tolles may be taken as the most thorough and illuminating.He himself, like Sharpless,was a member of the Society of Friends. He brings to light the questions ofthe interactionof religionand lifein general,and of the successand demise of the "Holy Experiment" in particular. Describing how the PhiladelphiaQuakers-mostly those of the well-to-domercantile class-had been conforming to the world, Tolles points outthe discrepancyin the "record of two plantations-thein- ward and the outward." They were caught in "mental and moral ten- sions which sometimes became intolerable."They would contribute money "for the King's use" even when itwas clearto be used for military purposes. The PhiladelphiaQuakers' conformity to the world was not limitedin the politicalarea alone. It was apparent also in economics,in the intellectualand culturalrealm, and in everyday life such as obtainingfood, housing and clothing.16)

180 Tollespoints outthes ocio-economicdifferences in the membership of the PhiladelphiaYearly Meeting. The worldly tendency had been strong among the wealthy Quakers who enjoyed both politicalhegem- ony and economic wealth. It was these leaderswho put themselves in responsiblepublic positions.And it was they who had agreed to raisemoney "for the King's use." Opposing them was a group of Quakers who were mostly from the rural areas. They were content with theirplain and traditionalway of life.Viewed in thislight, the 1756 resignationhad come about as a consequence of the pressureby the more puristmembers of the Societyagainst the more urbane and compromising ones.17) In this respect,the "reformation" in the PhiladelphiaYearly Meeting-which we willtouch upon more extensivelyin the folllwing chapter-was an act ofawakening or going back to the purity offaith and to the originalpursuit of the simple lifefrom which the Philadel- phia Quakers had departed in theirinvolvement in political,econornic and culturalaffairs ofthe colony. Tolleswrites:

The "holy experiment" ended in 1756not because ofanything simple as a difference ofpolicy respectingthe defenseof the frontier;it ended because in their whole way of livingthe PhiladelphiaQuaker merchants who bore leading parts in the government, had departed from that simplicityand spirituahtywhich were of the essence ofQuakerism and of William Penn's vision ofa holy community on the banks of the Delaware. Realizing this, they abandoned the outer plantationand turned again to the cultivation ofthe plantation within.18)

It was this recognitionthat led them to the voluntary withdrawal from politicsand directedthe cultivationof the inward plantation. The PhiladelphiaQuakers were now more concerned with their own spirituality.While giving up the chance directlyto influencesociety through politics,they became interestedin an indirectway of work-

181 ing for others.

IV Insightfuland comprehensive as it is, Tolles'study has lefta number of questions unanswered. Criticismhas been made in the firstplace that he has focused his attentiontoo much on the "elite" body of the Quaker community in Pennsylvania while taking only a slightnote ofthe views and attitudes ofthe common or average mem - bers. In the second place, perhaps he should have examined more closelythe divisionsand conflictsamong the PhiladelphiaQuakers , the reformersand compromisers. Thirdly, hisexplanation ofthe Quaker "reformation" is not clear. The "reformation"being looselydefined as a series ofattempts to restorethe originalQuaker principles, Tolles does not go into itsdetails. In the fourth place, Tollestells little about the transformation ofQuakerism into quietisticform which had already startedin England before 1682. We willdwell onthe third and fourth ofthese allegedweaknesses in Tolles'analysis. In orderto understand the meaning and significance of the change of the PhiladelphiaQuakers' attitudetoward the life , it willbe necessaryto lookclosely at the question ofthe hardening of disciplinary order theon one hand , and that of sectarianexclusivism or isolationon the other.19) We willsee the hardening ofdisciplinary order first. Jack D. Mariettaexamines the cases oftransgressions among the PhiladelphiaQuakers: theirfrequencyand the disciplinaryaction that they caused to be taken. His approach is quantitative. He uses the disciplinarydocuments of monthly meetings in colonialPennsylvania . (The monthly meeting is the organizationalstructure most immediate to individualmembers.) As his researchis centered onthe dailyactivi - ties ofthe ordinary Quakers, his findingssupplement Tolles'study which is more focused on the eliteQuaker merchants and grandees. Marietta findsthat there was amarked increasein disciplinaryaction between 1755 and 1776. That is to say, the PhiladelphiaQuakers applied more rigidlytheir ethical standard in these years. According to

