Quaker Pacifism and the Image of Isaac Norris, Ii

QUAKER PACIFISM AND THE IMAGE OF ISAAC NORRIS, II

By JOHN D. WINDHAUSEN* I N NOVEMBER of 1755, when a group of twenty-three Quakers petitioned the Pennsylvania Assembly to stop passage of a bill requiring tax revenue to be used for defense, Speaker Isaac Norris wrote the following to thne colony's agent in London. Richard Partridge: "it is as certain that laws of the same kind expressed in much stronger terms have past here in which not only ye Meeting was consulted but almost every friend of Reputa- tion in this Province concerned."' The Speaker of the Assembly specifically referred to the year 1711, when the elder Isaac Norris had led the Quaker-dominated legislature wAhich voted "200 pounds for the Queen's use," implying that the way it was spent was her concern, not theirs. This obvious piece of legislative casuistry set a precedent enabling the colony to fulfill its duty whenever the Crown requested defense funds. When, however, the 1750's brought warfare to the colony itself, the traditional mnethod of meeting defense needs was no longer adequate. Pressures for a militia and other stronger means of military protection coming from the Proprietors, the Governor, the generals, the London officials, and finally from the frontiersmen proved to be too strong for the Quaker politicians to withstand. Rather than surrender principles, many resigned their positions of political responsibility. Thus ended the Quaker monopoly of power in the colonial Assembly of Pennsylvania. There has always been drama connected with such human situa- tions where conscience and the world conflict. The continued fascination of historians with this episode has resulted in a number of widely divergent opinions. While many have accepted the story related above, others have denied that the issue of pacifism was at all vital to the disputes about defense bills. And yet a recent *Dr. Windhausen is assistant professor of history at St. Anselm's College. MNranchester, New Hampshire. November 16, 1755, Isaac Norris Letter Book, 1735-1755, Logan Collec- tion, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 346 QUAKER PACIFISM3 347

Writer states that Quaker pacifism continued to be a strong in- iluence in the Assembly throughout the course of the French and fndian War, despite the publicized resignations of the strict Quakers in 1756. At least one historian looks upon the resignations

,,s confirming the inevitable victory of the pragmatic over the doctrinaire in the American political experience.2 Despite the debate over interpretation, it has always been easy to pick out the heroes and the villains. There was Israel Pember- ton, who urged his colleagues to surrender power for the sake of principle. There was Benjamin Franklin, a non-Quaker and hence untroubled by pacifist scruples, who upheld the political liberties of the colony. And there was Thoomas Penn, son of William Penn, who turned his back on his father's religion, and who, as a proprietor, was accused by Pemberton and Franklin of causing the Indian war and of usurping the political privileges of the Assembly. Historians appear to have a penchant for den- igrating the heroes and rehabilitating the villains. 3 Less attention is frequently paid to those whose image is less than heroic and yet not really villainous. Such is the case with Isaac Norris, the younger, Speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly from 1750 to 1764. With Pernberton and later with Franklin, Norris was leader of the Quaker party for more than two decades. In 1756 when the strict pacifists resigned from the Assembly, Norris, although a Quaker, retained his seat and guided the colony in meeting the needs of defense. Many prominent Quakers were not only dis-

2For a fine, short review of the literature on this question, see Ralph L. Ketcham, "Conscience, War and Politics in Pennsylvania, 1755-1757," Wil- liahn and lIary Quarterly, Third Series, XX (1963), 416-417. In addition to the authors discussed by Ketcham the following might also be included: Charles Stille, "The Attitude of the Quakers in the Provincial Wars," Pennsylvania ll4agaaine of History and Biography (hereafter cited PiVHB), X (1886), 283-315; Guy F. Hershberger, "Pacifism and the State in Colonial Pennsylvania," Church History, VIII (1939), 54-74. While StillF denied that pacifism was significant in the disputes over defense bills, Hershberger saw an ideological division between the Quakers out of the Assembly and those within the Assembly. The latter were more interested in political and economic aspects than religious concerns. Ketcham, "Conscience, War and Politics," p. 436, finds that pacifism exerted an important influence on the Assembly even after 1756. For an illustration of the pragmatic approach (also listed by Ketcham), see Daniel J. Boorstin, The Americans: the Colonial Experience (New York: Random House, 1958), pp. 48-69. 3 See, for example, a recent study somewhat sympathetic to Thomas Penn and somewhat unsympathetic to Benjamin Franklin: William S. Hanna, Benjamnin Franklin and Pennsylvania Politics (Stanford: Stanford Univer- sity Press. 1964). 348 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY appointed, but considered Norris disloyal to the Friends.' Prin- ciple, it seemed, had been sacrificed for power. Indeed, Quakers and non-Ouakers began to accuse Norris of merely seeking political power. In 1758 the author of "The Chronicle of Nathan ben Saddi" satirized the Speaker's authority in the colonial Assembly in this way:

