Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Quakers →
18th century Quakers
, a group of Quakers in Pennsylvania refused to pay taxes for the French-and-Indian War.
They sent this letter to their fellow Friends, and launched the American war tax resistance movement.
We salute you in a fresh and renewed sense of our Heavenly Father’s love, which hath graciously overshadowed us in several weighty and solid conferences we have had together with many other Friends upon the present situation of the affairs of the Society in this province; and in that love we find our spirits engaged to acquaint you that under a solid exercise of mind to seek for counsel and direction from the High Priest of our profession, who is the Prince of Peace, we believe he hath renewedly favoured us with strong and lively evidences that in his due and appointed time, the day which hath dawned in these later ages foretold by the prophets, wherein swords should be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, shall gloriously rise higher and higher, and the spirit of the gospel which teaches to love enemies prevail to that degree that the art of war shall be no more learned, and that it is his determination to exalt this blessed day in this our age, if in the depth of humility we receive his instruction and obey his voice.
And being painfully apprehensive that the large sum granted by the late Act of Assembly for the king’s use is principally intended for purposes inconsistent with our peaceable testimony, we therefore think that as we cannot be concerned in wars and fightings, so neither ought we to contribute thereto by paying the tax directed by the said Act, though suffering be the consequence of our refusal, which we hope to be enabled to bear with patience.
[And we take this position even t]hough some part of the money to be raised by the said Act is said to be for such benevolent purposes as supporting our friendship with our Indian neighbours and relieving the distresses of our fellow subjects who have suffered in the present calamities, for whom our hearts are deeply pained; and we affectionately and with bowels of tenderness sympathize with them therein; and we could most cheerfully contribute to those purposes if they were not so mixed that we cannot in the manner proposed show our hearty concurrence therewith without at the same time assenting to, or allowing ourselves in, practices which we apprehend contrary to the testimony which the Lord hath given us to bear for his name and Truth’s sake.
And having the health and prosperity of the Society at heart, we earnestly exhort Friends to wait for the appearing of the true Light and stand in the council of God, that we may know him to be the rock of our salvation and place of our refuge forever.
And beware of the spirit of this world, that is unstable and often draws into dark and timorous reasonings, lest the God thereof should be suffered to blind the eye of the mind, and such not knowing the sure foundation, the Rock of Ages, may partake of the terrors and fears that are not known to the inhabitants of that place where the sheep and lambs of Christ ever had a quiet habitation, which a remnant have to say, to the praise of his name, they have been blessed with a measure of in this day of distress.
And as our fidelity to the present government and our willingly paying all taxes for purposes which do not interfere with our consciences may justly exempt us from the imputation of disloyalty, so we earnestly desire that all who by a deep and quiet seeking for direction from the Holy Spirit are, or shall be, convinced that he calls us as a people to this testimony may dwell under the guidance of the same divine Spirit, and manifest by the meekness and humility of their conversation that they are really under that influence, and therein may know true fortitude and patience to bear that and every other testimony committed to them faithfully and uniformly, and that all Friends may know their spirits clothed with true charity, the bond of Christian fellowship, wherein we again salute you and remain your friends and brethren.
Signed by Abraham Farrington, John Evans, John Churchman, Mordecai Yarnall, Samuel Fothergill, Samuel Eastburn, William Brown, John Scarborough, Thomas Carleton, Joshua Ely, William Jackson, James Bartram, Thomas Brown, Daniel Stanton, John Woolman, Isaac Zane, William Horne, Benjamin Trotter, Anthony Benezet, John Armitt, John Pemberton.
was all about the pre-revolutionary tax resistance against Great Britain practiced by rebellion-minded American colonists in an organized swadeshi-like campaign against the use of taxed imports.
When the American Revolution became a hot war this raised tax resistance issues of a different sort: from the pacifist Christian sects, particularly the Quakers, who were a major presence in the colonies, and who had to resist considerable pressure to support the patriot cause.
Not only were war taxes demanded in areas held by the revolutionary army, but the rebel Congress’s fiat currency was wildly inflationary and itself represented a war tax.
As one Quaker group put it:
A concern having often arisen in this committee and [being] livingly reviewed at this time, that Friends might exert themselves in laboring to have their brethren convinced of the pernicious consequences of continuing to circulate the Continental currency, so called, it being calculated to promote measures repugnant to the peaceable principles we profess to be led by, and having [as we believe] greatly increased our sufferings, and brought dimness over many, by continuing in the use thereof; it is therefore agreed to mention it to the Quarterly Meeting for consideration.
Ezra Michener adds, using language that reminds me very much of that used by modern critics of American fiat money:
Friends had strong reasons for objecting to the use of this Continental money.
The creation by law of a circulating medium of fictitious value, for the purpose of a gradual depreciation, cannot be reconciled with truth and justice, however necessity may seem to require it.
To say to the people you shall pass this paper for a certain nominal value to-day, but only at a less value tomorrow, and still less the day following, till it becomes entirely valueless, is a repudiation of a contract, — a refusal to pay a debt by the Government.
As a substitute for taxation, its operation is extremely unequal, and therefore to the same degree unjust.
Viewed in this light, it was strictly a requisition for carrying on the war, which Friends could not consistently pay.
Some Quakers refused to use the Continentals, which was an extremely dangerous form of tax resistance.
It was seen by the rebel authorities as a variety of treason, and could be punished by death.
(One Quaker was nearly hanged for refusing to accept Continentals in return for supplies the rebel army had forcibly requisitioned, when in fact his principles would not have allowed him to accept remuneration of any kind under the circumstances.)
Job Scott wrote of what he believed to be his duty under the circumstances:
Much close exercise of mind I had for a considerable length of time, on account of some particular scruples, which from time to time revived with weight, and so pressingly accompanied me, that I could not get rid of them.
It being , and preparations for war between Great Britain and America; and the rulers of America having made a paper currency professedly for the special purpose of promoting or maintaining the war; and it being expected that Friends would be tried by requisitions for taxes, principally for the support of war; I was greatly exercised in spirit, both on the account of taking and passing that money, and in regard to the payment of such taxes; neither of which felt easy to my mind.
I believed a time would come, when Christians would not so far contribute to the encouragement and support of war and fightings as voluntarily to pay taxes that were mainly, or even in considerable proportion, for defraying the expenses thereof; and it was also impressed upon my mind, that if I took and passed the money that I knew was made on purpose to uphold war, I should not bear a testimony against war that for me, as an individual, would be a faithful one.
I knew the people’s minds were in a rage against such as, from any motive whatever, said or acted any thing tending to discountenance the war: I was sensible that refusing to pay the taxes, or to take the currency, would immediately be construed as a pointed opposition to the present war in particular; as even our refusing to bear arms was, notwithstanding our long and well-known testimony against it; and I had abundant reason to expect great censure and some suffering in consequence of my faithfulness, if I should stand faithful in these things; though I knew that my scruples were unconnected with any party considerations, and uninfluenced by any motives but such as respect the propriety of a truly Christian conduct, in regard to war at large.
I had no desire to promote the opposition to Great Britain; neither had I any desire on the other hand to promote the measures or success of Great Britain.
I believed it my business not to meddle with any thing from such views; but to let the potsherds of the earth alone in their smiting one against another; I wished to be clear in the sight of God, and to do all that he might require of me, towards the more full introduction and coming of his peaceable kingdom and government on earth.
I found many well-concerned brethren, who seemed to have little or nothing of these scruples; and some others who were like-minded with me herein.
Under all these considerations the times looked somewhat gloomy; and at seasons great discouragement came over my mind.
But after some strugglings, and a length of close exercise, attended with much inward looking to the Lord for direction and support, I was enabled to cast my care upon him, and to risk myself and my all in his service, come whatever might come, or suffer whatever I might suffer, in consequence thereof.
I was well aware of many arguments and objections against attending to such scruples; and some seemingly very plausible ones from several passages of scripture, especially respecting taxes; but I believed I saw them all to arise from a want of clear understanding respecting the true meaning of those passages; and I knew I had no worldly interest, ease, or honour, to promote, by an honest attention to what I believed were the reproofs and convictions of divine instruction.
I well knew, not only by reading, but experimentally, that “He that doubteth is damned (condemned) if he eat;” and that which is contrary to faith and conviction is sin: therefore I chose rather to suffer in this world, than incur the displeasure of him from whom come all my consolation and blessings.
Things turned out just fine:
Having for declined taking the paper currency, agreeably to the secret persuasion which I had of my duty therein, as before mentioned, I have now the satisfaction of comparing the different rewards of obedience and disobedience.
For though, from the very first circulation of this money, I felt uneasy in taking it; yet fears and reasonings of one kind or another prevailed on me to take it for a season; and then it became harder to refuse it than it would probably have been at first; but growing more uneasy and distressed about it, at length I refused it altogether, since which I have felt great peace and satisfaction of mind therein; which has, in a very confirming manner, been increasing from time to time, the longer I have refused it: and although I get almost no money of any kind, little other being in circulation, yet I had much rather live and depend on divine Providence for a daily supply, than to increase in the mammon of this world’s goods, by any ways or means inconsistent with the holy will of my heavenly Father: and the prayer of my soul to him is, that I and all his children may be preserved faithful to him in all his requirings; and out of that love of things here below, which alienates from the true love of and communion with him.
In general, he found tax resistance to be less daunting than he had anticipated it to be:
About , an old acquaintance of mine, being now collector of rates, came and demanded one of me.
I asked him what it was for.
He said, to sink the paper money.
I told him, as that money was made expressly for the purpose of carrying on war, I had refused to take it; and, for the same reason, could, not pay a tax to sink it, believing it my duty to bear testimony against war and fighting.
I informed him, that for divers years past, even divers years before the war began, and when I had no expectation of ever being tried in this way, it had been a settled belief with me, that it was not right to pay such taxes; at least not right for me, nor, in my apprehension, right in itself; though many sincere brethren may not at present see its repugnancy to the pure and peaceable spirit of the gospel.
I let him know I did not wish to put him to any trouble, but would be glad to pay it if I could consistently with my persuasion.
He appeared moderate, thoughtful, and rather tender; and, after a time of free and pretty full conversation upon the subject, went away in a pleasant disposition of mind, I being truly glad to see him so.
Divers such demands were made of me in those troublesome times for divers years: I ever found it best to be very calm and candid; and to open, as I was from time to time enabled, the genuine grounds of my refusal; and that, if possible, so as to reach the understandings of those who made the demand.
The tough nut to crack, as it often seemed to be for Quakers, was taxes “in the mixture” — that is, taxes that were paid into a general fund that the government used for a variety of activities, including war.
Quakers typically felt that they couldn’t pay war taxes, but also felt that they were required to pay ordinary taxes without complaint.
At what point does a tax cross the line from being a benign “mixed” tax to being a war-tax?
How little does the government have to disguise the use of a tax that’s meant to support war before a Quaker must stop being concerned about the morality of paying it?
Job Scott again:
At our Yearly Meeting this year, , the
subject of Friends paying taxes for war, came under solid consideration.
Friends were unanimous, that the testimony of truth, and of our Society, was
clearly against our paying such taxes as were wholly for war; and many solid
Friends manifested a lively testimony against the payment of those in the
mixture; which testimony appeared evidently to me to be on substantial
grounds, arising and spreading in the authority of truth.…
Joseph Walton relates the case of Eli Yarnall, who was drafted to be a tax
collector (something that seems to have been done to Quakers out of spite
from time to time by a revolutionary administration that interpreted their
pacifism as Toryism):
In , when he
was about twenty-six years of age, and while the various exercises which were
preparing him for the work of the ministry were heavy upon him, he received
notice of an appointment from the commissioners of Chester County as
collector of the taxes in the district he resided in. Besides the taxes at
that time assessed — most of which must go to the support of war — there were
to be collected fines for not taking the test oath or affirmation. Of course
Eli Yarnall could not conscientiously do aught under the commission, which
had, no doubt, been conferred upon him with an evil intent.
On considering the subject, it seemed to him best, in refusing to act, to
furnish the commissioners with his reasons for so doing, and he accordingly
addressed a letter to them. In this letter he says: “Ye may read, that it was
said of old, by way of comparison, ‘The fig-tree said unto them, Should I
forsake my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the
trees?’ In like manner, I say unto you, shall I forsake that spirit of
calmness, tenderness, and humility that breathes peace on earth and good-will
toward all men, with which I am, through mercy, measurably favored, and
accept of that power offered by you, and exercise the same by tyrannizing
over the consciences of my brethren, violently distressing and spoiling their
goods? Nay, surely, I dare not do it, let my sufferings in consequence
thereof be never so great. I make no doubt but ye have been informed, that we
cannot, consistently with our religious principles, have any hand in setting
up or pulling down governments. Part of this, that is called a tax, is a fine
for not taking a test of fidelity to one government and abjuration of the
other, which would immediately make us parties.”
The letter is throughout well written, and sets forth the blessed, peaceable
nature of the Christian religion, and the contradiction manifested by its
professed believers in their oppressing tender consciences and spoiling the
goods of their brethren, whose only fault lay in their endeavors to be
faithful to what they deemed the commands of their God. Soon after, Eli
Yarnall was called on to exhibit Christian patience in suffering. For his
refusal to collect these taxes, he was fined by the commissioners, and on
, a valuable horse was taken from him to satisfy that fine.
This was but the beginning of this kind of trial, for he had afterward to
witness various parts of his property seized, because he could not muster as
a militia man, and because he was as much opposed in conscience to paying
another to fight for him as to fighting himself.
James Mott went so far as to stop corresponding by mail when Congress added
a war tax to the price of postage:
Must our correspondence by mail be at end, in consequence of the extra
postage? or shall we pay it, and thereby contribute a mite to the support of
measures calculated to destroy men’s lives and property? Perhaps I may be
alone in refusing to pay postage on letters. Only a few cents — what can this
do, it may be said, towards enabling government to prosecute the war? Very
little, I own: but the great sum required is made up of littles; and if all
those littles are withheld, the effusion of human blood may be at an end. To
have much or little company in doing what we believe to be wrong, in itself
is of no avail. I have endeavoured carefully to weigh and examine the
consistency of paying taxes and imposts that are expressly for carrying on
war (which the present increased ones, doubtless are) not only with our
principles and belief as a society, but with the precepts and example of him
who is or ought to be our guide and judge; and I cannot, consistently with my
idea of either, believe it best for me to pay the present demand of
additional postage, little as it is, and alone as I may stand.
After the patriots won independence, Congress tried to pay off its war debts
by increasing import duties, and so the old revolutionary tactic of eschewing
imports became a tool of the careful pacifist tax resister. Joshua Evans
related:
, I understood a law was made
for raising money to defray the expenses of war, by means of a duty laid on
imported articles of almost every kind. This duty, I believed, was instead of
taxing the inhabitants, as had been done some time before. I had felt myself
restrained, , from
paying such taxes; the proceeds whereof were applied, in great measure, to
defray expenses relating to war: and, as herein before-mentioned, my refusal
was from a tender conscientious care to keep clear in my testimony against
all warlike proceedings. When the matter was brought under my weighty
consideration, I could see no material difference between paying the expenses
relating to war, in taxes, or in duties.
Although for several years past, I had made very little use of goods imported
from foreign countries, because of the corruption attending the trade in
these things; yet, on hearing of this duty, and considering the cause of its
being laid on imported goods, my mind was much exercised. I saw clearly that
the blessed Truth stood opposed to all wars and blood-shedding; teaching us
to do unto all as we would have them do unto us. Though I had much refrained
from using imported goods, in general; yet, as I was frequently engaged in
travelling in the service of Truth, I saw great difficulty, as I thought, in
refraining from the use of salt; as people generally used it in almost every
kind of food.
On this subject my mind was again led into deep exercise; but as I
endeavoured to apply, as at the footstool of my heavenly Father, for counsel
and preservation upon the right foundation, I was made sensible, that it
would be better for me to live on bread and water, than to balk my testimony.
I likewise believed he would not lead me forward, though in an uncommon path,
without giving me strength to maintain my ground, as I humbly put my trust in
him. I therefore thought it right for me to make a full stand against the use
of all things upon which duties of that kind were laid. Since which, I have
to acknowledge, my way has been made much easier than I looked for.…
Now that We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader is complete and I’ve finished patting myself on the back for a job well done, I’ve started to work on a spin-off project: a reader that concentrates on war tax resistance by American Quakers .
I planned to take the existing sections of this material from We Won’t Pay! and add a little more context and a handful of additional works.
But the more I researched, the more I found, and so this is turning out to be a bigger project than I’d anticipated.
I’ll share some of what I find here on The Picket Line as I uncover it.
Today, some excerpts from Isaac Sharpless’s book about the Pennsylvania colony: A Quaker Experiment in Government.
There was a difficult balancing act in Pennsylvania, where Quakers for the first time held political power and were able to try to turn their ethical principles into guidelines for social organization.
The English government, under which the colony was founded, was sporadically tolerant of and persecutory towards the Quakers — and so the colony felt the need to mollify the mother country and assure it of their loyalty and harmlessness.
From time to time, the demands of the crown would conflict with Quaker principles.
In , a requisition was made on Pennsylvania for eighty men with officers for the defense of New York.
The Council advised calling together the Assembly, but not until harvest was over.
The Assembly united with the Council in refusing the bald request, reminding the Governor of Fletcher’s promise that the last appropriation should not “be dipped in blood,” but should be used “to feed the hungry and clothe the naked” Indians, and suggested the such of it as had not been used as promised should go towards the present emergency.
The Council finally offered two bills, one to make an appropriation, and one to demand a return to Penn’s Frame of Government, which was held in abeyance since his return to power.
As the Governor had to take both or neither he dissolved the Assembly.
he was willing to make the required concession, and urged that the money was needed in New York “for food and raiment to be given to those nations of Indians that have lately suffered extremely by the French, which is a fair opportunity for you, that for conscience cannot contribute to war, to raise money for that occasion, be it under the color of support of government or relief of those Indians or what else you may call it.”
The Assembly made the necessary vote and the Constitution of was obtained in payment.
The next time the pacific principles of the Assembly were tried was in , when the English Government asked for £350 for the purpose of erecting forts on the frontiers of New York on the plea that they were for the general defense.
Penn, who was then in the Province, faithfully observed his promise “to transmit,” but declined to give any advice to the Assembly.
The members were evidently greatly agitated, and repeatedly asked copies of his speech, which was in fact only the King’s letter.
After some fencing two reports appeared.
One, from the Pennsylvania delegates, urged their poverty, owing to taxes and quit-rents, also the lack of contributions of other colonies, but added plainly, “We desire the Proprietor would candidly represent our conditions to the King, and assure him of our readiness (according to our abilities) to acquiesce with and answer his commands so far as our religious persuasions shall permit, as becomes loyal and faithful subjects so to do.”
The other answer came from the Delaware portion of the Assembly, excusing themselves because they had no forts of their own.
When the Assembly met, a month later, Penn again referred to the King’s letter, but nothing was done, and the matter was not pressed.
Governor Evans made several attempts to establish a militia, but the Assembly refused any sanction, and the voluntary organizations were failures.
Lewis Morris, a colonial official in New Jersey and New York, noted that Quakers outside of Pennsylvania at this time, who were being subjected to military taxes, were refusing to pay and having their property seized by tax collectors — “generally above ten times the value, which, when they came to expose to sale, nobody would buy, so that there is or lately was a house at Burlington, filled with demonstrations of the obstinacy of the Quakers, there was boots, hats, shoes, clothes, dishes, plows, knives, earthenware, with many other things and these distresses amount, as is said, to above 1,000£ a year, almost enough to defray the charges of the government without any other way.”
Sharpless again:
The military question came up in in a more serious form.
An order came from the Queen to the various colonies to furnish quotas of men at their own expense towards an army to invade Canada.
New York was to supply 800, Connecticut 350, Jersey 200, and Pennsylvania 150. In transmitting the order Governor Gookin, who evidently anticipated difficulty, suggested that the total charge would be about £4,000. He says, “Perhaps it may seem difficult to raise such a number of men in a country where most of the inhabitants are of such principles as will not allow them the use of arms; but if you will raise the sum for the support of government, I don’t doubt getting the number of men desired whose principles will allow the use of arms.”
This was too manifest an evasion for the Assembly to adopt.
Its first answer was to send in a bill of grievances.
The opportunity was too good to be lost, and David Lloyd, then Speaker, made the most of it.
In the meantime the Quaker members of the Council met some of their co-religionists of the Assembly “and there debated their opinions freely and unanimously to those of the House, that notwithstanding their profession and principles would not by any means allow them to bear arms, yet it was their duty to support the government of their sovereign, the Queen, and to contribute out of their estates according to the exigencies of her public affairs, and therefore they might and ought to present the Queen with a proper sum of money.”
The Assembly the next day sent an address to the Governor which said, “Though we cannot for conscience’ sake comply with the furnishing a supply for such a defense as thou proposest, yet in point of gratitude of the Queen for her great and many favors to us we have resolved to raise a present of £500 which we humbly hope she will be pleased to accept, etc., etc.”
To this the Governor replied that he would not sign the bill.
If the Assembly would not hire men to fight, there was no scruple which would prevent a more liberal subscription to the Queen’s needs.
The Assembly was immovable, and asked to be allowed to adjourn, as harvest time was approaching.
The Governor refused consent, when the House abruptly terminated the whole matter.
Resolved, N.C.D., That this House cannot agree to the Governor’s proposal, directly or indirectly, for the expedition to Canada, for the reasons formerly given.
Resolved, N.C.D., That the House do continue their resolution of raising £500 as a present for the Queen, and do intend to prepare a bill for that purpose at their next meeting on , and not before.
The House then adjourned without waiting for the Governor’s consent.
The Governor sadly admitted that nothing could be done with such an Assembly, and gave a rather facetious but truthful account in a letter to London, two months later.
“The Queen having honored me with her commands that this Province should furnish out 150 men for its expedition against Canada, I called an Assembly and demanded £4,000; they being all Quakers, after much delay resolved, N.C, that it was contrary to their religious principles to hire men to kill one another.
I told some of them the Queen did not hire men to kill one another, but to destroy her enemies.
One of them answered the Assembly understood English.
After I had tried all ways to bring them to reason they again resolved, N.C, that they could not directly or indirectly raise money for an expedition to Canada, but they had voted the Queen £500 as a token of their respect, etc., and that the money should be put into a safe hand till they were satisfied from England it should not be employed for the use of war.
I told them the Queen did not want such a sum, but being a pious and good woman perhaps she might give it to the clergy sent hither for the propagation of the Gospel; one of them answered that was worse than the other, on which arose a debate in the Assembly whether they should give money or not, since it might be employed for the use of war, or against their future establishment, and after much wise debate it was carried in the affirmative by one voice only.
Their number is 26 [Eight from each county and two from Philadelphia].
They are entirely governed by their speaker, one David Lloyd.”
The service performed by “one David Lloyd” to the integrity of the Quaker testimony against war is strikingly revealed in this letter.
The Assembly, more emphatically than the official records show, took effective measures to maintain their position with perfect consistency.
The issue came up again :
In a… request was made by the government, and in response £2,000 was voted for the Queen’s use.
This money never aided any military expedition, but was appropriated by a succeeding Governor to his own use, and the fact was used as an argument in against similar grants.
“We did not see it,” Isaac Norris says, in , “to be inconsistent with our principles to give the Queen money notwithstanding any use she might put it to, that not being our part but hers.”
This dodge of granting money “for the Queen’s use” when military requisitions were requested, as a way of avoiding making direct military expenditures, became a habit, but its dodgy nature was pretty clear.
This would come back to bite Quakers later, when they would be reminded how flexible their principles could be.
[B]eginning with , the gradual alienation of the Indian tribes made a disturbed frontier ready to be dangerous at the first outbreak of war, and new conditions prevailed.
Hitherto the relation of the Friends to these inevitable military solicitations had been largely that of passivity.
They would not interfere with the movements of those who desired to form military companies.
If the Governor chose to engage in the arming and drilling of voluntary militia, he had his commission from the Proprietors, and they from the Charter of Charles Ⅱ.
It was no matter for the Assembly.
The meeting organizations would endeavor to keep all Quakers from any participation in these un-Friendly proceedings, and the Quaker Assemblymen had their own consciences to answer to, as well as their ecclesiastical authorities, if they violated pacific principles.
When it came to voting money in lieu of personal service, the legislators had a difficult road to follow.
If the government needed aid, it was their duty, in common with the other colonies, to supply it.
Even though the need was the direct result of war, as nearly all national taxes are, they were ready to assume their share of the burden.
Caesar must have his dues as well as God, and a call for money, except when coupled directly with a proposition to use it for military attack or defense, was generally responded to, after its potency as an agent in procuring a little more liberty was exhausted.
They would not vote money for an expedition to Canada or to erect forts, but they would for “the King’s use,” using all possible securities to have it appropriated to something else than war expenses.
The responsibility of expenditure rested on the King.
There were legitimate expenses of government, and if these were so inextricably mingled with warlike outlay that the Assembly could not separate them, they would still support the Government.
It is easy to accuse them of inconsistency in the proceedings which follow.
It was a most unpleasant alternative thrust before honest men.
The responsibility of government was upon them as the honorable recipients of the popular votes.
Great principles, the greatest of all in their minds being freedom of conscience, were at stake.
Each call for troops or supplies they fondly hoped would be the last.
Their predecessors’ actions had secured the blessings of peace and liberty to Pennsylvania for sixty years, and if they were unreasonably stringent, their English enemies held over their heads the threat to drive them from power by the imposition of an oath.
Then the persecutions of themselves and their friends, which their forefathers had left England to avoid, might be meted out to them, and the Holy Experiment brought to an end.
Nor is it necessary to assume that their motives were entirely unselfish.
They had ruled the Province well, and were proficients in government.
Their leaders doubtless loved the power and influence they legitimately possessed, and they did not care to give it away unnecessarily.
They tried to find a middle ground between shutting their eyes to all questions of defense on the one side, and direct participation in war on the other.
This they sought by a refusal for themselves and their friends to do any service personally, and a further refusal to vote money except in a general way for the use of the government.
If any one comes to the conclusion that during the latter part of the period of sixteen years now under consideration the evasion was rather a bald one, it is exactly the conclusion the Quakers themselves came to, and they resigned their places as a consequence.
The iniquities of others over whom they had no control brought about a condition where Quaker principles would not work, and they refused to modify them in the vain attempt.
For a time rather weakly halting, when the crucial nature of the question became clear, and either place or principle had to be sacrificed, their decision was in favor of the sanctity of principles.
Entwined in the debates over military requisitions were power struggles and political battles between the Governor and the Assembly, between England and its colonies, and between poorer rural Pennsylvanians on the western frontier (who were more threatened both by hostile Indians and by taxes) and wealthier urban Quakers in the east (who held political power).
A voluntary company was… organized and supplied by private subscriptions.
This took away from their masters a number of indentured servants, whose time was thus lost, and in voting £3,000 for the King’s use the Assembly made it a condition that such servants such be discharged from the militia and no more enlisted.
The Governor refused to accept it, and in wrath wrote a letter to the Board of Trade not intended for home reading, berating the Quakers for disobedience, stating how they had neglected following his advice to withdraw themselves from the Assembly, but had rather increased their majority there.
He advised that they be refused permission to sit there in the future.
A copy of this letter was secured by the Assembly’s agent in England, and great was their indignation.
The disturbances culminated in an election riot in Philadelphia in in which both sides used force, the Quaker party having the best of it and electing Isaac Norris.
They re-elected their ticket, with the aid of the Germans, and controlled the Assembly by an overwhelming majority.
To show their loyalty they voted a considerable sum for the King’s use, but refused Governor Thomas any salary till he had given up his pretentious show of power and signed a number of bills to which he had objected.
After this he worked very harmoniously with them till .
the Governor asked them to aid New England in an attack on Cape Breton.
They told him they had no interest in the matter.
He called them together again in harvest time to ask them to join in an expedition against Louisburg.
A week later came word that Louisburg had surrendered, and the request was transferred to a call for aid in garrisoning the place, and in supplying provisions and powder.
The Assembly replied that the “peaceable principles professed by divers members of the present Assembly do not permit them to join in raising of men or providing arms and ammunition, yet we have ever held it our duty to render tribute to Cæsar.”
They therefore appropriated £4,000 for “bread, beef, pork, flour, wheat or other grain.”
The Governor was advised not to accept the grant, as provisions were not needed.
He replied that the “other grain” meant gunpowder, and so expended a large portion of the money, There is probably no evidence that the Assembly sanctioned this construction, though they never so far as appears made any protest.
Again in aid was asked of the Assembly towards an expedition against Canada.
After forcing the Governor to yield the point as to how the money should be raised, they appropriated £5,000 “for the King’s use.”
This “or other grain” anecdote comes from Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography, which makes much of the flexible principles of Quaker politicians.
There seems to have been quite a folklore of Quaker hypocrisy at the time, frequently showing Quakers relying on the letter-of-the-law of their principles or the spirit-of-the-law depending on which would be most materially advantageous.
Again and again did successive Governors call for military appropriations.
As often did the Quaker Assembly express a willingness to comply provided the money was obtained by loans to be repaid in a term of years rather than by a tax.
The governors said their instructions prevented their sanction to this proceeding, and except when the necessity was urgent refused to permit the bill to be enacted into a law.
The Assembly frequently reminded the Governor that they were unable to vote any money for warlike purposes, and personally would contribute nothing in the way of service, but that they were loyal subjects of the King and acknowledged their obligations to aid in his government.
Had they granted regular aid, war or no war, their position would have been greatly strengthened, but being given “for the King’s use” in direct response to a call for military assistance, knowing perfectly how the money was to be expended, they cannot be excused from the charge of a certain amount of shiftiness.
The effect, however, was to save their fellow-members in the Province from compulsory military service, and from direct war taxes.
They thus shielded the consciences of sensitive Friends, preserved their charter from Court attack, broke down the worst evils of proprietary pretensions, and secured large additions of liberty.
Whether or not the partial sacrifice of principle, if so it was, was too high a price for these advantages, was differently decided in those days, and will be today.
An unbending course would but have hastened the inevitable crisis.
That they paid these taxes unwillingly and were generally recognized as true to their principles is evidenced by many statements of their opponents.
In the Council writes to the Governors of New York and Massachusetts asking for cannon for the voluntary military companies then forming through Benjamin Franklin’s influence, and says, “As our Assembly consists for the most part of Quakers principled against defense the inhabitants despair of their doing anything for our protection.”
Again later Thomas Penn writes on the same subject: “I observe the Assembly broke up without giving any assistance, which is what you must have expected.”
This belief that the Quakers in the Assembly would not do anything for the armed defense of the Province was general both in England and America.
Then came the French-and-Indian War:
In the Governor, at the instance of the Proprietors, who anticipated the French and Indian troubles on the western frontier, endeavored to induce the Assembly to pass a bill for compulsory military service for those not conscientious about bearing arms. He evidently did not expect much.
“As I am well acquainted with their religious scruples I never expected they would appropriate money for the purpose of war or warlike preparation, but thought they might have been brought to make a handsome grant for the King’s use, and have left the disposition of it to me, as they have done on other occasions of like nature,” he wrote to Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia.
“But,” he added, “I can see nothing to prevent this very fine Province, owing to the absurdity of its constitution and the principles of the governing part of its inhabitants, from being an easy prey to the attempts of the common enemy.”
This was after the Assembly had voted £10,000, but coupled the grant with conditions the Governor would not accept.
While they were debating the question Braddock came into the country as commander of the combined forces in an expedition against Fort DuQuesne.
Pressure came down strong and heavy on the Quaker Assembly.
Their own frontier was invaded.
Their own Indians, as a result of the wicked and foolish policy of their executive, were in league with the invaders.
All classes were excited.
To aid the great expedition which at one stroke was to break the French power and close the troubles was felt to be a duty.
Franklin diligently fanned the warlike spirit, procuring wagons for the transfer of army stores, and was extremely valuable to the expedition at some cost to himself.
The Governor wrote to Braddock telling him they had a Province of 300,000 people, provisions enough to supply an army of 100,000, and exports enough to keep 500 vessels employed.
They had no taxes, a revenue of £7,000 a year and £15,000 in bank, yet would neither establish a militia nor vote men money or provisions, notwithstanding he had earnestly labored with the Assembly, and he was ashamed of them.
He does not explain that they had repeatedly offered sums of money, but that he would not accept the conditions.
As Braddock himself admitted, Pennsylvania had supported him quite as liberally as Virginia.
This was partly done by private enterprise and partly by appropriations of the Assembly, to reward friendly Indians, to open a road to Ohio, and to provision the troops.
Braddock was defeated.
The Indians were let loose on the frontiers.
Daily accounts of harrowing scenes came up to the Council and Assembly.
Settlers moved into the towns and many districts were depopulated.
Strong were the expressions of wrath against the Quakers, who were held responsible for the defenseless state of the Province.
[“The people exclaim against the Quakers, and some are scarce restrained from burning the houses of those few who are in this town (Reading).”
— Letter of Edmund Biddle]
This was hardly a just charge, even from the standpoint of those who favored military defense, for the Assembly had signified its willingness to vote £50,000, an unprecedented amount, to be provided by “a tax on all the real and personal estates within the Province,” which the Governor refused to accept.
While the matter was in abeyance the time for the new election of Assemblymen came around, and both parties, except the stricter Quakers, who were becoming alarmed, put forth their greatest exertions.
The old Assembly was sustained, the Friends, with those closely associated with them, having twenty-six out of the thirty-six members.
The new House went on with the work of the old.
They adopted a militia law for those “willing and desirous” of joining companies for the defense of the Province.
This is prefaced by the usual declaration: “Whereas this Province was settled (and a majority of the Assembly have ever since been) of the people called Quakers, who though they do not as the world is now circumstanced condemn the use of arms in others, yet are principled against bearing arms themselves,” explaining also that they are representatives of the Province and not of a denomination, they proceed to lay down rules for the organization of the volunteers.
After the Proprietors had given their £5,000 the Assembly also voted £55,000 for the relief of friendly Indians and distressed frontiersmen, “and other purposes,” without any disguise to the fact that much of it was intended for military defense, though it was not so stated in the bill.
Before this was done, while they were still insisting on taxing the Penn estates, in answer to the charge that they were neglectful of public interests, secure in the confidence of their constituents just most liberally given, they say: “In fine we have the most sensible concern for the poor distressed inhabitants of the frontiers.
We have taken every step in our power, consistent with the just rights of the freemen of Pennsylvania, for their relief, and we have reason to believe that in the midst of their distresses they themselves do not wish to go further.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Their position definitely was, We will vote money liberally for defensive purposes, but we will take care to secure our rights as freemen, and we will not require any one to give personal service against his conscience.
The money was largely spent in erecting and garrisoning a chain of forts extending along the Kittatinny hills from the Delaware River to the Maryland frontier.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
— Benjamin Franklin
So now I know the context of that frequently-quoted maxim!
Interesting!
Now we’re in the midst of the time when the tension between Quaker principles and political compromises was reaching the breaking point.
John Woolman’s journal reflects that individual Quakers were beginning to adopt war tax resistance against the taxes of the Quaker legislature.
The Friends Quarterly Meeting at Philadelphia tried to hold things together:
[I]t is remarkable that for sixteen years successively, more than half of which was a time of war, a set of men conscientiously principled against warlike measures have been chosen by those, of whom the majority were not in that particular of the same principle; and this we apprehend may be chiefly attributed to the repeated testimonies we have constantly given of our sincere and ready disposition to provide for the exigencies of the Government, and to demonstrate our gratitude for the favors we enjoy under it by cheerfully contributing towards the support of it according to our circumstances in such manner as we can do with peace and satisfaction of mind.
That this has been the constant practice of our assemblies, the records of their proceedings will evidently show.
We consider that in the present situation of public affairs, the exigencies being great, the supplies must be proportioned thereto; and we only desire that as we cannot be concerned in preparations for war, we may be permitted to serve the government by raising money and contributing towards the Public Exegencies by such methods and in such manner as past experience has assured us are least burdensome to the industrious poor, and most consistent with our religious and civil rights and liberties, and which our present Proprietaries, when one of them was personally present, consented to and approved, and to which no reasonable or just objection has ever since been made.
And a number of Quakers petitioned the Assembly, saying that they would be unable to willingly pay the proposed war taxes.
Sharpless again:
In twenty Friends, including Anthony Morris, Israel and John Pemberton, Anthony Benezet, John Churchman, and others, representing the most influential and “weighty” members of the Yearly Meeting, addressed the Assembly.
They say they are very willing to contribute taxes to cultivate friendship with Indians, to relieve distress, or other benevolent purposes, but to expect them to be taxed for funds which are placed in the hands of committees to be expended for war, is inconsistent with their peaceable testimony, and an infringement of their religious liberties.