182 Marietta,this trend shows that they were making conscious efforts to prevent theirstatus as a religious "sect"from turning to that of a "church." Vi ewed thus,the so-calledQuaker "reformation"was then an effort"to reclaim the primitivequahties ofa religion"and "to re- verse the evolutionof sectinto Church."20) Susan Forbes' study of oneparticular meetingin colonialPennsyl - vania supports Marietta'sthesis that anxiety about the decline of disciplinary orderled to the "reformation."21)Between 1730 and 1757, the New Garden Monthly Meeting confrontedaless homogeneous population,caused by the influx ofnon-Quaker immigrants and by the decreasingreligious fervor among the second-generationQuakers who were coming of age. Forbes contends that the Meeting chose to meet the situationby looseningits discipline rather than by requiring ofits members strictconformity to the professedprinciples ofQuakerism . To give a few instances,birthright membership was accepted, and the prosecution ofdeviants slighted. However, startingaround the 1750's, it began to tighten discipline.Deviants were more and more appre- hended, and a smallerpercentage ofthem excused from disciplinary action. The Meeting returned to the consistent observanceof Quaker practice. It seems apparent from the studiesboth of Tolles and Marietta that the reforming atmosphere had permeated among the Philadelphia Quakers even before 1756.If thiswere so, the "crisis of 1755-56"gave only an impetus to what had alreadybeen going on for some time. We do not know if we can say with J. WilliamFrost that it was the sense of guiltthat stimulated the PhiladelphiaQuakers to "reformation." But there is good reason to believethat the outbreak ofthe war (the French and Indian War) forced them to reflectthat they might have gone slovenlyin theirfaith and practice.The war worked in thissense as:

a catalystto set off a chain ofevents drivingthe Friends to purify themselves. The resultswere the tightening ofdiscipline, withdrawal from government, and vigorous actions

183 againstslave-holding. All these phenomena were responsesto fear ofa declinein pietywhich had caused Jehovah to unleash his wrath upon the too prosperous,too complacent, and too worldly Quakers.22)

Next, we turn to the questionof sectarianexclusivism orisolation. The question ofpropriety orimpropriety of the decisionto withdraw from politicsmay be betterunderstood in thislight. The Quakers had one characteristicin common with all.ot her Protestantchurches that had arisenin the Reformation: an apocalyptic and universalisticvision. It was such visionthat had given a compel- lingpower to the founders ofQuakerism in the mid-1650'sand a stimulus to William Penn in carrying outhis "Holy Experiment." We cannot but wonder how it came about that the Quakers, one of whose fundamental tenets had been universalisrn,had become by the middle of the 18th Century an exclusiveand isilatedgroup. One scholarrefers to it as "Quaker tribalism":"the sense ofbeing a 'pecul- iarpeople' called by God to be separatefrom the 'world.'"23)It iseasy to criticizethem as having become so self-righteous narrow-minded.or But thisdoes not explainall. Answer must be looked for elsewhere. In the study of the Societyof Friendsin the 18th-CenturyEngland, Richard T. Vann traces "the passing away of primitivereligious en- thusiasm" and explainsit in terms of the transformation ofQuakerism from a universalisticreligion to an exclusiveone. He contends that Quakerism after1670, especiallyafter 1689,became more nearly sec- tariannot in the sense "ofthe element of voluntary associationof the members" but in the sense "of the completenessof their separation from their[the dominant] cultureand particularlyfrom other religious organizationsand of the relativestandardization of their behavior."24) Quakerism at its outsethad been neithera sect nor a church. It was a "movement" characterizedwith "fluidity"and "mobility." "Fluidity ofdoctrine and practice" originatedfrom the fact that the

Quakers as a new religiousgroup had no precedents and that their approach in religionwas "experimental."And they did not establish

184 ecclesiasticalorganization owingto theirantipathy to the "hireling" clergyand the mode of theirsilent worship. The Quakers had been, in Vann's words, "a group of vagrant and sometimes naked preachers and ecclesiasticallysubversive followers."25) The threatof persecutionforced the Quakers to acceptsome institu- tions and disciplines.The survival ofthe movement requiredsome kind oforganization to support sufferingQuakers, to secureand utilize availablelegal relief, and to supply local leadership.Meetings were formed nation-widein 1667and 1668. Being a persecutedand despised religiousminority-often regarded as wild and dangerous-the Quakers must demonstrate to the world that they were harmless and respect- able people. To preserve their "good name" became their prime concern.The Quakers exercisedtheir discipline for the "safety orhonour of the Society."26) The characterof Quakerism was changed through the establish- ment of meetings. It was then that the Quakers began to fosterthe sectarianattributes. The Quakers judged their members more and more by actionsrather than by faith: "outward conduct and adherence to the public [Quaker] testimonieswere the criteriaby which the realityof conversionwas judged." As habitswere learnedin the family, the Quakers who had heretofore "neglectedor even condemned" it now reahzed that it could play an important rolein forming a distinc- tive Quaker character. It was mainly due to such change in the role of family that "asmany as 90 per cent ofQuakers" proved to be "child- ren of Quakers" by the end of the firstcentury ofQuakerism. As "the result ofthe institutionalchanges," the 18th-CenturyQuakerism had acquired the distinctivecharacteristics which were opposed to the earlieruniversalistic vision. The Quakerism of 1755 was apparently differentfrom that of around the Interregnum with "itspeculiarities of dress and of speech,its clannish marriage customs, and the internal disciplinewhich held it as a pure example to the world."27) It may be relevantto quote one Quaker historianwho dealswith thisquestion. The problems ofthe 18th-CenturyQuakers-the institu- tionalpressure, interest in only keeping up outward appearance,the