And Isaac the judge did according to the sayings of Adonis the Scribe [Franklin], and he mouldeth the Councillors in his hands even as a potter mouldeth clay. And he became haughty and his mind swelled within himl and he went from the Ways of David his father.5

One-time colleagues like the Pemberton Quakers and political opponents like those of the proprietary faction might be expected to use charges of political ambition as a way to parry the thrusts of the Speaker. An indication that the accusations may have been more than mere political infighting is that William Franklin, writing privately to Joseph Galloway in 1759, spoke of Norris's senility and cautioned Galloway to be patient with the Speaker who might "take Umbrage at anyone whom he thought likely to interfere with his Power. I have myself seen several Instances where he has given such an Opposition to some Measures pro- posed by my Father as could not he accounted for but from Motives of Jealousy."6 A few years earlier Richard Peters, an Anglican clergyman and an ardent spokesman for the Proprietor, suggested that Norris's jealousy of Franklin might serve to keep the latter from em- barking for England as the colony's added agent.1 Although this did not happen, Norris, who was originally selected to go along with Franklin, declined for reasons of health. Franklin himself be-

'On Quaker resentment of Norris on this score, see Ketcham, "Conscicnce, War and Politics," p. 437. ' Printed in Isaac Sharpless, Political Leaders in Provincial Pennsylvania (New York: Macmnillan, 1919), p. 195. "David," in the last line, is most likely a reference to Isaac Norris the elder. 'After the original had come into his hands it was transcribed by Norris in a letter to Benjamin Franklin, August 30, 1760, Isaac Norris Copy Book of Letters, June 16, 1756 to 1766, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Phila- delphia (hereafter cited as Norris Copy Book). 'Hubertis M. Cummings, Richard Peters, Provincial Sccretary and Cleric, T704-1766 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1944), p. 217. QUAKER PACIFISMT 349 lieved that one more agent was enough, since Richard Partridge and Robert Charles were already representing the colony at London; so he waited for the Speaker's decision before accepting the post. Isaac Norris's refusal may be accepted at face value inasmuch as ill health was known to obstruct his work dnring the next several years. On the other hand, if Peters was correct about his jealousy of Ben Franklin, perhaps Norris was weighing the loss of his leadership at home should lie accept the London assignment with the added prestige that his rival would accrue if he, Norris, stayed homrie. At any rate, abundant evidence shows that many contemporaries of Isaac Norris, the younger, suspected that he was excessively motivated by political ambition. The fact that he was a Quaker who remained in power when his strict colleagues resigned has heightened this suspicion both for his contemporaries and some historical observers since his time. One recent writer has simply pictured Pemberton and Norris as having represented the interests respectively of "principle and power"; while another has said that Norris "preferred political strength to religious consistency."s Human motivation surely is the most elusive enigma to unravel, not only because true motives are often disguised, but also because humans are often inconsistent. Nevertheless, what follows is an attempt to show that the image often presented of Isaac Norris, the Speaker, is largely a caricature. Part of the trouble stems from a long-standing confusion about Norris's position on Quaker pacifism. For example, his close collaboration with Israel Pemberton both before and during his speakership has given rise to the idea that Norris had once been a strict pacifist. The association between the two men was apparently initiated in the early 1740's when the Assembly and Governor James Hamilton had reached an impasse over a number of war bills. John Kinsey was then Speaker, and, although a Quaker, he tried to work out a compromise between the more radical assemblymen and the Governor. Norris, however, felt that there was "a great probability of his inclination to fall in on the side of the Governor," but still hoped to "make John sensible that if he goes too far he may meet with unexpected disappoint- 'Hanna, Benjamin Franklin, p. 65; Dietmar Rothermund, The Laymaan's Progress: Religious and Political Expericjce ini Colonial Pconnsylvainia, 1740-1770 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvaiiia Press, 1961), p. 61. 