Many Friends will have to refuse to pay such a tax and suffer distraint of goods, [this afterwards happened in numerous cases] and thus “that free enjoyment of liberty of conscience for the sake of which our forefathers left their native country and settled this then a wilderness by degrees be violated.”
“We sincerely assure you we have no temporal motives for thus addressing you, and could we have preserved peace in our own minds and with each other we should have declined it, being unwilling to give you any unnecessary trouble and deeply sensible of your difficulty in discharging the trust committed to you irreproachably in these perilous times, which hath engaged our fervent desires that the immediate instruction of supreme wisdom may influence your minds, and that being preserved in a steady attention thereto you may be enabled to secure peace and tranquility to yourselves and those you represent by pursuing measures consistent with our peaceable principles, and then we trust we may continue humbly to confide in the protection of that Almighty Power whose providence has hitherto been as walls and bulwarks round about us.”
As the Assembly was composed, this was an earnest plea from the responsible Friends to their fellow religionists to stand uncompromisingly by their principles.
It was not very kindly received.
The reply indicated that the signers had no right to speak for others than themselves, that they had not duly considered the customs of the past, particularly the grant of £2,000 in , and the address “is therefore an unadvised and indiscreet application to the House at this time.”
Four members of the Assembly dissent from this reply.
On the other hand we have a strong petition sent to the King, signed by numerous influential men in Philadelphia, stating that the Province was entirely bare to the attack of enemies, “not a single armed man, nor, at the public expense, a single fortification to shelter the unhappy inhabitants.”
… “We have no hopes of seeing the grievances redressed here while a great majority of men whose avowed principles are against bearing arms find means continually to thrust themselves into the Assembly of this Province.”
They ask the interposition of royal authority to insist on proper defense being provided.
The attorneys for the petitioners before the Board of Trade made the most sweeping and unfounded charges, full of errors of fact and unconcealed animus, and ending with the recommendation “that the King be advised to recommend it to his Parliament that no Quaker be permitted to sit in any Assembly in Pennsylvania or any part of America,” and that this result should be produced by the imposition of an oath.
In the minds of the Friends the crisis was reached when the Governor and Council (William Logan, son of James Logan, only dissenting) in declared war against the Delaware Indians, the old allies and friends of William Penn, but now in league with the French and killing and plundering on the frontiers.
They were quite sure that peaceful and just measures would detach the Indians from their alliance, and that war was unnecessary.
The lines were becoming more closely drawn, and the middle ground was narrowing, so that it was impossible to stand upon it.
Either the principle of the iniquity of war must be maintained in its entirety, or war must be vigorously upheld and prosecuted.
Some Friends with Franklin took the latter position, but the great majority closed up their ranks around the principle of peace in its integrity.
In six of the old members of the house, James Pemberton, Joshua Morris, William Callender, William Peters, Peter Worral and Francis Parvin, resigned their seats, giving as their reason, “As many of our constituents seem of opinion that the present situation of public affairs calls upon us for services in a military way, which from a conviction of judgment after mature deliberation we cannot comply with, we conclude it most conducive to the peace of our minds, and the reputation of our religious profession to persist in our resolution of resigning our seats, which we now accordingly do, and request these our reasons may be entered on the minutes of the house.”
In several other Friends declined re-election, and after the next House assembled four others, Mahlon Kirkbride, William Hoyl, Peter Dicks and Nathaniel Pennock, also resigned.
“Understanding that the ministry have requested the Quakers, who from the first settlement of the Colony have been the majority of the Assemblies of this Province, to suffer their seats during the difficult situation of the affairs of the Colonies to be filled by members of other denominations in such manner as to perform without any scruples all such laws as may be necessary to be enacted for the defense of the Province in whatever manner they may judge best suited to the circumstances of it; and notwithstanding we think this has been pretty fully complied with at the last election, yet at the request of our friends, being willing to take off all possible objection, we who have (without any solicitation on our part) been returned as representatives in this Assembly, request we may be excused, and suffered to withdraw ourselves and vacate our seats in such manner as may be attended with the least trouble and most satisfactory to this honorable House.”
The places of all these Friends were filled by members of other religious denominations, and Quaker control over and responsibility for the Pennsylvania Assembly closed with and was never resumed.
It was that a number of Quakers composed an “epistle of tender love and caution” to their fellow-Friends recommending war tax resistance.
Sharpless again:
was one of difference and perplexity among Philadelphia Friends.
On the one side were the men of spiritual power, whose voices exercised the prevailing influence in the meetings for business.
On the other were the disciples of Logan, who being manifestly out of sympathy with well-established Quaker views, urged the necessity of vigorous defense, caught the surrounding warlike spirit, and with personal service and money aided Franklin and the militia.
Between the two stood the “Quaker governing class,” who controlled the Assembly, who, while admitting and commending the peaceable doctrines of Friends, considered their own duty accomplished when they kept aloof from personal participation and supplied the means by which others carried on the war.
This third section was the product of long experience in political activity.
To these men and their predecessors was owing the successful administration for decades of the best governed colony in America.
They were slow to admit any weakness in their position, but it was becoming increasingly evident that it was untenable.
There was actual war, and they were, while not personally responsible for it, indeed while opposing vigorously the policy which had produced it, now a component part of the government which was carrying it on.
Would they join their brethren in staunch adherence to peace principles, and thus give up their places in the state as John Bright did afterwards when Alexandria was bombarded?
Would they join Franklin, their associate in resisting proprietary power, and throw aside their allegiance to the principles of William Penn, whom they professed greatly to honor?
The question was answered differently by different ones as the winter and spring passed away.
Pressure was strong on both sides.
The Governor writing to London says: “The Quaker preachers and others of great weight were employed to show in their public sermons, and by going from house to house through the Province, the sin of taking up arms, and to persuade the people to be easy and adhere to their principles and privileges.”
This was an enemy’s view of a conservative reaction which was going on within the Society, which was tired of compromises, was willing to suffer, and could not longer support the doubtful expediency of voting measures for others to carry out, of which they could not themselves approve.
We have seen how in the early winter the Assembly rebuked what they considered the impertinence of the protest of a number of important members of the Meeting against a war tax.
The Meeting mildly emphasized the same difference in their London epistle of :
The scene of our affairs is in many respects changed since we wrote to you, and our late peaceful land involved in the desolations and calamities of war.
Had all under our profession faithfully discharged their duty and maintained our peaceable testimony inviolate we have abundant sense to believe that divine counsel would have been afforded in a time of so great difficulty; by attending to which, great part of the present calamities might have been obviated.
But it has been manifest that human contrivances and policy have been too much depended on, and such measures pursued as have ministered cause of real sorrow to the faithful; so that we think it necessary that the same distinction may be made among you as is and ought to be here between the Acts and Resolutions of the Assembly of this Province, though the majority of them are our Brethren in profession, and our acts as a religious Society.
We have nevertheless cause to admire and acknowledge the gracious condescension of infinite goodness towards us, by which a large number is preserved in a steady dependence on the dispensations of divine Providence; and we trust the faith and confidence of such will be supported through every difficulty which may be permitted to attend them, and their sincerity appear by freely resigning or parting with those temporal advantages and privileges we have heretofore enjoyed, if they cannot be preserved without violation of that testimony on the faithful maintaining of which our true peace and unity depends.
The Friends who refused to pay the tax thought it peculiarly hard that they were forced to suffer heavy losses through the action of their fellow-members of the Assembly.
These Assemblymen and their friends pointed out on the other hand that these taxes had been paid in the past, and that it was ultra-conscientiousness which prevented the willing support of the government in this hour of peril.
The question was a difficult one.
Quakers had hitherto refused a direct war tax and paid everything else, even when war expenditures were mingled with others.
The stricter Friends considered that this tax, though disguised, was of the objectionable sort, while others did not so place it.
The difference accentuated itself by condemnatory criticisms, and in the Yearly Meeting appointed a committee of thirty, who reported that it was a matter for individual consciences to determine, and not for the Meeting’s decision.
“We are unanimously of the judgment that it is not proper to enter into a public discussion of the matter; and we are one in judgment that it is highly necessary for the Yearly Meeting to recommend that Friends everywhere endeavor to have their minds covered with frequent charity towards one another.”
The Meeting unanimously adopted this report.
This appeal seems to have been successful, and we hear no more of the difference.
John Fothergill wrote of a lack of faith in the practicality of pacifist government at the time:
That the majority of the present Assembly were of our Profession who from their known principles could not contribute to the defense of the Country now grievously harassed by the Indians under French Influence in a manner that most people here and even many in Pennsylvania thought necessary it seemed but common justice in our Friends to decline accepting a trust which under the present Circumstances they could not discharge, and therefore advised that we should use our utmost endeavors to prevail upon them neither to offer themselves as candidates nor to accept of seats in the Assembly during the present commotions in America.
For should any disaster befall the Province and our Friends continue to fill the Assembly, it would redound to the prejudice of the Society in general, and be the means perhaps of subverting a constitution under which the province had so happily flourished.
And James Pemberton wrote:
Our situation is indeed such as affords cause of melancholy reflection that the first commencement of persecution in this Province should arise from our brethren in profession, and that such darkness should prevail as that they should be instruments of oppressing tender consciences which hath been the case.
The tax in this country being pretty generally collected and many in this city particularly suffered by distraint of their goods and some being near cast into jail.
The House has been sitting most of the time since the election, and have as yet done little business; they have had under their consideration a militia law, which hath been long in the hands of a committee, and is likely to take up a great deal more of their time; also a bill for raising £100,000 by a land tax of the same kind as yours in England; if these pass it is likely Friends will be subjected to great inconvenience.
As the former now stands, as I am told, the great patriot Franklin, who hath the principal direction of forming the bills, has discovered very little regard to tender consciences, which perhaps may partly arise from the observations he must have made since he has been in that House of the inconsistent conduct of many of our Friends.
That it seems to me he has almost persuaded himself there are few if any that are in earnest relating to their religious principles, and that he seems exceedingly studious of propagating a martial spirit all he can.
Later, he wrote: “The number of us who could not be free to pay the tax is small compared with those who not only comply with it but censure those who do not.”
Once the pacifist Quakers were out of the Assembly, they could try to apply their principles outside of the existing formal political structure.
Sharpless:
The French were busy in the north, and could not do more to aid the Pennsylvania Indians than furnish them with supplies.
Hence it seemed possible to detach the Delawares and Shawnese from the hostile alliance.
For this purpose the “Friendly Association” was formed.
This was composed of Quakers, now out of the government, but anxious to terminate the unfortunate warfare.
They refused to pay war taxes, but pledged themselves to contribute in the interests of peace “more than the heaviest taxes of a war can be expected to require.”
While this Association was objected to by the State authorities as an unofficial and to some extent an impertinent body, and charged with political motives, it succeeded in a remarkable way in bringing together the Indians and the Government in a succession of treaties, which finally resulted in the termination of the war and the payment to the Indians of an amount which satisfied them for the land taken by the Walking Purchase and other dubious processes.
Representatives of the Association, either by invitation of the Indians or of the Governor, were invariably present, and their largesses to the Indians much smoothed the way to pacific relations.
In addition to extra-governmental activism of this sort, there was a tendency to react in repulsion to the compromises of politics by retreating from public life:
There was growing up in the Society a belief, which was vastly strengthened by the military experiences of , that public life was unfavorable to the quiet Divine communion which called for inwardness, not outwardness, and which was the basic principle of Quakerism.… [T]he Yearly Meeting was strenuously engaged for several years after in pressing on its members the desirability of abstaining from civic business.
This was done under the plea that, as matters were, it was impossible to hold most official positions without administering oaths or voting war taxes.
The former violated Quaker principles directly, and the latter enjoined on their brethren a service against which their consciences rebelled.
In the interests, therefore, of liberty of conscience, the meetings urged on the members not to allow themselves to be candidates for judicial or legislative positions, and in time were largely successful.
In a report came in to the Yearly Meeting from a large and influential committee advising against furnishing wagons for the transport of military stores, and warning against allowing “the examples and injunctions of some members of our Society who are employed in offices and stations in civil government” [The distinction between the ecclesiastical and political Quakers is further indicated in the following: “Thou knows that we could not in every case vindicate our Assembly who had so greatly deviated from our known principles and the testimony of our forefathers.”
— Israel Pemberton to Samuel Fothergill, .] to influence anyone against a steady support of the truth.
They also recommend that the Yearly Meeting should “advise and caution against any Friends accepting of or continuing in offices or stations whereby they are subjected to the necessity of enjoining or enforcing the compliance of their brethren or others with any act which they may conscientiously scruple to perform.”
In any case, Quakers would never again regain political power to the extent that it would present these same sort of controversies and opportunities for compromise.
The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, in , established a protocol for what a Friend should do if, when he refuses to pay military fines, the government seizes his property, sells it, and then tries to return any surplus beyond the cost of the fine.
The Meeting decided that to accept this surplus was too close to cooperating with paying the fine:
When goods have been distrained from any Friends, on account of their refusal to pay fines for non-performance of military services, and the officers, after deducting the fines and costs, propose to return the remainder, it is the sense of this meeting, that Friends should maintain their testimony by suffering, and not accept such overplus, unless the same or a part of it is returned without a change of the species.
Today I’ll reproduce some excerpts from that book that speak to Quaker tax resistance in the years before the American Revolution.
Some of this I may end up cutting from the book I’m preparing on Quaker war tax resistance because it deals with the tangential (but interesting to me) issue of the Regulator War and the Whiskey Rebellion, both of which were tax rebellions, and in both of which a certain fighting Quaker — Hermon Husband — played a prominent role.
Before the Revolution
Southern Quakers have been pretty uniform in their testimony against war.
Their position met with small respect in any of these colonies.
They refused to train and were fined.
They refused to pay the fine and it was collected by distress or they were imprisoned.
They were alike unmoved by distress or imprisonment.
The officers were forced to abandon persecution by the firm meekness of the persecuted.
Friends were always careful to put their sufferings on record.
Whatever else the Quaker might suffer, he could not bear for the shade of oblivion to come over the record of his testimonies.
They seem to have suffered from militia laws at an earlier period in Virginia than in North Carolina.
The first law that comes under our notice is the one of , which recites that “divers refractory persons” have “refused to appear upon the days of exercise and other times when required to attend upon the public service,” and then imposes on them for each neglect a fine of 100 pounds of tobacco.
The new militia act of makes no exemption of Quakers.
The fine was the same as before.
It was collected by distress, or imprisonment was inflicted, and the records indicate that Friends suffered from the law.
The first trial of this kind in North Carolina dates from .
In the Culpeper rebellion in this colony in , Friends first gave their allegiance to the government of Miller and Eastchurch.
When the party of the people came into power, in accord with their well-known principles of non-resistance, they submitted to it; but declared themselves a “separated people,” and that they “stood single from all the seditious actions” which had taken place in Albemarle in .
“Then some suffering fell upon friends which we not finding in ye old Book, we thought good to insert here; so that it may be seen generations to come,” says the chronicler, writing of the year .
“It was thus, the government made a Law that all that would not bear arms in ye Muster-field, should be at ye Pleasure of ye Court fined, accordingly friends not bearing arms in ye field; they had several friends before ye Court, and they fined them he that had a good Estate a great sum & ye rest according to their estates; and Cast them into prison, & when they were in prison, they went & levied their fines upon their estates; There were nine friends put in prison, viz. William Bundy John Price, Jona Phelps James Hogg John Thusstone Henry Prows Rich.
Byer Saml Hill Steven Handcock.
They were put in prison about .”
This record of persecution comes to us from the manuscript records of the Society.
It is a new one, and one which the author is inclined to attribute entirely to the disordered state of the colony.
The “rebellion” of Culpeper was at an end, but its leaders were still the controllers of the policy of the government, and the persecution may have been due to vindictiveness against the publishers of the protest which we have noticed.
This is borne out by the fact that of the nine Friends imprisoned, the names of three, perhaps of five, were signed to the protest.
There seems to have been no further persecution.
The North Carolina Quakers were prominent in the first part of the “Cary Rebellion,” .
This was a war of words only….
They refused to fight in the Indian war of .
They steadily exhorted each other not to go to this war, and even punished such of their members as paid the five pound penalty attached to the refusal.
As soon as the Government ceased to persecute them, they settled down to quiet and made good citizens.
North Carolina Quakers seem to have had a comparatively easy time.
In theory they were under disadvantages from muster laws, but in reality they suffered little.
In they protest against the tax levied to provide a magazine for each county, for that would be “to wound” their tender conscience.
In they consult London Friends as to paying the tax levied in provisions to support troops.
We do not know the answer.
Committees were appointed from time to time to confer with the authorities on this and similar matters.
They seem to have come to little conclusion.
Muster fines, sometimes collected by distress, are reported at nearly every meeting, but they were small in amount, and the muster law, like the tithe law, seems to have been spasmodically enforced.
In Virginia, on the other hand, Friends had a harder road to travel.
Fines were heavier and were more rigidly collected.
As early as the Yearly Meeting recorded that “Friends are generally fined for not bearing arms and that grand oppression of priests wages, though the magistrates are pretty moderate at present and truth gains ground.”
In Governor Spotswood came in conflict with Friends over this testimony.
He undertook to force assistance from them on the ground that otherwise the lazy and cowardly would plead conscience; some Friends yielded so far as to assist in building forts.
The sense of the Yearly Meeting was “that those Friends who have given away their Testimony, by hiring, paying, or working, to make any fort, or defense against enemies, do give from under their hands to the monthly meeting for the clearing the truth.”
It is to be understood, of course, that there was no recognition or exemption of dissenting ministers in the military acts.
The military law of exempted “ministers,” while that of confined it to ministers of the Church of England.
This indicates that dissenting ministers had claimed exemption under the broader law, and that the Assembly was not willing to recognize them.
The act of , exempted all Quakers from personal service, but required them to furnish a substitute, or to be fined for neglect.
This law, while seeming to be one looking toward recognition of the peculiar views of Friends, was not in reality such.
To a society which condemns war and all its paraphernalia in toto, personal exemption can be no favor.
It was no favor to a Quaker to allow him to send a substitute or pay a fine.
In they record that their sufferings had been “very considerable,” both on account of “militia and priests’ wages,” and are of the opinion that they “are likely to increase greatly on that account.”
In they say “the men in military power act toward us in several counties with as much lenity and forbearance as we can reasonably expect, as they are ministers of the law; though in some places they are not so favorable,” and Friends had been in prison for neglect of military duties during the visit of Bownas.
and the period just preceding it were times of great trial to Friends in this matter.
The English settlers believed that French agents were trying to stir up the Indians, and that in the onslaught against English civilization the Indians would be led by Frenchmen, little more civilized or humane in their conduct of war than the savages themselves.
To guard against this the Assembly of Virginia passed various acts in , , , , , , , for raising levies and recruits, for the better training of militia, and keeping them in readiness.
The Assembly also undertook to increase the number of available troops, and, to fill the quotas of the militia, passed laws in and , requiring the members of the county militia who had no wives or children to stand a draft; but any person drafted might secure a substitute, or be released on the payment of ten pounds.
If they refused they were imprisoned until they agreed to serve, to procure a substitute, or paid the fine.
From time to time it voted various sums to be expended on these matters and on the better defense of the province.
The tax, since it was laid for war purposes, was a source of trouble.
But Friends generally complied in paying this tax without inquiring too closely into the way it was spent.
English Friends wrote that this was their custom, and it was also the custom of the Pennsylvania Friends.
This caused some of the Friends who were not anxious to pose as martyrs to treat the fine for refusing to stand the draft or procure a substitute as a part of the general levy.
This fine when paid also went for war purposes, but the Society as a whole denounced the practice and warned their members against it.
The act of , did not exempt the Quakers.…
Here, a footnote reads: “The next act, for ‘the better regulating and training the militia,’ in prescribing accoutrements says ‘that every person so as aforesaid enlisted (except the people commonly called Quakers, free mulattoes, negroes and Indians),’ etc., which indicates that they were not on the same footing as others, but that this did not mean exemption is shown clearly from their records.
Nor are they included in the list of exempted persons mentioned in section three of the same act.”
…An act of , provided that every twentieth man of the county militia should be drafted and sent to the frontier at Winchester under Col. Washington.
This is followed by another for “better regulating and disciplining the militia,” which exempted ministers of the Church of England, but no dissenting ministers.
Nor were Quakers mentioned in the section directing the accoutrements, as was done in the similar act of .
They were shown no favors, and the Yearly Meeting records of state that seven young men had already been carried to the frontier.
They asked advice of London Yearly Meeting in the case.
They exhorted the men thus tried to remain faithful to their testimony, took up a collection for their relief, and recorded that Friends were “pretty generally faithful.”
In their epistle to London Yearly Meeting in they stated that those Friends were now released who had been imprisoned the year before, that application had been made to the Assembly about this requirement, and that the officers now had a more favorable opinion of Friends.
This was probably the severest trial through which Virginia Friends were called to go because of this testimony.
The North Carolina Quakers also thought it necessary for them to attend the courts-martial in and give the reasons of Friends for not attending musters, and likewise to send a petition to the Governor against the militia law, but it does not appear that they were brought to trial on these points during the French and Indian war.
In Virginia Quakers appointed a committee to petition the Assembly for relief from military fines, etc. This petition may have had influence on the law passed in .
By this law Quakers were exempted from appearing at private or general musters, and were not required to provide a set of arms as all other exempts were.
So far the law is good; it is further provided that the chief militia officer in each county should list all Quakers of military age, and if needed, these would have to go into actual service just as other persons, except that they might furnish a substitute or pay a fine of ten pounds.
But the number of Quakers who were thus required to serve or find substitutes was not to exceed the proportion the whole number of Quakers bore to the whole number of other militia.
The law required also that no Quaker should be exempted from musters unless he produced a testimonial that he was a bona fide Quaker.
This law was a decided gain for the Quaker, although it was not a complete recognition of his position on war.
It recognized this position absolutely in times of peace by exempting him from musters, and even gave him a privilege over other exempts by relieving him from the requirement to furnish a set of arms. But it failed him entirely in time of war.
As early as an attempt had been made in North Carolina to get a law exempting Quakers, but it was opposed by the Council, who offered to substitute in place of the regular equipment of the soldier that of the pioneer — axe, spade, shovel or hoe.
This failed to become law; but by the terms of a special act, which is substantially a copy of the Virginia law of , passed in for five years, Quakers were released from attendance on general or private musters, provided that they were regularly listed and served in the regular militia in case of insurrection or invasion.
From a petition which the Quakers presented to the Governor and the Assembly of North Carolina in , we may conclude that Tryon had in some cases exempted them from the penalty of the laws.
We find also certificates of unity given to some of their members, who were liable to military duty, in .
These certificates seem to have relieved them practically from all militia requirements.
At the beginning of the Revolution, Friends had been exempted from attending musters in Virginia and North Carolina, but not from being enrolled in the militia or from serving in case of insurrection.
I have found no indications that Quakers had been exempted at this time from military laws in South Carolina and Georgia.
They were too weak in both of these provinces to affect their legislation.
There had been some suffering in South Carolina on account of this testimony about the time of the Yemassee war in .
Quakers kept a careful record of all the fines they suffered by distress or otherwise.
These sufferings varied from year to year according to the personal feeling of the officers.
They were heavier in Virginia than in North Carolina; only in do we find an entry in that State of sufferings amounting to £85 and over for tithes and “malissia” fines.…
I have no idea what a “malissia” fine is.
Any clue?
Oh.
I get it.
It’s a phonetic spelling of “militia” by someone who was unfamiliar with the word.
…The chief cause of suffering there was for tithes.
In Virginia, on the other hand, the fines seem to have been about equally divided.
Another footnote here: “They have recorded fines for neglect of military duty in Virginia as follows: , £12 5s.; , £84 11s. 5d.; , £61 1s.; , £131 8s. 1d.; , £59 14s. 8d.; , £10 9s. 2d.; , £16 14s.; , £4 11s. 6d.; , £86 19s. 4½d., mostly military.
From this time there is no distinction between ‘priest’s wages’ and militia fines.
The sums are as follows: , £98 13s. 5d.; , £108 6s. 10d.; , £90 14s.; , £80 13s.; , £103; , £74 12s. 6d.; , £113 11s. 10d.; , £109; , £133; , £67; , £3 5s.”
There has been an extensive belief that Friends were active in the War of the Regulation in North Carolina in .
This belief is founded partly on the charge of Governor Tryon, that the Regulators were a faction of Baptists and Quakers who were trying to overthrow the Church of England.
This charge, like the similar charge made by the aristocracy in North Carolina in , is more easily made than proved.
The Quakers are easily shown from their records not to have been Regulators.
There were, of course, individual Quakers who took part in the Regulation; many more no doubt sympathized with the principles advocated; but no complicity with the events of was tolerated by the meetings in their organic capacity.
The foundation for this charge lies, no doubt, largely in the fact that Hermon Husband, the leader of the Regulators, had been a Quaker.
He had been disowned by the Society, however, but not for immorality, as Governor Tryon states.
Since no North Carolina Quaker is more widely known than Husband, it is desirable that we know as many facts as possible of his life.
Hermon Husband was born , in all probability in Cecil County, Md. His grandfather, William Husband, made a will, .
He writes himself as of “Sissil” County, Maryland; he had cattle, “Hoggs and sheape,” and negroes, and speaks of “the Iron works that belongs to me.”
He had a good deal of land.
William, the father of Hermon, was also of Cecil County.
His will was probated .
He also had negroes, and was not a Quaker.
His son Joseph, born , was the first of the family to turn Quaker.
His convincement influenced Hermon among others.
Hermon became a prominent man among the Quakers of East Nottingham, Md. He once got a certificate to visit Barbadoes.
He was first in North Carolina about , when he removed to Carver’s Creek Monthly Meeting in Bladen County.
How long he remained here we do not know, but on , he presented a certificate of removal to Cane Creek Monthly Meeting.
He returned from Cane Creek to Nottingham in , and, on , presented a certificate of removal from Cane Creek to West River Monthly Meeting, Md. He got a certificate to go back to Cane Creek, , and on , Friends report to Cane Creek that the marriage of Hermon Husband and Mary Pugh had been orderly.
Footnote: “At this period Husband also set up some claims to authorship, as the following title will show: Some | Remarks | on | Religion, | With the Author’s Experience in Pursuit thereof, | For the Consideration of all People; | Being the real Truth of what happened.
| Simply delivered, without the Help of School-Words, or Dress | of Learning.
| Philadelphia: | Printed by William Bradford for the Author.
| .
Octavo, pp. 88. (Hildeburn’s Issues of the Press in Pa.) The copy in Library Company of Philadelphia has the author’s name noted on the title-page in the handwriting of Du Simitiere.
At the end of the tract it is said to have been ‘written about .’ ”
This year a commotion began in Cane Creek Monthly Meeting which led to the disownment of Husband, the suspension of others, and involved the monthly meeting, the quarterly meeting, and even the Yearly Meeting, in a religious wrangle.
The origin of this trouble was as follows: In , Rachel Wright, a member of Cane Creek Monthly Meeting, committed some disorder.
She offered a paper condemning the same.
This seems to have been accepted, and in she asked for a certificate of removal to Fredericksburg, S.C. But some members of the monthly meeting thought she was not sincere in the paper offered and did not wish to give her the certificate.
A wrangle resulted, and the case was appealed to the quarterly meeting, which recommended that the certificate be given.
Husband, evidently a man who was accustomed to speak fearlessly, was thereupon “guilty of making remarks on the actions and transactions” of the meeting; he spoke “his mind,” and was guilty of “publicly advertising the same”; for this he was disowned by Cane Creek Monthly Meeting, .
But in the meantime his party had grown, and a number of Friends signed a paper in which they expressed dissatisfaction with the disowning of Husband.
The quarterly meeting then appointed a committee to advise with the malcontents, of whom the leaders were said to be Hermon Husband, Joseph Maddock, Isaac Vernon, Thomas Branson, John and William Marshill, and Jonathan Cell, “with divers others.”
In , the committee report “that it would be of dangerous consequences to allow them the privilege of active members, or to be made use of as such in any of our meetings of business until suitable satisfaction is made for their outgoings.”
Maddock, Cell and the Marshills felt “uneasy and aggrieved with the proceedings and judgment of this meeting,” and filed notice of an appeal to the Yearly Meeting.
The Yearly Meeting decided that Western Quarterly Meeting did wrong in granting a certificate to Rachel Wright, “if it was to be made a precedent,” and that the minute of the quarterly meeting which suspended from active membership those who had signed the other paper expressing dissatisfaction with the disowning of Hermon Husband should be reversed.
The quarterly meeting thereupon acknowledged itself wrong in the matter of Rachel Wright; Fredericksburg Monthly Meeting was informed of the conditions surrounding the certificate, and the parties under ban were restored to active membership, for we find Joseph Maddock and William Marshill serving as representatives from Cane Creek Monthly Meeting to Western Quarterly Meeting in .
But this did not restore Husband.
He had been formally disowned, and disappears from this time from the records of North Carolina Quakerism.
It is probable that some of these discontented Friends were led by this trouble to join the Regulators.
It does not appear that the trouble was healed, for we find that two men, Joseph Maddock and Jonathan Sell, laid the foundation of the Georgia settlement of Friends in .
They were no doubt the same as the persons who have just been mentioned.
It is probable that they carried a considerable contingent of settlers with them from Cane Creek.
It is now time for us to return to Hermon Husband and the part taken by Friends in the War of the Regulation.
Caruthers, who gives the traditions among the people who knew him, characterizes Husband as a man of superior mind, grave in deportment, somewhat taciturn, wary in conversation, but when excited, forcible and fluent in argument.
He was a man of strict integrity and firm in his advocacy of the right.
He had considerable property, and took the part of the people in their complaints against the extortions of the officers.
He was a member of the Assembly in .
His participation in the Regulation movement brought the Government down on him, and he was imprisoned for more than fifty days, awaiting trial on charges on which the grand jury could not agree to return an indictment.
He was also presented for riot under an ex post facto law, and was six times acquitted by juries in Craven and Orange counties of all offenses alleged against him.
He was expelled from the Assembly, and after the battle of the Alamance, at which he was not present, was outlawed, and a reward of $100, or 1,000 acres of land, was offered for his arrest, dead or alive.
He soon left North Carolina, returned to Pennsylvania, and became prominent in the Whiskey Rebellion in .
Footnote: “I find in the minutes of Western Quarterly Meeting in a notice of the disorderly marriage of ‘Amey Allin now Husbands.’
Was this a second wife of Hermon Husband?
In , William Husband was disowned by Cane Creek for fighting.
Was he a son of Hermon?”
Husband’s career was clearly inconsistent with the unwarlike creed of the Quakers.
His intentions were probably good, but because he had been a Quaker, the Society has had the credit of being a leader in the movement that culminated in the battle of the Alamance on .
Without entering at all into the merits of that struggle, it is sufficient to say that Friends, as a body, had nothing to do with it, and in their official capacity condemned it to the fullest extent.
A few extracts from their records will show this clearly.
Cane Creek Meeting was in the center of the disturbance.
The first mention we find of the troubles is in , when seven members were disowned for attending a “disorderly meeting,” probably one of the mass-meetings with which the country was then alive.
In two Quakers were complained of for joining a body of persons to withdraw from the paying of the taxes.
They were disowned.
In Hermon Cox was disowned for joining the Regulators.
In denials were published against Benjamin and James Underwood, Joshua Dixon, Isaac Cox, Samuel Cox and his two sons, Hermon and Samuel, James Matthews, John and Benjamin Hinshaw, William Graves, Nathan Farmer, Jesse Pugh, William Tanzy, John and William Williams, who all seem to have been Regulators.
Thomas Pugh was also disowned for joining, and Humphrey Williams for aiding them.
Three men were disowned by New Garden Monthly Meeting for joining, and a fourth condemned himself in meeting for aiding “with a gun.”
These are all the cases I have found that indicate the participation of the Quakers in the political and civil troubles of the day.
They remained faithful to the Government.
Governor Tryon made a requisition on them for twenty beeves and ten barrels of flour for his army.
They agreed to furnish the things demanded, but pleaded that they could not do it within the limits of time set.
In Friends asserted their loyalty and attachment to George Ⅲ., and at the beginning of the Revolution the Yearly Meeting, in its letter to the Society in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, gave forth their “testimony against all Plotting, Conspiracies, and insurrections against the king and government whatsoever as works of darkness.”
The Regulation, no doubt, had a bad effect on the Society in this section.
The minutes of Cane Creek Monthly Meeting , fill but two pages, as if outside matters were attracting their attention.
There were, moreover, many removals and few arrivals at Cane Creek.
These troubles caused, no doubt, a considerable exodus of Quakers to Bush River, S.C., and to Wrightsborough, Ga., just as they sent many members of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association from the same section to the banks of the Watauga in Eastern Tennessee.
In , a group of Quakers wrote to the governor of New York to explain why they wouldn’t be giving him money to repair his fort (this from Rufus M. Jones’s The Quakers in the American Colonies, ):
Whereas it was desired of the country that all who would willingly contribute towards repairing the fort of New York would give in their names and sums, and we whose names are under written not being found on the list, it was since desired by the High Sheriff that we would give our reasons unto the Governor how willing and ready we have been to pay our customs as county rates and needful town charges and how we have behaved ourselves peaceably and quietly amongst our neighbors, and are ready to be serviceable in anything which does not infringe upon our tender consciences, but being in measure redeemed of wars and stripes we cannot for conscience’ sake be concerned in upholding things of that nature, as you yourselves well know.
It has not been our practice in Old England since we were a people, and this in meekness we declare. In behalf of ourselves and our friends, love and good will unto thee and all men.
For the governor, this sort of thing took some getting used to.
By , his military funding requests were accompanied by various rhetorical methods to get past these peculiar scruples:
I have sundry things to offer to your Consideration, but shall only insist upon two at present.
1st.
You know that government, if it be not supported, becomes precarious, void, and ends in nothing.
2nd.
Gentlemen, here is a letter directed to me as governor of this province, from her Majesty, whereof you shall have a copy.
The province of New York has been a long time burdened with a troublesome war, (if it may be called a war, for indeed the French and Indians in Canada are a pitiful enemy, if they could be brought to fight fair, but the wood, swamps and bushes gives them the opportunity of vexing us).
You will see by this letter their Majesties’ commands, and what is expected from you towards the assistance of that province.
Gentlemen, if there be any amongst you that scruple the giving of money to support war, there are a great many other charges in that government, for the support thereof, as officers salaries and other charges, that amount to a considerable sum:
Your money shall be converted to these uses, and shall not be dipped in blood.
The money raised there for the support of the government shall be employed for the defense of the frontiers which do give you protection.
I would have you consider the walls about your gardens and orchards; your doors and locks of your houses; mastiff dogs and such other things as you make use of to defend your goods and property against thieves and robbers are the same courses that their Majesties take for their forts, garrisons and soldiers, etc. to secure their kingdoms and provinces, and you as well as the rest of their subjects.
I speak the more to this matter because I have their Majesties’ command, which lies now here before you.
This line of attack would come up again and again in the debates about Quaker war tax resistance to follow.
The Quakers would attempt to prove themselves good citizens, on the one hand, by noting that they believed firmly in rendering unto Cæsar and giving all due respect to the established powers-that-be; but on the other hand, they’d insist that the gospel demanded that Christians not participate in violent measures, but turn the other cheek and so forth, and so they would have to stand aloof when it came to war.
Their annoyed opponents would point out that the establishment of government is all about being the violent measure of last resort, and if you’re going to claim that you are against violence because it is prohibited by God & Conscience, it’s silly to limit that to war.
If you rely on government to protect your property or enforce your laws, you’re relying on violence, of which war is just a subset.
Lewis Morris (), who would later become governor of New Jersey, noted in that Lord Cornbury (Edward Hyde), who was governor of New York at the time and whom Morris disliked, had by that point given up on trying to negotiate:
In the Militia Act the Quakers that could not for conscience, forsooth, bear arms was to pay a certain sum yearly, and forfeitures were laid upon other defaulters, but there was no provision made to return the surplus of the distresses, if any such thing should be.
My Lord [Cornbury] had made a set of officers suitable to his turn, to say no more of them, these were punctual in making distresses, and generally above ten times the value, which, when they came to expose to sale, nobody would buy, so that there is or lately was a house at Burlington, filled with demonstrations of the obstinacy of the Quakers, there was boots, hats, shoes, clothes, dishes, plows, knives, earthenware, with many other things and these distresses amounts, as is said, to above 1,000£ a year, almost enough to defray the charges of the government without any other way.
By , after Morris became a colonial governor himself, his memories of the actions of Lord Cornbury became more sympathetic.
Here’s how he recollects the same event then:
there was a militia act in force here, something better calculated for the purpose than that here now in use, which those called Quakers would by no means, on pretense of conscience, obey.