185 "sober and deco rous" state oftheir piety , etc-are analyzed in Wilham C. Braithwaite'swords as follows:

How long will the vitalforces ofgenuine first-handexperi - ence, and of fellowship and personal leadership remain supreme; how soon will they become subordinatedto tradi- tion and organizationand authority? At what point willthe preservation ofa sect claim more attentionthan the propa- gation of a new way of life?How soon willthe vision ofa new heaven and new earth fade into the light of common day?28)

There had been a tendency among the Quakers quite contrary to the sectarianizing onediscussed above. Those Quakers who came to Pennsylvania in 1682 to pursue a "Holy Experiment" had a dis- tinctivelyuniversal vison. We wonder if this vision of a religious utopia was not a deviationfrom the normal process ofQuakerhistory toward sectarianism.The dizzy opportunitiesoffered before them in Pennsylvania made the PhiladelphiaQuakers resume and retain the apocalyptichope during the colony'searly years. While they could enjoy politicaland economic domination in the place saved for them , they weakened and modified Quaker "tribalism " ." By the 1750's,the reformation"had begun among the PhiladelphiaQuakers to pursue religiousintegrity and recoverthe oldethical testimonies . Kenneth L. Carroll'sinterpretation that "revival"was a common experlenceamong Quakers everywhere may be noted in this connec- tion. By "revival"he means the confirmation ofunity as a sect,not exculsivelythe return to the originalenthusiasm . He has shown that the Quaker revivalin spiritand disciplinewas happening in En- gland and Irelandin the 1740'sand the 1750's. There being goodcom- munication between the Quakers on both sides ofthe Atlantic,the revivalmovement was no lessa common phenomenon among the Amer- ican Quakers in the late 1740'sand 1750'sthan among theirE nglish or Irishcounterparts. Carroll contends that, though the strengthand ex- Pression ofthe reform varied among Yearly Meetings, it was a com-

186 mon experience.29) The final pointto be discussedin this chapter is the two innova tions observedin the PhiladelphiaYearly Meeting as a result ofthe "reformation." First,the PhiladelphiaQuakers got a command of educa- tion and disciplineas a preventiveagainst transformation to a church. Without converts from outsides, they recognizedthat they had to surviveas asect. They were concerned with raisingchildren into good Quakers and with marrying insidethe Society.The familywas charged to bring up childrenwith religiousinstructions and to trainthem with disciphne.The Quakers acceptedthe idealthat "A man became religious not only by the grace ofGod but from the force ofhabit." Secondly, the PhiladelphiaQuakers learned to accept as part oftheir beliefs pacifismand abolitionism,which previously onlya minority among them had held. For the sake oftheir faith in pacifism, as we have already seen, payment of direct war tax and office-holdingwere forbidden. The major changes in the oppositionto slaverycame about during the French and Indian War and the RevolutionaryWar. The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting prohibitedtrade in slavesin 1758 and slave-owningin 1776.80)This second innovationwas soon to distinguishthe Philadelphia Quakers from otherQuakers. Even though they might have been behind one step ortwo, the PhiladelphiaQuakers took the same courseas the Quakers in England, Ireland and other coloniesin America to isolatethemselves from the world by hardening diciplineand by giving the family an important roleof forming a Quaker character.Their "reformation"was, however, by no means limitedto "a belatedsettling into the normal eigheenth- century Quaker patterns ofquietism and inwardness."31)The "reformation" in the PhiladelphiaYearly Meeting came about with hardening of pacifismand advocacy of anti-slavery.It was the Quakers in Pennsylvania more than those at other regionswho took a lead in working for pacifismand anti-slavery.With allfairness it may be said that these radicalproposals were consequences ofstricter application of Quaker teachingsand search for more of religiousintegrity. At the same time it must not be forgottenthat the PhiladelphiaQuakers'

187 experience ofinvolvement in the earthly matters was also a contributing factor.