3 50 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORV mcnt. Before retiring in 1739, Speaker Andrew Hamilton had warned of the possibility of factional strife in the Assembly and Norris, assistant to Speaker Kinsey since Hamilton's departure, was already, by 1742, the leader of a party bearing his name. Richard Peters, then a provincial secretary and proprietary adherent, apparently regarded this Norris party as at one with the strict pacifist, Israel Pemberton. He wrote that: "If John Kinsey loses his influence and ye party falls into the hands of Isaac Norris, young Israel Pemberton will have a great stroke in politicks and may infuse his poyson so as to get a majority on his side." A short time later Norris could write that the trouble waith Kinsey was over 9 and in 1745 he accompanied the Speaker on a trip to Albany where they represented the colony at the Indian Conferences. However, the association betwveen Pemberton and Norris continued. In the summer of 1750 John Kinsey died. Though Norris appeared to he the likely successor, Peters wrote to Thomas Penn that be expected Israel Pemberton, if elected, to succeed to the chair. Overlooking Isaac Norris he wrote: "this must be the case as long as there is no person of eminence to take the lead." Should Pemberton not be elected to the Assembly, Peters said he Adas absolutely uncertain who would be the Speaker and take command of the Assembly for the future. Peters wvas wrong. Although defeated in 1749, Israel Pemberton, Jr., was elected to the Assembly for the first time the next year, the only year he was ever a successful candidate for assemblyman. But in October of that year the assemblymen chose, not Pemberton, but Isaac Norris as their Speaker. Though lbe was not a member of the legislature after that term, Pemberton was still managing the affairs of the Quaker party through the Yearly Meeting of Friends. Theodore Thayer has maintained that the Assembly was led after 1751 by both Norris and Pemberton, the latter of whoom "gave a decidedly pacifist influence . . . to the party."'"

"Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, August 11, 1743, Isaac Norris Letter Book, 1719-1756, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (hereafter cited as INLB), quoted in Theodore Thayer, Israel Pemberton, King of the Quakers (Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1943), p. 50: Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, October 1, 1743, INLB. "° Quoted in Edwin B. Bronner. "The Disgrace of John Kinsey," PMIHB, LXXV (1951), 413; Samuel Hazard, ed., Pewnnsylvania Colonial Records: lliuintes of the Prozvicial Council, 1683-1776 (10 vols., Philadelphia, 1852- QUAKER PACIFISM 351

It was not long before the supposed pacifist leadership of the Assembly would be tested. In 1750, George Croghan, a frontier adviser, urged Governor Hamilton to begin constructing forts in the West. Indeed, this was the first piece of business presented to the Assembly after the election of Norris to the Speakership. Governor Hamilton not only dealt with the legislators publicly, but he met privately with several of the leading assemblymen. Norris and Pemberton were included in those informal talks held in 1750 and 1751. The Governor did not succeed in obtaining the consent of the Assembly to construct the forts, and, according to Thayer, he attributed his failure to the religious principles of Norris and Penmberton who were, the Governor argued, ashamned at not being able to concur. In view of Pemberton's intransigence on this question both before and after this encounter, it is difficult to picture him as ashamed for his role, especially when at this point war seemed rather remote. Norris's case may be different. Hamilton may well have detected feelings of embarrassment in the man who would later refuse to leave the Assembly for the sake of Quaker pacifism. Norris's true feelings at this point are difficult to determine. He may have felt that the time was not yet expedient to depart from his alignment with Pemberton. \Vas it, then, political shrewdness to maintain a pacifist posture until pacifism was no longer popular? It must be remembered that his position as Speaker would oblige him to suspend his personal convictions from time to time. At least two writers, William T. Parsons and John J. Zimmerman, have recognized that be was not a pacifist, while Frederick B. Tolles has said he was not a "strict pacifist."' 1 No doubt, however, his strong links with Pemberton are respon- sible for continuing evaluations of Norris as a pacifist, evaluations which make his later career look dishonorable for those who see