And while they were unmolested and not distrained on they laughed at those that did.
This made others murmur who were obliged to train and muster and encouraged their refusing to do so, they claiming as much right to an exemption from training as the Quakers.
This being judged at that time inconvenient, the officers were ordered to make distresses pursuant to the act, and (not being Quakers) perhaps put it in execution with more vigor than they should have done.
This was called persecution for conscience sake, and these Quakers grew fond of what they called suffering, and gloried in the doing so, calling it a suffering for the Lords sake.
Stores were filled with distrained goods such as hats, shoes, coats, britches, saddles, bridles etc. but nobody would buy them when offered to sale.
Later, his frustration with the Quakers grew.
Here’s an excerpt from a letter from :
I have attempted in two Assemblies past, to get a bill for the settlement of the militia for our own defense, but without success.
The people called Quakers who are in our Assembly, and chiefly influence there, will by no means be prevailed to came into it; and if they will not do any thing for their own defense, you may easily Judge how unlikely it is they will do any thing in this case.
There is an odd entry made by them in the Journals of the Assembly in which was done at the desire of a Quaker in behalf of himself and other Quakers then members of the house in the following words viz.
The members of this house being of the “people called Quakers have always been and still are for raising of money for the support of her Majesty’s Government; but to raise money for raising of soldiers is against their religious principles; and for conscience cannot agree thereto.”
This principle of conscience whether real or pretended (though contrary to the principles of natural reason and religion) they tenaciously pretend to adhere to; which renders those that are willing to act otherwise, incapable of doing any thing that way…
William Fordyce Mavor (), in his Historical Account of the Most Celebrated Voyages, Travels, and Discoveries from the Time of Columbus to the Present Period (, pages 300–03) spends some time going over the American Quaker attitude toward war taxes:
[The Quakers] have seen that the great basis of universal happiness must be universal peace; and that to open the way to that peace, we must pronounce an anathema against the art of war.
Sacred writings have taught us to believe, that the time will come, when nation shall no more lift the sword against nation; and to lead to the accomplishment of so consoling a prophecy, this people believe that example is more powerful than words.
In Pennsylvania, they found the secret of defencing themselves from the scourge of military slaughter, till the war of , between France and England.
Though mingled with the Indians, never any quarrels rose among them, which led to the spilling of blood.
The government of England could never engage the Quakers to give any assistance in this war.
They not only refused this, but they resigned all the places which they had held in the government of the colony; for it was before almost entirely in their hands; and such was their economy, that the produce of the custom-house, and a small excise, were always sufficient to defray the public expenses; so that no other tax was known in the colony.
The war of changed this order of things, and occasioned heavy expenses, which the colonies were obliged to pay.
The Quakers were subjected to them, as well as others; but they not only refused, as a society, to pay taxes, of which war was the object, but they excommunicated those who paid them.
They persevered in this practice in the last war.
At this time an animosity was kindled against them, which is not yet extinguished.
Faithful to their principles, they declared, that they would take no part in this war, and they excommunicated all such as joined either the American or the British army.
No person has spoken to me with more impartiality, respecting the Quakers, than General Washington, that celebrated man, whose spirit of justice is remarkable in every thing.
He declared to me, that, in the course of the war, he had entertained an ill opinion of this society; he knew but little of them; as at that time there were but few of that sect in Virginia; and he had attributed to their political sentiments, the effect of their religious principles.
He told me, that having since known them better, he acquired an esteem for them; and that, considering the simplicity of their manners, the purity of their morals, their exemplary economy, and their attachment to the constitution, he considered this society as one of the best supports of the new government, which requires a great moderation, and a total banishment of luxury.
It was not under this point of view that they were regarded by the congress, which laid the foundation of American independence.
This congress joined their persecutors, and banished some of their most noxious leaders to Staunton, in Virginia, two hundred miles from their families.
Since the peace, they have been subjected to another kind of vexation.
Each citizen, from sixteen to fifty-five years of age, is obliged by law to serve in the militia, or to pay a fine.…
The author allows himself an aside here, in a footnote: “If defensive war is allowable, and every citizen is bound to assist the government that protects him, where is the hardship in a Quaker being compelled to make a compensation for his personal service, which he refuses to grant?”
…The Quakers will not serve nor pay the fine.
The collector, whose duty it is to levy it, enters their houses, takes their furniture, and sells it; and the Quakers peaceably submit.
This method gives great encouragement to knavery.
Collectors have been known to take goods to the amount of six times the fine, to sell for a shilling what was worth a pound, never to return the surplus, nor even to pay the state, but afterwards become bankrupts.
Their successors would then come and demand the fine already paid; but the Quakers have complained to these abuses to the legislature, and an act is passed suspending these collectors till .
It would be very easy to reconcile the wants of the state, and the duty of the citizen, with the religious principles of the Quakers.
You might subject them only to pacific taxes, and require them to pay a larger proportion of them.
This is already done in Virginia, in abolishing, with respect to them, the militia service.
, I related John Churchman’s story behind the “epistle” that, as much as anything, launched the American war tax resistance movement.
John Woolman, in his Journal, gives a postscript that shows that war tax resistance was a hard sell even among Quakers:
Copies of this epistle were sent amongst Friends in the several parts of the province of Pennsylvania, and as some in the society who were easy to pay the tax spake… openly against it, and as some of those who were concerned in the conference… believed themselves rightly exercised in putting forward the epistle, they in the next Yearly Meeting expressed a willingness to have their conduct in that case enquired into, but Friends in the Yearly Meeting did not… enter into the consideration of it.
When the tax was gathered many paid it actively and others scrupled the payment, and in many places [the collectors & constables being friends] distress was made on their goods… by their fellow members.
This difficulty was considerable and at the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia the matter was opened and a committee of about… forty Friends were appointed some from each quarter to consider the case, and report their judgment on this point whither or no it would be best at this time publicly to consider it in the Yearly Meeting.
At this meeting were our Friends William Reckett, John Hunt, and Christopher Willson from English, Benjamin Ferris from the province of New York, and Thomas Nicholson from North Carolina, who at the request of the Yearly Meeting all sat with us,—
We met and setting some hours adjourned until the next morning: It was a time of deep exercise to many minds, and after some hours spent at our second meeting the following report was drawn & signed by a friend in behalf of the committee:
Agreeable to the appointment of the Yearly Meeting we have met & had several weighty & deliberate conferences on the subject committed to us and as we find there are diversity of sentiments we are for that & several other reasons unanimously of the judgment that it is not proper to enter into a public discussion of the matter & we are one in judgment that it is highly necessary for the Yearly Meeting to recommend that Friends everywhere endeavour earnestly to have their minds covered with fervent charity towards one another, which report was entered on the minutes & copies sent in the extracts to the quarterly & monthly meetings.
Wilson Armistead, who edited an edition of the Memoirs of James Logan (for more on Logan, see ), relates an interesting example of Quaker tax resistance from :
Governor Hamilton being deceased, John Evans came out to the province as his successor.
Governor Evans was young and proved inexperienced.
He treated the non-resisting principle “as a mere notion, which would never endure a serious trial.”
He not only granted a commission for privateering, but in , finding Friends very averse to military requisitions, he determined to quicken them by a false alarm, of a hostile armament coming up the river.
His measures were so well concerted for this purpose, that upon the arival of the express bringing the pretended intelligence, the city was thrown into a disgraceful state of alarm; many of the people hastily secreting their valuables, and getting away in boats to the creeks and upper parts of the Delaware, while Evans rode about with his sword drawn, cheaply acting the hero.
Governor Evans also determined, on his own authority, to impose a tax or toll on all outward-bound vessels when leaving the river.
The principal inhabitants became alarmed at this innovation of their chartered privileges, which guaranteed that no tax or other impost should be levied but by consent of a majority of the people’s representatives.
The council remonstrated again and again, but without effect; and the Governor, being determined to carry his point, ordered a fort to be erected on the banks of the river, and furnished with guns and ammunition.
An officer and some men wore stationed there to stop every vessel outward-bound, and to claim a toll according to her tonnage.
The toll exacted was half a pound of gunpowder per ton measurement.
Should the ship not drop anchor and send on shore for a pass, she was to pay £5 for contempt; besides 20s. for the first gun, 30s. for the second, and 40s. for every subsequent one fired to bring her to.
After this had been endured for a while, and all remonstrance on the part of the peaceful community proving ineffectual, a consultation of some of the principal merchants was held, when Richard Hill…
Here, a footnote: “Richard Hill was a native of Maryland, and a useful member of the Society of Friends.
He settled in Philadelphia, and was a member of the Governor’s council, and several times Speaker of the Assembly.
He also filled the office of Commissioner of Property, and was, , one of the provincial judges.
Proud, in his History of Pennsylvania, says respecting him:— ‘His sound judgment, his great esteem for the English constitution and laws, his tenderness for the liberty of the subject, and his zeal for preserving the reputable order established in his own religious community, with his great generosity to proper objects, qualified him for the greatest services in every station in which he was engaged, and rendered him of very great and uncommon value.’ ”
…a Friend of considerable abilities and influence in the province, offered at his own risk to test the governor’s power or authority to tax the people without their consent.
Having a ship ready to sail with produce for the West India market, with which a considerable barter-trade was already established, Hill determined to see his vessel safely down the river himself.
He first dispatched two Friends, Isaac Norris and Samuel Preston with the ship’s papers to the fort, to show that the vessel had been regularly cleared at the custom-house, and to endeavour to persuade the officer to suffer her to pass without molestation.
Their remonstrance, however, proved unavailing, and the deputation were given to understand what they might expect if they persisted in their determination.
Notwithstanding this threat, Hill boldly taking the helm, which the captain was afraid to do, proceeded with a fair wind and a brisk breeze down the river, steering as near to the opposite side as he safely could.
On nearing the fort, a gun was fired to bring the vessel to.
No notice was taken of this warning, the ship continuing her course under full sail, when all the guns at the fort were discharged, until she got out of their reach, having escaped without damage, except the main-sail, which was shot through.
Here, another footnote: “The firing of the guns were distinctly heard in Philadelphia, so that the feelings of the Friend’s wife on the occasion may be better conceived than expressed.”
The officer at the fort, not willing to miss his prize, immediately had his boat manned and went in pursuit.
The ship’s sails were now slackened, and the boat was allowed to come alongside, and having fastened a rope to the ship, the officer and his men came on board.
Whilst engaged in a warm controversy with the owner and his friends, some one on board (no doubt advisedly) quietly loosed the boat and let her drift astern.
The ship was now under full sail, and when the officer at length discovered that he was in danger of a voyage to the West Indies, and that all his hopes of retreat were cut off, his courage failed, and he suffered himself to be led as a prisoner into the cabin.
Richard Hill now determined to land his captive on the Jersey side of the Delaware, and deliver him up to Lord Cornbury, the governor of that province, who claimed in his own right the exclusive jurisdiction of the river.…
For more on Cornbury, see .
…Cornbury, a proud and haughty man, on hearing the case, was quite indignant at this encroachment on his prerogative, and he threatened the officer in no measured terms of rebuke, who now became seriously alarmed at his situation, and sued for pardon, making many professions of sorrow for the offence he had committed.
At length, having promised never to attempt the like again, he was suffered to depart.
The Friend and his companions now returned back to Philadelphia, and the ship proceeded on her voyage.
The illegal tax, in consequence of this patriotic but peaceful resistance, was thenceforward abandoned.
This case is perhaps only tangentially related to Quaker war tax resistance.
It seems that the major dispute was over the fact that the tax was being extorted without legal authorization by a governor who was widely disrespected, with the potential subsequent military spending and the armed fort only being an ancillary reason for dissatisfaction.
But when William Penn, who was back in England at the time, heard about this, he shot off a letter of rebuke to Evans, which also chastised him for trying to draft Quakers into the military or to fine those who refused:
…[T]he sufferings our Friends lie under, as well as are exposed to, in the Lower Counties, on account of not bearing arms [is] a thing which touches my conscience as well as honor.
“He must be a silly shoemaker that has not a last for his own foot.”
That my Friends should not be secure and easy under me, in those points that regard our very characteristics; but that fines, or a forced disowning of their own principles they must stoop to; for one Brewster says in his letter to one Child (come to my hand), that Oliver Matthews was plundered of no less than six pounds for fifteen shillings, which very fine is a violation of our constitution and customs too, since my interest was there; all which I desire may be rectified forthwith…
I reproduced some excerpts from Stephen B. Weeks’s Southern Quakers and Slavery: A Study in Institutional History () concerning Quaker tax resistance in the years before the American Revolution.
Today I’ll add some sections that concern such resistance during the Revolutionary period:
Quakers in the Revolution
The Revolution begins the differentiation of the conduct and fortunes of the Society of Friends in Virginia and North Carolina.
Their experience was different in each, and this experience seems to have had a marked influence on future action.
Their peace policy caused American Friends to be regarded by many as hostile to the cause of American independence.
Some went to the Society to escape the war, and some left it.
Some of the younger generation broke over the peace limit, organized themselves as “Free Quakers,” entered the American Army, and were still maintaining their separate organization as late as .
In the gloomy aspect of affairs which greeted them at the beginning of the struggle, Friends were induced to appoint representatives from New England, Virginia and North Carolina to attend the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in to consult on the condition of their affairs, and this course was followed during the most of the war.
The war brought much distress and suffering to Friends.
In this extremity the noble character of the creed of Friends stands out in bold relief.
Many thousand pounds were raised in England to be applied to their aid.
During the time of actual hostilities this was applied mostly to Friends in New England and the Carolinas.
It does not appear that Friends during the Revolution often acted inconsistently with their well known peace policy; but this policy was a source of weakness to the American cause and one of strength to Great Britain.
Some Friends refused to pay the State levies for war purposes, and, as the Continental currency was issued to carry on war, many refused to receive it.
A minute to this effect was passed by the Virginia Yearly Meeting.
We are tempted to ask how much of the religious and how much of the economic element was present here?
This action was unfortunate.
The result was to hasten the decline of the money and to throw the influence of the Society on the side of the British Government.
In North Carolina Quakers declined to vote for delegates to attend the convention, but left Friends to take the paper bills or not.
In they were in doubt whether they were able “to pay the taxes demanded under the present unsettled state of affairs.”
In they refused to pay the tax in provisions.
There was no general minute on part of American Friends forbidding their members to receive the Continental currency, but the Virginia Yearly Meeting made such an order.
That they were much more bitter and determined in the matter of the tax in Virginia is shown by a letter of Robert Pleasants to Thomas Nicholson in , in which he argues against the payment of the tax, blames the Eastern Quarter of North Carolina for paying, and praises the Western Quarter for refusing to pay.
This quarterly meeting also wrote to Bush River Monthly Meeting to warn its members not to meddle in politics, for it was learned that some had voted for delegates to the convention.
But Friends were not spared when these States were invaded.
Between the requisitions of the Americans and the thefts and robberies of the British and Tories, there was small chance for them to escape serious damage.
As soon as the war was over Friends accepted the results.
But they had never been blindly obedient to despotism.
They had steadily resisted it in England; they did the same in America.
Believing, as they do, in the common brotherhood of man, they have been of necessity democratic, and have been found in every question on the side which sought to elevate the lower classes.
They were, then, logically and historically, on the side of the colonists in the question at issue.
They differed from them in regard to the method that should be employed to attain the end.
Their property was sometimes seized for the commissariat, and Friends were sometimes arrested on the charge of being unfriendly to the American cause.
In ; certain papers containing a set of questions relating to the American Army, and some other notes that might assist the English, were found on Staten Island, N.J., by General Sullivan and sent to Congress.
This body resolved at once to arrest persons who were notoriously inimical to American freedom, and directed that the records and papers of the Meetings for Sufferings in the several States be secured and transmitted to Congress.
In , twenty Quakers of Philadelphia were arrested by the Council of Pennsylvania on the charge of having given information to the British, and seventeen of them were hurried down to Winchester, Va., as prisoners of war.
The original charges seem to have been utterly baseless, and the proceedings against them were arbitrary and unjust, for they were given no opportunity to defend themselves; they were refused a hearing, and the writ of habeas corpus, issued in their behalf by the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, was disregarded.
Further, they were forced to support themselves while thus involuntarily removed from their regular occupations, and the feelings of the community were poisoned against them.
This injustice was all done on the basis of certain papers pretending to come from “Spanktown Yearly Meeting,” which bear unmistakable evidence of being the work of one who was wholly ignorant of the phraseology peculiar to Quakers.
The history of the arrest had preceded the prisoners.
“The inhabitants in this part of the country are,” writes the county lieutenant of Frederick, “in general, much exasperated against the whole society of Quakers.
The people were taught to suppose these people were Tories, and the leaders of the Quakers, and two more offensive stigmas, in their estimation, could not be fixed upon men; in short, they determined not to permit them to remain in Winchester, for fear of their holding a correspondence with the Friends of the adjoining counties.”
He says, further, that this sentiment was manufactured to keep them from holding such communication, and so strong was the feeling that on the day after their arrival, about thirty armed men collected at their lodgings and demanded their immediate removal.
The question was settled for the time by the Quakers agreeing not to leave their house.
But this feeling of fear and hostility soon subsided, the people became more friendly, and not only allowed them to remain, but administered to their comforts, granted them the freedom of the surrounding section of country, and attended their meetings.
They were released in .
After the beginning of the Revolution the first matter in Virginia that related in any way to the Quakers was the first ordinance of Convention of , which exempted “all clergymen and dissenting ministers” from serving in the militia.
But no dissenting minister could avail himself of this privilege unless he had been “duly licensed by the general court, or the society to which he belongs.”
This law met a part of the complaint of the Quakers; it recognized their religious standing and gave their ministers, and other dissenting ministers, the same legal exemption as had always been granted to the clergymen of the Church of England.
This is the first step in the movement which led up to the sixteenth section of the Virginia Bill of Rights.
The act of , seems to have been a sort of continuation of the act of .
It required Quakers and Menonists to be enlisted in the militia, but exempted them from attending musters.
The act of , went backward.
It makes no exception in their favor in regard to enrollment, mustering or drafting.
This was probably an oversight, for the new law of , recruiting the Virginia regiments, discharges all Quakers and Menonists taken by draft from personal service, but provides that a number of substitutes, equal to the number thus discharged, be secured and paid for by a general levy on the Society as a whole, and this levy was to be collected by distress.
There was the same provision in the laws passed in and .
We see in these laws an evident effort to recognize the peculiar views of Friends, but the need of their services is stronger and still keeps them under disabilities.
The law of , relieved Quakers from personal service when drafted, imposing instead a penalty of fourteen pounds, which might be collected by distress.
The law of , relieved them from personal service, but the county lieutenant was required to appoint a suitable person “to procure a substitute upon the best terms possible.”
This amount was to be collected from the property of the drafted Quaker; if he could not pay, from the Society.
Unfortunately we have very imperfect data for determining what the conduct of Virginia Friends was during this period.
But we know that Friends were exhorted to be faithful and firm in their testimony; that a committee was appointed to consult with those who were under trial for their faith, to comfort and encourage them; that, following the lead of Pennsylvania, they refused in to pay the taxes for the support of the war.
North Carolina Quakers seem to have remained pretty faithful to their peace policy during the whole war, and carried it to the extreme of asking if it was lawful for them “to pay taxes demanded under the present unsettled state of affairs.”
But it does not appear that they ever went to the extreme of refusing to pay these taxes or to take the State issues of script; although Western Quarterly Meeting — the foreign element — declared in that Friends could not pay the war tax.
The refusal of the Virginia Quakers, when in former wars they had paid their taxes without inquiring into their destination, at once caused them to play into the hands of England.
As we have seen in an earlier chapter, John Archdale, the Quaker Governor of the Carolinas, enforced the military law in South Carolina, but exempted Friends from its provisions.
Under his administration they were exempted from all military requirements.
After the arrival of Sir Nathaniel Johnson in their fortunes were changed.
In a military law was passed which required that “all inhabitants” between sixteen and sixty should be armed and drilled.
If persons refused they were subject to a fine of 10s. for the first offense and 20s. for each subsequent one.
This could be collected by distress.
Among the exempts were “ministers of the gospel,” which term was changed to “the clergy” in , and to “all licensed clergymen, belonging to any established church in this state,” in .
This law underwent various changes and modifications from time to time, but these were matters of detail, not of principle.
There is no recognition of Quakers in the laws passed during the Revolution.
The penalty for neglect of military duty under the law of was £500; and Quakers, like others, must stand the draft.
So far as I have been able to learn, there was no deference at all paid to the peculiar views of the Quakers.
I have not found any mention of the Society whatever in the South Carolina laws.
In the case of Georgia, Quakers report to the North Carolina Yearly Meeting that under the laws of the State, passed in and , they were exempted from military service if properly reported.
In they complain that they “have been misrepresented in their conduct respecting the said contest,” and in complain of being “oppressed by the violent behavior of the militia of these parts and been illegally deprived of both Liberty and Property.”
An account of the amount thus lost was to be secured and sent to the monthly meeting, and in the same year Quakers write to Georgia from New Garden, N.C., and exhort them to stand fast in their refusals to comply with requisitions and demands for war needs.
But notwithstanding all exhortations, quite a number of Quakers in all of these three States enlisted in the American Army, while others carried aims for personal defense; some were disowned for these actions.
The North Carolina Quakers seem to have been more uniformly non-combatants.
They had suffered somewhat from military fines in the colonial period.
In the Revolution this became heavier.
In they paid £1,213:9:2 in military fines, in it amounted to £2,152:5:10, and in to £841:15:7, “good money, silver dollars at eight shillings”; , to £4,134 and upwards; , £741; , £718. In Western Quarterly Meeting reports £2.148 8s. and £675 18s. as the amounts taken from them by the American and British armies respectively.
But that these forced drafts on the resources of the Quakers did not impoverish them is evident from the fact that when Rich Square Monthly Meeting decided in to raise £40 in gold and silver, one man, Robert Peelle, agreed to advance the whole amount.
Quaker meetings would occasionally distill their discussions over war taxes and the payment of militia exemption fines into a consensus statement, which they would publish as a record of the current understanding of the Meeting.
Here are some examples:
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,
When goods have been distrained from any Friends, on account of their refusal to pay fines for non-performance of military services, and the officers, after deducting the fines and costs, propose to return the remainder, it is the sense of this meeting, that Friends should maintain their testimony by suffering, and not accept such overplus, unless the same or a part of it is returned without a change of the species.
By “a change of the species” I believe what is meant is that a Friend whose property was seized is free to take back the property itself, or some part of it, if it is later returned to him, but he is not free to take back money in exchange for any of the property.
Kingwood Monthly Meeting,
An extract from the Minutes of the last Q.M. held at Burlington concerning such as make profession with us that pay fines to screen themselves from distress for their neglect or refusal to act in military services was read and the clerk is desired to enter the same at large in the Monthly Meetings books of Minutes which is as follows vizst. At a Q.M. held at Burlington as to that part of the report from the Bethlehem requesting the advice of this meeting touching those that pay fines to screen themselves from distress when it is likely to come among them through their neglecting military service, after weighty consideration it is the judgment of this meeting that such ought to be tenderly but earnestly labored with to convince their judgments of the manifest breach of our ancient Christian testimony such a conduct must always make, as well as the inconsistency of it with our profession, and, after a suitable labor and Christian forbearance it appears there is no hope of such being reclaimed, judgment is to be placed upon them in the manner prescribed by the discipline.
London Yearly Meeting,
We are sorrowfully affected to find that some Friends have failed in the maintenance of our Christian testimony against wars and fighting, by joining with others to hire substitutes, and by the payment of money to exempt themselves from personal service in the militia: a practice inconsistent with our testimony to the reign of the Prince of Peace.
Rhode Island Yearly Meeting,
We are sorrowfully affected, by the answers to the queries, that some friends have failed in the maintenance of our Christian testimony against wars and fighting, by joining with others to hire substitutes, and by the payment of money to exempt themselves from personal service, in the militia; a practice inconsistent with the testimony to the reign of the Prince of Peace which our ancients received, and were concerned to maintain through cruel sufferings, and which the faithful in this day dare not shrink from.
This defection from our Christian testimony and general practice having been matter of sorrow to this meeting, we are concerned strongly to advise against it, and that friends everywhere stand faithful and single in their dependence on the Lord for preservation, who alone is forever able to keep in perfect safety.
And if suffering be the lot which does result from such obedience to the divine requiring, such will, as they abide in the simplicity and innocence of truth, reap the fruits of peace in their own bosom.
Let therefore the care of friends, in their several monthly meetings, be exerted to prevent any contributions for hiring substitutes, or other methods of exempting themselves from the militia, inconsistent with our well-known testimony.
Rhode Island Yearly Meeting,
It is our sense and judgment, that we cannot, consistently with our well-known principles, actively pay any rate or assessment on any town or class of men, which may be imposed for not raising the quotas or number assigned them to raise for any military purpose; whether it be as a fine for neglect, or as an equivalent for such quotas or detachment; nor any rates or assessments made for the advancing of the hire or enlisting-money of volunteers, or which may be expressly therein ordered to be given or paid to military men.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,
[A]s many Friends have expressed that a religious objection is raised in their minds against receiving or paying certain bills of credit, issued expressly for the purpose of carrying on the war, apprehending that it is a duty required of them to guard carefully against contributing thereto in any manner, we therefore fervently desire that such who are not convinced that it is their duty to refuse those bills, may be watchful over their own spirits, and abide in true love and charity, so that no expressions or conduct, tending to the oppression of tender consciences, may appear among us.
And we likewise affectionately exhort those who have this religious scruple, that they do not admit or indulge any censure in their minds against their brethren who have not the same; carefully manifesting, by the whole tenor of their conduct, that nothing is done through strife and contention, but that they act from a clear conviction of Truth in their own minds; showing forth, by their meekness, humility, and patient suffering, that they are followers of the Prince of Peace.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,
It is the judgment of this meeting that a tax levied for the purchasing of drums, colors, or for other warlike uses, cannot be paid consistently with our Christian testimony.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, 1778
We find in several different quarters a religious scruple has appeared and increases among Friends, against the payment of taxes, imposed for the purpose of carrying on the present war; they being deeply concerned and engaged faithfully to maintain our Christian testimony against joining with or supporting the spirit of wars and fightings, which has remarkably tended to unite us in a deep sympathy with the seed of life in their hearts.
And feeling a sincere desire for the advancement of the kingdom of the Prince of Peace, in such a gradual progress as may be consistent with his Divine will; we earnestly recommend to all the members of our religious society, that in singleness of heart we may be truly exercised in giving due attention to the dictates of unerring grace, and strictly careful not to stifle or suppress the secret monitions thereof in our own minds.
And that all may be closely excited to watchfulness and care to avoid complying with the injunctions and requisitions made for the purpose of carrying on war, which may produce uneasiness to themselves and tend to increase the sufferings of their brethren; which we apprehend will be the most effectual means of advancing our Christian testimony in purity, and preserving us in a conduct consistent with the holy principles we profess.
And we shall experience fervent love and concord to prevail among us, which will enable us to seek and promote the edification one of another, in that faith which works by love, freed from every censure inconsistent therewith
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,
We are desirous and earnestly recommend, that Friends in every quarter be encouraged to attend to their tender scruples against contributing to the promotion of war, by grinding of grain, feeding of cattle, or selling their property for the use of the army, or other such warlike purposes.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,
That our Christian testimony to the principles of peace may be consistently maintained, Friends should scrupulously avoid selling, hiring or renting their property for military purposes, as well as all transactions in the line of their business occupations, which directly contribute to furnishing military supplies.
They should not share in the spoils of war by purchasing or selling prize goods, nor ship goods in armed vessels.
They should refrain from paying taxes for the express purpose of war, from hiring substitutes, or paying money in lieu of personal military service, and from taking part in public meetings intended to promote the prosecution of war, or writing or speaking in advocacy of it.
Where deviations in any of these respects occur, tender dealing and advice should be extended to the individuals in order to their convincement, and if this proves ineffectual, Monthly Meetings should proceed to testify against them.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,
A living concern for the advancement of our testimony to the peaceable kingdom of Christ, continuing to spread in many minds, we fervently desire that the members of our religious society may carefully avoid engaging in any trade or business promotive of war; sharing or partaking of the spoils of war by purchasing or selling prize goods; importing or shipping goods in armed vessels; paying taxes for the express purpose of war; grinding of grain, feeding of cattle, or selling their property for the use of the army: that through a close attention to the monitions of divine grace, and guarding against the suppression of it either in themselves or others, they may be preserved in a conduct consistent with our holy profession, from wounding the minds or increasing the sufferings of each other; not at all doubting, that He to whom appertains the kingdom and the power, who is wonderful in working, will continue to carry on and perfect his blessed cause of peace in the earth.
A solid attention to this concern is recommended to Quarterly, Monthly, and Preparative meetings, and to our brethren in general; it being the judgment of this meeting, that if any of our members do either openly or by connivance, pay any fine, penalty or tax, in lieu of personal service for carrying on war; or allow their children, apprentices or servants to act therein; or are concerned in arming or equipping vessels with guns, or in dealing in public certificates, issued as a compensation for expenses accrued, or services performed in war; that they be tenderly dealt with.
London Yearly Meeting,
It is recommended to Friends everywhere, to take into their serious consideration the inconsistency of any under our profession suffering their temporal interest to induce them in any manner to contribute to the purposes of war.
Rhode Island Yearly Meeting,
We advise that all friends carefully avoid censuring or judging each other, in respect to the payment or non-payment of any taxes, a part whereof goes to the support of war, and a part for civil government.
And it is recommended to friends every where, to take into their serious consideration the inconsistency of any under our profession, suffering their temporal interest to induce them in any manner to contribute to the purposes of war.
It is the concern of this meeting, to recommend to the several monthly meetings, that they, consistently with our ancient testimony, refuse the payment of all taxes, expressly or specially for the support of war, whether called for in money, provisions or otherwise; and that accounts of distraints for such taxes be sent up; and that such friends as do actively pay such taxes, be dealt with as disorderly walkers.
We also desire, that all friends carefully avoid discouraging a tender scruple, which may arise in the minds of our brethren, respecting the payment of taxes, a part whereof is evidently for the support of war; and that all be careful to manifest, by a steady, consistent conduct, that they singly aim to experience an advancement in the truth.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,
That part of the proposed militia law which offers exemption to such person as conscientiously refuse to serve in the militia, upon condition of paying two dollars yearly towards defraying the expenses of civil government, coming under solid and deliberate consideration, it appears to be the united sense and judgment of this meeting, that no Friend can pay such fine or tax, consistent with our religious testimony and principle, it being a fine in lieu of personal services.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,
It is the sense and judgment of this meeting, that it is inconsistent with our religious testimony and principles, for any Friend to pay a fine or tax levied on them on account of their refusal to serve in the militia, although such fine or imposition may be applied towards defraying the expenses of civil government; and where deviations in this respect occur, tender dealing and advice should be extended to the party, in order to their convincement and restoration; and where they continue so regardless of the sense and judgment of the body, that the labor of their friends proves ineffectual, Monthly Meetings should proceed to testify against them.
Rhode Island Yearly Meeting,
It is our sense and judgment, that it will not be consistent with our testimony against war, for any of our members to receive pensions from government, for military services performed before they became members, though reduced to necessitous circumstances; but that this necessity should be relieved by monthly and quarterly meetings, and thereby preserve our religious testimony against the anti-christian practice of war, and manifest their sympathy for their brethren, by contributing to their comfortable support.
Ohio Yearly Meeting,
Believing, as we do, that the spirit of the gospel breathes “peace on earth and good will to men,” it is the earnest concern of the Yearly Meeting, that Friends may adhere faithfully to our ancient testimony against wars and fightings, avoiding to unite with any in warlike measures, either offensive or defensive, that, by the innocency of our conduct, we may convincingly demonstrate ourselves to be real subjects of the Messiah’s peaceful reign, and be instrumental in the promotion thereof towards its desired completion, when, according to ancient prophecy, “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea; and its inhabitants shall learn war no more.”
That furnishing wagons, or other means for conveying of military stores, is a military service; and the care of elders, overseers, and faithful Friends, should be extended in christian tenderness and love, to such as deviate herein, in order to convince them of their error.
It is the fervent concern of the Yearly Meeting, to recommend to the deep attention of all our members, that they be religiously guarded against approving or showing the least connivance at war, either by attending at or viewing military operations, or in any wise encouraging the unstable, deceitful spirit of party, by joining with political devices or associations, however speciously disguised under the ensnaring subtleties commonly attendant thereon; but that they sincerely labor to experience a settlement on the alone sure foundation of pure, unchangeable truth, whereby, through the prevalence of unfeigned christian love and good will to men, we may convincingly demonstrate that the kingdom we seek is not of this world, but a kingdom and government whose subjects are free indeed, redeemed from those captivating lusts from whence come wars and fightings.
And that the members of our religious society would carefully avoid engaging in any trade or business promotive of war, sharing or partaking of the spoils of war, by purchasing or selling prize-goods, importing or shipping goods in armed vessels, paying taxes for the express purpose of war, or from pecuniary motives grinding of grain, feeding of cattle, or disposing of their property, for the use of the army; that through a close attention to the monitions of divine grace, and guarding against the suppression of it, either in themselves or others, they may be preserved in a conduct consistent with our holy profession, and from wounding the minds or increasing the sufferings of each other; not at all doubting that He to whom appertains the kingdom and the power, who is wonderful in working, will continue to carry on and perfect his blessed cause of peace on earth.
A due attention to this concern is recommended to Quarterly, Monthly and Preparative meetings, and to Friends in general; it being the judgment of the Yearly Meeting, that if any of our members do, either openly or by connivance, pay any fine, penalty or tax, in lieu of personal service for carrying on war, or allow their children, apprentices or servants, (who are members,) to act therein, or are concerned in arming or equipping vessels with guns, or deal in public certificates issued as a compensation for expenses accrued, or services performed in war, that they be tenderly treated with, and, if they cannot be brought to an acknowledgment of their error, Monthly Meetings are authorized to disown them.
And finally, dear Friends, upon the calamitous subject of war, you are not ignorant of what adorns our profession.
Let us seek peace and pursue it, remembering that we are called to love.
Oh! that the smallest germ of enmity might be eradicated from our enclosures; and truly there is a soil in which it cannot live: this soil is christian humility.
May we therefore be peaceable ourselves, in words and actions, seeking for that disposition in which we can pray to the Father of the Universe, that he may breathe the spirit of reconciliation into the hearts of his erring and contending creatures.
New York Yearly Meeting,
Consonant with the precepts and doctrines of the gospel, which breathes peace on earth and good will towards men, we have found it to be our indispensable duty to bear a faithful testimony against war: it is, therefore, affectionately enjoined on the members of our Society, to demean themselves, on all occasions, in a christian and peaceable manner, demonstrating to the world, that they are uniform in profession and practice.
Friends are earnestly advised not to unite with any, directly or indirectly, in a way calculated to promote the spirit of war, or which may encourage or strengthen them therein; to avoid engaging in any business tending to promote war, underwriting on armed vessels, or being concerned in any company where such insurance is made, or shipping or ordering goods shipped, in armed vessels.
But should members of our society be so unmindful of our christian testimony against war, as to bear arms, or actively comply with military requisitions, be concerned in warlike preparations, offensive or defensive, by sea or land, pay a fine, penalty, or tax, in lieu of personal service, deal in prize goods, directly or indirectly, or be concerned in promoting the publication of writings which tend to excite the spirit of war; advice should speedily be given them; and, after being tenderly treated with, in order to bring them to a sense of their error, in departing from this distinguishing testimony of the society, unless they give satisfaction to the monthly meeting, they are to be disowned.
New England Yearly Meeting,
The Representatives of the Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends for New England, being impressed with the importance of diffusing among their own members and in the christian community correct information on some points of our faith and practice, have, believed it right for them at this time to issue this address, to the end that the principles that we have ever maintained in relation thereto, since our origin as a people, may be faithfully supported by us, and clearly understood by others.
It is a time of much excitement in civil and religious society, and we are earnestly desirous that our members may individually seek to manifest on all occasions a meek and quiet spirit, ever demeaning themselves as good citizens, prompt in the support of right order, and in all things adorning the doctrines we profess, This has at all times been the concern of our Society.
Acknowledging God as the alone Supreme Ruler of the conscience, they have been ever ready cheerfully to submit to all the laws and ordinances of men that did not conflict therewith, and to contribute to the support of well-ordered civil government,
We do indeed believe that war and fighting are contrary to the Divine Will, and unlawful for us as christians — and we cannot, therefore, in any way, countenance or contribute to military operations.
We believe that, under the Government of the Prince of Peace, swords are to be beaten into ploughshares and spears into pruning-hooks and men are to learn war no more.
The nature of the christian dispensation, in contrast with the fierce passions of man, is beautifully portrayed by the evangelical prophet — “Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end.”