V We willnow direct ourattention onQuaker pacifismnot onlybe- cause itwas the centralissue of the "crisisof 1755-56"but also because it was a significantpart ofthe Quaker "reformation in Pennsylvania. The PhiladelphiaQuakers took a lead in this endeavor. Their "con- sciousreaction" from the pattern oflife established during the preceed- ing three-quaters ofa century,and their "impliedcriticism" of the inconsistenciesand concessionto the world seem to have been well reflectedin the development ofQuaker pacifism. It may tellsomething about the uniqueness ofthe PhiladelphiaQuakers , too.32) When six Quakers leftthe Assembly, they announced that they would resigntheir seats because oftheir faith in pacifism. But more Quakers remained in the Assembly. What was the rationale ofthose who remained in the Assembly? Did they uphold a differentkind of pacifism? Herman Wellenreutherhas done an intensiveanalysis ofQuaker pacifism. Intending to examine the validity ofthe prevailingdefini- tion ofQuaker pacifismthat it never allowed the Quakers to support war inany manner, he differentiatesthe two kinds of Quaker testimony: one on peace and the other ongovernment. The Quaker testimony on government recognizedthe authorityof the government as sanctioned by God. According to this testimony, obedienceto the government was regarded as a sacred duty for the Quakers. The peace testimony on the otherhand dictatedthat they personallyrefuse to fight. Thus, while they had consistantlyrefused to pay tithesfor the support ofan establishedchurch, the Quakers paid taxes leviedfor militarypurposes as they did not deny the right ofthe stateto fightfor defense. They were ready to perform semi-militaristicduties for theircountry .33) The peace testimony had an inherent dilemma . The Quakers expected protectionby the government while they declaredtheir rejec - tion of fighting.There were limitshow far they could go in holding the

188 narrow balance between the+peace testimony and the testimony on government. As Wellenreutherwrites:

Only so longas the onetestimony clearlyreferred to the citizen and the otherto a non-Quaker government did adherence to both pose no problems. The moment that both rulersand subjectswere representedby Quakers conflictwould inevitably result.

The Quakers occupiedthe unusual positionin colonialPennsylvania: while they condemned the use of arms, they were obligedto protect the citizensas the "keepers of governmenta [Italics Wellenreuther's]."34) The Quaker Assembly in Pennsylvaniawas affectedby the dilemma of two conflictingtestimonies from the beginning. In order to make up for the gap between theirprofessed paciflsm and necessityof protection,the Quaker politiciansexploited a hierarchical orderof politics, i.e.,the presumption that the colony was subordinateto the British government. The Quakers in the Assembly took itfor granted that the responsibilityfor the use ofmoney, once voted,was with the Crown or with the Governor, not with the Assembly. This tactic ofthe Quaker Assembly brokeneither the Quaker peace testimonynor theirtestimony on government. This was a clever,"skillful maneuvering ofthe Quakers within the limitsset by the Quakers' testimony on government and the peace testimony."35) But, in 1755, the Quaker Assembly broke the line. It passed a supply billspecifically titled for war efforts.The bill,moreover, provided for an appointment of commissioners by the Assembly to supervise itsuse. These practicesimplied the Assembly's acceptanceof defense duty. Wellenreuthersees it as the clash overthe interpretation theof Quaker peace testimony:

The division ofthe Society ofFriends was rather caused by agitatorsfor a provoking and stimulatingnew [strictand rigorous]conception ofthe peace testimony-much broader

189 in itsscope-who clashedwith the advocatesof the old [compromising]conception of the peace testimony. The crisisbroke out over the questionwhether the Quakers would change their peace testimony to such an extent as to destroy the basisfor futurepolitical activities.36)

Jack D. Marietta,accepting Wellenreuther'sthesis that the crisis during the mid-1750's should be examined in light ofthe emergence of the new conception of the Quaker peace testimony, argues as follows:

It is preciselybecause the Societyof Friends in Pennsylvania became intimatewith the politicsand government of Pennsyl- vania that a crisiswithin the church occurred, accompanied, as it was, by some of the most intensivesoul-searching at- tempted by colonialQuakers.37)

In other words. the balance of two Quaker testimonies-the peace temstiony and the testimony ongovernment-became more and more untenable and problematicin the 1750's. Through the confrontation with politicalrequirements, the Quaker peace testimony changed itselfinto a rigidform in Pennsylvania. While the Quaker-dominated Assembly and Governor Morris had a controversy over the taxation of the proprietaryestate , pacifist Quakers protested with the Assembly against the whole supply bill. In the same year (1755), they issuedthe "Epistleof Caution,"a letter to express theirrefusal to pay not only directwar tax but also mixed tax. They failedto gain an officialrecognition from the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. The fact was that the Yearly Meeting was too divided to decide theirposition about the tax problem.38) It may be recalledthat the London Meeting for Sufferingssent two emissariesto Philadelphialate in 1756.(The Meeting for Sufferings was the executivebody of the London Yearly Meeting.) They had two intentlons:to persuade the PhiladelphiaQuakers to withdraw from