1853), V, 484 (hereafter cited as Colonial Records) ; Theodore Thayer, "The Quaker Party of Pennsylvania, 1755-1765," PMHB, LXXI (1947), 20. " Colonial Records, V, 484-486, 514-515; Thayer, Israel Pcmberton, p. 58; William T. Parsons, "The Lives and Interests of Isaac Norris-I and II." The Bulletin of the Historical Society of Mlontgomery County, XIII (1961), 13; John J. Zimmerman, "Benjamin Franklin and the Quaker Party," William and Miary QOarterly, Third Series, XVII (July, 1960), 294; Frederick B. Tolles, Meeting House and Counting House: The Quaker Merchaots of Colonial Philadelphia, 1682-I763 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1948), p. 25n. 3-2 PENNINSYLVANIA HISTORY

the sacrifice of principle for power. For example, after reviewing Norris's part in the Albany congress of 1754, Roger R. Trask concludes that he led the Assesnbly in its rejection of Benjamin Franklin's famous plan for an intercolonial union.' 2 Although none of the colonies accepted the plan, Trask writes that "no doubt [lhe] let his pacifist Quaker sentimnents govern his actions." An- other writer, E. Digby Baltzell, has spoken of Norris as "the leading pacifist member of the Provincial Assembly." Rothermund, as we have seen, implies that lie had been a pacifist until his political career seemed to be threatened. Finally, the biographical article on the Speaker in the Dictionary of Aterican Biography reads: "Norris's militant pacifism is the pride of Quaker historians."13 The fact is that Isaac Norris was not a pacifist at all during the French and Indian War and, his close association with the Pemberton group notwithstanding, was never a militant pacifist. Furthermore, it is likely that he was not opposed to the concept of a just sitar even in his earlier career. These views, then, would place his actions in 1756 in much better perspective than those views which suggest a rather sudden apostasy for ambition's sake. AW'hen Norris became assistant to Speaker John Kinsey in 1739, the Quaker-dominated Assembly was about to begin a lengthy series of disputes with the Governors over defense requests. The new worldrlwide war with Bourbon France and Spain was the first major test of the "Holy Experiment" in Pennsylvania since Queen Anne's age. In all the letters of Norris during the years

''Trask in "Pennsylvamia and the Albany Congress, 1754," Pennsylvania History, XXVII (1960), 288-289, has relied partly upon the judgment of Robert C. Newbold, TIhe Albany Congress and the Plan of Union of 754 (New York: Vantage Press, 1955), p. 136, but Franklin's own words suggest this conclusion: "The House by the management of a certain member . . . reprobated it . . . to my no small mortification." See Albert Henry Smyrth, ed., The Writings of Benjamnin Franklin (10 vols., New York: The Mfacmillan Co., 1905), I, 389. "Trask, "Pennsylvania and the Albany Congress," p. 289, seems to have based his judgment on a statement of Thomas Pownall, W\hO wrote that Norris differed with the Albany discussions "only so far ... as ye Principles of ye Party he is at ye head of lead him to appear." See Beverley McAnear, ed., "Personal Accounts of the Albany Conference," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXXIX (1953), 744. This statement of Pownall is, of course, subject to several interpretations: E. Digby Baltzell, Philadelphia Gentlc1news (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958), p. 79; William Roy Smith, "Isaac Norris, the Second," in Dictionary of American Biography (22 vols., New York: Scribner's, 1928-1958), VII, 554-555. QUAKER PACIFISM