Isa. ⅸ: 5, 6, 7.
When our Savior walked among men, he inculcated the principles of peace in clear and emphatic language, and by his own shining example.
— “You have heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — but I say to you that you resist not evil.”
— “You have heard that it has been said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy — but I say to you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven.”
And in his own example, when he could have summoned twelve legions of angels to his rescue, he quietly submitted to his persecutors, and in the end offered the intercession, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
The Apostle James in allusion to this subject queries, “From whence come wars and fightings among you?
Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?”
Believing, then, that under the christian dispensation, which was ushered in with the annunciation of “Peace on earth, good will toward men,” we cannot in any way be engaged in war or contribute to its support every faithful member of our body has felt bound conscientiously to abstain from all participation in it; — and in our earlier existence as a people, before our principles were well understood, we were subjected to the spoiling of goods, imprisonment and much suffering, on account of our religious scruples in this respect — but we dare not in the Divine sight do otherwise than steadfastly maintain our testimony, based as it is on the precepts of Him who was emphatically the Prince of Peace, and consonant with the doctrines and practice of his apostles and early followers.
Nor can we for conscience sake agree to any commutation for military requisitions; for hereby should we be consenting to the justness and propriety of the exaction.
And in this we trust that those who view this subject differently from us, will discover no disposition to screen ourselves from onerous duties, but will do us the justice to believe that it is for the answer of a pure conscience to God, which is dearer to us than our natural lives.
And for the sincerity of our motives we may appeal to the history of our Society, in which no instance will be found where a consistent member has ever borne arms, or voluntarily paid a fine or tax as an equivalent; but has chosen rather patiently to suffer whatever might be inflicted upon him for the support of his religious belief.
North Carolina Yearly Meeting,
We have had the subject under serious consideration, and while in accordance with our last yearly meeting we do pay all taxes imposed on us as citizens and property-holders in common with other citizens, remembering the injunction, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, yet we cannot conscientiously pay the specified tax, it being imposed upon us on account of our principles, as the price exacted of us for religious liberty.
Yet we do appreciate the good intentions of those members of Congress who had it in their hearts to do something for our relief; and we recommend that those parents who have, moved by sympathy, or those young men who, dreading the evils of a military camp, availed themselves of this law, shall be treated in a tender manner by their monthly meetings.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,
In considering the present state of our beloved country, afflicted by the desolating war brought about by a wicked rebellion, our minds have been affectionately turned towards you, with strong desires that amid the contending passions and angry strifes which agitate many, we may not become forgetful of the responsibility resting upon us, but keep continually in view that we are called to give proof, in all our conduct and conversation, of being the meek and harmless disciples of the Prince of Peace.
We feel the seriousness of thus addressing you at the present time, and are solicitous that each one who is concerned to maintain the principles and testimonies of the gospel which we as a people have professed to the world, may gather to the unction received from the Holy One, which the apostle declared to the believers, abides in you and will teach you of all things, and is truth and no lie; that so we may all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.
The position occupied by Friends in relation to war, to the right of liberty of conscience, and the duty of citizens to obey the laws and support civil government, is sometimes misunderstood for want of a just appreciation of the ground upon which we act.
From its rise, the Society has ever entertained and declared views upon each of these subjects, consonant with the doctrines set forth in the gospel.
It has always believed that civil government is a divine ordinance, designed to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind, and that it is a Christian duty to live quiet and peaceable lives under it, in all godliness and honesty; to obey all laws which are not incompatible with the precepts of our holy Redeemer, and cheerfully to bear our full share of the public burdens.
While acknowledging their allegiance to government, and yielding to the powers that be, the right of exercising all the functions necessary for promoting the good of the people, Friends have ever held, that they, in common with all other Christians, are amenable to God alone for the exercise of liberty of conscience, which is an inherent and inalienable right, and that no earthly power possesses authority to take it away.
The Great Author of our being requires that we should love Him above all, and worship Him in spirit and in truth.
This can only be done as we yield humble obedience to his will, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, or by his Spirit in the heart.
Where any believe that will is thus made known to them, it is their duty to act in accordance therewith, and thus show their love and fidelity to Him who is their Creator and their Judge; and it is their right to do this without being hindered or molested by their fellow-man, provided, in all their actions, they have due respect to the rights of others, and violate none of the laws of Christian morality.
The tenor of the gospel establishes these truths, and the New Testament history of the Apostles shows, that they claimed and exercised the right of liberty of conscience — a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man.
In pleading for it at the present time therefore, we are advancing no new claim; for since the day when it was declared we ought to obey God rather than man, down to the present time, true hearted Christians have often suffered wrong and outrage therefor; many laying down their lives rather than flinch from the performance of what they conscientiously believed to be their religious duty.
From the earliest rise of our Religious Body it has uniformly maintained a steadfast testimony against all wars and fightings, as arising from the corrupt propensities and lusts of man’s fallen nature, agreeably to the testimony of Holy Scripture; and as being contrary to the pure and peaceable religion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great object of which is to bring “Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good-will towards men.”
His glorious advent was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah under the character of the Prince of Peace, “upon whose shoulders the government should be,” and that “of the increase of his government and peace there should be no end.”
His Kingdom is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Within it therefore there can be nothing that will hurt or destroy, but all must be harmony and love.
He enjoins upon all to submit to this government and enter this heavenly enclosure.
In order to do this, He teaches them to love their enemies, to do good to them that hate them, and pray for them who despitefully use them and persecute them.
He declared that He came “not to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”
He drew a clear and strong contrast between the imperfect dispensation of the Mosaic Law and that of His blessed gospel, showing that the former had allowed the retaliation of injuries, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” but that His commandment now is “I say to you that you resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
In the prayer which our Saviour gave his disciples, He makes the measure of the forgiveness they are to ask from their Father in heaven, to be that which they show to those who offend them, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,” adding, “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”
These are solemn words, applicable to every one, and which leave no room for the indulgence of those passions in which war and fightings originate and are carried on.
We know of no course of reasoning consonant with the New Testament, nor any circumstances, which can release us from the obligation to obey these plain and positive precepts of our Lord, or that can reconcile with them, the dreadful business of war.
We have no more license to indulge in its cruel and revengeful spirit, than had the immediate followers of Christ; neither do we find any narrower limit allowed us for showing our love and good will to man.
The religious obligation resting on us to act consistently with our Christian faith, is paramount to any which could bind us, to yield an active compliance with the laws for maintaining or enforcing the performance of military duty Friends are restrained from any participation in war or military measures, not from any want of loyalty to the government, nor from a disposition factiously to obstruct the execution of the laws, nor yet to shelter ourselves from danger or hardship; but because the requirements made, in this particular, contravene what we believe to be the will of God, and we are bound to obey Him rather than man.
The wickedness and enormities of the rebellion which has plunged our country into the horrors of war, devastated many portions of it, caused a fearful sacrifice of human life, spread want and misery, and filled so many hearts and homes with sorrow, are abhorrent to our principles and feelings; and it is our fervent desire that it may please the Almighty Ruler of Nations, to quench the spirit of rebellion and anarchy, to stay the effusion of blood, and once more to establish peace and order throughout our afflicted land.
But our religious belief as much restrains us from taking part in this war as in any other, and we claim the right of liberty of conscience, to act according to this belief, in this, as in every other article of our faith.
We are aware that large numbers of our fellow citizens look upon war in a different light from ourselves.
While we mourn that it is so, we do not interfere with their liberty of conscience, and they can make no just claim to oblige us to conform our consciences to theirs, or to inflict punishment upon us. if we do not so conform.
The founders of the government of the United States upheld this principle, when they declared, in the first amendment to the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
It is evident that “the free exercise of religion,” guaranteed in this deliberately adopted amendment, does not relate merely to the holding of abstract doctrines, but to the protection of the people in the exercise of all acts springing from their religious principles, which do not infringe on the rights of others, or violate the laws of Christian morality.
Inasmuch, therefore, as the testimony against war has formed a part of the religious faith of the Society of Friends for more than two hundred years, a fact, of which the framers of the amendment, and those who adopted it, could hardly have been ignorant, it is reasonable and fair to conclude, that the conscientious scruple of Friends against participating in warlike measures, is conceded and fully protected by the above amendment; and that they are entitled to exercise and fully enjoy it, not only in virtue of their natural and inalienable right of liberty of conscience, but by the great charter of our national government, the instrument which secures the privileges and immunities of the citizens, and limits and controls the action of Congress and of every other department of the government.
Consistently with these views, Friends — while in accordance with the injunction, “Render to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom” — they have not scrupled to pay the taxes and duties levied for the general purposes of the government — cannot conscientiously and consistently pay money — however small or large the sum — levied solely for warlike purposes, or in lieu of military service; whether to hire a substitute to do that which we believe to be sinful, or as a tax for the exercise of the right of liberty of conscience.
To exact such a fine or tax from those who withhold compliance with the law on conscientious ground, they feel to be inflicting a penalty for the religious faith of the sufferer; to be contrary to the spirit and precepts of the gospel, and subversive of our inalienable right, as well as an infringement of the free exercise of our religion, guaranteed in the Constitution.
As well might we be required to pay because we believe in the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ, in the Scriptures having been written by holy men of old as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, or because we decline to support a paid ministry, as that money should be demanded, or a penalty inflicted on us, because we believe the New Testament forbids all war, and that as Christians we cannot fight.
The object to which the penalty or commutation money may be applied does not change the principle.
The money is demanded as an equivalent for military service or the price of liberty of conscience: it is not a mere voluntary gift; and though it may be used for that, to which, under other circumstances, Friends might freely contribute, the principle involved is the same; to pay it is an admission of the right of government to interfere with the religion of the citizens.
Though the money may be applied to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, the payment of it in lieu of military service, is a practical avowal that human power may coerce a man’s conscience; and consequently that government may establish, by penal enactments, a State religion, and compel a man to pay towards its support; and virtually admits the persecutions of Friends and others, in past ages, for conscience sake, to have been a justifiable exercise of civil authority.
For our beloved friends, who are liable to the military draft, we feel deep and tender sympathy, and a Christian solicitude that, whatever may come upon them, they may not give way to fears or discouragement; but, in quietness and confidence, commit their cause to the keeping of Him who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in working.
We believe it will contribute to their strength and stability, not to lend a willing ear to unsettling reports and suggestions, which may be abroad, respecting the consequences of not obeying the draft, but cultivate inward retirement and humble waiting upon the Lord; and should any be called to suffer in support of our precious testimony, strive to bear it in the gentle non-resisting spirit of the Lamb of God, who, when He was reviled, did not revile again, when He suffered He threatened not, but committed himself to Him who judges righteously.
The present is a serious and affecting crisis in the history of our country; and the position of Friends, as the advocates of peace on gospel ground, is one of great responsibility.
We have no doubt of the solidity and rectitude of this ground, nor any fear of the consequences of standing upright upon it, in the meek and unresisting spirit of Christ.
To all who do so, we believe Divine help and support will be granted in the needful time.
Let, then, dear Friends, all our actions show that our profession of a conscientious testimony against war is a reality.
Keep clear of business of any kind, which depends for its emoluments on its connection with war.
Sorrowful indeed will it be, if any of the professed advocates of peace are found engaged in business which, in the eyes of a quick-sighted world, may cause the sincerity of our testimony to the peaceable principles of the gospel to be doubted, and give occasion for the charge of inconsistency, if not of hypocrisy, to be made against our religious profession.
We deem it cause of thankfulness that we live in a land where so many blessings and privileges are enjoyed, under a mild and liberal government; and desire that we all may evince our gratitude, by an uniformly peaceable and orderly demeanor; by a faithful performance of our civil duties, and a loyal and ready submission to the constituted authorities, in conformity with our religious principles, and as set forth in our Discipline, which says “We cannot consistently join with such as form combinations of a hostile nature against any, especially in opposition to those placed in sovereign or subordinate authority; nor can we unite with or encourage such as revile or asperse them.”
The favor of those in authority has often been extended to us, and demands our grateful acknowledgment; yet the kindness received, or harshness, should it be inflicted, is not to increase our loyalty or limit our obedience.
We are bound conscientiously to render dutiful submission and scrupulous fidelity to government, when under suffering from those in authority, as well as when partaking of their favor.
The war in which the country is engaged has given rise to great suffering among those who were held in slavery.
A very large number released since the conflict begun, are thrown upon the world in a state of extreme destitution, and under circumstances of great difficulty in providing for their wants.
Long dependent on others for a scanty subsistence, and, after life-long toil, poorly requited, turned abroad without means, multitudes have perished from want, and many are dying daily from disease caused by exposure and insufficient food and clothing.
Children of our common Father in heaven, these, and those who shall be brought under similar circumstances, have strong claims on our sympathy and aid, and we are glad to observe that Friends are manifesting a lively interest in their welfare, and liberally contributing to the supply of their needs.
We trust this will continue and increase, and that Friends will not grow weary in their efforts.
In carrying out this work of Christian benevolence, it is important that such measures should be adhered to, as will convey the relief directly to the objects it is intended for, and avoid all complications with military or other arrangements, which would compromise any of our religious principles.
May we all, dear Friends, allow the considerations which are herein brought before us, to rest with weight upon our minds, and incite us to watchfulness and prayer; that we may be redeemed from everything which leads to contention or discord, or betrays into unfaithfulness; and cultivate in ourselves those heavenly dispositions which make for peace; thus evincing that we are really the meek and self-denying followers of the merciful and compassionate Redeemer.
Canada Yearly Meeting,
Consonant with the precepts and doctrines of the Gospel, which breathes peace on earth and good-will towards men, we have found it to be our indispensable duty to bear a faithful testimony against war.
It is, therefore, affectionately enjoined on the members of our Society, to demean themselves on all occasions in a Christian and peaceable manner; demonstrating to the world that they are uniform in profession and practice.
Friends are earnestly advised not to unite with any, directly or indirectly, in a way calculated to promote the spirit of war, or which may encourage or strengthen them therein; to avoid engaging in any business tending to promote war, or to receive any profits derived from the sale of military or naval supplies, underwriting on armed vessels, or being concerned in any company where such insurance is made, or in shipping, or ordering goods shipped, in armed vessels.
But, should members of our Society be so unmindful of our Christian testimony against war as to bear arms either publicly or privately, or actively comply with military requisitions; should they be concerned in warlike preparations, offensive or defensive, by sea or land; pay a fine, penalty or tax, in lieu of personal service; deal in prize goods, directly or indirectly; or be concerned in promoting the publication of writings which tend to excite the spirit of war; they should be tenderly treated with in order to convince them of their error in departing from this distinguishing principle of the Gospel dispensation.
If, notwithstanding this Christian care, they continue to disregard our well-known testimony against all war, they should be disowned.
Gérard de Reyneval worked as a diplomatic intermediary between the Continental Congress and the French government, which was delighting in the colonial rebellion within its European rival.
In one of the intelligence reports he sent back to France in , he painted an unflattering picture of Quaker war tax resistance:
The following details in regard to the Quakers, which I have the honor to transmit to you, are of a mixed character.
At the beginning of the troubles, when the colonies rebelled against the (English) project of deriving a revenue from America, the Quakers had the most influence in the government of Pennsylvania.
With one exception, all agreed to defend by force of arms the exemption from every tax.
Previous to this they had voted for the war against the Indians, and when the question of independence came up, the Quakers opposed it with all their might.
Steps were then taken to excite the English and German population of the remoter sections of the colony, and Pennsylvania fell in with the sentiments of the other colonies.
Upon this the Quakers made an outcry against war taxes, which placed them in such contradiction with themselves as to increase their discredit.
, proofs were obtained of the services rendered to them by the Quakers; some of these were caught acting as spies, and, as it has been thus far the mistaken policy of the fraternity to support all individuals belonging to it, the odium and blame of this have reacted against the whole body.
This devotedness did not preserve them from the exactions of the English, who disposed of whatever suited them, even of the furniture inside their houses.
The Quakers furnished General Howe with money to redeem themselves, notwithstanding which their houses and gardens in Philadelphia were destroyed; a prominent man among them, who had given a considerable sum to Lord Howe, publicly reproached him, and declared that he would follow him wherever he went to recover the value of his dwelling.
These barbarous proceedings, which have made more Whigs in America than there are Tories now, have not had the same effects on the Quakers.
You will remember, Monseigneur, a document full of a kind of arrogance which they had circulated in the State of Pennsylvania, where they no longer are representatives.
The only result was the indignation and contempt of the Whigs: but real or affected sentiment has no shame, and they rather borrowed glory from this on the ground of persecution.
The feeling, however, did not last, and when the news came of the evacuation of New York (taken by the British), it was believed that, through secret intelligence, they were aware of it, and, afterward, that they would try to make up with the actual Government.
The President of Congress notified me that they would confer with me.
They sounded him before hand, and several deputations waited upon him, who confined themselves to recommending private matters.
They went further with me.
I will relate, Monseigneur, how this embassy was prepared and carried out.
Only the Quakers possessed any merchandise; they had bought it at low prices of the English, at , and re-sold it very dear.
This furnished me with opportunities to have relations with many of them, and the desire to judge for myself of the actual state of such a celebrated sect led me into conversations with them, which turned only on general matters relating to their sect and principles.
One day, one of them bluntly said to me: “You have a good deal of trouble in finding furniture.
Come into our houses and select what you like; you will then address yourself to Congress, and Congress will take from us to give to you at any price you please.”
I felt the full force of this rejoinder.
I asked him why he did not pay voluntarily.
“Our religion forbids us,” he replied.
“I fear then,” said I in return, “that, as people accuse you, you have an easy conscience when called upon to pay money and to concern yourselves for things not to your taste; and that a religion which has no other public influence in society than to produce avarice and an inordinate love of ease and indolence must strike enlightened people as a mask for hypocrisy.”
I manifested a desire to have this doubt cleared up.
This led to a discussion, which ended by the Quaker telling me that he would bring me a person who knew more than himself, able to solve my doubts, and with whom I could explain myself in French.
The name of this person is Benezet, son of a French refugee, who has turned Quaker, and who is a man of intelligence and learning.
He prepared me for the mission by sending me one of the brethren, who praised highly the merit and virtues of this sort of patriarch.
Finally he came, and we had several conversations on the history, principles, and career of his sect.
It was only at our last interview, , that he at last declared, yielding to my arguments, that, agreeing with most of the fraternity, he thought that the Quakers ought to submit to the actual government and pay taxes, without questioning the use to which these might be put; but that they had weak brethren among them, whose scruples they were obliged to respect.
I made him sensible of the dangers of this mistaken policy, one which involved a loss of public esteem universally, and warranted the distrust and rigorous measures of the government.
I remarked to him that since they had been able to secure the confidence of the English administration, the principles of which differed so much from their own, it would be easy to come to terms with a government tolerant in principles and which would not persecute them when once combined with it.
Sieur Benezet seemed to have resolved to expound these truths; he ended by begging me to favor the fraternity, and especially to exercise my good offices in behalf of some Mennonites affiliated with them, who had been imprisoned and fined for not taking up arms. I replied that it was not in my mission to arrest the energies of the American government, and that when the Quakers had performed their duties they would no longer be in fear of persecution.
The President of Congress expressed his best thanks to me for the way in which I had conducted this affair, and begged me to treat the ulterior demands of the Quakers in the same fashion.
[Tom Hazard’s] principles of non-resistance… were very firm; there is no
indication that he took any part in the struggle, except as an exhorter to
quiet endurance, and a distributer of aid to the suffering.
Matters were going from bad to worse with the finances of the colony. The
Colonial Records are full of reports on the state of the money. The bills as
they became due were burnt by the proper officer, but fresh ones took their
place. A table of value of Spanish milled dollars is given in an act fixing
the depreciation of continental bills for each month after
. One hundred Spanish milled
dollars at that time were worth a hundred and five in paper. The price
rapidly increases till three years later, in
, they were worth seven thousand
paper dollars, and , sixteen
thousand in paper. It was made obligatory to accept this depreciated paper in
exchange for land, and the general distress can be imagined. During
all business was at a
standstill in Providence and Newport, and the farmers allowed their produce
to decay rather than sell to the merchants at the heavy discount they
demanded. The forcing act was brought to the test and declared
unconstitutional, But the ruin
was already widespread. I have been told by the youngest granddaughter of
College Tom, that she had heard her mother relate that her grandmother used
to say she saw the money go out of the house in baskets full of gold and
silver, and come back in bundles of rags. Not every one in South Kingstown
accepted the “rags,” as the spirited protest of William Knowles proves:—
Henry Potter and John Segar both of South Kingston on oath say that on the
they saw Col. Samuel Segar
make a tender of the sum of two thousand one hundred dollars to Mr. William
Knowles of said South Kingston to discharge two bonds & a note said
Knowles had against said Segar, but the said Knowles refused to take the
same, saying that he would not take such trash as that was, but if said
Samuel Segar would pay him & in the same sort of money the said Segar
had of the said Knowles he would take it.
(Signed) Henry Potter, John Segar.
Kings County to wit South Kingston
Henry Potter & John Segar subscribers to the above
Deposition made Oath to the Truth of the same in order to perpetuate the
same.
Before Carder Hazard, J.C. Pleas.
S. Perry, Justice of the Peace.
William Knowles, cited but did not attend.
Evidence of Henry Potter & John Segar inter Samuel Segar & William
Knowles
In , money was at 4000 paper
dollars for 100 silver, and it is small wonder it is called “such trash.”
But Thomas Hazard carried out his Quaker principles. He enters his Rate bill
this year and the following, and makes the entry for his son as well:—
Rate Bill Signed by Robert Potter, Town
Treasurer for Raising Continental Soldiers, Silver money £8
8s,
3d.
Class Bill the Same year Signed by the above Thomas Potter
etc. the above
named committee £5
7s.
0d.
. Rate Bill
, signed by Thomas Potter, John
Gardner, Robert Brown & Samuel Babcock.
Class money Silver
£15 4s. 6d.
Rowland Hazard
0 1s. 6d.
State Tax Silver money
18 15s. 4d.
£34 1s. 4d.
Dated
Signed by Joshua Clarke general Treasurer.
. Continental money tax
warrant from the General Treasurer £1176.
6. 0 Continental Town Tax signed by Robert Potter, Town Treasurer 238. 10. 0
Rate bill, dated —— of —— month, A.D.
warrant signed by —— demand £2.
9s.
6d. Taken by Timothy Peckham,
collector, one yearling bull price £3
12s.
00d. hard money, and one
yearling heifer price £3
00s.
00d.
The distrained cattle show how he carried out his convictions, and suffered
their loss rather than support the “carnal war and fightings” which disturbed
the meeting so much.
Some of the latest entries in the book find him still submissive,—
One cow taken by Daniel Shearman,
I know not his Demand by
inquiry it appeared He did not come to the House, but spoke to Robert in the
field.
A fortnight later—
The Willson Pollock collector
took four of my best cows all giving milk he said that he had several taxes
against me amounting to £33 & upward hard money but shew no warrant or
order from authority I accidentally saw him with the cows as he drove them
up the lane that leads to the highway westward from my dwelling house.
(Signed) Thomas Hazard.
So he put himself on record as suffering for conscience sake. In
Rhode Island finally signed the
constitution, having run through almost all possible evils with her currency.
She was the last of all the colonies to yield to the common good, — her
excessive individuality having been at once the source of her strength and
her weakness.
In Bi-Centennial of Brick Meeting-House, Calvert, Cecil
County, Maryland () is an account of
some of the confessions made by Quakers from the Nottingham Meeting concerning
individual failures to abide strictly by the peace testimony.
“The period of the Revolutionary War was the most trying period for Nottingham
Friends to maintain their discipline against war and control their members
from entering or assisting in military operations,” writes the section’s
author, who gives these examples from the archives:
Hannah Stubbs, a young woman of Little Britain, “her dissatisfaction in
satisfying a constable, with a sum of money on her brother’s account, who was
for a substitute fined.”
Rachel Brown, Jr.,
acknowledged “her uneasiness in having sold two blankets to an officer
of the militia though afterwards found it to be her duty to return the
money, as also making use of Continental currency.”
Jeremiah Sergeant acknowledges “that he made use of money left by an
officer for blankets, which he acknowledged to be wrong.”
Jacob Reynolds, of West Nottingham, acknowledged that “he had some
cattle taken from him, and that he took them again in a manner not becoming
our religious society, with his sons and others.”
Samuel Coppack, of Little Britain, acknowledged “setting forth his
unfaithfulness for reclaiming a creature (horse) for substitute fine.”
Joseph Reynolds and Jacob Reynolds,
Jr., acknowledged “they
had helped to fetch back some cattle that were taken by military men in a
manner not agreeable to our peaceable profession, and are convinced of the
evil thereof.”
Hezekiah Rowles and Elizabeth Rowles acknowledged “they had not stood
clear as they ought in selling some small matters to soldiers, and suffering
some of their family to make and wash some of their clothes.”
Ann Sidwell acknowledged “that she assisted to bring home a mare that
was taken for a substitute fine.”
Joseph Wood acknowledged he “assumed a sum of money that his
brother-in-law had paid for him in lieu of personal service in war.”
Ann Trimble acknowledges that she “received pay for a blanket that was
taken away, and also something as pay from a doctor who came and lodged some
time with us, whilst he was employed in the service of the army.”
Joshua Brown acknowledges that he “did agree to pay and without his
parents’ consent or knowledge, a man who had redeemed a horse that had
been taken from his father by military men.”
A number of other acknowledgments are made for paying military fines, and
fines for substitutes and for taking the oath of allegiance.
Several who did not make acknowledgments were disowned for different
offences, and several others were disowned for entering the military service
in some form.
At Nottingham Monthly Meeting, held , a list of property taken by distraint from diverse Friends of
this meeting was produced by the committee on sufferings, amounting to
sixty-six pounds and seven shillings.
From time to time, individual Quakers or Quaker delegations would meet with the people involved in tax collection, distraints, or auctions of distrained goods to try to persuade them that such courses of action were wrong.
Here’s an example of one such meeting from around , as recounted in Ezra Michener’s A Retrospect of Early Quakerism, being Extracts from the Records of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting and the Meetings Composing It, to which is Prefixed an Account of their First Establishment ():
The Friends appointed to visit some officers or persons concerned in levying fines, etc., have all attended to the service, and produced a report, viz.:—
Agreeable with the intention of our appointment, we have conferred together, and, dividing into several companies, proceeded to visit Robert Smith, called sheriff and lieutenant of the county; Andrew Boyd and Robert Wilson, sub-lieutenants; John Evans, one of the judges; Evan Evans and John Hammons, magistrates, — all in this county; and, in the county of Newcastle, Evan Reese and James Black, magistrates; and James Boggs, collector; and had opportunity of laying before them the reasons and grounds of our refusal to comply with several requisitions, made for the support of, or that have near connection with, war; and to open our principles, and the consistency thereof with the doctrines of the Gospel, as set forth in the New Testament and pointed out by the prophets, and the inconsistency of Christians oppressing one another for conscience sake.
They generally appeared friendly, and to receive our visit kindly, some of them particularly so; and most of them acknowledged that the prophecies concerning the disuse of carnal weapons, pointed to the Gospel dispensation, and was much to be desired.
We had good satisfaction in the performance of this service, believing truth owned it, and that there is encouragement for Friends to use further endeavors of this kind.
On , representatives from the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting addressed a “memorial” to the Pennsylvania General Assembly pleading for some relief from the property seizures that Quakers were being victimized by as a result of their refusal to pay war taxes.
Some observations offered to the serious consideration of those in legislative authority, by a number of the inhabitants of Lancaster County and the western part of Chester County, on behalf of themselves and many other peaceable sufferers, who are restrained, by a principle of tender conscience, from joining or contributing towards the support of warlike measures, lest they should offend him who is the Supreme Lord of conscience and dread of nations.
Also, a representation, offered from a sense of duty, concerning the cruel havoc and spoil of property of many industrious people under some late laws.
The people called Quakers, ever since they became a religious society, under every power, in every nation, island, and province, where they have lived, have, as a body, been men of peace.
Nor can they act inconsistent with this character while they live up to their principles, founded on the doctrine and precepts of the Prince of Peace, our Lord and Saviour, and his apostles and followers.
These teach us not to resist evil, to do violence to no man, to love our enemies, to follow peace with all men, to seek the good of all, and to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.
These peaceable fruits are produced by taking heed to the manifestations of the Spirit or Grace of God, which has appeared to all men, teaching and assisting those who believe in and observe it, to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; to deny pride, envy, strife, with all ungodliness and the world’s lusts, from whence contention about worldly matters, wars, and fightings proceed.
This doctrine we believe ought to have great weight with all Christians, being expressly taught and clearly held forth in the New Testament, as absolutely needful to be observed, which we may find was also taught and maintained by Christians of the first three hundred years after Christ.
Therefore, why should Christian rulers of this age seek to suppress it, by laying grievous burdens on those who apprehend they are called, and in duty to the Almighty believe themselves religiously bound to maintain it?
Or why should any think it strange if this peaceable doctrine should spread more, and even rise higher in these latter days than for many ages past, seeing many prophecies in Scripture give us encouragement and sufficient grounds to believe that it will rise and spread.
And although individuals may have fallen short, yet we as a religious body have endeavored to maintain this testimony, through all the changes in power which have happened since we were a people.
Neither have the difficulties we have been subjected to in these latter days of contest lessened our constancy herein, nor our zeal for the advancement of this peaceable doctrine and testimony, however we may be misrepresented by some as being obstinate, or having party views to promote.
Now we think it necessary to inform you, that being lately met together (near fifty persons) to consider of the circumstances of our suffering brethren, we were sensibly affected with the accounts of increasing sufferings, which have been remarkably felt, especially in these parts, for our adherence to the peaceable principles before mentioned, whereby many respectable families are, and others likely to be, much deprived of the means of procuring the necessaries of life; by having their grain, horses, cattle, sheep, household goods, etc., in an extraordinary manner wrested from them, for demands of fines and taxes imposed by late laws, which, for the reasons aforesaid, they are conscientiously restrained from complying with.
And feeling near sympathy for all sufferers on these accounts, and much good-will towards those who are or have been the instruments thereof, we are concerned to lay before you, who are in legislative authority, a representation of some striking circumstances, which we apprehend demands your serious attention.
Visits having been paid by some of us in a friendly manner, to diverse officers concerned in the executive part, who we find shelter themselves under the laws now in force; and at the same time some of them express a sense of the injustice and unequal burdens thereby imposed.
And as it is righteousness alone that exalts a nation, oppression on those who are under religious restraints being displeasing to the Lord, and thereby of dangerous consequence to the well-being of any country, ought much to be feared by those in authority, lest they draw down his displeasure.
We doubt not, but if you seriously weigh the following propositions and representation of matters of fact herewith presented, and bring things to trial, by that unerring standard whereunto, sooner or later, we shall all be brought, you may be favored to see and judge aright.
First — Whether laws imposing fines on those who, in obedience to the doctrine of Christ, are restrained from mustering to learn warlike exercise, or from marching out in a warlike manner, and giving liberty to hard-hearted men, officers and others, whereby the property of honest, industrious persons, at a rate double, treble, or sometimes manifold more in value than the sums demanded, are, without mercy, torn away from the proper owners, can be safely approbated and continued by a legislative body composed of members professing faith in Jesus Christ, who blessed the peacemakers, the meek, and the merciful, and at whose tribunal righteousness only will meet with approbation?
Second — Whether laws imposing heavy taxes, which are often very unequally laid, and doubled, or in a higher proportion, on those who are religiously restrained from taking a test, or giving in returns of their estates upon affirmation, and who cannot join with or contribute towards the support of war, should continue, or can be countenanced by Christian legislators, where they pay a proper regard to equity in the sight of the Almighty, who will plead the cause of the oppressed, and render to all men, in every station, a reward according to their works?
Third — Whether guilt is not likely to be increased on that country where laws are enforced requiring the unusual imposition of oaths, rendering such solemnities cheap and trifling, whereby weak and earthly-minded persons may be brought under temptation to swear falsely, or to make false returns to save themselves from high taxation; and their innocent neighbors, who cannot swear at all, because Christ has forbidden it, nor take an affirmation to countenance taxation for warlike purposes, are brought under the penalties of unjust and exaggerated levies, whereby their property is rent from them, often as it were by wholesale: allowing room for collectors to become purchasers themselves of their neighbor’s goods greatly under value, whilst men who would choose to act in moderation, care not to take upon them such offices under those laws?
Other things respecting the laws above hinted at, and their effects, might be mentioned, concerning the insolent conduct of collectors and others under them; some of whom have rifled houses, broken doors, etc., while sufficient property was to be had without such measures.
Likewise the bringing in pistols, and other warlike weapons, in an imperious, hostile manner among peaceable, tender women and innocent children, while their husbands and fathers were absent.
And this, with much other unchristian conduct and severity, all done under color of executing the laws, which we incline not to enlarge upon, committing our cause to the Lord, the righteous Judge; humbly believing that where his fear prevails, equity will take place, unrighteous laws and unequal burdens cease, and the attention of those in authority be principally given to things which are for the promotion of peace on earth and the proper execution of justice, for the punishment of evil-doers, and the praise of them that do well.
A specimen of the sufferings of Friends in parts of Chester and Lancaster Counties in the cases following named: not chosen as the most oppressive, but briefly to represent the general devastation of property for non-compliance with requisitions appertaining to war, .
From Samuel Cope, three horse-creatures, a yoke of oxen, seven other
cattle, fifteen sheep, nine swine, seventy-five bushels of wheat, twenty of corn, ten yards of fine linen, a ton of hay, etc.,
£126 8 6
From Abiah Taylor, six horse-creatures, nine cattle, sixteen sheep,
two swine, a feather-bed, two casks of flour, one hundred and twenty-five bushels wheat, and seventy of corn, rye, and buckwheat,
234 1 6
From John Hoopes, Jr.,
four horse-creatures, a yoke of oxen, seventeen other cattle, thirty sheep, six swine, a watch, five sides of leather, etc.,
233 15 0
From Moses Coates, two horse-creatures, nine cattle, four sheep, cash
£5, and four and a half cwt. of iron,
98 11 0
From Benjamin Hutton, a horse, nine cattle, thirty and a half
bushels corn, and bed clothing,
66 16 9
From William Dixon, four horse-creatures, and six bushels of
wheat,
101 19 0
From Thomas Millhouse, a large yoke of oxen, ten other cattle, a
mare, four sheep, eighteen bushels oats, wearing apparel, etc.,
96 18 0
From John Pusey, three horse-creatures, fourteen cattle, and bed
clothing,
100 2 6
From Moses Brinton, twenty-one cattle, fifty-two bushels wheat, ten
of rye, and seven and a half tons of hay,
122 9 0
From Andrew Moore, one horse, twelve cattle, a wagon, and other
farming utensils, and household furniture
76 8 6
From John Webster, Jr.,
two cows, thirteen sheep, a hog, a case of drawers, a hearse, a cart, etc. (He being a tradesman in low circumstances, holding no land.)
26 15 0
From Isiah Brown, one cow, six bushels of corn, one hundred and
twenty pounds of bacon, a stack of hay, smith’s bellows, etc. (He holding about forty acres of land, and in low circumstances.)
21 6 0
From John Ferree, four horse-creatures, thirteen cattle, seven and a
half bushels of wheat, twenty of clean rye, one stack of do., forty bushels of corn, two stacks of oats, and one of hay,
187 7 0
Within one of our Monthly Meetings alone has been taken, , exclusive of the late large tax and diverse preceding demands, not yet taken account of by us, from about one hundred and twenty families, property to the amount of £6,108 19s. 11d., rated at such prices as the several articles would have generally sold for eight or ten years ago, without having regard to the fluctuating prices of later years.
For instance, wheat not exceeding 6s. 6d. per bushel, in our valuation, and other things in proportion.
Diverse of those recited are farmers having families of small children, who live on poorish land, and, in prosperous times, just lived reputably above want; but are, with many others, so reduced by the conduct of collectors, under the sanction of law, as to have no cow left, and some but one horse, some no sheep, and greatly stripped of other utensils, clothing, etc.
And many of us, before we were acquainted with such usage, had purchased plantations to live on, for which we run considerably in debt, expecting, through the blessing of Providence on our industry, to have paid for them in a few years; which is now rendered impracticable, by having the means taken from us, even to a considerably greater amount than our plantations would have rented for.
Thus are an industrious and very considerable part of the community made a spoil of, and many likely to suffer for the necessaries of life, if a stop is not put to such proceedings; which, in the end, certainly will greatly affect the public, as well as themselves; for it is not the acquisition of large tracts of uncultivated land, but the produce of the industrious, raised by cultivation, which supports the community at large.