190 the Assembly and to convince them to pay the war tax. The pacifist Quakers worked together with them for the resignation.They could not agree with the other propoksal, however. The london Meeting for Sufferingsappended a listof severaldocuments which demonstrated that English Quakers had previouslypaid taxes during wartime and that the rigidpacifists were violatingthe acceptedpractice ofthe Soci- ety ofFriends. Even so, the pacifistQuakers in Pennsylvania did not consent to the tax payment. This differencein attitudestowards tax payment between the PhiladelphiaQuakers and the English Quakers originatednot singularly from the novel statusof Quakerism in Pennsylvania. Quaker pacifism was transformingitself into a stricterform in Pennsylvania.Reformist Quakers were endeavoring to directthe PhiladelphiaYearly Meeting to a positionthat "any war tax, whatever the circumstances ofits passage,must not be paid." The dispute overthe war tax remained unsolved. A committee was appointed by the Yearly Meeting to con- siderthis problem in 1757. But it avoided giving a solution,so that the Yearly Meeting could retainunity.89) The Quaker Assemblymen, Quaker magistratesand other Quakers in Pennsylvaniahelped General Forbes'expedition by providingwagons and teams in 1758. To face thisneglect ofpacifism, the pacifistQuakers appealed to the PhiladelphiaYearly Meeting for a statement ofthe strictpacifistposition. In contrastto itsavoidance ofdecision in 1757, the Yearly Meeting made amove thistime. It adopted the new article of disciphne onpacifism. The articlehad two items onpacifism First, a directtax for militarysupplies was to be rejected.Second, the Quakers should declinea public officewhich requiredthem to forcethemselves and othersto obey what Quaker consciencedenied. This second deci- sion was a landmark in the history ofthe Quakers' relationshipwith the Pennsylvaniagovernment. It impliedthat the PhiladelphiaQuakers finallyrecognized that "Quaker ethics,especially pacifism, were incom- patiblewith occupationof civilothces." Acting thus,the Philadelphia Quakers proved themselves "radical"while the English Quakers and the Quakers elsewhereremained "compromising."40)

191 Conclusion Regarding the question ofQuaker pacifismin generaland itsim- Plicationfor the "crisisof 1755-56" in particular,is it safe to assume that rigorouspacifism was immanent in Quakerism? Or are we to con- cludethat therewere inherentweaknesses and inconsistenciesin Quaker- ism with respectto thisquestion? As has been noted, the PhiladelphiaYearly Meeting in 1758issued an article ofdiscipline prohibiting its members to hold public officeand pay directwar tax. But the 1758 articlemore created uncertainty ratherthan setthe issuepermanently. Mariettawrites:

Yet the 1758 articlewas equivocal and subject to interpre- tationin each case-the incompatiblecivic offices and duties were not specified.Also, the penalty prescribed for any Quaker officeholderwho fellunder itsinjunction and refused to resignhis officewas not disownment, but exclusionfrom the disciplinaryand businessmeetings ofthe Society.41)

Hereafterofficeholding was not always denounced and punished. Some officeswere found incompatible with the Quaker peace principlein times ofwar but congenialat othertimes. The PhiladelphiaQuakers returned to their seats in the 1760's.42)All this tellsthat Quaker pacifismwas a growing thing and that it had to undergo many tests and vacilations. The new Quaker pacifismdid not command strict observanceyet. But it began to assume a rigidform. The PhiladelphiaQuakers were realizingthe importance of the peace testimony and arranging disciplinarymeasures for it afterthe "crisis of1755-56." This worked as a good preparationfor the American Revolution. At the time ofthe Revolution,the Quakers in the coloniesheld the firstAmerican coun- cilin the fall of1776 and establisheda uniform standard ofconduct . Even though they did not decide tax policies,the Quakers prohibited any participationin civilgovernment, any payment of finesfor refusing

192 militaryservice, and any engagement in businessto promote the war and to handle prizegoods. The unity ofbehavior overpacifism among the Quakers in the colonies,moreover , came with the prosecution of disciplinarymeasures to the delinquent by each monthly meeting. During the Revolution,the Society ofFriends in America went through further purificationwith the abandonment of politicalactivity and with the disownment of those who could not maintain theirfaith.43) The "Holy Experiment" in Pennsylvania offeredthe Quakers an opportunityto transform theirpacifism into a rigorousform. Quaker testimoniessuch as pacifismhad not been the concerns ofthe earliest Quakers but became the distinctiveconcerns of the later Quakers. Withdrawal from politicalaffairs by no means implied that they would turn away from the world. It is a well-known fact that the Philadel- phia Quakers were soon to directtheir energy to philanthropy-e.g., antislaveryand prison reform. The Quakers' highly reputablestanding in thesefields has longbeen witnessed.This was the legacy,in addition to theiravowed oppositionto war, that came out of the "reformation" of the mid-18th Century.