1740-1748 there is nothing to indicate that he was a strict or militant pacifist. Indeed, the points at isstue between Norris and the Governors were similar to his quarrels with the Governors at the time of the French and Indian War, both before and after the celebrated resignations of 1756. They include Norris's objections to enlisting servants of the property owners in the military ranks, his objection to a militia under the control of the Proprietor, and his fear that the colony's charter would be overthrown. He mentioned the traditional Quaker manner of granting the money without specifying the way it would be used, but dismissed the idea that this method of granting was in any way connected with the disputes. In fact, several times he insisted that Pennsylvania's war contributions at least matched, if not exceeded, those of the other colonies.'4 It was to be expected that Quaker politicians would use non- religious arguments to justify any opposition to certain defense bills. Obviously, pacifist arguments would impress neither the proprietary faction nor the colonial officials in London. But there are other indications during these years that Norris may not have had a pacifist conscience to submerge. Norris often expressed an interest in the progress of the war both in Europe and in America. Writing to Robert Charles in London about thre war, he declared: "there is however one thing we feel very sensibly that the measures taken at home for destroying France in her trade and Naval force contribute greatly to the Quiet we enjoy in America and has spirited up the Governments of the Massachusetts and New Hampshire to Attack Cape Britton upon which Expedition we Expect they have been Sailed since about ye 1st of this Month." One detects an interest here which is quite incongruous to the spirit of a pacifist. More to the point, perhaps, were Norris's comments to Charles about the last great Jacobite invasion of Britain in 1745. Not only did he appear to approve the subsequent public executions, on grounds which "the Common Safety calls for," but likewise he spoke about "the justice of this [that] violent and desperate struggle."'.° Finally, evidence from Norris's participation with Kinsey in

"Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, October 11, 1740, March 31, 1741, May 3, 1741, May 12, 1741, INLB; Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, October 26. 1741, June 16, 1744, March 5, 1745, INLB. "Ibid.; December 5, 1746, INLB. 354 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY the Indian Conference at Albany in 1745 also indicates that he was not a strict pacifist. While restraining the other colonial commissioners from urging the allied tribes to take tip the hatche immediately against the French and hostile Indians, Kinsey and Norris were compelled to deal with the Indians separately because the New York Governor objected to their Quaker custom of wearing hats at the meetings. How interesting that while obviously demonstrating themselves as Quakers, they gave presents to the Indians which included "powder and lead!"'6 These were hardly the proper gifts which militant pacifists would acquiesce in granting. In all likelihood Isaac Norris struck tip the close association with Israel Pemberton because of the latter's influence in the Yearly Meeting of Friends, in part a kind of political convention, and because they shared a general political philosophy peculiar to the Quaker party separate from the Quaker doctrine on defense. For example, their conmmnton approach to Indian affairs, which loomed larger after 1750, helps to explain their close cooperation with each other. This is particularly so after Norris succeeded to Kinsey's chair as Speaker. Qutakers Pemberton and Norris held to this maxim: as chil- dren of God the Indians must be dealt with justly in all business transactions, an approach that ought to be reinforced periodically by tangible demonstrations of friendship. Who could deny that Pennsylvania history until the 1750's was on their side? After the Carlisle meeting in 1753, during which the Indians received presents which included arms and ammunition, Norris wrote that "a Spirit of generosity in all our Indian affairs . . . are the best barrier we can have against the french under our Circumstances as long as they [Indians] are able to secure their own lands and by that means protect our Western Boundaries." Again, in 1755, he wrote to Robert Charles that Indian cruelties in America have never been directed against a Pennsylvanian and the reason "lies in our mutual affection." In later years when the French and Indian War was at its peak, Norris, though not opposed to military action, placed much hope in efforts to regain the favor of those tribes which had abandoned their English ties because of "IIsaac Norris, "Journal of Isaac Norris, During a Trip to Albany in 1745 and an Account of a Treaty Held There in October of That Year,' P[JIlR, XXVII (1903), 26. QUAKER PACIFISM 355 iesentment over transactions involving the sale of their lands. While his abhorrence for the proprietary faction in part underlay his support in 1757 of the Indian charges of land jobbery,'l7 his position was also in keeping with the general Quaker attitude on ihis matter. Likewise, in 1750-1751 Norris and Pemberton mnay have refused Governor Hamilton's request for a fort on the Ohio River at least partly because of their long-standing conflict with the Penn family over the latter's refusal to allow their undeveloped colonial estates to be taxed. Indeed, the two spokesmen for the Quakers suggested that Penn and the Indian traders should build the fort thenmselves if it were considered necessary. As matters turned out, it was unclear to both the Assembly and the Governor whether or not the Indians themselves wished the fort, as George Croghan had asserted. Furthermore, Norris expressed the belief of the As- sembly when he wrote to Governor Hamilton that "this may blow over. AndI from the Caution and Unanimity of the Indians in our Alliance, the French may be obliged to alter their -ea sures." In answer to William Smith's criticism of the Assembly's position about the fort incident in his "scurrilous' pamphlet al Brief State of the Province of Pennsylvania, published in 1755. Isaac Norris outlined five reasons why he and the Assembly had failed to cooperate with Hamilton at that time: first, though the Proprietor offered money to help construct the fort, he did not offer any to maintain or support it; second, the Indians feared that a fort would bring the French en masse cdown the Ohio: third, the place where the fort was to be constructed was west of the Pennsylvania boundary, in Crown lands; fourth, the fort might have disturbed the Indians who resided there; and fifth, according to the Treaty of Utrecht this territory ought to have remained neutral anyway.'5 On the whole, in 1750 as well as in 1755, Norris thought the Indians wished to be neutral. The Indians at Carlisle had argued that the mere runmor of the Virginians' intention to build an Ohio