Signed, on behalf and by appointment of the committee aforesaid, , by
Joshua Brown, Benjamin Mason, William Swayne, Joshua Pusey, Richard Barnard, Isaac Coates, Amos Davis, Samuel Cope, William Lamborn
This plea didn’t have much effect.
One report from late read:
From Friends of Sadsbury Monthly Meeting, for refusing to pay fines and taxes, chiefly for war purposes, was taken… horses, cattle, sheep, grain, flour, hay, farming utensils, household furniture, wearing apparel, provisions, etc., amounting to £1,185 18s 7d.
Anthony Benezet is one of the giants of 18th century American Quakerism, particularly well-known for his efforts towards the abolition of slavery.
He was one of the signers of the “epistle of tender love and caution” that can be considered the founding document of American war tax resistance.
I’ve tried to find some additional information about Benezet’s attitudes toward tax resistance, but have so far only been able to find a fragmentary record that hints at more extensive writings that either no longer exist or that I haven’t managed to locate yet.
I found some good information in George S. Brookes’s Friend Anthony Benezet ().
From a letter to John Smith, :
Some time last week we understood a meeting was proposed by William Brown and John Churchman [two other “epistle” signers] to be held with all those who had refused to pay the Last Year’s Tax, to which we understood our English Friends intended to attend; as this proposal begat some uneasiness in some of us O.J. [“Very likely Owen Jones” — George S. Brookes] and myself went up to William Brown and told the Friends there that we must declare our disunity with said meeting, and on our own and the behalf of many of our Friends who we were assured could not approve of it as it will have a tendency to prejudice the mind of many young people and induce them to come to hasty conclusions.
Howsoever we were told the time was too short to contradict the meeting, which was held.
Where after a pretty deal of conversation it was concluded that the matter was now grown to such a height as to make it necessary to carry it to the Yearly Meeting.
The only matter in debate seemed how it should be introduced there, which I understand to be concluded to be done by the channel of the Meeting of Suffering, and as the matter will be probably debated at that Meeting next Fifth day, thought it necessary to acquaint ffd. of Burlington of it.
I hope they will with me think it their duty to attend.
We are also to have a Meeting of Suffering next Seventh day morning, before the meeting of ministers.
I need not expatiate on the matter as it speaks for itself: but remain in great haste as the boat is just going.
We have professed to be called & redeemed from the spirit of the world, from that prevalent pride & indulgence so contrary to the low, humble, self-denying life of Christ & his immediate followers; but have we indeed been such, has not our conformity to the world, our engagements of life, in order to please ourselves & gain wealth, with little regard to the danger to the better part, been productive to all the evils pointed out in the Gospel, has it not naturally led us & begot a desire in our children to live in conformity to other people; hence the sumptuousness of our dwellings, our equipage, our dress; furniture & the luxury of our tables have become a snare to us & a matter of offence to the thinking part of mankind; and the mind has been raised in our children & often in ourselves from the meekness & self-denial of the Gospel, into resentment in defence of what is become as our Gods; and the meek humble & poor self-denying life of Christ is become of no repute, or rather as a Shepherd was to the Egyptians.
The suffering providence which now is displayed over us seems particularly calculated to bring us to our selves, in some respects, as the trials & devastation is greater upon those whose possessions are most expensive, & have been at the greatest pains & expenses in adorning their pleasant pictures.
I trust this, at least, will teach us, in future, to live more agreeable to our profession; whereby our wants being made less, the perplexing, dangerous snares & engagements which attend the amassing & use of wealth would be much lessened.
If this afflictive providence does induce us to begin anew upon the true foundation of our principles, in that low & humble state of mind & conduct which becomes & indeed constitutes the real followers of Christ, it will have done much for us.
In , French diplomat Gérard de Reyneval, who was stationed in America, reported back to his government on the troubles caused to the revolutionary war effort by Quaker pacifism.
He said he had interviewed Benezet and that Benezet “at last declared, yielding to my arguments, that, agreeing with most of the fraternity, he thought that the Quakers ought to submit to the actual government and pay taxes, without questioning the use to which these might be put; but that they had weak brethren among them, whose scruples they were obliged to respect.”
Perhaps so, but I hear tell that there’s a letter co-authored by Benezet and a “B. Mason” under the title “Some Brief remarks offered as Reasons why we ought not to pay Taxes to support War.”
Alas, I haven’t yet been able to find a copy of this.
(See The Picket Line for for the text of that letter.)
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your several favors… except your thoughts on the payments of taxes for war, which by some mistake I conclude was left out in closing the packet.
As that is a subject much under the consideration of Friends [it] would have been particularly satisfactory to have seen your thoughts upon it.
Inclosed I send a few of mine of that subject on the occasion therein mentioned as they are the first I have communicated to any friend in writing.
If there be anything too strongly suggested I shall take it kindly if you’ll note it, as I have a care on me that we do not, in furthering this testimony which I have faith to believe is founded in the truth, do anything to support it in a wrong zeal and not according to knowledge.
As it is a step in the reformation that crosses a received testimony in Society more than perhaps any other, we had need to step wisely in it.
The want of your thoughts on paying taxes has hitherto prevented my sending Timothy Davis an account of your care and concern for him, hoping they would before long come to hand.
I have not seen him for some time but often hear from him; he is doubtless too much in the love of, and conformity to the world, and not enough the meekness and simplicity becoming his profession, as, indeed is the case with too many others.
Our friend Abraham Griffith had a large opportunity with him and his adherents who stand out against the body, please to be referred to him for his state and that of the shattered meeting where he lives.
He has been writing against Friends under the character of vindicating of himself, with which I was grieved and sent him word by his and my friend, who had seen his performance, my prospects of such a procedure.
He has not fit yet to publish it.
Davis eventually did publish it, in , under the title “An Address to the People called Quakers, concerning the manner in which they treated Timothy Davis, for writing and publishing a Piece on Taxation.”
I haven’t seen this leaflet yet, but hope to get a peek at it through interlibrary loan.
(See The Picket Line for ) One of these days maybe I’ll have a chance to scavenge through the various Quaker archives back in Pennsylvania.
Brown continues:
I have several times felt much for Timothy and longed for his restoration, and though I have several times begun to write to him I have felt a cautious fear, and though when I saw him while under dealing, the way to freedom seemed open between us, yet it is not to write.
Perhaps you may not be so restrained.
His letter to Abraham upon the subject of taxes shows him to be in the reasoning.
Benezet wrote to George Dillwyn about Moses Brown’s letter (unmatched left-quote in the original):
What I mentioned to Sister Peggy was the desire I had to communicate parts of Moses Brown’s letter relating to the payment of taxes for the purposes of war.
This testimony he appears fully convinced is founded on truth, and sends me a copy of a letter he had purposed to send to friends in England on that head, but at the same time he appears very desirous friends should not do anything in a wrong zeal, not according to knowledge more especially as he says it is a step in the reformation that crosses a received testimony in society more than perhaps any other, we had need to step wisely in it.
He adds: “It is apprehended the many difficulties friends were under at their first appearance and the manner of the English collecting their taxes, being such that a refusal must have greatly encreased them, the first reformers were excused from that burden, and permitted to pay them, that by so doing they might (as George Fox said in an epistle on the subject in ) better claim their liberty.
The trials (he further says) of those who may refuse the payments of taxes will be increased at this time by their conduct being construed into a disaffection to their country; and we hope will be a bar to any’s running in a forward spirit to become reformers without feeling the meek & humbling evidence of truth.
“we fear some take up the testimony more on account of the authority that demands the taxes than because they are used for war”
Another letter to Benezet from Moses Brown, dated , touches on Timothy Davis again:
Having had a concern for some time for Timothy Davis I took an opportunity with our friend John Lloyd and paid him a visit, and while there introduced your concern for him and read your observations concerning him and his state, which he seemed to take well, and said they would be of service if attended to, and on the whole I believe Timothy sees he has missed it but can’t get down enough to submit to the cross and acknowledge his mistake whereby he might be reconciled to his brethren.
He seems to think friends have been too hard with him, but yet said he thought at times Friends were as near or nearer than ever.
He continues to have Meetings by himself and goes some in the neighborhood round and preaches to his adherents.
As to taxes, he told us he expected one account that he could not pay, which I have since to mention to others who have paid all, even some who had been on appointment to treat with Timothy.
I think if he could be prevailed on to drop his Meetings at home and not go abroad preaching to others he would very soon apply to be restored, which I mention believing if you attend to your concern on his account it may be useful to him.
Your notes on taxes are satisfactory.
We having for some time an apology for those who refuse the payment of taxes, our meeting for sufferings have of late appointed a committee to examine it, which has been done, and alterations & additions made, and it has been proposed to send it to your meeting for sufferings for your approbation before it is printed, and I expect it will be forwarded soon after our next Meeting for Sufferings.
It is pretty extensive on the subject, containing near 60 quarto pages.
Should friends think it suitable at this time to publish it, I have thought it might come in as an appendix although it has been written by one friend, diverse others having assisted in collecting material and suggesting their prospects, it is at present undetermined whether it will be best for one or more to sign it, which occasioned the proposal of sending it to you.
The subject is weighty and should be well considered, those friends in our meeting who pay the taxes of whom there are a number of concerned friends and leading members seem to be much more cordially consenting to the publication than could be expected.
The principle difficulty with some of them and those of us who decline is we fear some take up the testimony more on account of the authority that demands the taxes than because they are used for war.
Such we fear instead of forwarding will eventually retard the testimony, and as some Friends refuse all taxes, even those for civil uses as well as those clear for war and others that are mixed, and thereby dropping our testimony of supporting civil government by readily contributing thereto, it has been a fear whether this variety of conduct won’t mar rather than promote the work.
Could we be more united in the ground of our testimony and in our practice in it, I should have more hopes of its speedy obtaining in society.
A time will doubtless come when a smaller proportion will be for war than at present when the greater part being for civil uses, friends may pay as there is and ought to be according to the apostle, a conscientiousness in paying to the support of civil government as well as refuse that for war, to refuse the payment of such when even a lesser part be mixed for war before we applied to the authority to separate them would not at present be my place, but probably before that time come when the lesser part will be for war friends may be agreed to ask a separation which, if it should be refused, we might be united in refusing even those the greater part of which may be for civil uses.
I understand some Friends have fallen in with or been overpowered by the common argument that civil government is upheld by the sword, and therefore they decline paying to its support, which appears to me a great weakness, for I see a material distinction between civil government and military, or a state of war, and on this distinction our ancient testimonies was and remain to be supportable of paying tribute & customs for the support of the civil, and yet to refuse to pay trophy money and other expenses solely for war.
Civil government is in the restoring & supporting power, yet there is a separation, as of the precious from the vile, in respect of this subject, through the lusts and fallen ages under the specious claim of being the disciples and followers of the Prince of Peace, have greatly contributed to cloud and obscure it.
The thoughts on paying taxes of Samuel Allinson is well thought of even by those who yet pay them, and as he has got diverse arguments not in the piece now sent to the clerk of your Meeting for Sufferings, I have suggested to him if Friends with you should agree to the publication of anything, I thought some Friend might, out of them all, make the apology much more complete, which I could wish as done in preference to publishing this now sent.
On , Benezet wrote to Robert Pleasants, saying:
The consistency of paying tax for war is becoming so interesting a subject to the Society that I trust it will be agreeable to you to see some note which we have made on that weighty subject and which by a copy or other I request you will communicate to our dear Friend Edward Stabler with whom we much sympathize in the loss of his dear companion; but cannot write to him as I could wish, I have not even time to read over the copy so that you must help omission we have a care that is furthering this testimony which we have faith to believe is founded on truth not to do any thing to forward or support it in a wrong zeal and not according to knowledge.
As it is a step in the reformation that so directly crosses a received testimony in Society more than any other we had need to step carefully and wisely in it.
He that believes makes not haste.
And that’s the last word I’ve been able to uncover.
Benezet died in .
Timothy Davis rejoined the orthodox Meeting in .
It seems from these excerpts that a number of war tax resisting Quakers were working to assemble a major argument or statement of doctrine on the subject that could be published by the Society under the imprimatur of their Meeting — probably incorporating Allinson’s work.
I haven’t been able to find any drafts of this, though, if any exist.
James Bowden and Isaac Zane complain that during the American Revolution, Quakers got it from both sides — the British and the rebels — due to their refusal to support the militaries.
From The History of the Society of Friends in America, Vol. Ⅱ: Pennsylvania and New Jersey ():
During the occupation of Philadelphia by the British army, the members of our religious Society, in common with others of the citizens, suffered considerably by the wanton excesses and plunder of the soldiery.
A committee of Friends had an interview with General Howe on this subject.
In the country, over most parts of which the Americans still held control, the sufferings of Friends were even more severe.
Many were subjected to heavy fines, imprisonments, and other oppressions, for conscientiously refusing to join in warlike demonstrations; and it is not a little singular, that in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, — provinces founded under the especial auspices of members of our Society, — their trials in this respect were greater than in other parts of the Union.
The Meeting for Sufferings of Philadelphia, having received information of the imprisonment of many on this account, in several localities, presented an address, in , to the Assembly of Pennsylvania on the subject.
“They respectfully represent, that the government of the consciences of men is the prerogative of Almighty God, who will not give His glory to another; that every encroachment on this his prerogative, is offensive in his sight, and that he will not hold them guiltless who invade it, but will sooner or later manifest his displeasure to all who persist therein.
These truths,” they say, “will, we doubt not, obtain the assent of every considerate mind.
The immediate occasion of our now applying to you, is [that] we have received accounts from different places, that a number of our friends are and have been imprisoned, some for refusing to pay the fines imposed in lieu of personal services in the present war, and others for refusing to take the test prescribed by some laws lately made.
The ground of our refusal is a religious scruple in our minds against such compliance, not from obstinacy, or any other motive than a desire of keeping a conscience void of offence towards God, which we cannot, without a steady adherence to our peaceable principles and testimony against wars and fightings, founded on the precepts and example of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace; by a conformity to which we are bound to live a peaceable and quiet life, and restrained from making any declaration or entering into any engagements as parties in the present unsettled state of public affairs.”
After alluding to the manner in which civil and religious liberty had been secured to the inhabitants of Pennsylvania under the charter of its enlightened founder, they express a desire that “the laws which have a tendency to oppress tender consciences may be repealed,” and that provision may be made for the release of those who are in “bonds for the testimony of a good conscience, and which may prevent others hereafter from suffering in like manner.”
, brought no mitigation of the sufferings of Friends.
Fines and imprisonments for refusing to bear arms, were rigorously enforced, and not only so, but many were now subjected to heavy exactions for refusing to become collectors of the taxes imposed for maintaining the war; an office which the Revolutionists seemed determined to urge on their more peaceable neighbors.
Strong remonstrances on this grievance were made to those in power; but amidst the excitement and tumults of war, very little disposition existed to lend an ear to conscientious pleadings for the Christian principles of peace.
The distraints upon Friends on these various accounts, in five of the Quarterly Meetings, in Pennsylvania Yearly Meeting, as returned to the Meeting for Sufferings, amounted during this year to upwards of nine thousand five hundred pounds, three of the Quarterly Meetings having omitted to make a return; and even this large sum did not include many cases of spoil, the value of which had not been returned.
…[I]n , a forcible appeal… was presented to the Assembly of Pennsylvania…
On the subject of conscience they remark, “Duty to Almighty God made known in the consciences of men, and confirmed by the Holy Scriptures, is an invariable rule, which should govern their judgment and actions.
He is the only Lord and sovereign of conscience, and to Him we are accountable for our conduct, as by Him all men are to be finally judged.
— By conscience we mean, the apprehension and persuasion a man has of his duty to God; and the liberty of conscience we plead for, is a free open profession and unmolested exercise of that duty — such a conscience as, under the influence of Divine Grace, keeps within the bounds of morality in all the affairs of human life, and teaches to live soberly, righteously, and godly in the world.”
After alluding to the grounds of their objection to war and oaths, to the sufferings of many of their members on these accounts, and to the “groundless reports and misrepresentations” respecting Friends, they conclude thus: — “The matters we have now freely laid before you are serious and important, which we wish you to consider wisely as men, and religiously as Christians; manifesting yourselves friends to true liberty, and enemies to persecution, by repealing the several penal laws affecting tender consciences, and restoring to us our equitable rights, that the means of education and instruction of our youth, which we conceive to be our reasonable and religious duty, may not be obstructed, and that the oppressed may be relieved.
In your consideration whereof we sincerely desire that you may seek for, and be directed by that supreme “wisdom, which is pure, peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits.”
In presenting the address, the Committee accompanied it with a selection of cases of Oppression arising from the laws in question.
All the documents were referred by the Assembly to the Committee of Grievances, who, in , took the extraordinary and inquisitorial course of proposing a series of questions to the Society to be answered in writing.
These related chiefly to an acknowledgment of the American Government — to the validity of its laws — to the paper money, and concluded with the following singular request: “As you are specially associated together, though not incorporated in law, and issue public letters and recommendations, and promulgate opinions not only on religious, but political subjects, or at least uniting them together, you are requested to communicate the letters and testimonies which have been published from time to time for seven years past, and signed by the clerks of your General or Quarterly Meetings of this city, to be sent to other meetings, or to persons of your Society.”
The questions proposed had the close and serious consideration of the Friends appointed on the subject, who did not think proper to submit so far to this categorical and despotic proceeding, as to return specific answers to the several questions; but concluded again to invite those in power to a calm and impartial examination for themselves, of the principles of Friends set forth in their address, as furnishing a sufficient explanation for their not uniting in the present contest with Great Britain.
The reply commenced as follows: —
To the Committee of Grievances,
Your paper directed to Isaac Zane and others, propounding diverse questions to our religious Society, has been considered, and, agreeable to the advice of an eminent Apostle to his Christian brethren, it becomes us “to be always ready to give an answer to every man that asks a reason of the hope that is in us with meekness and fear,” so also we think it necessary, according to their practice, after the example of their Lord and Master, to adapt the answer to the nature and tendency of the question proposed.
On reviewing the Memorial presented to the Assembly, and our address to you, they appear to us to contain matter of such importance, and so clearly point out the sentiments and practice of our religious Society, in the various changes and revolutions which have occurred in civil government since we were distinguished from other Christian professions, that a weighty, impartial attention to them, and a willingness to remove the cause of oppression complained of, would, we apprehend, sufficiently enable you to represent to the House, the justice and expediency of relief, on the principles of Christian and civil liberty.
Our religious meetings were instituted for the laudable intention of inculcating in our fellow-members, worship to Almighty God, benevolence to mankind, and to encourage one another in a steadfast, upright conduct, according to the pure principles of the Gospel; and have been continued for those Christian purposes for more than a century past; nor has the original design of their institution been perverted to the purpose of political disquisitions, or any thing prejudicial to the public safety: we therefore conceive the queries you have proposed to us in a religious capacity, are improper, and a mode of redressing grievances new and unprecedented, and such an inquisition made on a religious Society, as we have not known nor heard of in America; nevertheless, we may briefly repeat what has been already declared on behalf of our religious Society, to revive the important subject of the Memorial in your view; which we think is still worthy of a very serious and unbiased consideration.
Our Friends have always considered Government to be a divine ordinance, instituted for the suppressing vice and immorality, the promotion of virtue, and protection of the innocent from oppression and tyranny.
And they esteem those legislators and magistrates, who make the fear and honor of God the rule of their conduct, to be worthy of respect and obedience.
And that it is our duty to live a godly, peaceable, and quiet life.
It is also our firm belief that conscience ought not to be subject to the control of men, or the injunctions of human laws; and every attempt to restrain or enforce it, is an invasion of the prerogative of the Supreme Lord and Lawgiver.
“diverse from conscientious motives have now avoided circulating the currency which has been emitted for the immediate purpose of carrying on war”
After referring to their reasons for objecting to all war, it proceeds thus:
As our Christian principle leads into a life of sobriety and peace, so it restrains us from taking an active part in the present contest, or joining with any measures which tend to create or promote disturbance or commotions in the government under which we are placed; and many of our brethren, from a conviction that war is so opposite to the nature and spirit of the Gospel, apprehend it their duty to refrain in any degree voluntarily contributing to its support; some of whom, for a considerable number of years past on former occasions, have not actively complied with the payment of taxes raised for military services; and diverse from conscientious motives, have now avoided circulating the currency which has been emitted for the immediate purpose of carrying on war; although on these accounts, they have been, and still are, subjected to great inconvenience, losses, and sufferings.
It has been the uniform practice of our religious Society, after the example of other Christian churches in every age, to issue epistles of counsel and admonition to their members as occasion required; those and the testimonies you allude to, contain seasonable exhortations to observe a godly conduct, consistent with the peaceable principles of our Christian profession; and the papers and records of some of our meetings were seized and detained in , and, after undergoing a scrutiny and examination, nothing seditious or prejudicial to the public good being found in them, they were returned.
In whatever mistaken or unfavorable light our religious Society may be held, by those who are unacquainted with us and our principles, or prejudiced against us, we hope to manifest by our conduct, that we are true friends to all men, and sincerely desirous to promote and inculcate such a temper of mind in our fellow-professors in general, as to enable us to forgive them who evilly entreat us, and pray for them who persecute us.
Signed on behalf of the Committee of the people called Quakers, who waited on the Assembly of Pennsylvania, with a memorial and address, in .
Isaac Zane
I’m jumping the gun in posting ’s and
’s entries, as I’ll be off the grid
for a few days.
In Lillian Schlissel’s Conscience in America: A documentary
history of conscientious objection in America,
() is an excerpt from a letter to the
Pennsylvania Assembly from that I haven’t
been able to find elsewhere, and the author of which remains unknown to me.
That the infliction of fines, or other punishments, would be as ineffectual
in reconciling Quakers in America, to carry arms, as they proved in
prevailing upon them in England to make oath, there is no reason to doubt.
It is therefore, with much uneasiness, that I learn from the
17th clause of the militia bill, which is
postponed until the next session of congress, that such citizens as are
conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are to be exempted from doing so,
upon paying a fine — to pay a fine, in lieu of bearing arms, would be as
repugnant to the principles of friends, as the performance of the service,
from which it were to exempt them; and for reasons synonymous to those, which
deter them from contributing to the support and maintenance of hireling
ministers — to collect these fines, therefore, the subordinate magistracy of
the country must interpose their authority, which will put it in their power
(and their inclination to exercise it in general cannot be denied) to impose
upon and distress the unfortunate victims of their rapacity, to a degree far
beyond every benefit, which the country could derive from such a source of
revenue.— It is a maxim, that the law ought not to require impossibilities;
and it is the language of reason, and religion, that a man should not be
forced to wrong his own conscience: and a quaker must either do the latter, or
be incapable of complying with the requisites of this clause of the bill — it
would be tantamount to the taxing the opinions of one class of the citizens,
in exclusion of every other. To tax a man for not doing a particular service,
which his conscience forbids him to do, in order to make up for that omission,
is as unreasonable, as it would be to extra-tax the members of a community,
who possess one kind of property, to make their contribution equivalent to
that, which the public coffers receive from those who possess another kind of
property.
This is another interesting attempt to explain why Quakers were unwilling to
pay militia exemption fees, though it still leaves me wondering.
It also mentions the Quaker resistance to “hireling ministers” — mandatory
tithes to support an official establishment church — which predated and formed
the template for later Quaker war tax resistance, but which I haven’t dealt
with much here.
The question of the testimony against war becomes unimportant in North Carolina after the Revolution.
It does not appear that Quakers ever served in the American armies in that State, that they took the oath of allegiance, or that they suffered serious inconvenience from their refusal.
On , a new militia act was passed, which exempted all Quakers from attendance on private or general musters.
This clause was re-enacted in the new militia law passed in , and with the enactment of this law Quakers obtained all their demands in the matter of military affairs.
But it is probable that Friends suffered more or less in North Carolina in the war of .
They had renewed their testimony against military training in .
In they repeated their warning and prepared a protest against the war tax, but it does not appear that they refused to pay it.
The North Carolina law of remained substantially unchanged .
Chapter twenty-eight of the laws of repealed the clause exempting Quakers and others from bearing arms because of religious scruples.
It provided that such persons should be exempt on the annual payment of a fine of $2.50, which was to go to the literary fund.
The Quakers expostulated against this law.
They did not object to a tax for schools, but in this form it “is a groundless and an oppressive demand.
It is a muster fine in disguise and violates the very principle which it seemed to respect.”
Public opinion forced the repeal of this law in , and with this exception I have not found that Friends suffered in North Carolina from military laws from the Revolution to the Civil War.
…I have been able to find the name Quaker nowhere in the exhaustive index to Cooper’s Statutes at Large of South Carolina.
The Georgia military law of provided that Quakers should be exempted from service on producing a certificate from a Quaker meeting of their being bona fide Quakers and paying an extra tax of 25 per cent in addition to their general tax.
This was re-enacted in the supplementary act of .
In these States Quakers seem to have remained, theoretically, under disabilities; but from the fact that they nowhere speak of sufferings to the North Carolina Yearly Meeting, we may conclude that these disabilities were in reality very small — that they were really suffered to go without performance of military duty.
Their experience in Virginia was by no means so pleasant.
In that State they continued under disabilities longer.
The law of , exempted Quakers from attending private or general musters provided they produced testimonials showing their affiliation with the Society.
The law of , renewed these privileges.
The new law of , exempted all Quakers, but the law of , exempted Quakers and Menonists only on condition that they held certificates indicating that they were regular members, and furnished “a substitute for such service, to be approved of by the commanding officer of the company.”
The law of , repealed all earlier laws exempting Quakers and Menonists from militia service.
But the law of , provided that they were not to be fined for refusing to receive public arms.
In Virginia there were instances in , and probably in , when Friends were fined and imprisoned for not bearing arms, but the officers were said to be very friendly to them, so far as the case would admit.
About they presented to the Legislature of Virginia a protest against the then existing militia law, in which, and in an accompanying letter, Benjamin Bates presents a remarkably strong plea for release from this species of discrimination.
The editor of Niles’s Register, which reprints on , the petition and letter, says that it perhaps “forms a body of the ablest arguments that have ever appeared in defense of certain principles held by this people.”
This petition had, unfortunately, no effect.
But there is no mention of Quakers in any way in the later codes of Virginia, and we might conclude that the law was allowed to die by non-enforcement.
But such was not the case.
In a complaint was made in the Yearly Meeting that some Friends were acting in a military capacity; in the meeting directed that Friends make a report of their sufferings under the militia law.
In the meeting discussed the propriety of addressing the Legislature on the subject.
This was not done.
We hear no more of sufferings after they became a part of Baltimore Yearly Meeting.
To the hardness of the law of distress the officers added by taking more.
The following sufferings were reported:
New England puritans had on occasion persecuted Quakers during colonial times, even executing some for the crime of being Quakers.
Cooke hoped to find that the puritans of Lynn hadn’t been quite so monstrous, so he asked Samuel Boice, a local Quaker, to search the records of Quaker sufferings.
“So far as it relates to military fines, we think that, if this were all that the Friends paid for their defense from Indian wars, so rife in those days, they were let off easy; for then the military work was no children’s play.”
We requested Mr. Boice, consulting the records of the society of Friends, to furnish us in detail all the instances in which that society suffered any thing like persecution from ours.
And he has done it.
But we give in a condensed form the results of the list which he has furnished.
We intended to spread out all the details; but the work has filled so much more space than we had expected, that we have crowded out not a little of our own material that we intended to insert.
All the ends of the publication of this list will be answered by this condensation of the facts.
It does not appear that any acts of persecution took place, except that of distraint of goods, and fines for refusing military service.
Most of the cases of distraint of goods are dated in the latter part of Mr. [Jeremiah] Shepard’s ministry.
None of them bear date earlier than , and none later than .
So they all come .
A small portion of them were for military fines; the rest to support the ministry, and pay expenses on the meeting house.
The aggregate sum of the value of all goods distrained for those purposes through those twenty years is one hundred and twelve pounds eighteen shillings.
The instances specified of persons having goods distrained are fifty-three; but the number must somewhat exceed this, as in some cases et ceteras are put down.
Such is the substance of the paper referred to.
The explanation of the causes of that action, so far as it concerns the support of the ministry, we have given in full.
So far as it relates to military fines, we think that, if this were all that the Friends paid for their defense from Indian wars, so rife in those days, they were let off easy; for then the military work was no children’s play.
To this their reply would be, that the non-resistant principles of the Quakers were their defense.
This is a matter of mere assumption and much question, to say the least.
But if it were so touching Quakers living in separate communities, where their non-resistant principles could be known to the Indians, and the Romish priests who guided their operations, and who would be sure to hate them none the less for their Quakerism, it could not be so with Quakers living in communities with the Puritans undistinguished.
If the settlement in Lynn, as it then stood, had come under a sudden assault and massacre by the Indians, by what process could the tomahawk have distinguished and passed by the Quaker families?
And this community of exposure to the tomahawk by a promiscuous residence with the Puritans, chosen by the Quakers against the desire of the others, was a fact for which only themselves were responsible.
They had chosen a residence where all were exposed to a common danger, but were not forced to go forth in person for wars of defense; and it was no hardship that, to so small an extent, their money was taken for the common purposes, any more than it now is that they pay taxes to the common purposes of government, one of which purposes is that of national military defense.
In other words, the principle on which military fines were collected from Quakers then was the same as that on which Quakers now pay taxes to the government; and this is not regarded as a matter of persecution.
Robert Gibbon Johnson assembled some lectures he gave into An Historical Account of the First Settlement of Salem, in West Jersey, by John Fenwick, Esq., Chief Proprietor of the Same; With Many of the Important Events that Have Occurred, Down to the Present Generation, Embracing a Period of One Hundred and Fifty Years ().
Johnson, by the way, is the fellow who, in American food legend, on this day in , publicly ate a bunch of tomatoes to prove to his incredulous fellow-townspeople that they were not poisonous.
While relating his history of Salem County, he decided to spend some time trying to debunk the theory behind Quaker war tax resistance during the American Revolution:
Thomas Story, in his journal, speaking of a debate which he had with the judge of a court, says, “I began with the example of Christ himself, for the payment of a tax, though applied by Cæsar to the uses of war, and other exigencies of his government; and was going to show the difference between a law that directly and principally affects the person in war, requiring personal service, and a law which only requires a general tax, to be applied by rulers as they see cause, and he instances the example of Jesus Christ in paying his tribute money, and submitting to the Roman laws, though only an ordinance of men; and his apostles, likewise, as an example to his church through all ages then to come.”
Again he says, “all are to pay tribute as justly (or equally) imposed by the legislature.”
We, by the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, do freely pay our taxes to Cæsar, (or the powers that rule,) who of right has the direction and application of them, to the various ends of government, to peace or to war, as it pleases him, (them,) or as needs be according to the constitution or laws of his kingdom, (or commonwealth.)
W. Penn says, “That since we are as large contributors to the government as our antagonists, we are entitled to as large protection from it.”
Samuel Bonas relates an argument he had with one Ray, a priest, who charged Friends with inconsistency, in that, while they actually paid and even collected a tax for the purpose of carrying on war against France with vigor, they refused to pay tithes and militia assessments.
To which Bonas replies, “We are still of the same mind with Robert Barclay, that wars and fightings are inconsistent with the gospel principle, and still lie under sufferings with respect to the militia, being careful to walk by the rule of Christ’s doctrine; and yet, do not think ourselves inconsistent in actively complying with the laws of taxes, in rendering to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, or the congress, and he, or they, may do therewith what pleases he or them.
The writer goes on to say, “It is a received opinion among us that all wars without distinction are sinful:” hence arises this scruple against paying taxes for the support of war; but this is not the genuine doctrine of our ancient Friends, as will fully appear in the following extract from the writings of Isaac Pennington, when speaking of what he very properly styles, “a weighty question concerning the magistrates’ protection of the innocent.”
It is to be observed, that this enlightened author views magistracy and defensive war, as the same thing, or, if I may use a simile, as one building, (though consisting of diverse parts,) standing on the same foundation.
The question is as follows: “Whether the magistrate, in righteousness and equity, is engaged to defend such who, (by peaceableness and love which God has wrought in their spirits, and by that law of life, mercy, goodwill, and forgiveness, which God, by his own finger, has written in their hearts,) are taken off from fighting, and cannot use a weapon destructive to any creature?”
Answer.
— “Magistracy was intended by God for the defense of the people; not only of those who have ability, and can fight for them, but of such also who cannot, or are forbidden by the love and law of God, written in their hearts to do so.”
Pennington, again, when treating on this peaceable principle professed by the society, says, “I speak not this against any magistrates or people defending themselves against foreign invasions, or making use of the sword to suppress the violent and evil-doers within their own borders; for this the present state of things may and does require, and a great blessing will attend the sword, when it is uprightly borne to that end, and its use will be honorable; and while there is need of a sword, the Lord will not suffer that government, or those governors, to want fitting instruments under them for the management thereof, who wait on him in his fear to have the edge of it rightly directed; but yet there is a better state, which the Lord has already brought some into, and which nations are to expect and travel towards.”
Another author, Finch, in a treatise called Second Thoughts concerning War, says, “It is evident that this great man (Pennington) holds forth plainly the divine economy I have hinted at above.
We see it was his judgment that men, using the sword in this gospel day, may be God’s instruments; and that herein, though not come to the better state or summit of Christian perfection, they may yet be good enough to use, or direct the sword to be used, religiously in God’s fear; when, perhaps, many would think that religion in all, instead of using the sword, would, if regarded, lead directly from the use of it; but it seems that this writer, though a great advocate for our doctrine, thought otherwise; and I profess myself to be his proselyte, though at present, if there are a few persons so pious, I should almost as soon expect to find the philosopher’s stone, as a whole army of such warriors: and I am persuaded a due regard upon what may be urged upon his and my principle will require more benevolence and reflection of mind than can be expected from unthinking bigotry.”
The same author, “I admire the wisdom and charity of this writer, in his prudent and generous concessions, though some may think he thereby gives his cause away; but I believe them so essential to the preservation of it, that what he writes is the very truth, and that without such concessions it will be impossible to maintain our ground against a keen adversary.
All attempts to explain and defend our doctrine, which go upon the literal sense of the precept, or consider defensive war as a thing in itself wicked, how specious soever worked up or received by shallow judges, instead of honoring and serving, have injured a good cause by multiplying many if not needless absurdities and contradictions, upon all such ill-judged attempts to state and clear the controversy.”
Again, “The sword then which in tenderness of conscience you can not draw, may in another (whom for wise reasons it has not pleased God to lead in the manner he has done you,) become the outward providential means to preserve you and others, as well as himself; upon which principle his arms may protect your person and property, and your virtue and piety be a defense and a blessing upon his arms.”
At the first breaking out of our revolution, I have no doubt but that many Quakers were at a stand to know what course they had better pursue; their minds being agitated by the conflicting feelings of their religious sentiments, together with the fealty which they owed to the civil authorities of the country, and the natural bias of friendship which they must have had for many of those who had been their neighbors, and with whom they had lived upon terms of intimacy, but were now far away from their families and engaged in the strife of war; besides some of those, as officers or soldiers, or both, connected with them in all the endearing ties of consanguinity and affinity — all these impressions had a tendency to bewilder and distract their judgments.
But when their religious principles came to be publicly discussed, and pamphlets and other papers circulated among them — then they saw their way clear, not only to pay their taxes, civil and military, but many of them to unite heart and hand in the glorious cause in which their fellow citizens were engaged; and in this little county of Salem, I will name, as officers in the militia, the venerable and very aged Thomas Carpenter, Quarter Master; Major Edward Hall, Col. Whitten Cripps, John Smith, Adjutant; and there were others not now recollected — these were of the society of Quakers, and devoted themselves faithfully to the service of their country.
Often I find that critics of Quaker war tax resistance and Quaker pacifism have better-argued and more well-thought-out arguments than those they are arguing against.
But Johnson’s argument, such as it is, isn’t very good.
He does an okay job of piling up some Quaker authorities as a bulwark, but the argument he gives from behind them doesn’t amount to much.
I’ve been digging through the archives looking for more information on
American Quaker war tax resistance, and found this interesting aside in Susan
Martha Reed’s Church and State in Massachusetts,
():
While the Quakers insisted strongly upon resistance to the payment of taxes
in certain cases, they were, on the whole, law-abiding citizens, the various
meetings using their influence to accomplish this result. The Rhode Island
Quarterly Meeting was in much distressed by
complaint that certain Friends “Eastward” refused to pay any public taxes to
the government on the ground that a great part of the money was used for war.
A paper was drawn up on the subject and travelling Friends were asked to urge
Hampton and Dover people to pay the rates.
Reed sources this to the records of the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting pages
38–9 and says “Another case appears in” the records of Dartmouth Monthly
Meeting, pages 47–8. I have not been able to check these original sources.