NOTES

I) This incidentis sometimes dealtwith as givingan insightinto con- temporary problems.For example,two criticalworks which denounce Quaker pacifismas unrealisticwere writtenduring the Second World War and the Cold War respectively:Guy F. Hershberger"Pacifism and the Statein ColonialPennsylvania," Church History, 8 (1939),54- 74; Daniel Boorstin,The Americans: The ColonialExperience (Ran- dom House, 1958),pp. 33-69. Hershbergeraccepts the validityof Reinhold Niehbur'stheme-the differentiationof private and public morals,-while Boorstinmentions the ridiculousnessperfectionists. of 2) The generalhistory of the "Holy Experiment" is availablein Edwin B. Bronner, williamPenn's "HolyExperiment":The Founding ofPen- nsylvania,1681-1701 (Temple UniversityPublication, 1962); pp. 8, 13. Gary B. Nash, Quakersand Politics:Pennsylvania, 1681-1726 (Prince- ton UniversityPress, 1968) and FrederickB. Tolles,Meeting House and CountingHouse: The QuakerMerchants ofColonial Philadelphia 1682-1763 (W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.,1963) are alsouseful. Nash seesmore of privateeconomic motivationsin the colonization of Pennsylvania.pp. 347.

193 3) Bronner, p.7. About the origin of Quakerism, see Hugh Barbour, The Quaakers in Puritan England (Harvard University Press, 1964);

and also refer to J. William Frost, The Quaker Family in Colonial America: A Portrait of the Society of Friends (St. Martin's Press, 1973),

pp. 10-29. 4) Bronner, pp. 7, 12; Tolles, p.6.

5) Tolles, pp. 7-9. 6) Ibid., pp. 9-10, 240; Brent E. Barksdale, Pacifism and Democracy in

Colonial Pennsylvania (Stanford Honors Essays in Humanities Num- ber III, 1961), p.2.

7) This chapter owes much to these three works: Barksdale, pp. 16-25; Ralph L. Ketcham, "Conscience, War, and Politics in Pennsylvania,

1755-57," WMQ (William and Mary Quarterly), 20 (1963), 416―39;

Jack D. Marietta, "Conscience, the Quaker Community, and the French and Indian War," PMHB (Pennsyluania Magazine of History

and Biography), 95 (1971), 3-27. 8) Barksdale, pp. 21-23; Ketcham, pp. 422-23. However, this account of

the bitter protest by the Dutch-and those of other related episodes which Barksdale uses in his study-must be read with caution, as

they were recorded by William Smith, a strong critic of the Quakers. 9) Barksdale, pp. 21-22; Marietta, p.6; Tolles, pp. 23-24. The appoint-

ment of commissioners to supervise the use of the money was ap-

parently an encroachment of the proprietary prerogatives. The earlier bill of July, 1755, which was vetoed by the Governor, had

also provided that a similar committee be appointed. 10) Tolles, p.27; Votes and Proceedings of the Houss of Representatives of the Province of Pennsyluania, V, 4245-46.

11) Figures are from Richard Bauman, For the Reiputation of Truth: Politics, Religion, and Conflict among the Pennsyluania Quakevs 1750-

1800 (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971), PP. 26―27. Bauman points out that there was a disparity in the figures: "...many Friends

who had been disowned by the Society, or were not recognized as members for some other reason, continued to consider themselves

Quakers or retained the behavioral characteristics of Quakers, such as qualifying for their seats by affirmation instead of by oath."

12) The question of oath-taking may be regarded as another example of the Quaker ordeal in colonial Pennsylvania. The Quakers were known

to have a strong scruple against swearing. A simple yes or no was all that was allowable for them. Learning of this Quaker trait, their

adversaries would resort to the familiar threat of establishing a test oath when they wanted to oust the Quaker influence or control. The

winter of 1755-56 was no exception. As the situation in the colony became critical and as more stringent war measures were demanded,

the anti-Quaker elements in Pennsylvania sent an appeal to the Crown that a test oath be established. The Privy Council took under