"l Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, no date but a sequel to a letter of Norris to Charles of November 8, 1753; INLB; Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, April 28, 1755, INLB; Isaac Norris to Thomas Powvnall. August 24, 1757, and Isaac Norris to Benjamin Franklin, October 17, 1757, Norris Copy Book. "Colonial Records, V, 459; Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, April 28, 1755, INLB. 356 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

fort caused the invasion of the French from Canada. And a' Albany the same sentimnents were expressed by the Six Nations. The Indians, according to Norris, feared that involvement in an, European war in America would only weaken them so that either the French or the English could then take their lands. In sumn- mary, then, Norris's view was quite in keeping with traditional Quaker attitudes toward the Indians. Governor Hamilton's argu- ment that Quaker pacifism accounted for Norris and Pemberton's refusal to comply with his request in 1750-1751 may have been a deliberately simplified explanation. Surely, the adherence of Norris to a policy which had proven successful in the past should not preclude any willingness on his part to provide for a just defense against an attack. If Isaac Norris shared certain policies with the militant pacifist Israel Pemberton, Jr., their association was not without disagree- ments. In 1750 a scandal was uncovered in the Loan Office im- plicating the late John Kinsey. When Pemberton and others tried to cover up the issue out of respect for the late Speaker's contributions, Norris "fired away" at his one-time colleague. Peters reported that "Isaac has lost by his freedom with John's character -much ground with friends." Peters' judgment must be taken lightly, since Norris continued to be popular at the election polls and, for more than a decade after this incident, was unanimously elected by his peers as the Speaker of the Assembly. In contrast Pemberton did poorly on election day, having been chosen for the Assemnbly only in the year 1750. For example, in the 1,752 voting rolls for assemblymen from Philadelphia County, Norris received 1,468 votes, Pemberton 543. Norris was one of eight elected from that county, whereas Israel Pemberton, Jr., failed to secure enough votes. This alone must have caused some tension between these two Quaker leaders. They also differed on fiscal policy. For a long time the Assembly considered raising paper money as a panacea for their economic woes, an approach held by Norris. A few years prior to the French and Indian War, Pemberton accused Norris of lacking proper judgment and foresight on this matter and said he was as much to blame as the Proprietors for Pennsylvania's inadequate currency supply.' 9 "Richard Peters to Thomas Penn, September, 1753, reprinted in Rother- mund, The Layman's Progress, p. 85; Anne H. Cresson, "Biographical Sketch of Joseph Fox, Esq., of Philadelphia," PMHB, XXXII (1908), IS0; see the discussion by Thayer, Israel Pem1berton, pp. 70-71. QUAKER PACIFISM 357