For the most part, American Quakers who resisted war taxes were very careful
to distinguish “war taxes” from ordinary and “mixed” taxes, believing
themselves to be forbidden from paying the former, but required by just as
much of a holy duty to pay the latter. But there is some indirect evidence
that some groups of Quakers went to the radical extreme of refusing to pay any
tax that went even in part to pay for war. This note in Reed’s book is one
example; another comes from a letter from Moses Brown to Anthony Benezet in
:
[W]e fear some take up the [war tax resistance] testimony more on account of
the authority that demands the taxes than because they are used for war. Such
we fear instead of forwarding will eventually retard the testimony, and as
some Friends refuse all taxes, even those for civil uses as well as those
clear for war and others that are mixed, and thereby dropping our testimony
of supporting civil government by readily contributing thereto, it has been a
fear whether this variety of conduct won’t mar rather than promote the work.
Could we be more united in the ground of our testimony and in our practice in
it, I should have more hopes of its speedy obtaining in society. A time will
doubtless come when a smaller proportion will be for war than at present when
the greater part being for civil uses, friends may pay as there is and ought
to be according to the apostle, a conscientiousness in paying to the support
of civil government as well as refuse that for war. To refuse the payment of
such when even a lesser part be mixed for war before we applied to the
authority to separate them would not at present be my place, but probably
before that time come when the lesser part will be for war friends may be
agreed to ask a separation which, if it should be refused, we might be united
in refusing even those the greater part of which may be for civil uses.
I understand some Friends have fallen in with or been overpowered by the
common argument that civil government is upheld by the sword, and therefore
they decline paying to its support, which appears to me a great weakness, for
I see a material distinction between civil government and military, or a
state of war, and on this distinction our ancient testimonies was and remain
to be supportable of paying tribute and customs for the support of the civil,
and yet to refuse to pay trophy money and other expenses solely for war.
Civil government is in the restoring and supporting power, yet there is a
separation, as of the precious from the vile, in respect of this subject,
through the lusts and fallen ages under the specious claim of being the
disciples and followers of the Prince of Peace, have greatly contributed to
cloud and obscure it.
Several days back, I quoted this intriguing passage from Susan Martha Reed’s Church and State in Massachusetts, (), p. 90 (emphasis mine):
While the Quakers insisted strongly upon resistance to the payment of taxes in certain cases, they were, on the whole, law-abiding citizens, the various meetings using their influence to accomplish this result.
The Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting was in much distressed by complaint that certain Friends “Eastward” refused to pay any public taxes to the government on the ground that a great part of the money was used for war.
A paper was drawn up on the subject and travelling Friends were asked to urge Hampton and Dover people to pay the rates.
There are also many mentions in the same book of Quakers (and certain other sects) resisting taxes and mandatory tithes designed to support an establishment church.
This seems to have been a particularly hard battle in Massachusetts.
Another source (“Friends in New England” Friends’ Intelligencer / The Friends’ Journal Volume 43, page 294) says:
[Quakers] were constantly impoverished by the confiscation of their property to satisfy the demands of Christian ministers.
This contest between an intolerant and despotic Christian church and these unyielding champions of religious liberty continued until the year , when it ended in a most welcome triumph for the Quakers.
In some Quaker selectmen of Dartmouth and Tivertod who had been imprisoned for refusing to collect taxes for the support of clergymen appealed to the English government.
Their case was argued before the king’s privy council, and it was decreed that the taxes in question must be remitted and the delinquent officials released.
This important event has not yet received the attention it merits from any historian of whom I have knowledge.
It not only marks the termination of the unmerited and barbarous persecution suffered by the Quakers for nearly three quarters of a century, but it marks also the collapse of the effort made by the Puritans to establish a theocracy in Massachusetts.
The imprisoned tax resisting selectmen in this case were Joseph Anthony, John Sisson, John Akin, and Philip Tabor.
Tabor was a Baptist and the others were Quakers.
(This according to Isaac Backus’s A History of New-England with Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists, 2nd edition, — originally published in — page 534, which, however, also reports that in spite of the legal ruling and a subsequent Massachusetts law to exempt non-“Pædobaptists” from such mandatory tithes, imprisonments for failure to pay continued.)
Backus reprints the petition that Thomas Richardson took to the king in London to plead on behalf of the prisoners.
It complains that many Quakers and other such dissenters came to the colony at great sacrifice precisely because it was established with an express grant of religious freedom, but that since then the majority Presbyterians and Congregationalists (“Independents”) have passed laws forcing them to support an “orthodox” church of that persuasion.
When a law added a new tax on the citizens of Dartmouth and Tiverton, the tax collectors rebelled:
[S]ome of the said assessors being of the people called Quakers, and others of them also dissenting from the Presbyterians and Independents and greatest part of the inhabitants of said towns being also Quakers or Anabaptists or of differing sentiments in religion from Independents, though the said assessors duly assessed the other taxes upon the people there, relating to the support of government, to the best of their knowledge, yet they could not in conscience assess any of the inhabitants of these towns anything for or towards the maintenance of any ministers; That they, the said Joseph Anthony, John Sisson, John Aikin and Philip Tabor, on pretense of their non-compliance with the said law, were, on , committed to the jail aforesaid, where they still continue prisoners, under great sufferings and hardships, both to themselves and families, and where they must remain and die, if not relieved by the king’s royal clemency and favor: That the people called Quakers in the said province, are, and generally have been, great sufferers by the said laws, in their cattle, horses, sheep, corn and household goods, which from time to time have been taken from them by violence of the said laws for the maintenance of ministers who call themselves able, learned and orthodox…
A committee set up to study the issue reported to the king that “as by the charter granted to [Massachusetts], a free and absolute liberty of conscience to all Christians (except papists) was intended to have been their foundation and support… we cannot see why the Quakers should be refused this liberty, in the towns where they are so great a majority, and be obliged to maintain a teacher of a different persuasion.
Wherefore we humbly propose to your Majesty, that this act may be repealed…” The king then repealed the particular tax and ordered the release of the prisoners, though without going much further into the root cause of the problem.
But this was a year later, and it wasn’t until that the Massachusetts Assembly passed an act to set the men free “to signify their ready and dutiful compliance with his Majesty’s declared will and pleasure.”
Isaac Sharpless, in his A History of Quaker Government in Pennsylvania () gives a sample list of some of the reasons individual Quakers were disowned or “dealt with” by their monthly meetings in Philadelphia in the years around the American Revolution.
Here are some of them:
The opposition of the Friends… extended not only to actual participation in war, but to paying war taxes, subscribing to tests of allegiance, and supplying provisions to the army, except where the purpose was to relieve suffering and not to advance the national cause.
They were very radical, and could see no distinction between taking part themselves and paying someone else to do their work.
They had probably gone beyond the state wherein they could say, in the favorite words of the Quaker assemblymen of thirty years before, “While we do not, as the world is now circumstanced, condemn the use of arms by others, we are principled against bearing arms ourselves.”
Their attitude, however, cannot be fully understood if we look upon them as testifying merely against war.
They had always claimed, in the old English days of suffering, that they were different from most other dissenters, because under no circumstances could they plot against the king.
They would suffer indefinitely rather than obey an unrighteous law, but no Quaker, no matter how outrageously he was treated, was ever in any conspiracy against the existing government.
The revolutionary movement was a plot against the recognized English authority.
It was not their method of resistance to tyranny, and they would not touch it or support it.
When peace was declared, all their sense of unwavering allegiance was transferred to the new government, and they had no rancor stored up against its exponents, though it required years to live down the reciprocal feeling towards themselves.
Unquestionably, they were very unpopular with the mass of the people of strong American sympathies during the war, and those who controlled the political destinies of the State of Pennsylvania did nothing to shield them.
On the contrary, they turned upon a number of men, who were undoubtedly honest and conscientious, the terrors of jails, fines and serious distraint of goods, for their unwillingness to take part in the revolutionary proceedings.
The Meeting for Sufferings reported distraints amounting to £9,500 in .
By the end of the war, the aggregate reached at least £35,000. The demand to subscribe to the test of allegiance to the State of Pennsylvania was followed at first by imprisonment, which served to show that some Quakers at least were made of the same unconquerable stuff as their ancestors of a century before.
Three of them were kept in Loncaster jail for fifteen months for this cause, and when finally ordered to be released they refused to pay the jailer’s fees, for they said they were convicted neither by their consciences nor by any fair trial, so they would not contribute to the expenses of the iniquitous imprisonment.
They were, however, released.
The law, which filled the prisons and yet added nothing to the coffers of the government, was unsatisfactory, so it was abolished, and fines imposed to be collected by distraint.
In one Quarterly Meeting (Western) over $68,000 was in this way levied , for the collections went on long after the war was over.
In the Yearly Meeting could say: “The sufferings of Friends in these parts have much increased, and continue increasing in a manner which to outward prospect looks ruinous.”
Much of these tracts and disquisitions have to do with Quaker resistance to tithe-paying, which I’ll summarize, but I’m more interested in how they interact with the emerging Quaker practice of war tax resistance, which I’ll spend more time covering later on in today’s Picket Line.
First, on tithes:
One chief feature of our Society, from its beginning, has been that of a refusal actively to pay “tithes, priests’ demands, and those called church rates.”
This peculiar scruple, which the Society has agreed to call a testimony, has been the cause of much personal suffering at former periods; but as it has long, in some degree or other, had its dissentients, it has been productive of continual breaches of harmony.
It happened, as will appear at some length, to be one of those topics, on which I was obliged to think differently from many of my brethren: Not that I ever thought less than they, that the tithe institution was incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel ministry.
In that, and in the strongest objection against war, and of course against taxes to support it, I have not been a whit behind the chiefest of them in the reality of my testimony.
But in my ideas of the proper and consistent use of that testimony, I have reluctantly been obliged to differ from the public professions and distinctions of the body.
So circumstanced, I could not act the part of an insincere conformist; I could not satisfactorily be silent on the subject of my dissent.
This, it will be supposed by others, as it is known to my acquaintance, occasioned me first an unquiet, and then a detached situation.
But after an intervention of many years, the bond of love and good-will towards the general body, as towards numerous individuals of it, remains unbroken.
We “love as brethren” still; and what I deem the main principles of Christianity, as held by our ancient Friends, are principles which I cherish and revere.
The collection starts with a piece by Henry Portsmouth on “Church Discipline” that decries a spirit of intolerance and eagerness to disown in the Society: “the most zealous and governing part of the society… are giving into narrow and intolerant principles and practices… forming and proposing to our several meetings, questions, strictures, and rules, unknown to our society for about the first seventy years; not on fundamental points only, but on such as are, and ever will be, disputable.”
Such defense of orthodoxy threatens to split the Society of Friends, to make it resemble its “Popish” persecutors, and to turn its meetings into inquisitions.
In a footnote, one of the examples of this is “In , A recommendation was agreed on, to appoint persons to go about and interrogate individuals, who did not bring in accounts of sufferings for tithes, &c.”
As it turns out, the tithe question was not merely a footnote in Portsmouth’s thinking, but was perhaps his main reason for writing the tract, and so, because “some of my readers might possibly inquire, what particular improprieties of society-conduct I wished to have considered as the chief cause of my general reasoning in favour of Christian Liberty,” Matthews added a supplement (in Portsmouth’s voice) on “the much-agitated subject, and the most fruitful of discord, Tithes.”
In doing so, he wrote,
…it is not my intention to take a decisive part in a question, about which so many sensible, pious, and respectable members of our community are not agreed; but briefly to state the reasons, why many conscientious and valuable persons under our name cannot profess a conscientious scruple against paying those demands.
It is well known that, as a society, we have been long professing a public testimony against the lawfulness of Tithes; and I am persuaded many among us, who dissent in that testimony, are fully apprised of the ground on which our forefathers proceeded, with a view, no doubt, to disencumber Christianity of a burden which they thought unsuitable to its spiritual dignity; are sensible of the sufferings they underwent, and of the patience they manifested in bearing their testimony to the world.
And lastly, that such dissenting members sincerely wish to shew to those considerations all the regard they can, consistently with the dictates of that private judgment, which alone they are constrained to think binding on them as individuals.
They are no strangers to the arguments of their predecessors, or those of more modern date, as follows, viz.
Firstly, “That Tithes were a part of the ceremonial law; which was to come to an end; that the bringing in of the more spiritual dispensation of the gospel, was that end; consequently, that to comply with the ordinances peculiar to that law, as though it had not been superseded, is to deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and abrogated that law, and therefore utterly an antichristian practice.”
Matthews finds that this “abstracted view of the subject” is inadequate.
He, and other dissenters, see no evidence that Jesus or his apostles expressly abolished tithes and therefore cannot see the tithe issue as one that ought to be definitive for the Christian church.
They see evidence that early Christians complied with tithes to the established Jewish temple, and observe that “apostolical times were times when the great duties of men, judgment, mercy, and peace, were principally enforced and regarded; and the smaller concerns of a compliance, or non-compliance, with the appendages of devotion, regarded but little.”
He secondly looks at the argument that teaching the gospel is for everyone, not just a professional clergy, and that the payment of tithes implies otherwise.
He agrees with the sentiment, but sympathizes with those who “though they may entirely disapprove the principle of an hireling ministry… think it most consistent with the peaceable spirit of Christianity, to let their disapprobation appear in withdrawing from the hireling, rather than by contending with him, against the law of the land.”
He then looks at the more secular argument that because Quakers do not attend establishment churches, and receive nothing of benefit from their clergy, it is unjust to ask them to pay money to them for such service.
With this, Matthews agrees, but not so far as to say that because this is unjust Quakers must resist tithes.
Here is his reasoning:
Tithes are different from a payment for services — they are an institution of government-created artificial property that is a fundamental part of the economy and of the valuation of titles and land: in effect, when you purchase property you are only purchasing the full rights to a tithe-free portion of it (and its price reflects this as a discount over what the price of the full property would have been) while the tithe-owned portion of the property remains unsold, and you are liable for the difference — if you try to evade the tithe, you are claiming more property than you actually purchased or rented.
Tithes are traded on the market, and some thereby become owned by people having nothing to do with the church (so people who pay such tithes are not paying for a hireling ministry at all, but paying an investor in a government-fabricated rent-seeking scheme).
(He then tries to answer an objection that appeals to empirical economics by asserting that the difference between the rents charged by landlords who absorb the tithes and those charged by landlords who pass the tithes on to their tenants is different from the amount of the tithes, and so the tithes cannot be merely a variety of property right.
Those of you who are economics geeks will probably get a kick out of it, but my eyes glazed over.)
In short, though perhaps the institution of tithes is unjust, it is just an idiosyncratic part of the government’s historical institution of private property, and it does not touch on legitimate questions of Christian orthodoxy, and paying them should not become a point of Quaker discipline.
But, says critic Joseph Phipps, this evades the point: “No ancestor of mine had a right to give away from me the fruits of my labour and expense, which never could be his, for purposes I cannot in conscience and equity comply with.
My misled predecessor never could be entitled to dispose of my conscience and property, for me, before I existed, in support of the prevailing errors of his age.”
(Sounds like Lysander Spooner!)
Matthews answers that certainly a property-owning ancestor of ours could have given away or sold all of a piece of property to someone without the consent of his entire tree of descendants — why then could that ancestor not have given away or sold part of that property in the form of a tithe due on the whole?
(He is assuming, for the sake of this argument, that the tithe institution originated as something consented to by the population being tithed, which I’m sure is historically suspect.)
And why should it matter whether this ancestor sold or gave an interest in his property to a priest or to a layman?
In other words, what makes tithes any more historically suspect on this count than any other form of rent?
Be all this as it may (and I’m geeky enough to find it interesting), here’s where the argument really gets interesting.
Matthews attempts a reductio on tithe resistance by saying that the arguments of its proponents would apply even better to war taxes:
Our tithe-payers, after long consideration of the subject, find themselves utterly at a loss to reconcile the seeming inconsistency that appears among the faithful part of our society, in professing a religious scruple against an hireling ministry, and against tithes to support it; while they so readily, yea without the least hesitation, pay an additional land or other tax, when imposed ever so expressly for carrying on wars and fightings: As though the Christian religion were less dishonoured by the unrelenting lust of ambitious princes — the desolating plans of projecting ministers — and the sanguinary progress of hireling destroyers, than by hireling ministers of peace!
Tithe-payers have considered this subject as a most interesting one, and have sought satisfaction with much solicitude.
For though in the whole New Testament they find no commandment against the payment of tithes and ecclesiastical demands, they find the Christian religion uniformly represented as a religion of love, of brotherly kindness, and forgiveness of injuries.
Consequently, as they think, a testimony against wars and fightings, and a positive refusal to pay taxes for the carrying of them on, must be abundantly more defensible on the Christian precepts, than a refusal to pay taxes for purposes professedly religious and peaceable.
They have read, indeed, and it has been told them, We have a testimony against wars also; why then so inconsistently pay to the support of them?
If it be replied, as it has been again and again, “that we have the example of Jesus Christ (who paid tribute to Cæsar) for paying kings, or government taxes, and are bound so to do by his injunction, Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s; — that we are not accountable for the abuse of tribute paid for the only purpose of righteous government;” let it (say our tithe-payers) then, be said aloud, and let it be heard with attention, that the preambles to acts of parliament, as well as the circumstances of times, often tell us plainly enough what new taxes are levied for:* That even Cæsar, or government in any country, has no claim of tribute, but what the original compact or standing agreement of that country give it: Such is the ground or claim, and such the obligation to pay.
This original compact and standing agreement are equally the ground and support of tithes; therefore, in a legal sense, are equally due.
All the difference lies in the nature of the object; but that difference is against the Quaker — For, while he readily contributes to the waging of war, he refuses legal aid to the professors of the gospel of peace!
*
The examples of the present unhappy times [In the midst of the American War] are judged sufficient to confirm this truth.
And though this be not a place for enlarging on politics, the tithe-payers (who have not always an opportunity to be heard) will be glad to have it told, how unaccountable it is to them, that some of those deemed faithful brethren not only pay their quota of the new public assessments, with the utmost readiness; but indirectly deal out their approbation of public measures: They are astonished at the strange inconsistency of human nature, when they consider with what pretended holy zeal some such men will carry on their spiritual censure, against a poor tithe-payer, for his unchristian practice; although, unaccompanied by them, he can shudder at the loud cry of innocent blood; and, with the Christian fervour of the virtuous [Lucius Cary] Falkland, exclaim, “Peace! peace!”
Joseph Phipps wrote a rebuttal to these arguments, which was distributed by the Society of Friends to prop up the orthodox opinion on tithe-paying.
(I haven’t yet found these, alas.)
Matthews was disowned for his views and continued on as a Quaker without a Meeting, agitating for reform from outside.
He then wrote a tract that largely, on the tithe question at least, restated and expanded the points he’d previously made: When the rulers of antiquity had established property rights and set up institutions to defend and adjudicate them, one of the things they did was to give a certain share of property to the church.
This was no more or less arbitrary than many of the other establishments of property made in antiquity, and no more or less deserving of our respect.
Quakers are bound to respect the law unless they are conscientiously convinced that to do otherwise is a duty to God, but such a conscientious dictate is a personal matter and not a matter of conforming to an orthodox opinion, and therefore should not be a subject of discipline.
Simply being opposed in principle to the idea of a “hireling ministry” is no justification for violating the property rights of current tithe-right owners.
Here’s how he puts his reductio in this later work:
[Among my reasons for being dissatisfied with the orthodox opinion is] Because it may be thought especially reasonable by others, who advert to the submissive and peaceable spirit of Christianity, as laid down by our Lord himself, that however they may disapprove of the lucrative establishment of a national clergy, and the luxury and irreligious indolence of some of that order; yet, as the kingdom of Jesus Christ is not of this world, nor his peaceable religion to be maintained by strife about outward things, they are bound to regard, in this matter, the apostolical injunction, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake;” well knowing, that by not opposing violence (if for argument’s sake, the national tax of tenths be violence) they should have no hand in promoting that violence; and therefore will have nothing to answer for on that account: at least nothing more than by submitting actively to pay many other national taxes, levied in time of war, and perpetually known to be laid for carrying on the evil work of shedding human blood!
— A work mostly begun and pursued in the wickedness of human pride, and that lust of revenge which stands directly opposed to all Christian purity; — a lust coming from the influence of the Prince of Darkness, and of all abominations!
Many will continue seriously to believe, that if, for the sake of national order, and submission to national authority, they must pay in the one case, they are at least as much obligated, in the character of simple Christians, to pay in the other.
I am fully apprized of the force of all the distinctions which have been made between these claims and the grounds on which all taxes, not for the use of the clergy, are admitted, as right and proper to be paid by a peaceable Quaker, — who is said to have no business with political disquisitions.
But many think, that a time will come, when so full a submission in one case, and so full an opposition in the other, will be found to make but little of the genuine consistency of the Christian character!
(He then moves on to defend tithe-paying based on the miracle of the temple tax episode from the gospels, which seems to me to be very much on-point.)
He followed that up by printing a tract from a meeting of Quakers who were disowned from their Monthly Meeting over their disapproval of that Meeting’s disowning people for their views on tithing.
Then he added some excerpts from a pamphlet he wrote under the pseudonym Catholicus titled A new and seasonable Address to the People called Quakers, relative to Tithes and Taxes (the pamphlet itself is nowhere on-line that I could find).
He explains the circumstances behind his writing the pamphlet in this way: “In , when the demands of government for enormous war-taxes became a subject of universal consternation, the situation of our orthodox Friends, relative to those taxes, forcibly struck me:— And as it seemed a fair opportunity for again contrasting their scruples against paying tithes, with the more extensive and equally unchristian demands, which they paid; I sent forth a pamphlet…” Here are some excerpts:
[W]hen we bring tithes to the test of Christian purity, condemn them by the simple standard of truth and righteousness which our Lord sat up, — and maintain that, because so condemnable, they are at all events, and under all present circumstances, to be resisted in toto; we act partially and inconsistently, unless we advert to the purity and righteousness of his laws in all other public matters, and square our conduct by the same rule.
This I state as a general principle, without an adherence to which we cannot lay a valid claim to consistency of religious character.
Nothing can be more clear than that the vital spirit of Christianity is totally repugnant to evil provocation, revenge, violence, and the military murder of armed hosts! But these are practised in professed Christian countries with as much promptitude, as though they were the real duties of the Christian religion!
I know you lament, in much heaviness of soul, this miserable defection from the true dignity of men and Christians!
Could universal love and peace be established by your prayers, or your sufferings, I know you would rejoice “with joy unspeakable.”
But the time of this perfection in society is not yet come!
— and though the enormities in question could not be carried on without the contributions of the people, — I do not say that under the general precept of “submission to the powers that be,” (because the power, or general principle, of government, is ordained of God) you or I are warranted in refusing to be taxed, among other objects, for purposes of war!
You seem to have agreed, and I will not controvert the general principle, that in matters of government, however inclusive of taxation for war, you are to be active in your submission.
But I must, and do, most seriously contend, that uniformly and actively to comply with demands of this nature, known to be stained through and through with blood; and yet to excommunicate your own members for paying tithe-demands, in obedience only to the laws of the same government, — is a dilemma of inconsistency, from which the power of reason cannot deliver you!
[The Society of Friends’] principles of peaceable submission, and attachment to the civil governments under which you have lived, both before and since the Revolution of , have been always remarkable.
You have addressed your submission and allegiance to all the successive princes on the throne — and in all civil matters have appeared emulous to be considered as loyal, contributing to the expences of government as far as your professed “testimony against wars and fightings” would possibly allow you to be active.
This disposition you particularly evinced, by your voluntary contribution for flannel waistcoats to the army of the North, while repelling the invasion of .
That contribution was well received by government; while it was considered by some persons as bordering on a temporising conduct, — and of late years, as not according with the strictness of your assumed “testimony” against the support of a militia, for a specific provision against invasion, and for home defence.
However equivocal your conduct in these matters may appear; however reconcilable, or otherwise, with the strictness of your testimony against paying a tax, which government had long before settled on your lands, for the support and clothing of priests; you never before were called upon for contributions, equally large, definitive, and trying, with those of the present period!1 The present period seems to have been reserved by a wise and superintending Providence, for bringing the rectitude of many men, and many measures, to a close and serious test.
In this general trial of rectitude and consistency, you are deeply involved.
Your ground of action, in comparison with that of some other descriptions of men, is indeed apparently simple and contracted; and much confined within the sphere of your own society.
But you have a part of some importance to act: your wisdom and consistency, in the conjuncture, will be of some consequence to your credit in the serious part of the world; and more particularly so, respecting your own internal government, and the “testimonies” you profess to bear.
You are now called upon to pay large contributions, not for the general purposes of regular and ordinary civil government, but, avowedly, for the specific purpose of carrying on war; and a war, too, which has been, beyond all former example, sanguinary and destructive to the human species!
— Tithe-demands you hold to be contrary to the spirit of the religion in Christ, inconsistent in their origin, and, as you think, in their tendency, with the simplicity and disinterested love of that religion; and therefore you refuse to pay them.… But if you feel it your duty to refuse a compliance (or, as you term it, an active compliance) with the laws of the land, that you may not be chargeable even with indirectly aiding what you suppose the law of Christ is against; how will you consistently pay, with active hands, in common with the abettors of war in general, and of the present most melancholy war in particular, whatever is demanded of you under the head of “the Assessed Taxes” already imposed, and those others which will doubtless be soon imposed, for the express purpose of continuing this war with increased vigor?
That war has been the assigned and real cause, and specific waste, of more than nine-tenths of all the money that has ever been raised by taxation in this country, is too obvious to be denied! and the heads of numerous acts of parliament, passed for raising new taxes in times of war, have sufficiently told you so; but that “the Assessed Taxes,” now demanded of you, are precisely for the purposes of war, and no other, permit me to transcribe the following words of the title and preamble to the act itself:
Act for Granting to His Majesty an Aid and Contribution, for the Prosecution of the War!
[.]
We your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Great-Britain in Parliament assembled, feeling it our indispensable duty, at the present crisis, to provide effectually for raising the supplies, which are requisite to defray your Majesty’s public expenses in the prosecution of the just and necessary War in which we are engaged, &c. &c.
Here the object is not of a doubtful nature; but distinctly avowed, clear and unequivocal.
— In paying these taxes, who does not see that you yield a direct obedience to a human law, which virtually calls for a suspension of your “testimony against wars and fightings?”
You do, indeed, enjoin your members to refuse an active payment of militia-money, when demanded of you as such, in lieu of bearing arms, for home-defence.
So far your conduct is consistent with your original scruples, in the matter of tithes; but the much larger demands upon you, expressly for the purpose of more offensive, general, and, as you well know, of destructive and sanguinary warfare, you comply with, without any apparent scruple at all.
And comply you must! But in this part of the statement, I will not permit the supposition to rest for a moment, that you are intentionally friends, directly or indirectly, to any kinds of warfare; — I know the contrary to be the very truth: you mourn, as real Christians, over such misery of human nature!
I know you profess not to make political matters the subjects of your society discussion — or to appreciate the merits, or comparative demerits, of national quarrels, and war policy.
You profess to be under the superior government of the Prince of Peace, and to have nothing to do with questions of carnage and destruction.
But such questions have now much to do with your pockets, and the exemplification of your principles.
And yet, such is your situation, that under the general injunction to submit yourselves to the ordinances of the ruling powers that be, you cannot refuse to pay the legal assessments, without incurring penalties, which you will not consider yourselves as called on to incur!
In your case, — the whole is a series of implicit submission, either with or without a rational construction of general obedience.
The situation may be painful, and doubtless you have felt it — but you must and will, on the general principle of submission to government, pay and submit! — Neither do I see how you can continue your customary censure and excommunication of those who, in active obedience, pay the specific demands for raising the militia! Any shades of difference which you may attempt to define, in favour of paying the new “assessed taxes,”2 you will henceforward so attempt, with small satisfaction to yourselves; and in the estimation of other men, the most accustomed to reason correctly on general matters of importance, — your arguments to that point must utterly fail.
1
In , when a triple assessment of government taxes was levied; but which was soon after repealed, to make way for a general tax on Income, for carrying on the most wide and expensive plan of war, that ever this country saw.
— It is not, however, to be understood that I lay more stress on the magnitude of this unhappy war, than on the radical evil of the war-principle; or that I call on my friends to do so: But when the enormous evil of that principle is so mournfully exemplified, it becomes proper to argue from the horrid consequences, as well as from the principle itself.
2
The same reasoning applied afterwards to that enormous call, the Income Tax, — which was substituted, professedly on the same war-principles.
Matthews seems unaware that the same contradiction he exposes here as a reductio was advanced by Quakers in America (and some in England as well) as an argument for extending the Quaker resistance to tithes and a hireling ministry to also cover resistance to war taxes.
I would not be surprised to find that his arguments, though intended to end support for tithe resistance and not at all to promote war tax resistance, helped contribute to the growth of war tax resistance among Quakers.
Around the time this controversy was in its full pamphlet-issuing frenzy, American Quaker William Savery visited England.
Here’s part of what he noticed:
— Went on through a part of Oxfordshire to Evesham, a large market-town in Worcestershire, where there are a few Friends and a meeting.
Friends here were under a good deal of concern, as I have found in many other places, about paying taxes declared to be for the express purpose of carrying on the war.
I think our peaceable testimony is so much concerned in it, that many Friends will find it the way to peace, to suffer, rather than actively comply: it will no doubt be a trying time to many, through which I hope the standard will be held up a little higher against the horrid practice of war, than has yet been the case in England.
— Got on to Liverpool, and on the was at the meeting of ministers and elders, and it appeared to be a profitable season.
At the Quarterly Meeting for Discipline, the subject of paying taxes for the support of war was considered, and it appeared that many Friends were much straitened in their minds about the practice, in most of the Quarters in the nation.
I’m familiar with at least one case from around this time when a young British Quaker went to jail rather than pay his war tax.
I expect if I looked a little harder I’d find more.
A correspondent for a London newspaper sent in a report on happenings in Pennsylvania on :
I can send you nothing but the continued news of scalping and internal confusions, arising from Quaker-government.
I shall not therefore increase this packet by enclosing our late newspapers, since the substance of them is in short as follows, viz., that within past, several families in various parts of the province have been barbarously murdered.
In Northampton county, on , one Sifluff and one of his sons was killed and scalped, and the other son killed but not scalped, the tomahawk being found sticking in his head.
In Cumberland county at the same time, the house of one widow Cox was burnt, her two sons and the Craigs murdered and destroyed.
It would be endless to descend to particulars.
The enemy are lurking in every part of the country, and every week, (almost every day) brings us the catastrophe of some unsuspecting family; and we are no nearer our purpose of defence than at first.
The money granted is of little or no use, for want of an equal and just military law.
The Quakers, to save themselves, have given something like a law to bind the willing, but forgot that nobody would be willing to bear the burden of defence, unless it was borne equally.
Hence nothing can be done among the people but by force of money; and even then they make their own terms with their leaders; and no wonder, since our laws are made to encourage licentiousness, by a vile levelling faction, who, in order to keep themselves loose, have loosened the whole government.
Nor is this the worst: they are doing all in their power to raise a rebellion in levying the tax, persuading every Quaker to refuse paying it.
As a proof of this, I send you a circular letter, signed by their preachers, and sent to the meetings in the province.
It is a piece of mere enthusiastic jargon, but sufficiently shows our unhappy situation, and their wicked designs.
Among the subscribers, you will see the name of [Samuel] Fothergill, your London enthusiast: I wish you would keep such men at home; for we are too much distracted by men of that kidney among ourselves.
I hope some notice will at last be taken of such pests of society, who have undone this poor (though late flourishing) province.
The anonymous correspondent attached to this complaint the “Epistle of Tender Love and Kindness” sent by John Woolman and others to their fellow Friends.
This shows what the Quaker pacifists were up against.
Rather than give up their principles, they eventually abandoned their seats in the colonial Assembly — this allowed the Assembly to give in to popular demand and organize a military defense, but without the assistance of Quaker legislators.
On , the Virginia Yearly Meeting (of Quakers) met.
Here is an excerpt from the minutes of that meeting, as written by its clerk, John Crew:
In the Extracts from the Minutes of the last yearly Meeting of Friends held at Philadelphia is a report of a Committee which is adopted by this Meeting and is as followeth (to wit).
The Committee appointed to take into Consideration the Minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings relating to the payments of taxes for the purposes of carrying on the present war having, several times met, & deliberately attend to this weighty & important subject, and having given opportunity to many Friends who were not of our members freely to express their sentiments, experience, and tender feelings on this matter; we find that in the several different Quarters; a religious scruple hath appeared & increases among Friends, against the payment of such taxes, their minds being deeply concerned & ingaged faithfully to maintain our Christian Testimony against joining with or supporting the spirit of wars & fightings which hath remarkably tended to unite us in deep sympathy with the seed of life in their hearts, & feeling a sincere desire for the advancement of the kingdom of the prince of peace, in such a gradual progress as may be consistent with his divine will, we earnestly desire that the Yearly Meeting would fervently recommend to all the members of our religious society, that in singleness of heart we may be truly exercised in giving due attention to the dictates of unerring grace, & strictly careful not to stifle or suppress the secret monitions thereof in our own minds and that all may be closely excited to watchfullness & care to avoid complying with the injunctions and requisitions made for the purposes of carrying on war, which may produce uneesiness to themselves, or tend to increase the sufferings of their brethren; which we apprehend will be the most effectual means of advancing our Christian Testimony in purity & of preserving us in a conduct consistent with the holy principle we profess, and thus we shall experience fervent love and concord to prevail among us which will enable us to such & promote the edification one of another in that faith which worketh by love.
In , Patrick Smith published an anti-Quaker book called A Preservative Against Quakerism in which he attempted to refute various distinguishing characteristics of the Quaker creed.
Among these was the Quaker practice of resisting legally mandatory tithes owed to the establishment ministry (or to tithe farmers who had bought the right to the tithes from the church).
Here’s what Smith had to say about that:
And their not approving of the Use for which the Tithes are now given, will no more justify their not paying them, than their not approving the Use of Taxes which are given for carrying on a vigorous War, would justify their not paying them, which yet they do not refuse to pay.
And for the Quakers to condemn and annul, as to themselves, the Laws that enacted Tithes, to be paid to the Ministers as antichristian, and a grievous Oppression, is a most unreasonable and seditious Principle, and highly destructive of Government.
, Joseph Besse wrote a thorough fisking of Smith’s book under the title A Defence of Quakerism.
Here’s how he responded to Smith’s criticism on this point:
The paying of our Taxes impos’d by Law, for the Service of the Government, is consistent with the Precept of Christ, “Render to Cæsar the Things that are Cæsars,” to which we yield a ready Obedience; nor does it concern us, what Purposes Cæsar shall apply them to.
But the Case of paying Tithes is quite different, where the Law, as we think, enjoyns us to do what Christ hath prohibited.
We therefore chuse therein, “to obey God rather than Man.”
This is a Principle neither unreasonable nor seditious, unless the preferring Christ’s Precepts to Men’s Injunctions can merit those Epithets.
The remarkable thing about this is that both authors are willing to take as a given that Quakers do not resist war taxes — this in , when Quaker war tax resistance was already established in Britain’s American colonies (with some Quakers as early as even refusing to pay any taxes at all because so much government spending was for war).
We went to Quarterly Meeting at Haddonfield… The meeting for Discipline was a
favored opportunity and our testimony was raised and gained ground in several
respects in regard to the use of strong drink and against wars or any way
contributing thereto by payment of taxes or otherwise. A weightily conference
was held on these subjects.
and :
[The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting considered] the request from the Western
Quarter which was to propose to the Yearly Meeting and consider what might
further be done to strengthen Friends in their tender scruples with respect
to paying taxes or anyways joining or leaning or swerving from our testimony
in any ways contributing to the support of war according to the former
advices of our last Yearly Meeting. After a close conference, there being
different sentiments amongst Friends concerning paying the taxes now demanded
so that it seemed not suitable the case should be fully debated in the
meeting, therefore a committee of six Friends out of every quarter with the
Committee on the Epistles already appointed was nominated and sent out to
consider that case. Friends from the neighboring yearly meetings now present
were desired to attend with this committee.
and :
The most weighty matters that came before this [Philadelphia Yearly] meeting
was concerning our testimony against wars, paying taxes
etc. and against
the excess and unnecessary use of strong drink, tavern keeping and the West
India trade and the oppression of the poor Blacks.…
and :
[The] Quarterly Meeting at London Grove… is allowed to be the largest
Quarterly Meeting and a very solid wise number of friends and much united in
their testimony against taxpaying and superfluity.
and (also at the same
Quarterly Meeting):
There was several very close searching sentences dropped concerning taxpaying
and several Friends seemed to think it was time of more danger now than it
was in the time of the war. Jacob Lindley spoke closely concerning Friends
letting collectors
etc. pay their
tax and then settle with them. Another Friend dropped a caution to beware of
the dragon’s tail and said what had been suffered to try Friends in years
past might be like the teeth or the claws of the dragon.
and :
Some trials with the constable taking rye from us for taxes.
and (at “our” Monthly
Meeting — Evesham perhaps?):
Jacob [Lindley] had something particular concerning tax paying, termed it
paying up the debt for the expense of the war, and said as the Yearly Meeting
had recommended it to Friends to preserve their accounts of suffering. He
fully believed that suffering for not paying of taxes did come within the
meaning of the Yearly Meeting and that the Yearly Meeting had owned that
testimony and would never disown that birth which had been brought forth by
the tender scruples of suffering Friends who refused to pay taxes for to
defray the expense of war.
and :
Was Quarterly Meeting. Nothing more than common except about the affair of
tax paying. Some tight rubbing work so that one of the first rank made an
acknowledgment and Evesham seemed to be getting through with that job about
suffering for taxes or recording such sufferings. Agreed or at least concluded
to take the case to Yearly Meeting to have it settled now after three years or
more scuffling with Salem Friends about it.
and :
Was Quarterly Meeting.… In the last meeting we had it up and down again about
tax paying. They seemed like to knock Evesham in the head and throw us but by
Warner Mifflin and several others stood tightly to the testimony and it was
raised over all against paying of taxes.
and :
Was quarterly meeting… There was a tight scuffle about having some accounts
of the suffering of Friends of Evesham for refusing to pay a tax for the
support or to defray the expense of war read to the meeting. J[ames].