194 considerationthe impositionof such a test. It was afterseveral ofthe prominent London Quakers had vouched for the voluntary resignation of their co-religionistsfrom the Pennsylvania Assembly that the enactment of a billto thiseffect was held back. The danger ofhaving a test oathestablished was thus narrowly averted. The above-men- tioned English emissarieswere sent to Philadelphia by these same prominent London Quakers. 13) Barksdale, P.40: Ms. Minutes of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, II,200. Four factors were direclyrelated to theirdecision to avoid the involvement in politicalactivities. First , the argument about the war tax was intense. Second, the English Quakers pressed the Philadelphia Quakers both to resign from the Assembly and to pay the war tax. Third, while the reform movement permeated the 1750's, the Quakers searched for integrity,hardened the disciplineand started concern for philanthropy. Fourth, the death of John Kinsey in 1750 brought about the change of leadership in the Philadelphia Year- ly Meeting from the compromising Quakers to the strictQuakers. John Kinsey, the Clerk of the Yearly Meeting and the speaker of the Assembly was a compromiser, possessing the highest position both in the Quaker community and the Assembly. His death is often supposed to have signtfiedthe end of the merging of civiland religious affairs. Bronner calls attention to his misappropriation of public funds. This was disclosedonly afterhis death. Bronner also points out how shocking it was for the Quakers, who were known for their honesty both in spiritualmatters and in business,to discover their Clerk'smisdeed: Marietta,pp. 4-17; Edwin B. Bronner, "The Dis- grace of John Kinsey, Quaker Politician,1739-1750," PMHB, 75 (1951),400-15. 14) The politicalaspects of the "crisis"are dealt with extensivelyin: Theodore Thayer, Pennsylvania Politicsand the Growth of Democracy 1740-1776 (Pennsylvania Historicaland Museum Commission, 1953); James H. Hutson, Pennsylvania Politics 1746-1770: The Movement for Rayal Government and ItsCensequences (PrincetonUniversity Press, 1972); John Zimmerman, "Benjamin Franklin and the Quaker Party, 1755-56," WMQ, 17 (1960),291-313; William S. Hanna, Benjamin Franklin and Pennsylvania Politics(Stanford University Press, 1964) and Ketcham (seenote 7). The whole cluster ofissues at stake in the sphere of politicsinclude: the bargaining between the Assembly and the Governor; the change of the Quaker/Popular party in itsmembership and policy; Franklin's leadership; the significanceof the Quaker influence onPennsylvania politics.In the Quaker Assemblymen's resignation,some historians find the development of democracy in colonialPennsylvania history, and others findthe persistentminority rule. Thayer, Hutson and Zimmerman have adopted a two-party-the

195 Quaker/Popular vs. the Proprietary party-interpretation. Thayer illustratescolonial Pennsylvania history as the people'sbattle against proprietary prerogatives. The resignation of the pacifistQuakers from the Assembly made it possiblefor Franklin to undertake the leadership ofthe Quaker/Popular party and to meet the people's demands more effectivelythan before. Thus, Thayer refersto the events during 1755-56 in the context of the Assembly's success in developing its power and effectiveness.Hutson, as Thayer, follows a democratic trend in colonialPennsylvania history. Compared with these scholars,Zimmerman places less emphasis on the role of ideas. He describesthe politicsin the mid-1750's as a power struggle between the Assembly on the one hand, and the proprietorsand their governor on the other. Hanna does not find a taint of democracy throughout the politicalhistory ofPennsylvania. The politicsthere remained the minority rule of the prestigeouspeople before and after the Quaker Assemblymen's resignation, Ketcham adds a group of pacifistQuakers as one of the powerful voices in politicsto the two- party interpretation.He finds compromises and concessionson each side. Observing either the development of democracy or the persistence of the same minority rule in the colonial Pennsylvania, no work indicates the decline of the Quaker/Popular party's effectiveness through the resignation. 15) Isaac Sharpless, A Quaker Experiment in Govemment: History of Quaker Government in Pennsylvania, 1682-1783 (Ferrisand Leach, 1902),p.260. 16) Tolles,pp. 4, 143, 241-42. 17) Ibid,pp. 142-43, 236. Bauman attempts to revise the dichotomy of the "reformers" and the "compromisers" in the PhiladelphiaYearly Meeting. He divides the Philadelphia Quakers into three groups- "reformers," "politicians"and "politiques"-acccordingto theirpoliti- cal behavior: Bauman, pp. 47-64. 18) Tolles,p.243. 19) Numerous works have been done on the Quaker "reformation" in the middle of the 18th Century. Historians, however, have not agreed on its causes and consequences. The split liesbetween those who attributethe causes of changes in the 175's to circumstances, and those who find them in intrinsicdevelopments of Quakerism- Sydney V. James takes the same position with Richard T. Vann in emphasizing the importance of external pressureswhich transformed the Quakers' practice and social attitudes. James interpretsthat unfavorable environments such as the 1755-56 crisisand the American Revolution forced the Philadelphia Quakers to withdraw from the world, start the reform movement, reconsidertheir relationshipwith the civilsociety and find benevolence as the alternative ofpolitical