From what has been described above, the evidence does not show that Isaac Norris, II, was a pacifist before the French and Indian War. Indeed the evidence shows that Norris was definitely not a militant pacifist, though described as such by one modern commentator, and may not have been a moderate one during the years when he was associated with Pemberton. In view of certain differences between the two, and Norris's independence at the polls, there is no reason to assume that Norris adhered to his associate's pacifist views or even feigned to adhere, a point somewhat suggested by William Smith.20 There were, of course, other issues upon which they could and did unite. All of this must be crucial to any understanding of Norris's later career and certainly makes more plausible his leadership of the Assembly during wartime. As war drew near after 1754 there is nothing to indicate that Norris was heading for a personal crisis of conscience. In the spring of that year even Governor Hamilton implied that where some opposed defense for religious reasons, Norris's opposition was grounded in ignorance of the situation. However, while Norris expressed some uncertainty that the French had violated Penn- sylvania's boundaries in April, 1754, he began to speak more positively about the French danger a few weeks later. Of the recent clash between French and Virginians at the Monongahela River, he said: "these are the beginnings of introducing the war into America where in all probability ye longest sword must decide the boundaries." And while at Albany he received a letter from his brother, Charles, who wrote: "As thou Notes, The French Seem Resolved to Draw on a War in America.''21 Both in his writings and in his activities prior to the declara- tion of war in 1756, the Speaker was able to demonstrate his willingness to support a policy of military protection. On April 19, 1754, he wrote to Robert Charles in London about the failure of the Assembly to pass a defense bill acceptable to the Governor

2'William Smith [1727-18031, A Brief View of the Conduct of Pennsyl- vaotnia for the Year 5755 . . . (London, 1756), pp. 30 ff. ' James Hamilton to Governor De Lancy of N. Y., June 2, 1754, in Pennsylvania Airchives, Fourth Series (Papers of the Colonial Governors of Pennsylvania), II, 284-285, and Colonial Records, VI, 25; Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, April 19, 1754. INLB ; Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, May 8, 1754, INLB; July 4, 1754, Family Letters, I, Norris Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 358 PENNSYLV ANIA HISTORY and said that he xvas "well convinced that more than treble the sum ever granted by this Province at one time might have been obtained in the manner set forth above [for the King's Use] i. aid of the Province of Virginia," were it not for the precipitous actions of the Governor. Most members were clearly willing t, appropriate some money for defense; Norris ascribed the refusai of the few to either "indiscretion or obstinacy." 22 However one may assess the supposed justice of Norris's con- tinuous political struggle with the executive branch during these years, one is not left in doubt about the nature of the Speaker's position. In October of 1754, he made his position quite clear on the religious question: "I am satisfied that the Law of Nature & perhaps the Christian system leaves us a right to defend our- selves as well against the Enemys who are within reach of our Laws, as those who owe no subjection to them.n" Again, in Jan- uary of the following year when the Speaker sought the aid of the Meeting of Sufferings in London, he appealed not at all with pacifist arguments but rather to "our just rights." What was at stake in the disputes between the Proprietor and the Assembly, he said, was the "Destruction of that Charter." Two months later, when the Assembly was preparing a new defense bill, Norris wrote to Thomas Pownal in New York that "It shall be my particular care so to conduct the Bill thro' Our House that he [the Gov- ernor] shall have no reasonable Objection to it." The Governor, he later reported, still found objections. Despite this failure Norris boasted that Pennsylvania had "victualized" the forces in Virginia and also those in the Eastern expedition; that the colony paid officers traveling through its land and conveyed their baggage too; that roads had been cleared; and that some of the subaltern officers were supplied with luggage, horses, and refresh- ments. By May he was pleased to report that General Edwar d Braddock's forces were similarly provided for and were ap- preciative. 3 Time and again, though, Norris complained that the Quaker cause was being misrepresented in London under the guise of

INLB ; Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, October 7, 1754, INLB. "'Ibid.; Isaac Norris and William Callendar to the Meeting of Sufferings in London, January 12, 1755, INLB: Isaac Norris to Thomas Pownall, March 24, 1755. INLE; Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, April 28, and Mklay 18, 1755, INLB. QUAKER PACIFISM 359 religious scruples. The day after he made another complaint about hllis to Robert Charles he wrote what was perhaps his most forth- -ight statement on the need for defense to the London Quaker iolhn Fothergill.