Thorington beat through all opposition and they were read and concluded to be
sent forward to the meeting for suffering to be recorded and this seemed to
be the end of three or four years debate in our quarter.
and :
The constable took our son Samme off to gaol for refusing to pay his tax. He
went of in a composed commendable manner, having I believe well considered
the matter.…
and later :
I went to Burlington to see my son in prison. He appeared to me to much
favored to bear the trial in a proper commendable manner. William Savery,
Daniel Troter, Thomas Scattergood, John Hoskins and John Cox had been to see
him and he told us all he could not see wherein he had missed it in suffering
himself to be put in prison for refusing to pay his tax to defray the expense
of war.
and the :
This evening Samme got home from Burlington gaol. We had reason to think that
doctor Beneville paid the constable his demands. Took a letter from him to
the sheriff and so he was discharged and informed if he would go to
Sterling’s the storekeepers he might ride home with Doctor Beneville in his
chair. It was a favored time with us which made his imprisonment easy to us
and so that we had no desire that any one should take him out in that manner.
Joseph Gilkins came to me and I told him I had rather he would not so. After
some [o]ther conference he concluded to drop it.
Evesham Monthly Meeting was more radical about its tax resistance than many
other meetings, and when they sent their record of “sufferings” to the
Quarterly Meeting, they included accounts of Friends who had suffered
persecution for refusing to pay taxes where they felt most of the money being
raised by the taxes was going to defray war debts. Other Quakers thought that
was too radical a position, saying that Quakers should only resist those taxes
that were explicitly declared to be for war. At first, because of this, the
Quarterly Meeting that Evesham belonged to refused to pass along the Evesham
record of sufferings to the Yearly Meeting. A debate ensued, which is
mentioned in some of the entries from Hunt’s journal above.
In order to show our real situation we beg leave to recite a recent fact: A
minister of the gospel, long in high estimation among the people called
Quakers, was disowned by that people in the state of Massachusetts Bay, for
no other cause than for having published, as his opinion, that that people,
consistent with their religious profession, may pay their taxes for the
support of government — came to this state on a religious visit to those who
have been disowned here, and having appointed a meeting for worship to be
held in the meeting house at Merion, the key was obtained from the keeper and
the house opened for that purpose, when two of the leading members of that
meeting came about the time appointed for holding the meeting, locked up the
house, took away the key and prevented the meeting from being held — yet so
late as the years and
, all the meeting houses in the state were
opened to a preacher from England, then here, although it is generally
understood that he considered, and on all occasions, public and private,
spoke of the present revolution as a rebellion.
Joseph Ridgway produced an acknowledgment condemning his having inadvertently paid a fine in lieu of personal services in the militia which was read and received.
Jacob Cook produced an acknowledgment condemning his having met with the militia at their monthly training in order to save his fine which was read and received.
But a few years later, Cook was in trouble again over “taking strong drink to excess and neglect[ing] attendance of our religious meetings.”
He again repented, and the meeting accepted his acknowledgment.
The preparative Meeting of Mansfield report that John Decow has been so far concerned in military services as to answer to his name when called at the place of training to save his fine and has since paid a fine in lieu of personal services and that Joseph English, Jr. has likewise answered to his name when called at the place of training to save his fine.
Benjamin Field, Barzillai Forman, and Fretwell Wright are appointed to treat with them and report to next meeting.
The preparative meeting of Bordentown reports that Timothy Bunting has transgressed the rules of our discipline in paying a fine in lieu of his training with the militia, and accepting the trust of a committee man in support of or encouraging military measures, and justifies his conduct, and that Charles Taylor has transgressed by paying a fine on the same account and justifies his conduct.
John Wetheril and Isaiah Robins are appointed to treat with them and report to next meeting.
John Decow had already been in trouble for “bearing of arms in a military manner” and had submitted a written condemnation of his actions to the meeting in .
This time a “testification” was produced against him and Joseph English, Jr., and they were informed of their appeal rights.
Neither chose to appeal, and that’s the last we hear of Decow.
English is still a member as late as , when a mention is made of his intent to marry (the wedding, alas, was reported to have been accompanied by a “too free circulation of spirituous liquors” and so English got another scolding).
A “testification” was made against Bunting & Taylor, which was “read, approv’d, and sign’d” and they were informed of their appeal rights, but there’s no indication of what happened after that.
The preparative meeting of Chesterfield informs that Francis Borden, Jr. has been guilty of striking a man in anger, and has paid a fine in lieu of personal services in the war, and neglects the attendance of our religious meetings.
Isaiah Robins and Thomas Thorn are appointed to visit him and let him know the charge exhibited against him and that unless he makes satisfaction agreeable to Discipline the meeting will be under the necessity to testify against him.
The said meeting likewise informs that James Combs has paid fines in lieu of personal service in the war, and has hired a man to go to war in his room, and neglects attending our religious meetings…
The said meeting also reports that Daniel Thorn has gone out in marriage with a woman not of our society and has been concerned in bearing arms in a warlike manner, pressing of wagons, and hiring a man in lieu of personal service…
A “testification” was later produced against Francis Borden, Jr., and Friends were appointed to let him know his appeal rights, but the minutes don’t say what happened next.
The same process took place with Daniel Thorn.
He chose not to appeal.
Caleb Shreve’s acknowledgment condemning his repaying the money to those who had bought his goods taken for military fines was read and received.
, Shreve had been in trouble, along with some others, for “being concerned in military services” and those Quakers who had visited him and his fellow-offenders found that “they seemed to justify [that is, make excuses for] their conduct” rather than repent.
And so another delegation was sent to try to bring them around.
Nonetheless, Shreve was considered to be enough in good standing to be sent as a representative to the quarterly meeting in , and to serve as a disciplinarian in his own right — for instance, being sent by the meeting to chide one William Lippincott, who “has bore arms as a soldier, been guilty of unchaste freedom with a woman he has since married, and neglects the attendance of our religious meeting.”
A testification was also produced against James Combs for neglecting the attendance of our religious meetings, and being concerned in promoting military measures by paying a fine and hiring a man to go to war in his room.
Thomas Thorn and Nathan Robins are appointed to serve him with a copy and inform him of his right of appeal and report to our next meeting.
A James Combs had also been in trouble earlier for having married outside the Society and contrary to its rules, but he repented of this.
There’s no indication of how this second disciplinary proceeding played out.
The Preparative Meeting of Chesterfield reports that John Robins has deviated from the rules of our Discipline in being guilty of training and paying of fines in lieu of personal service in the war and does not appear in a disposition of condemning the same.
Thomas Thorn and James Lawrie are appointed to visit him on the occasion and let him know that if he does not condemn it to the satisfaction of the monthly meeting he will be testified against and make report to our next meeting.
John Robins produced an acknowledgment condemning his going to training and paying a fine in lieu of personal services which was read and received.
John Robins was soon in trouble again, though, this time for “being the father of an unlawful begotten child and going out in marriage” (or as it was later put: “fornication with a woman he afterward married with the assistance of a priest”).
In he left town without requesting a certificate from his meeting to give him an introduction to a meeting at his destination, and he was formally disowned.
Isaac Antrum produced an acknowledgment condemning his having paid a fine for refusing to bear arms which was read and received.
Joshua Newbold produced an acknowledgment condemning his having paid a fine in lieu of personal service in the military way which was read and received.
The Preparative meeting of Chesterfield report that Joseph Taylor has paid a fine in lieu of personal services in the war, attended trainings, and been concerned in horse racing.
Fretwell Wright and Amos Middleton are appointed to let him know the charges against him and that unless he condemns the said transgressions to the satisfaction of Friends the meeting will be under a necessity to testify against him and report to our next meeting.
A testification was produced to this meeting against Joseph Taylor for paying a fine in lieu of personal service in the war, answering at a place of training, and horse racing which was read, approved, and signed.
Nathan Middleton is appointed to give him a copy, let him know his right of appeal, and, if he does not appeal, to publish it at the close of a first day meeting at Chesterfield and report to our next meeting.
Taylor was informed of his appeal rights, and the testification against Taylor was published.
The Preparative Meeting of Chesterfield report that Daniel Taylor has paid fines to exempt him from personal service in the militia.
Isaac Wright and John Taylor of Bordentown are appointed to treat with him on the occasion and report to our next meeting.
The committee who were appointed to enquire how far Friends have through fear, or from lucrative motives, balked our religious testimony against war report: John Thorn has taken the Test, paid fines, and hired a man to go out in the Militia.
Isaac Field has paid a fine for his servant in lieu of personal service, holds an office of trust in the present unsettled state of public affairs, and is supposed to have taken the Test.… John Wetherill has paid a fine for his boy in lieu of personal service in the Militia, and after his goods were sold he paid the money and took them again.
Fretwell Wright, Caleb Ogborn, John Elliss, and Barzillai Furman are appointed to treat with them and report to next meeting.
The said committee likewise report that Nathan Beakes, Jr. has paid fines for military Services, Josiah Furman and John Haworth are appointed to treat with him and inform him that if he does not make satisfaction he will be testified against, and report to next meeting.
Isaac Ivins, Jr. produced an acknowledgment to this meeting condemning his having signed the Association and paying fines in lieu of personal service in the war which was read and referred for the consideration of next meeting.
Isaac Ivins, Jr. next shows up in in a dispute over an unpaid debt (assuming he isn’t the same person as plain old Isaac Ivins, who starts showing up in as a wayward payer of militia exemption taxes).
A testification was produced to this meeting against Daniel Taylor for paying fines to exempt him from personal service in war, which was read, approved, and signed.
Isaiah Robins and Isaac Wright are appointed to give him a copy, if required let him know his right of appeal, and report to next meeting.
John Wetherill produced an acknowledgment to this meeting condemning his having paid a military fine demanded on account of his lad and for buying his wagon after it was distrained and sold, which was read and received.
Gamaliel Warren produced an acknowledgment to this meeting condemning his having paid a fine in lieu of personal service in the military way, which was read and received.
1780
Testifications were produced to this meeting against John Thorn who has so far deviated from our religious principles as to take the Test and pay fines in lieu of personal service in the militia and hiring a man to act therein… Likewise against Nathan Beakes, Jr. for paying fines in lieu of personal service in the militia, which were read, approved, and signed.
Mansfield Preparative meeting report that Ezra Black is charged with taking too much Strong Drink, has paid a fine for the support of war, and has been in the neglect of attending our Religious meetings…
Isaac Field produced an acknowledgment to this meeting condemning his having paid a fine in lieu of personal service for the support of war, and also to hold office in the present unsettled state of public affairs requiring a qualification, the consideration of which is referred to our next meeting.
William West son of Bartholomew has married a woman, contrary to the rules of our Society, that is not in membership with Friends, and has paid fines to exempt him from personal service in the Militia and justifies his conduct therein.
Thomas Thorn reports William West son of Bartholomew has been informed of the charges against him he having married a woman, contrary to the rules of our Society, that is not in membership with friends, and has paid fines to exempt him from personal service in the Militia therefore this meeting disowns him the said William West from being any longer a member of our religious Society until he comes to a sense of his misconduct and condemns the same as Discipline directs.
A William West was also busted in for “taking spiritous liquor to excess, using unbecoming language, and neglecting the attendance of our religious meetings,” but since the above two notes are careful to call this William West “son of Bartholomew” I’m guessing this is to distinguish him from another William West, so that may not be the same fellow.
Isaac Field produced a paper to this meeting condemning his having paid a fine in lieu of personal service in the war, also to hold an office in the present unsettled state of public affairs requiring a common affirmation for the true performance thereof, which is referred for the consideration of next meeting.
There is an “X” drawn in pencil through that last paragraph (possibly because it is a duplicate of an earlier entry in the minutes).
Field had also had to “produce a paper” in to condemn his marrying outside the Society and its customs.
Chesterfield Preparative meeting informs Thomas Thorn, Jr. has been in the practice of paying military fines to exempt him from the service thereof.
Benjamin Linton and Fretwell Wright are appointed to treat with him, inform him of the charge, and report to next meeting.
A testification was produced to this meeting against Ezra Black for neglecting the attendance of our religious meetings, taking spirituous liquor to excess, and paying a fine for the support of war, which was read, approved and signed.
William Satterthwait and Barzillai Furman are appointed to give him a copy, inform him of his right of appeal; if he does not appeal, to publish it at the close of a First Day meeting at Mansfield and report to next meeting.
Ezra Black decided to appeal to the Quarterly Meeting; he later withdrew his appeal, but the meeting minutes are silent about him after that, so it’s unclear if he reconciled with the meeting.
The friends appointed report they visited Thomas Thorn, Jr., that he did not appear disposed to make friends satisfaction, he having been in the practice of paying military fines to exempt him from the service thereof, therefore this meeting disowns him the said Thomas Thorn from being a member of our religious society untill he comes to a sense of his error and condemns the same to the satisfaction of the Meeting.
A testification was produced to this meeting against Caleb Wright for being guilty of fornication with a woman whom he did not marry, taking spirituous liquor to excess, striking a man in anger, and paying a fine in lieu of personal service in war, which was read and approved, and the clerk is desired to transcribe and sign on behalf of the Meeting.
Richard Wey Furman and Joseph Pancoast are appointed to give him a copy, inform him of his right of appeal; if he does not appeal, to publish it at the close of a First Day Meeting at Upper Springfield and report to next meeting.
Wright later “produced an Acknowledgment to this Meeting concerning his having unchaste freedom with a woman not now his wife and also striking a man in anger,” but this, being a little incomplete, and in any case “not being satisfactory,” some Friends were assigned to inquire further into the nature of his repentance, and particularly into “whether he has satisfied the Woman.”
Meanwhile, a “testification” was drawn up, signed, and published, and he was read his rights (he chose not to appeal).
Upperfreehold Preparative Meeting informs Isaac Ivins has acted as a juryman on a jury appointed for the confiscation of estates, has paid an exempt or substitute tax for the support of war, and neglects the attendance of our religious meetings.
John Bullock and Joseph Bullock are appointed to treat with him, inform him of the charges, and report to next meeting.
Isaac Ivins produced a paper to this meeting condemning his serving as a jury man for the purpose of confiscating estates, and being in the practice of paying all the monies demanded of him for carrying on the present unhappy contest without enquiring for what use intended, from which he apprehends it reasonable to suppose he has paid one or more substitute or exempt taxes, and neglecting the attending of our religious meetings, which was read and received.
Jacob Taylor has taken strong liquor to excess, paid money towards hiring a substitute for war, and neglects the attendance of our religious meetings.
Fretwell Wright and Isaiah Robins are appointed to Treat with him on the occasion and report to next Meeting.
A testification was produced to this Meeting against Jacob Taylor for taking strong liquor to Excess, paying money towards hiring a substitute for the service of war, and neglects the attendance of our religious meetings, which was read, approved and signed.
Fretwell Wright and David Kelly are appointed to give him a copy thereof, inform him of his right of appeal; if he does not appeal, to publish it at the close of a First Day meeting at Bordentown and report to next meeting.
Jacob Taylor declined to appeal, and the testification was published.
I read it largely to give me some more context as to what was going on in Pennsylvania in the period that was so important to the development of American Quaker war tax resistance.
It was an interesting read, though a depressing one.
Pennsylvania seems at the time to have been one massacre after another.
The French and British chewing each other up, various Indian nations allying sometimes with one and sometimes with the other; Presbyterian settlers on a take-no-prisoners genocidal war of conquest aimed at anyone Indian, and then on a war against the unhelpful Quakers to the East; Indians butchering settler families; smallpox-laden gifts given to the Indians to reduce their numbers; Connecticut and Pennsylvania land speculators battling back and forth over land each claimed they had the right to steal from the Indians.
The Quaker hard-pacifist faction — the folks I’ve been studying, who crafted the theory and practice of Quaker war tax resistance that was a vital part of the Society of Friends for the next hundred years — comes off pretty well in this bloody company.
That said, the book deflates some of the more flattering stories about them, and they aren’t really players in most of the conflicts.
This was a time when Quaker influence was waning, and nobody was really taking seriously anymore the idea that Pennsylvania should be a state run on Quaker pacifist principles.
An exception is the “Friendly Association,” which was founded by pacifist Quakers at a time when the British military administration in Pennsylvania had taken a hard-line on the Indian question which mostly amounted to being dismissive of Indians and their concerns, and to seeing them mostly as people who were in the way as the British were trying to kick some French butt.
This backfired badly, as the alienated Indians allied with the French and taught the British several painful lessons.
The Friendly Association started negotiating with an eastern group of the Delaware Indians to try to open diplomatic channels again, and did so by helping the Delaware to assert some of their claims of egregious treaty violations and the like in a format that might best succeed in colonial government eyes.
The Association did this in the face of government orders not to interfere in such things.
But it worked; the grievances were addressed, the eastern Delaware allied themselves with the British, and this helped open the door to further negotiations that ended up securing the neutrality of the other Indian groups and eventual military success against the French.
During this time, the Quaker pacifists had resigned from the Pennsylvania Assembly because the cry to raise a militia and defend the frontiers from French and Indian invaders had become so loud.
Quakers in England had begged them to quit so that they wouldn’t be blamed for the military defeat of the colony.
There was some talk that for this reason the London Yearly Meeting would formally condemn the war tax resistance stand taken by some American Quakers.
When Samuel Fothergill, who had signed an “epistle” urging such resistance, returned to England he expected to be censured for it.
Instead, the opposition to such stands in London petered out.
Abraham Farrington remarked at the time: “I have now been nearly two weeks in [London], and seven or eight months in this nation, and have not heard a word in opposition to what we did, respecting the epistle.
The treaty we had with the Indians, I believe, has opened the eyes of thousands, and stopped the mouths of as many.”
But according to Kenny, the Friendly Association wasn’t quite the miraculous application of pacifist principles this makes it out to be.
For one thing, the Delaware Indians they were negotiating with weren’t particularly politically powerful — they had no influence among the Delaware in the west who were actually at war with the colonists, and even their right to negotiate on their own behalf was largely pretended (they were considered a subject tribe by a more powerful Indian nation).
Their chief was an unreliable, hopeless drunkard.
The Pennsylvania government unwillingly tolerated the Association’s meddling for a time, from necessity, but then banned them from further independent negotiations.
The periodic claims of conscientious scruples on the part of the Pennsylvania Assembly against issuing funds for the purpose of raising a militia, buying arms, or erecting fortifications, also is deflated in the book.
As Kenny tells it (and this doesn’t differ much from other commentators I’ve read on the subject), what was really going on was a power-play about whether the Assembly could or could not tax the vast land holdings of the proprietors (the Penn family) — the scruples were just a fig leaf or side note.
The Assembly and the governor would use crises like Indian attacks as opportunities for political brinkmanship — the Assembly voting crucial funds, but on the condition that the proprietary estates be among those taxed; the governor vetoing these bills; and each blaming the other for the stalemate.
In the end, the Assembly almost always eventually coughed up the money without making any attempts to effectually restrict it to non-military uses.
The following comes from an interesting English magazine called The Yorkshireman, a Religious and Literary Journal by a Friend, specifically from volume 4 (), number 95. It is part of a series of articles that stretched over pretty much the whole life of the magazine, called “A Chronological summary of events and circumstances, connected with the origin and progress of the doctrine and practices of the Quakers”:
– Enactment for raising “An aid and contribution for the prosecution of the War.”
Several members of our Society were brought into considerable difficulty by refusing to pay this demand.
Richard Reynolds of Bristol, Dr. Jonathan Binns of Liverpool (some time Superintendent of the Institution at Ackworth,) and the Editor of this work were of the number.
We construed the Act (all of us, I believe) upon the very face of the preamble, as a direct Military requisition personally made on the king’s subjects: and consequently knew not how to impute to the Executive branch of the Legislature (as in the case of an ordinary Tax on their property,) the military application of our share of the Fund so raised.
This, I believe, refers to the usual excuse Quakers gave when paying taxes that were largely going to pay for war but were also “mixed” with spending for other government programs. In such cases, Quakers would frequently say that they felt obligated to pay the tax and if the government then decided to spend some or all of the money on war, that was the government’s sin, not theirs.
This excuse didn’t carry much weight when the tax was explicitly enacted to pay for war.
Friends (though they mostly complied) were generally uneasy with the payment of this Rate; and were at length relieved by its being converted into a Tax on Income, without any specific application by the terms of the Act.
The following letter, written to his father (who procured his release, by paying it for him,) will be appreciated (the Editor hopes) with candour, by such of his Friends as remember the trying occasion to which it relates.
He has not suppressed (as he might certainly have done) the passages that make against himself: and with regard to the payment of the Tax, by the Friend to whom it was addressed, he believes it to have been made from motives as pure as those which actuated his own conduct in the case.
Dear Father: I have received a paper from thee containing extracts from two Yearly Epistles, prefaced by some remarks on the subject of War-taxes.
I have read them with attention, referring to the passages of Scripture cited, and again (as at many times heretofore) seriously reviewed the subject; and hope I shall remark upon them with proper deference to the judgment of a tender and beloved parent.
I ought to premise that, on recollecting the conversation which occasioned thy writing [to me], I have found cause to condemn myself for indiscreetly, perhaps unjustly, reflecting on the Meeting for Sufferings; as well as for too much latitude of expression, otherwise.
I believe, after saying so much, I need not ask thee to forgive my weakness.
But perhaps this may have occasioned a question in thy mind, whether my conduct in refusing to pay the “Aid and Contribution” has been dictated by any better motive than a spirit of opposition to the present war; or [at best by] a persuasion that the payment would not be consistent with my profession as a Friend.
I think proper [therefore] to state to thee the real grounds of my refusal, and distinguish them from any inconsiderate additions I may have made, in the course of a too unguarded conversation.
I might add some arguments on war and taxes, taken generally — but shall not do it, except thou art desirous to hear them: believing that I might have done better not to have communicated on the subject with the few that I have [spoken to;] and that my present business is, rather to suffer for my belief, if it so please Providence, than to dispute, or persuade others: more especially while I am as yet untried with the suffering that may ensue.
—
I had acquiesced in the general opinion that Friends would pay the Tax, though not a pleasant one.
On the first sight of the printed paper, containing the charge on us [the partnership in town,] I was forcibly struck with the title — and a degree of uneasiness raised which I could not shake off, though desirous to shun the subject.
After suffering under it for some days, I got the Act; and on perusing it with attention my judgment was convinced that, if I should pay that charge, I could not acquit myself in the sight of the Almighty of knowingly and willfully joining in the prosecution of the War; and consequently in the destruction of my Fellow-creatures: which I was not conscious I had ever done hitherto; and fully persuaded I could not do, without incurring the Divine displeasure.
Soon after came the demand on me here [at Plaistow,] which was one of the greatest exercises [of faith] I have ever met with.
For, I think, I suffered every argument that arose on behalf of the payment, as well as the dread of the consequences, and the powerful [influence of the] example of many Friends, whose judgments I could willingly have preferred to my own, to operate fully and perhaps too long.
However, after looking on every side as long as I durst, I found no way to escape but by giving up to refuse: and I had no sooner done so, than my peace of mind as to that matter was restored.
Neither have I yet seen sufficient cause to question the rectitude of my conclusion, though sometimes rather low [in mind] in the apprehension of the consequences.
From the circumstances and effects of this trial I am led to believe, I did not refuse this demand from any other motive than obedience to the requirings of Truth.
At this time, I can truly say, I am far from a disposition to censure or condemn any individual, who is easy [in mind] to pay: believing:, that those whose judgment is otherwise persuaded may be as much in their places in paying, as I hope and trust I am in refusing.
It is my earnest wish, that both those who refuse and those who pay may be preserved in that Charity which thinketh no evil.
And then, whether it be the will of our Divine Leader, that we should advance further in our noble testimony for Peace, — or whether the persuasion, into which a few Friends (with my unworthy self) have fallen, be intended to bring us into suffering for our good, — or whether, in fine, we are in an error through weakness, — I am desirous to refer all to Him; in full confidence that, while we continue thus minded, we shall be preserved from strife, and favoured ultimately to unite in a right conclusion.
So be it, says thy dutiful son — Plaistow, .
The “Friend” of the journal title, and the editor of this series of articles, was, I think, Luke Howard (–).
Howard was part of the evangelical/biblical fundamentalist Quaker tendency (sometimes called “Gurneyite” in the writings I’ve reproduced at The Picket Line) that formed partially in reaction to the Hicksite movement, and he was also active in such areas as abolitionism, temperance, and animal welfare.
He was also a member of the Royal Society and is probably best known today for his work in meteorology, particularly the categorization of clouds (he’s the one who came up with the names “cumulus,” “cirrus,” and so forth).
The Yorkshireman was published between and .
On , some of the non-pacifist inhabitants of the Pennsylvania colony petitioned the King of England to do something about that darned Quaker-dominated colonial assembly that kept refusing to raise money to equip a militia.
Here are some excerpts from that petition, as found in Charles Stillé’s “The Attitude of the Quakers in the Provincial Wars” (The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. Ⅹ, ):
[W]e have no hopes of seeing the assorted grievances redressed here while a great majority of men, whose avowed principles are against bearing arms, find means, continually, to thrust themselves into the Assembly of this province, and who have been frequently called upon to put the province in a posture of defense… but have always evaded the point, and spun out the time by unseasonable disputes, although nothing be required for this purpose but the bare sanction of a law to collect and conduct our natural strength as a colony.
[T]he Quakers in Pennsylvania have, upon every application, for 16 years now past,1 refused to raise a militia, refused to put the country in a posture of defense, refused to raise men or money for the king’s service, declare themselves principled against all military measures, and at length declared even self defense to be unlawful,2 and that at a time when the Indians and enemy were in the heart of their country, burning and destroying the inhabitants with unheard-of cruelties and barbarities.
Stillé: “The best proof that the people of the province were satisfied with the conduct of their representatives is found in the fact that during these sixteen years, the majority in favor of its measures was not lessened at each annual election.
Indeed, on the points in controversy referred to in the petition, the assembly was practically unanimous.”
Stillé: “The Assembly, of course, never declared that self-defense was unlawful.”
The Quakers in Pennsylvania are not one-fifth of the people there.
They consist principally of the descendants of those Quakers who originally went over thither, and they are generally settled in the South part of the province, most out of danger, and are the persons that are last to be devoured, so that the murder and destruction of their fellow subjects, the more modern settlers, who make their frontier is, to them, a light matter, being themselves out of the present danger, and they most piously cant that, according to their religious persuasions, self defense is unlawful.
Supposing they were sincere, those who maintain such an opinion are unfit for rule and government, who are principled contrary to the universal sense of all mankind besides themselves.
And that principle of theirs shows the necessity of what we desire, namely, that they should be excluded from the Assembly.
This exclusion could be easily accomplished if the crown were to require all Assembly members to take an oath of some sort (Quakers did not believe that Christians could take oaths).
They exempt all persons who, to save their money or their service, can work themselves up to be of a scrupulous opinion, which, in other words, is be but a Quaker and you shall neither serve or pay.
It is most manifest from that insolent address presented to the Assembly by 20 Quakers that this Assembly is led by the nose by that illegal cabal called their Yearly Meeting and their Quarterly Meeting.… these Meetings intermeddle in state & policy.
They, by their resolutions, awe and control government and legislature… I do think there never was a more insolent paper than the Quaker’s address to the assembly…
When his majesty, the proprietor, the lieutenant governor, the people in general, their Indian allies, and their bleeding country, had one and all, repeatedly, called upon them to raise men and money and to defend themselves, and the enemy was in the heart of their country, destroying it and murdering the inhabitants, those 20 fellows address them to pursue measures consistent with their peaceable! principles, and declare they are mighty ready to contribute, to benevolent purposes, but they give them another charge, not to trust their committees with any money, for such committees may possibly apply that money to purposes inconsistent with our peaceable testimony, and if they do, they tell them flatly, they’ll rather suffer than pay a tax for such purposes.
Actually, the “insolent address” didn’t come from a Yearly or Quarterly Meeting, but from an independent group of Quakers.
The Yearly Meeting put off taking a stand on the subject of that address until , when a subcommittee drafted this unenthusiastic statement:
Agreeably to the appointment of the Yearly Meeting we have met & had several weighty & deliberate conferences on the subject committed to us and as we find there are diversity of sentiments we are for that & several other reasons unanimously of the judgment that it is not proper to enter into a public discussion of the matter & we are one in judgment that it is highly necessary for the Yearly Meeting to recommend that Friends everywhere endeavor earnestly to have their minds covered with fervent charity towards one another, which report was entered on the minutes & copies sent in the extracts to the quarterly & monthly meetings.
On , Pennsylvania assemblyman David Lloyd wrote to the governor about his recent request for money to raise a military force so that the British army could invade Canada:
We are very sensible that our gracious sovereign the Queen, has been at a vast expense upon the designs which the governor is pleased to mention, and were it not that the raising money to hire men to fight or kill one another is matter of conscience to us and against our religious principles, we should not be wanting, according to our small abilities, to contribute to those designs.
May it please the Governor, though we cannot for conscience sake comply with the furnishing a supply for such a defense as you propose, yet in point of gratitude of the Queen for her great and many favors to us, we have resolved to raise a present of five hundred pounds, which we humbly hope she will be pleased to accept as a testimony of our unfeigned loyalty, and thankful acknowledgments of her grace and clemency towards us and the rest of her subjects, and though the meanness of the present be such as is unworthy favor of her acceptance (which indeed is caused not through want of good will and loyal affection, but by inability and poverty occasioned by great losses, late taxes misapplied, lowness of the staple commodities of the country, great damp upon trade and our neighbors’ non-compliance with the queen’s proclamation for reducing the coin), yet we hope she will be graciously pleased to regard the hearty and cordial affections of us her poor subjects instead of a present of value, and to prevent misapplication thereof; we have agreed that it shall be accounted part of the Queen’s revenue.
We are sorry New Castle should be in such danger as your speech intimates, but are very apprehensive that if the vice admiral were more diligent in obliging the men of war allowed by the Queen for that purpose to scour the coasts of those robbers, both they at New Castle, and those here who depend on such protection would be better satisfied, and did not a compliance with their request fall under the same objection as your other proposal, we should next to that give it the preference, and have complied to the utmost with their expectation.
This dodge of responding to requests for military funding by instead giving money to the crown generically was a sort of wink-and-nod way the Quaker-dominated Assembly stayed within the letter of the law of their pacifist doctrine while at the same time not overly risking the wrath of the mother country.
In this case, the governor refused to approve the bill to give this “present” to the Queen.
He later complained:
The Queen having honored me with her commands that this Province should furnish out 150 men for its expedition against Canada, I called an Assembly and demanded £4,000; they being all Quakers, after much delay resolved, nemine contradicente [unanimously], that it was contrary to their religious principles to hire men to kill one another.
I told some of them the Queen did not hire men to kill one another, but to destroy her enemies.
One of them answered the Assembly understood English.
After I had tried all ways to bring them to reason they again resolved, nemine contradicente, that they could not directly or indirectly raise money for an expedition to Canada, but they had voted the Queen £500 as a token of their respect, etc., and that the money should be put into a safe hand till they were satisfied from England it should not be employed for the use of war.
I told them the Queen did not want such a sum, but being a pious and good woman perhaps she might give it to the clergy sent hither for the propagation of the Gospel; one of them answered that was worse than the other, on which arose a debate in the Assembly whether they should give money or not, since it might be employed for the use of war, or against their future establishment, and after much wise debate it was carried in the affirmative by one voice only.
Their number is 26. They are entirely governed by their speaker, one David Lloyd.
Whenever the authorities arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned, or seized property
from Quaker war tax resisters, whatever Meeting that Quaker belonged to was
sure to make note of it in their book of “Sufferings.” These ordeals “for
conscience sake” were marks of honor and proofs of faith and these books were
in turn the evidence of martyrdom that sanctified the Meeting.
“Friends were always careful to put their sufferings on record,” wrote Stephen
B. Weeks, in Southern Quakers and Slavery. “Whatever
else the Quaker might suffer, he could not bear for the shade of oblivion to
come over the record of his testimonies.”
It was easier for a Quaker to exhibit fortitude in the face of government
reprisal if he or she knew that this would be remembered respectfully.
Monthly Meetings press their cases
It was a common practice for Monthly Meetings to pass their records of
sufferings along to be recorded also at the Quarterly Meeting level, and
then finally at the Yearly Meeting.
After the American Revolution, some American Monthly Meetings used this to
press for more respect for war tax resistance in the Yearly Meeting.
Officially, only Quakers whose tax resistance was due to militia exemption
taxes and other taxes that were explicitly and exclusively destined for war
spending were to have their sufferings recorded. But some Monthly Meetings
recorded sufferings for Quakers who were resisting general taxes, the bulk
of which went to pay off war debt.
In , David Cooper wrote of the Rhode Island
Yearly Meeting:
By a previous rule, such who paid any tax wholly for the support of war
should be dealt with as offenders, but Friends were allowed to pay mixed
taxes a part whereof was for civil purposes and part for war, nor were
sufferings of those who declined to pay these taxes received or recorded.
This subject now occasioned much debate, which resulted in a minute
directing such sufferings to be recorded as their testimony against
war.
In another case around the same time, the monthly meeting in Evesham, New
Jersey tried to forward the sufferings of its members who had refused to pay
war taxes, but their Quarterly Meeting in Salem balked at recording them and
forwarding them further. This led to a great deal of debate in the Quarterly
Meeting and kept war tax resistance on the front burner there — and also in
the Yearly Meeting, which appointed a committee of 36 Friends who unanimously
recommended that these sufferings be accepted and recorded.
Badges awarded by the Women’s Tax Resistance League
As I mentioned
the British
women’s suffrage movement awarded badges to women who had been imprisoned
for the cause, which is a different way of making note of and commemorating
such things.
Poll Tax resisters in the United Kingdom
When local council governments in the United Kingdom tried to shame tax
resisters by publishing their names in the newspapers during the Poll Tax
rebellion of the Thatcher era, the newspapers who published the lists of
“shame” found themselves on the receiving end of letters to the editor from
resisters who were outraged that they had not made the list — and demanding
that their names be included too!
It may sound like a long shot, but have you considered trying to make friends with the tax collector?
It’s a strategy that’s so crazy it just might work!
Here are some examples of where tax resisters or their allies have tried it:
The Peacemakers were eventually successful in winning back war tax resisters Ernest and Marion Bromley’s home, which had been seized for back taxes.
In a retrospective, they claimed:
The Peacemakers were resolute that their confrontation with the government would be on their terms. Believing that the legal system is an instrument of oppression and exists to protect the state and the property of the powerful, they refused to take their case into the courts.
Instead they worked to make the truth known through personal meetings with IRS officials, through continuous leafletting, through appealing to their supporters country-wide to demand justice.… They put enormous energy into building relationships with IRS officials that would allow for honest dialogue.
And always, they challenged and responded to the bureaucracy in a highly personal manner.
Initially it appeared that IRS’ reversal had been an act of faith in the Peacemakers; that it had been touched by the group’s philosophy of truth and their consistent methods.
It wasn’t that complete a victory.
The Commissioner had been sufficiently impressed by these people to where he called for a special investigation — which verified the Peacemakers’ statement.
Dorothy Day wrote of this:
Chuck Matthei had told me the story of his interviews with the head of the Internal Revenue Service, the almost daily dialogue that went on between them, and the frank and “manly” admission, made finally by the IRS chief, that a mistake had been made, that the Peacemakers had Truth on their side.