196 power. David Kobrin confirms, on the other hand, that Quakerism had a strong quietistic orientation.Isolation from the world and loss of worldly power were the natural resultsof the Quaker intellectual system. But these two elements-the nature of Quakerism and the external conditions ofcolonial Pennsylvania-seem complementary . Sydney V. James, A People among Peoples: Quaker Benevolence in Eighteenth-CenturyAmerica (Harvard University Press, 1963); "The Impact of the American Revolution on Quakers' Idea about Their Sect." WMQ, 19 (1962); David Kobrin, "The Saving Remnant: IntellectualSources of Change and Decline in Colonial Quakerism 1690-1810." (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,University of Pen- nsylvania,1968); Richard T. Vann, The Social Develepment ofEnglish Quakerism 1651-1755 (Harvard University Press, 1969). 20) Jack D. Marietta, "EcclesiasticalDiscipline in the Societyof Friends, 1682-1776" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,Stanford University, 1968),p.163. 21) Susan Forbes, "As Many Candles Lighted": The New Garden Monthly Meeting 1718-1774" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,University of Pennsylvania, 1972). 22) J. william Frost (ed.),The Quaker Origins of Antislavery(Norwood Editions, 1980), p.21. Frost hypothesizes further the presence of two "reformist" groups. They both believed in providentialhistory but were differentin socio-economicmake-up and orientation. One group's concern was anti-slavery,and that of the other group the recovery of discipline. One group attributed the cause of God's "wrath" to slavery , and the other to the laxity ofthe disciplinary order. But the magnitude of the war united these two groups. The sense of crisiswhich the leadersof the two groups shared led them to be merged: Frost, "The Origins of the Quaker Crusade Against Slavery: A Review of Recent Literature,"Quaker History, 67 (1978),56-58. 23) Tolles,p.230. 24) Vann, pp. vii,201. The followingdiscussion is mainly derived from Vann's book. 25) Ibid., pp.vii, 199. 26) Ibid.,pp. 91, 102-3, 139-41. 27) Ibid.,pp. 159, 165-67, 196-97. 28) Ibid.,pp. vii,ix-x; William C. Braithwaite,The Biginning ofQuaker- ism, 2nd ed., revised by Henry J. cadbury (cambridge University Press, 1956),pp. 308-9. 29) Kenneth L. Carroll, "ALook at the Quaker Revival of 1756,"Quaker History,65 (1976),63-80. 30) Frost, The Quaker Family, PP. 57, 218-29; Marietta, "Ecclesiastical Discipline,"PP. 153-55; James, A People amomg Peoples,P.141. The Quakers' change of attitude was by no means limited to the political

197 scene. They tightened discipline, voiced anti-slavery as well as stiffen- ed their pacifist stance. Written replies to the queries were adopted. Trading of slaves was prohibited. The old practice of mutual surveil-

lance was developed into a system of visiting committees to advise

parents, slaveholders and officeholders. The qualification for membership was hardened. Entire and partial disownment was applied to more people.

31) Tolles, pp. 230-31. 32) Ibid., p.231. A survey of Quaker pacifism in colonial Pennsylvania is

available in: Edwin B. Bronner, "The Quakers and Non-violence in Pennsylvania," Pennsylvania History, 35 (1968), 1-22; Peter Brock,

Pioneers of the Peaceable Kingdom (Princeton UniversityPress, 1968),

pp. 115, 141-216. 33) Herman Wellenreuther, "The Political Dilemma of the Quakers in Pennsylvania, 1681-1748," PMHB, 94 (1970), 140-43. 34) Ibid., p.144.

35) Ibid., p.172. 36) Ibid.

37) Marietta, "Conscience, the Quaker Community," p.3. 38) Ibid., pp. 15-16. 39) Ibid., p.21.

40) Ibid., pp. 21-22, 25. Historians such as Hanna contends that what was at issue was the preservation of political power. The resignation

originated not from the Quakers' scruples about pacifism but from the London Quakers' political consideration. The withdrawal was a "face -saving measure" to dodge the accusation of being irresponsible

in defense problem. It was planned as a compromise between the London Quakers and the English government officials: Hanna, p.99.

41) Marietta, "Conscience, the Quaker Community," p.25. Because of this equivocation, no Quaker officeholder was disciplined between

1758 and 1775. 42) Ibid., p.26.

43) Arthur J. Mekeel, The Relation of the Quakers to the American Revolu- tion (University Press of America, Inc., 1979), esp. pp. 160-72, 189-

207. David Sloan describes what had happened to Quaker pacifism

between the "crisis of 1755―56" and the American Revolution. How- ever loose its prosecution was, the 1758 article of discipline was a move toward strict pacifism. The situation was different in the Paxton Riots:

Quaker pacifism moved in an opposite direction. The Philadelphia Quakers could have used this opportunity to re-affirm their pacifist

position, but they did not. They widened "the divergence between principle and practice" by tolerating the defensive-war advocates: David Sloan, "'A Time of Sifting and Winnowing:' The Paxton Riots and Quaker Non-violence in Pennsylvania," Quaker History, 66 (1977),

3-22.

198