Could the World be brought into a General System of Peace the avowed Principles of this Colony would certainly be very agreeable to the Christian profession in its greater purity, but as that prospect is very distant, while we hold our Share of government it becomes necessary for our Assemblys whose immediate concern it is, to Tax themselves and their Constituents, to contribute the means 2 of support . . . in the best manner we can. 4

In 1755 opportunities arose to demonstrate his personal feelings on the question: in May, Norris with six others advanced money to support the campaign of General Braddock; in September, together with Ben Franklin, he again advanced money to help provision the Newv England troops; in the early autumn the Speaker placed himrself on another committee for raising money for wartime provisions and even donated 700 of the needed 10,000 pounds to Colonel Johnson's forces. Then, in November, after admonishing the twenty-three Quakers who had protested the use of tax money for defense, and after pacifying the angry frontiersmen who marched into Philadelphia protesting the delay of military protection, Norris, along wvith several others, raised money to build a chain of forts. This move was taken to hasten action on a bill recently passed for this purpose, but the money for which was to be collected from quitrents. 2 5 It should have occasioned no surprise, then, that wxlhen Samuel Fothergill arrived from England in the spring of 1756, specifically to pressure his co-religionists to resign from the Assembly, Norris, the first one to be asked, refused. '; Although Norris's refusal set

Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, Mfay 24, 1755, INLB; Isaac Norris to John Fothergill, May 25, 1755, INLB. "*Leonard W. Labaree, et al., eds., The Papters of Ben jamia Franklin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), VI, 51; Penasbylvania Archives, Eighth Series (1Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the Province of Pennsylvania, i68-i776), V, 4171-4172, 4041; Theodore Thayer, Pennsylvania Politics and the Growth of Democracy, 1740-1776 (Harris- burg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1953), p. 43; Labaree, Papers of Franklin, VI, 290-291, and Thayer, Israel Pemberton, pp. 87-88. 8-Thayer. Pennsyllvania Politics, p. 53. 360 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY the pattern for twelve other Quaker assemblymen who wer, moderates on the defense issue, his own action was not the resul- of a sudden crisis of conscience. As noted above, the Speaker' statements and actions for the two previous years confirm the view that he was not a pacifist. In June of 1756, when he was confronted by Fothergill, there could be no question of sacrificingC principle for power. Significantly, Norris and the Assembly continued to quarrel with the Governor and Proprietor over the same constitutional issues as before the celebrated resignations of the "strict Quakers.' In succeeding years the Speaker would often complain that his sense of duty prevented him from realizing his ambition of retiring from politics in favor of his country estate at Fairhill. He was finally to retire in 1765 only a year before his death. But his complaints on this score began long before the French and Indian War; in fact, they started as early as 1743 when he gave up his business career. Neither can it be shown that the war and his rejection of pacifism altered his adherence to the Quaker faith. The historian Isaac Sharpless still considered him a loyal Friend. When the Speaker died in 1766 his body was placed in "The Burial Place of the Quakers, the society in which he had been educated and was an [?] and valuable member."' T In summary, efforts to describe Speaker Isaac Norris as a man guided only by the practical considerations of personal ambition fail to yield results. If political opponents were quoted at the beginning of the essay, Norris should at least be allowed now to speak for himself. Writing to Thomas Pownall at New York in 1755 he said: "The eager pursuits of preferments and Possessions seem natural enough Whilst we are setting out with ye World but ought They not in Reason to Abate as we get nearer to ye End of our Journey? They are almost Totally gone with me.'2 8 H1-ow- ever one may assess this apology, it is most probable that the French and Indian War did not substantially influence his character or his principles, both of which seen to have been already well defined. Isaac Norris was not a pacifist by 1754 and may not have been one earlier; consequently, any attempt to evaluate his career should not be focused on the year 1756.

27 Isaac Norris to Robert Charles, June 22, 1743, INLB; Sharpless. Political Leaders, p. 194; Pensnsylvania Gazette, July 17, 1766. 2 Isaac Norris to Thomas Pownall, September 10, 1755. INLB.