I felt a great sense of joy and thanksgiving, a sense of hope too, that our officials in Washington D.C. could be approached in this way — with dignity and perseverance, with courtesy, with the recognition that we are all, each one of us, whether government official or radical (one who gets to the roots of things), children of God.
We do believe that we are all brothers and sisters.
We believe, too, that we can only show our love for God by our love for our brothers and sisters.
So we share our joy with you, our readers, and hope we all have a sense of renewed strength and energy to continue our opposition to all violence, to all wars.
Ernest and Marion Bromley pose in front of their home.
Quaker Thomas Watson was seized by the American army during the revolution, and condemned “to be stripped and ironed, and on the next afternoon to be publicly hanged” for refusing to take the continental currency that Congress was using to finance the war, his family was given little hope for him.
“You may go home,” one petitioner was told, “and rest assured your uncle will be hanged.”
But the wife of the prisoner had a warm friend in the landlady of the inn at Newtown; and when was woman’s kindness ever invoked for the relief of suffering, or woman’s tact required in vain?
She was advised not to apply in person for the release of her husband.
The landlady had learned Lord Sterling’s fondness for the creaturely comforts of life; and knew that wine had the effect to soften the severity of his temper.
To take advantage of this disposition, she invited him to a sumptuous dinner.
He did full justice to the delicacies of the table, and willingly partook of the generous old wine, which had been reserved for special occasions.
As the wine warmed the General’s good-nature and disposed him to kindlier feelings, she cautiously introduced the case of the condemned; pitied his condition, cold, and in irons; regarded his treatment as needlessly severe; and at length requested that his fetters might be removed and his clothes restored to him.
He could not resist this appeal of his hostess; and a note was sent to the guard in answer to her request.
The good woman continued her entreaties, and still plied the wine; when, at the proper moment, the wife was introduced.
She fell on her knees before him, burst into a flood of tears, and told him who she was, and, with all the earnestness, feeling, and eloquence of a loving wife pleading for the one she loved best on earth, begged him to spare her husband’s life.
Her entreaties were of a nature hard to be withstood.
He remained some time silent; then, raising her to her feet, he said, “Madam, you have conquered.
I must relent at the tears and supplications of so noble and so good a woman as you.
Your husband is saved.”
He immediately wrote a pardon for the prisoner, and ordered his discharge.
The happy pair now returned to their homes rejoicing.
Such friendly meetings do not always end well.
Quaker Henry Paxson found this out when he was visited by the tax collector some 300 years ago:
Paxson kindly treats [the tax collector] with best he had, and when he had filled his wem, and drank plentifully of good cider, he distrains the plates he had eaten on, and the tankard he so freely toped out of, but the wife begged the tankard, and bid him take something in lieu of it.
In , a delegation of Quakers met with the sheriff, his sub-lieutenants, a judge, magistrates, and a tax collector in their area of Pennsylvania.
They reported:
[We] had opportunity of laying before them the reasons and grounds of our refusal to comply with several requisitions, made for the support of, or that have near connection with, war; and to open our principles, and the consistency thereof with the doctrines of the Gospel, as set forth in the New Testament and pointed out by the prophets, and the inconsistency of Christians oppressing one another for conscience sake.
They generally appeared friendly, and to receive our visit kindly, some of them particularly so; and most of them acknowledged that the prophecies concerning the disuse of carnal weapons, pointed to the Gospel dispensation, and was much to be desired.
We had good satisfaction in the performance of this service, believing truth owned it, and that there is encouragement for Friends to use further endeavors of this kind.
The Rebecca Rioters could be cruel, or even deadly, to the keepers of the toll gates they were destroying.
More frequently, they would allow the keepers a few moments to collect their personal belongings and remove them from the building before they demolished it.
And on some occasions, the encounters were almost cordial:
The gate-keeper begged of them not to destroy the furniture, as it was his own; and his wife and child were in bed, but they might do as they liked with the gate and toll-house.
Rebecca went to the door, and ordered her [Rebecca’s] daughters not to touch anything but the gate and the roof of the toll-house, and not to break the ceiling for fear the rain would harm the woman and child in bed.
In their hurry, however, to unroof the house, one of them slipped between the rafters, and his foot got through the ceiling.
Rebecca expressed her sorrow at the accident, as it might cause inconvenience to the gate-keeper.
They behaved remarkably well to the gate-keeper, and frequently desired him and his wife not to be alarmed, as they would not injure them in the least; but at parting Rebecca desired him not to exact tolls at that gate any more.
There was no more persistent foe of the IRS than Vivien Kellems, but:
Miss Kellems stresses that she holds no animosity toward the officials who enforce the tax laws.
When IRS Commissioner Johnnie M. Walker took office earlier she sent him a note outlining their differences but congratulating him on his appointment.
“He sent back a nice thank you note,” she said.
During the tax resistance campaign for women’s suffrage in Britain, good relationships between the resisters and the auctioneers who were enlisted to sell off their goods for taxes allowed them to better use these auctions as rally and propaganda opportunities.
On one occasion:
…the auctioneer opened the proceedings by declaring himself a convinced Suffragist, which attitude of mind he attributed largely to a constant contact with women householders in his capacity as tax collector.
When Kate Raleigh’s property was seized by the tax collector:
Miss Raleigh naturally made use of the occasion for propaganda purposes, conversing with the tax collector for some time on the subject of Woman Suffrage, and presenting him with Suffrage literature, which he accepted.
Before taking his leave he expressed himself as, on the whole, in favour of women’s claims to enfranchisement.
The movement against Thatcher’s Poll Tax initially tried to reach out to the councils who were responsible for setting the budgets that implemented the tax, and to the labor union representing the tax collectors who would be enforcing it, to ask them not to cooperate.
However, this met with very little success.
War tax resister Robin Harper met with a tax auditor and a “frivolous tax coordinator” at an IRS office in .
He described how it went:
I quickly assured them that an accurate accounting should of course be established, but that in no way could I alter my refusal to deliver my tax dollars into the U.S. military machine.
Earlier I had described how my Conscientious Objection was rooted in our Quaker Peace Testimony and how I had performed two years of civilian alternative service with a self-help housing project during the Korean War.
With his defensive posture evaporating, Mr. Means [the “frivolous tax coordinator”] told us that his father fought in the Korean War and came home tormented by post traumatic stress disorder.
Thereafter he would have nothing more to do with guns, “because he had seen what guns can do.”
That gave my supporter, who had lived through World War Two in Germany, an opening.
Drawing a parallel with my war tax refusal, she pointed out how German income taxes funded the governmental atrocities of the Third Reich.
…
At one point, when I was describing how the International Center has been installing solar water purification units in Central American villages, Mr. Means broadened our discussion, noting that the scarcity of safe water is becoming a global problem.
In my followup letter to our interview, I sent him a copy of an eye-opening article from the Resist newsletter discussing this issue in depth.
Near the end I took the opportunity to unfurl the large chart which chronicles my war tax redirection these past forty-one years and to describe how I was first propelled into war tax protest by U.S. nuclear atmospheric bomb testing in Nevada and the Pacific.
After more than three hours (and well past normal lunchtime), the two finally closed the interview with smiles and friendly handshakes.
Mr. Means even admitted that his title of “Frivolous Tax Coordinator” was really a substitute for “Tax Protester Coordinator,” an internal administrative category which Congress had abolished in recent Taxpayer Bill of Rights legislation.
Despite their training to be suspicious (all taxpayers are trying to get away with something), IRS folk, like all human beings, can be positively affected by openness, honesty and sincerity.
Transparency can often trump suspicion.
I have learned how we all hunger for caring, person-to-person exchanges.
Look how a one hour audit stretched into more than three hours, much of which involved genuine sharing far beyond the scope of the audit!
As our discussion rose above tax details, Mr. Means, the tax protester “sheriff,” was led to cast aside some of his official person and let his personal feelings and thoughts come through.
He also became increasingly interested in discerning what makes war tax refusers tick.
I am sure he came to understand that our witness is anything but “frivolous.”
A government can fund itself in a limited way just by relying on its power to coin money, but this in turn relies on the willingness of people to accept the coin of the realm.
Some tax resistance movements have adopted the tactic of refusing to use government money.
Here are a few examples:
During the Russian revolution of , a coalition of anti-government groups issued a manifesto in which they made the case that the government was essentially bankrupt, and they urged people to withdraw their deposits from the banks in gold rather than in untrustworthy government notes, and to demand their wages in gold.
During the American revolution, the Continental Congress funded its side of the war by issuing its own paper money: “continentals.”
They demanded that these notes be accepted as legal currency throughout the colonies, even as they sank in value.
Refusal to accept continentals as real money was seen as traitorous to the revolutionary cause, and indeed could result in execution at the hands of a military court.
Many Quakers, however, who were unwilling to participate in war funding in this way, refused to use or accept continentals, and the Virginia Yearly Meeting formally forbade its members to use the notes.
Job Scott wrote of this period:
I believed a time would come, when Christians would not so far contribute to the encouragement and support of war and fightings as voluntarily to pay taxes that were mainly, or even in considerable proportion, for defraying the expenses thereof; and it was also impressed upon my mind, that if I took and passed the money that I knew was made on purpose to uphold war, I should not bear a testimony against war that for me, as an individual, would be a faithful one.
I knew the people’s minds were in a rage against such as, from any motive whatever, said or acted any thing tending to discountenance the war: I was sensible that refusing to pay the taxes, or to take the currency, would immediately be construed as a pointed opposition to the present war in particular; as even our refusing to bear arms was, notwithstanding our long and well-known testimony against it; and I had abundant reason to expect great censure and some suffering in consequence of my faithfulness, if I should stand faithful in these things; though I knew that my scruples were unconnected with any party considerations, and uninfluenced by any motives but such as respect the propriety of a truly Christian conduct, in regard to war at large.
A number of modern critics see the government monopoly on legal tender as being a bulwark of tyranny, and are trying to attack it on a variety of new fronts, including modern twists on community currencies and entirely new plans empowered by networking and encryption developments.
Some tax resistance campaigns have accompanied their resistance with petitions to the government asking it to change its policies or to rescind the tax.
Here are some examples:
Some 14,000 American Amish petitioned Congress, putting aside that sect’s usual reluctance to participate in political affairs and asking the government to exempt them from the Social Security program, participation in which they felt was anti-Christian.
At the same time, some Amish were actively resisting the tax and suffering from government reprisals.
Congress eventually did carve out an exemption for the Amish and certain other sects.
American Quaker meetings frequently petitioned state legislatures when those bodies were considering laws that would force conscientious objectors to pay a fine or to hire a substitute — neither of which Quakers felt they could conscientiously do.
Here are two examples: from and .
On one occasion, American Quakers successfully petitioned the government to call off unscrupulous tax collectors who were seizing their property to pay such fines, in amounts that far exceeded the amount of the fine, and keeping the surplus (or sometimes the whole amount) for themselves.
In several Quakers wrote to the Pennsylvania Assembly to tell them they would be unwilling to pay a tax that body was contemplating for “purposes inconsistent with the peaceable testimony we profess.”
African-American entrepreneur Paul Cuffee petitioned the Massachusetts legislature in and to complain that he was not permitted to vote, although he was a taxpayer — and he backed this up by refusing to pay.
His petition arrived at a time when the state Constitution was in flux, and may have helped influence its drafters to omit a clause restricting voting to white citizens.
The Benares Hartal in , began with “the people deserting the city in a body, and taking up their station halfway between Benares and Secrole, the residence of the European functionaries, about three miles distant.
A petition was presented to the magistrate, praying him to withdraw the odious impost, and declaring that the petitioners would never return to their homes until their application was complied with.”
Before launching the Bardoli tax strike, representatives from the Indian civil disobedience movement petitioned the government, asking patiently for the concessions they would later demand via satyagraha.
The Rebecca Rioters, with their pseudonymous campaign of midnight toll-gate destruction, had the government nearly begging them to present a list of grievances they could at least pretend to address.
Many groups of Welsh farmers did meet and draft lists of grievances.
A London Times reporter gained the confidence of one Rebeccaite assembly, and set out their grievances in the form of a Times article describing the meeting.
Another group of farmers met to draft a petition of their grievances which they sent to a government representative via a trusted intermediary.
On at least one occasion a group of parishes had petitioned the Turnpike Trust that ran one of the offending toll gates to remove it, before it was destroyed by Rebecca and her daughters.
During the 17th century Croquant tax rebellions in France, the rebels carefully worded petitions to the king that assumed his benevolence and that the tax hikes must have been snuck past his royal highness by deceitful advisors.
In , nonconformists in Massachusetts successfully petitioned the King to free imprisoned resisters to a tax meant for the establishment church there, and to affirm that Quakers should not have to pay taxes to maintain the ministers of another church.
Abby Smith addressed the Glastonbury town council in to explain why she would not be paying her property tax to politicians who took advantage of her voteless state.
A newspaper obtained and publisher her speech, saying that “Abby Smith and her sister as truly stand for the American principle as did the citizens who ripped open the tea chests in Boston Harbor, or the farmers who leveled their muskets at Concord.”
Soon the Smith case became a cause célèbre nationwide.
During the Annuity Tax struggle in Edinburgh, Scotland, “40,000 citizens of Edinburgh petitioned the House of Commons for [the Tax’s] abolition.
The town council, the magistrates of Canongate, the Merchant Company, the Anti-state-church and the Anti-annuity-tax Associations, all exerted themselves with the legislature and the government to procure its repeal…”
The hut tax war in Sierra Leone was preceded by petitions from a variety of groups there asking the government to rescind the tax, and explaining why the tax was felt to be particularly offensive.
In this case, the petitioning may have backfired, as the government stubbornly pushed forward with the tax, but, forewarned of opposition by the petitions, it “came to the conclusion that the exercise of force, peremptory, rapid, and inflexible, was the element to be relied on in making the scheme of taxation a success.”
War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in
a Vietnamese postage stamp featuring Norman Morrison
On , a 31-year-old American Quaker named Norman Morrison went out to the sidewalk in front of U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s office in the Pentagon, doused himself in kerosene, and set himself on fire as a protest against the American war on Vietnam.
His suicide stunned the Society of Friends and made more urgent the already percolating questions about the moribund Quaker peace testimony and how much Friends were willing to put on the line for it.
This is reflected by the increased attention given in the pages of Friends Journal in to the issue of war tax resistance.
In , a “Friends’ Conference and Vigil on the War in Vietnam” asked the “Friends Coordinating Committee on Peace… to prepare a bulletin urging Friends to consider how paying taxes and buying war bonds involved them in financing the military.”
A number of Quakers signed a “No Taxes for Vietnam War” tax refusal vow that was organized by Maurice McCracken’s “No War in Vietnam Committee.”
These included, according to the issue of the Journal, “Franklin Zahn, Bob and Marj Swann, Arthur Evans, Bradford Lyttle, Johan W. Eliot, Staughton Lynd, Wilmer Young, George and Lillian Willoughby, and Marion C. Frenyear.”
The lead editorial in that issue was entitled “To Pay or to Protest?” and the author was determined to give no definitive advice on either side of that question.
The editorial begins by stating the case for Quaker taxpayer misgivings, then moves on to note that “a few pacifists” have been resisting, and to claim that “this year the number of tax-refusers will be far greater than ever before,” while other taxpayers who share their misgivings are either unwilling to take on the risks of tax resistance or believe that such an action amounts to “dodging the law and leaving someone else to carry a burden which they themselves will not assume.”
The editorialist then quotes from a letter written by a resisting employee “to her employing group” (why so coy about which group?) in which she writes that while she would be happy to “pay twice as much as required by the present law” for the more benign things the government buys, “I cannot bring myself to furnish money to be used in a way that will bring death to fine young American boys and men and also to Vietnamese men, women, and children.”
If “the employing group” were to cooperate in her request to stop withholding income tax from her salary, the editorialist wonders, “[w]ill it (or its members) be penalized?”
This is another strange example of the Journal taking an issue that was obviously a direct concern to Quakers and to Quaker Meetings, and trying to abstract it and cast it off into the distance somewhere in order to consider it dispassionately and indecisively.
From here the editorialist compares the Quaker war tax resister of today to the Quaker abolitionist “in the years before the Civil War when some members wanted to give all-out aid to the cause of abolition while others counseled caution, advocating strict adherence to the letter of such laws as those requiring fugitive slaves to be returned to their masters.”
Nowadays we tend to view with shame the historical evidence that all Friends did not work wholeheartedly for the abolition of slavery; will the time come when the Friends who follow after us have a similar feeling about those of their predecessors (including the present writer) who lacked the courage to resist conscription of their dollars to do the killing that they themselves refused to do?
After a quick detour through “There are those who say… there are others who counterargue…” territory, the editorialist recommends that people interested in tax refusal contact the Committee for Nonpayment of War Taxes or the Peacemakers, and gives their addresses.
Finally, there is a brief nod in the direction of war tax resistance being a time-honored Quaker practice.
The editorialist mentions that Franklin Zahn has authored a booklet on “Early Friends and War Taxes,” which includes the quote that ends the editorial, from the letter sent by John Woolman & co. to their fellow-Friends in :
Raising sums of money [for] purposes inconsistent with the peaceable testimony we profess… appears to us in its consequences to be destructive of our religious liberties; we apprehend many among us will be under the necessity of suffering, rather than consenting thereto by the payment of a tax for such purposes.
In the issue, an article about a Quaker movement in which people voluntarily taxed themselves 1% of their income for the support of the United Nations began this way: “All Friends, whether or not they would refuse to take up arms, are caught up in the military machine through payment of Federal income tax.”
This seems to indicate that there was still a blind spot that was making it difficult for some Quakers to even see the various alternatives to paying the federal income tax.
A report on the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in the same issue noted:
After consideration, the Yearly Meeting concurred with the concern of the Friends Peace Committee that fresh attention be given to the effort to devise a formula acceptable to the Internal Revenue Service and to Congress, which would permit persons to withhold that proportion of their income taxes applicable to military purposes and apply it to constructive purposes of government.
Because a Monthly Meeting secretary and a youth worker for the Peace Committee have asked their employers to cease withholding income tax from their salaries, the problem is being thrust upon the Yearly Meeting.
Friends, whatever their judgments about a particular action, are sympathetic toward those who engage in it for reasons of conscience.
In furtherance of its concern… the Friends Peace Committee received authorization to seek personal conferences with officials of the Internal Revenue Service to acquaint them with the basis and reality of the concern to refuse payment of taxes for military purposes.
Perhaps such conversations may increase understanding on the part of the officials and may enable them, while carrying out their duty and enforcing the law, to understand and respect the refusers.
A conference at Pendle Hill “on the search for peace” in , concerned the “basic question… [of] whether the militaristic society in which we all live could be influenced through techniques of reason or whether religious pacifists, in their deep alienation, should rather seek a more radical strategy of protest.”
At one point, according to the coverage in the issue of the Journal, William Davidon “spoke frankly and clearly on the moral philosophy behind his refusal to pay those taxes which, he felt, would support the war in Vietnam.”
Martin A. Klaver contributed the lead editorial in the issue — “More on Tax-Refusal” — which is worth reproducing completely here as a good overview of the issue of war tax resistance as it stood at that time:
“Friends Journal,” writes John R. Ewbank, patent attorney and a member of Abington Meeting, Jenkintown, Pa., “might well mention the ‘mildest form of tax-refusal for Milquetoasts’: the refusal to pay the federal tax on telephone usage when billed for it.
The telephone company can carry the accumulated unpaid tax until it equals the deposit, and then assess a charge for nominal discontinuance and reconnection, so that the penalties for prolonged persistence are paid to the phone company instead of to the government.
How long it is worth while to carry the protest is a matter of individual judgment…”
For nearly a hundred years, John Ewbank adds, Americans have not been faced with a levy so conspicuously labeled “war tax” as this revived tax on telephone usage.
According to his letter to the telephone company, “The publicity connected with the telephone tax has been so specifically related to the Vietnam war, and I am conscientiously so opposed to the Vietnam war, that my payment herewith omits the $1.03 federal tax.
There are so few opportunities for protest — even feeble, futile protest — that [this] becomes one of the few available gestures.”
For Milquetoasts or not, feeble or not, the gesture is a form of civil disobedience differing more in degree than in kind from refusal to pay the federal income tax — or that part of it that goes for war.
It seems a little unfair to make it at the expense of the telephone company, which is thereby put to added trouble and expense, if only in its bookkeeping department, but it is a protest.
This year, it appears, the thin ranks of those refusing to pay income taxes for reasons of conscience were somewhat augmented.
An release from the office of A.J. Muste cites a statement signed by 360 persons, declaring that they would refuse to pay taxes voluntarily as long as United States forces continue to be used “in violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and the United Nations Charter.”
The release says that some signers are leaving the money they owe the government in banks, where the Internal Revenue Service can seize it, while others will contribute it to CARE, UNICEF, or similar agencies.
It also notes that, according to the Internal Revenue Code, “willful refusal to pay taxes may be punished by jail sentences of up to one year and fines as high as $10,000.”
This is not tax-refusal for Milquetoasts, although in the past fines and jail sentences have been rare indeed.
The law is enforced by placing a lien on the tax refuser’s property or attaching his salary.
There have been a number of instances where actions instituted against individuals were simply dropped.
But if tax-refusal should reach important proportions, the present seemingly casual attitude might change; the IRS might decide that it must do something to show that it is not virtually inviting more and more trouble.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was concerned this year with the problem posed by employes of two Quaker groups who have asked their employers not to withhold federal taxes from their salaries.
The Yearly Meeting’s Peace Committee is not only seeking a solution to this problem but is also seeking special conferences with Internal Revenue Service officials to acquaint them with the reasons why some Friends refuse to pay their taxes.
During the Yearly Meeting’s discussion it was brought out that Friends Committee on National Legislation for some time has been exploring the possibility of drafting legislation in this area making it possible for Americans who have conscientious objections to having their property used for war to pay equivalent taxes for other uses.
A number of congressmen have been receptive to the idea, but so far no formula has been found that promises to attract the necessary support.
Meanwhile most Quakers (like this one) pay their income taxes (including the reimposed telephone tax) without a murmur.
But there is a consensus on a fundamental: Friends’ basic belief that in matters of conscience each individual must choose his own course.
If that course brings him into conflict with government, he must decide for himself what he must do: obey in silence, obey and at the same time protest, or resort to civil disobedience of one kind or another.
Whether any government can grant any of its citizens the “right” to violate any of its laws is open to debate.
The citizen can hardly lay claim to such a right, yet when he feels that he has a duty to break the law, when he says, “God helping me, I can do no other,” then we must accord him our respect.
The issue noted that “two young Quaker workers… have voluntarily taken drastic cuts in salary rather than pay taxes for war in Vietnam.”
The two were John L.P. Maynard and Robert W. Eaton, who reduced their incomes to the maximum allowable before federal income tax withholding began — something on the order of $75 per month.
The Conservative branch of the Ohio Yearly Meeting met in .
According to William P. Taber, Jr.’s report on the meeting, “we asked our members to consider supporting tax refusal and the sending of aid to the civilians of all Vietnam.”
On the other hand, at the Westerly (Rhode Island) Monthly Meeting, the message was more mixed: “Many Friends feel that not to pay their taxes is disrespect for the law, breeding anarchy.
Yet they deplore the fact that their tax money is being used to prosecute a morally indefensible war in Vietnam.”
The best they could come up with was to approve a suggestion that Friends accompany their tax payments with a statement of protest.
The pseudonymous history columnist “Now and Then” took up the issue of war tax resistance in the issue:
A scruple against paying taxes which directly or indirectly support war has had a long if sporadic history among members of the Society of Friends.
It received official support in London in when decision was made that fine or punishment for such refusal could be reported by the meeting in the annual listing of “sufferings for Truth.”
At Philadelphia Yearly Meeting every year lately this concern has been voiced by individuals.
In the Meeting went so far as to authorize some minor action on the subject, including a delegation to visit the Internal Revenue authorities and to explain the tender conscience of the increasing number of Friends who refuse part or all of their Federal income tax.
The most intensive consideration of the matter among the Meeting’s membership appears to have occurred more than two centuries ago.
Before the Pennsylvania Assembly was asked by the mother country to supply men and funds for British military enterprises in the colonies.
The Quaker legislators, when they complied, did so uneasily, with the excuses that it was for defense or that the money was voted nominally for the sovereign’s use and that they were not responsible for what use the king (or queen) chose to make of it.
They also accepted as a permanent unqualified mandate the words of Jesus, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Sometimes Friends distinguished as acceptable mixed taxes and as unacceptable those taxes that were definitely labeled for war.
We are indebted to John Woolman’s Journal (Chapter Ⅴ) for an account of the exercise that arose in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting both in and in .
In the former year a committee was appointed which issued an epistle expressing the feeling that “the large sum granted by the late act of Assembly for the King’s use is principally intended for purposes inconsistent with our peaceable testimony,” and that “as we cannot be concerned in wars and fightings, so neither ought we to contribute thereto by paying the tax directed by the said act, though suffering be the consequence of our refusal.”
Woolman speaks of the conference on the subject “as the most weighty that ever I was at.”
There was not unanimity in the group.
Some who felt easy to pay the tax withdrew, but twenty-one substantial Friends subscribed the epistle; they included John Woolman, John Churchman (who also mentions the matter in his Journal), Anthony Benezet, John Pemberton, and Samuel Fothergill, an English public Friend visiting America.
In the Yearly Meeting of the matter was opened again, and a committee of about forty Friends were appointed to consider “whether or no it would be best at this time publicly to consider it in the Yearly Meeting.”
Visitors from other Yearly Meetings — including John Hunt and Christopher Wilson from England — were asked to join the committee.
The decision was negative.
There was difference of opinion on the subject, and “for that and several other reasons” the committee unanimously agreed that it was not proper to enter into public discussion of the matter.
Meanwhile it recommended that Friends of differing opinions “have their minds covered with fervent charity towards one another.”
One wonders why the different result from two years before and what were some of the “other reasons.”
Part of the answer, I think, is to be found in a letter to John Hunt and Christopher Wilson, sent to them by the Meeting for Sufferings in London.
This letter is dated and is signed by Benjamin Bourne, clerk.
I shall quote it as I have copied it from the manuscript minutes of the Meeting.
It falls in date between the two Philadelphia Yearly Meetings described above, at the second of which Hunt and Wilson were present and in a position to transmit the urgent advice of London Friends.
The main purpose of their mission to Pennsylvania, as is well known, was to prevent the home government’s proposed requirement of an oath for members of the Assembly by asking Friends to refuse to run for election.
The British Friends asked the government to let them attempt first to bring about the purging of the Assembly of Quakers.
In this they succeeded to the extent that most Friends withdrew from the Assembly; thus the threat was averted.
Evidently the same pressure was exercised to encourage Friends to pay provincial war taxes to the British crown and particularly not to publicize their scruple against paying them.
But neither the minutes of Philadelpha Yearly Meeting for (under ) nor its epistles — whether to London Yearly Meeting or to its own members — are so explicit as the letter.
After repeating the primary commission to the English delegates to try “to prevail on Friends in Pennsylvania to refuse being chosen into Assembly during the present commotions in America” and “to make them fully sensible of their danger, and how much it concerns them, the Province, and their posterity to act conformably to this request and the expectations of the government,” the letter continues:
And as you will know that very disadvantageous impressions have been made here by the advices given by some Friends against the payment of a tax lately laid by the provincial assembly, it is recommended in a particular manner that you endeavour to remove all occasions of misunderstanding on this account, and to explain and enforce our known principles and practice respecting the payment of taxes for the support of civil government agreeable to the several advices of the Yearly Meeting founded on the precept and example of our Saviour.
May that wisdom which is from above attend you in this weighty undertaking, and render your labours effectual for the purposes intended that you may be the happy instruments of averting the dangers that threaten the liberties and privileges of the people in general and restore and strengthen that union and harmony which ought to subsist in every part of our Christian Society.
Two brief lists were delivered with the above letter: extracts from London Yearly Meeting minutes of , , , , and , in which the payment of dues to the government is inculcated; and titles of Acts of Parliament, seven chapters in four Acts from the reigns of William and Mary and Queen Anne, “wherein it is expressed that the taxes are for carrying on a war.”
The final phrase was to leave no doubt that English Friends encouraged no escape on the ground that a Quaker conscience could assume the doubtful or peaceful purpose of the legislation.
The grounds on which the scruple among Friends was silenced in are clear.
Friends had long paid such taxes and wished to obey the laws.
If Pennsylvania Friends refused to vote for them as assemblymen or to collect them as tax collectors or to pay them as subjects, the liberties enjoyed in the colony, such as permitting affirmations in place of oaths, would be terminated.
The exhortations in the gospels and New Testament epistles in favor of paying Caesar his dues were applicable.
The early Quaker examples of civil disobedience in other matters were forgotten, and the relevance of the continuing Quaker testimonies against personal participation in war and against the payment of tithes was not cited.
In the latter area Friends were resolutely against payment and suffered ruinous distraints.
Evidently dues for the support of “hireling ministers” seemed more obnoxious than taxes for the prosecution of war.
If Colonial Friends disagreed with the practice of Friends in England or even with one another they would expose the Society to disharmony.
When Woolman’s Journal was reprinted in England in the whole section on paying or not paying taxes was omitted, but in America the problem already was taking a different form.
Friends and others had opposed taxation without representation when the Stamp Act was passed in .
With the outbreak of the Revolution the issue was one of using continental currency or of paying taxes to support war against Great Britain.
This, many American Friends (like Job Scott) and Meetings were willing openly to oppose.
The New York Yearly Meeting issued a statement “on the tragic situation in Vietnam,” saying that it represented “a supreme test” to “the spiritual vitality of the Religious Society of Friends.”
The statement, reprinted in the issue of the Journal included this point:
We call upon Friends to examine their conscience concerning whether they cannot more fully dissociate themselves from the war machine either by tax refusal or by changing their occupations.
The issue noted that “the newsletters of several Friends’ organizations” are encouraging their readers to “protest your telephone war tax” but also suggests that in some cases the protest was a pretty pathetic one: “Stickers saying ‘The Vietnam War Tax Included in This Bill Is Paid Only Under Protest’ are available from the American Friends Service Committee.”
The following issue included a letter-to-the-editor from Franklin Zahn in which he encouraged a more practical approach: “Each month I pay all of my phone bill but 7 percent, informing the company it is against my conscience to pay the direct war tax.
For five months the company added the unpaid balances to each new bill, then wrote it was referring the unpaid total to Internal Revenue Service and wiping my bill clean of debt… How will Internal Revenue handle this?
Past experience with unpaid income taxes indicates IRS may ask for payment but make no bank account seizure until the amount totals more than $5, at which time it takes an extra 6 percent (per annum) as fine.
Not paying direct war taxes is part of Quaker peace testimony.
Don’t pay for a wrong number.”
Franklin Zahn
We’ve encountered Franklin Zahn before.
He was listed as the contact person for “a leaflet on tax refusal” in a issue, and also something described as “the historical material” on the subject — “Early Friends and War Taxes” (perhaps the same leaflet).
Here is some more of his work:
In the issue, he responded in a letter-to-the-editor to an article that apparently suggested “that Friends drop their middle-class attitude of changing law and join the less privileged whose only method has been evading law.”
Zahn responded:
A basic test for conscience is the categorical imperative: What happens if everybody else did the same?
For [draft] evasion, I can see only the tightening up of conscription law.
For open resistance, however, the end of conscription.
For myself, personally beyond the applicable age, the corresponding form of resistance is refusal to pay war taxes.
If everyone in the world practiced it, the result would be close to total elimination of war.
I recently harbored an AWOL who jumped ship fifteen minutes before it sailed for Vietnam, but a better Quaker witness and confrontation would have been for both of us openly to declare our civil-military disobedience — he, his desertion; I, my aiding and abetting, and face the penalties for our actions.
But maybe I should rejoice in that having evaded the law I have lost some middle-classness.
In the issue, he suggested that the spirit of the gospels meant that the “Render Unto Caesar” episode should be interpreted anew:
In the matter of war taxes, were Jesus addressing Christian stewards of God’s wealth who were citizens in a free democracy and responsible for its conduct and were be to pick up an American coin with its inscription, “In God We Trust,” his words might very well be:
If the God you trust is Mars, pay your taxes to him.
In the issue, he gave “a historical summary” of how Quakers had dealt with the issue of war taxes:
With war taxes as with slavery, John Woolman stands out as the pioneer in getting the Society of Friends to face the issue.
His motivation in bringing the concern to Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in came from the increasing willingness of the Quaker government of the colony of Pennsylvania to vote money for war.
The Quaker Assembly had begun to weaken in its peace testimony in .
First it had refused to vote £4000 for an expedition into Canada, forthrightly saying, “It was contrary to their religious principles to hire men to kill one another.”
But later they voted £500 “for the Queen” as a token of their respect, with a rider saying, “The money should be put into a safe hand till they were satisfied from England it should not be employed for the use of war.”
But in a similar request resulted in £2000 being voted, with Isaac Norris echoing Fox in explaining: “We did not see it to be inconsistent with our principles to give the Queen money notwithstanding any use she might put it to, that not being our part but hers.”
That same year William Penn reputedly wrote the Queen (I have not found historical verification): “Our civil obedience is only due to Christ, not to confound the things of God with Caesar’s; for no man can be true to Him that’s false to his own conscience, nor can he extort from it a tribute to carry on any war, nor ought true Christians to pay it.”
[I also have been unable to find a source for this quote —♇]
Whatever influence the letter may have had, the fact seems to be that none of the £2000 voted “for the Queen’s use” was spent on the military expedition.
But the principle of passing the buck for war seems to have been established in the Assembly, which took the view that while Quakers refused to bear arms themselves they did not condemn it in others.
In the Assembly told the Governor it could not vote money for war, but acknowledged that on the other hand it had obligations to aid the government.
The crisis, however, came in the French and Indian War in , when individual taxpayers decided they could no longer pass the war buck to the Assembly.
In of that year John Churchman and other Friends met with Assembly Friends, and about twenty of them said, in part:
“…As the raising sums of money, and putting them into the hands of committees, who may apply them to purposes inconsistent with the peaceable testimony we profess, …appears to us in its consequences, to be destructive of our religious liberties; we apprehend many among us will be under the necessity of suffering, rather than consenting thereto, by the payment of a tax for such purposes; and thus the fundamental part of our constitution may be essentially affected, and that free enjoyment of conscience by degrees be violated;…”
The setting for this ultimatum is of interest: Quaker tax-payers, one-third of the population of the colony, Quaker Assemblymen a majority in a legislature which had non-Quakers like Benjamin Franklin — the most important person in the colony.
The Assembly, when the vote came, said it could not give money for munitions but that, as a “tribute to Caesar,” it was voting £4000 for “bread, beef, pork, flour, wheat, or other grain.”
The Governor who had received the request from New England for a grant to buy a different granular material, told the Assembly that their term “other grain” meant gunpowder and so spent the money.
Woolman’s thoughts about war taxes and his journeying to Philadelphia Yearly Meeting that year with his concern are familiar in his Journal.
One passage, however, seems pertinent to as Friends urge a divided Congress to cut off war funds:
“Some of our members who are officers in civil government are… called upon in their respective stations to assist in things relative to the wars… if they see their brethren united in payment of a tax to carry on the said wars, may think their case not much different, and so might quench the tender movings of the Holy Spirit in their minds.”
On , he; Churchman and others drew up an Epistle to Pennsylvania Friends:
“…The large sum granted… is principally intended for purposes inconsistent with our peaceable testimony; we therefore think that as we cannot be concerned in wars and fightings, so neither ought we to contribute thereto, by paying the tax directed by said act, though suffering be the consequence of our refusal.… Though some part of the money to be raised… is said to be for such benevolent purposes as supporting our friendship with our Indian Neighbors and relieving the distresses of our fellow-subjects, who have suffered in the present calamities, …we could most cheerfully contribute to those purposes, if they were not so mixed, that we cannot… show our hearty concurrence therewith without at the same time assenting to… practices which we apprehend contrary to the testimony which the Lord hath given us to bear…”
The “tax” committee of Yearly Meeting decided that refusal should be an individual matter, and in we find Friends like Joshua Evans conscious there was no solid front: “I found it best for me to refuse paying demands on my estate which went to pay the expenses of war, and although my part might appear at best as a drop in the ocean, yet the ocean, I considered, was made of many drops.”
The effect of such witness was not to stop the war but, as Woolman may have felt of even greater importance, to help Quaker legislators to be true to their own “tender movings.”
In that year the last of the Quaker Assemblymen had resigned and no more ran for the office — in Franklin’s approving words, “choosing rather to quit their power than their principle.”
The 70-year experiment of a Quaker government came to an end over the question of war taxes.
By , according to James Pemberton, it was clear the war-makers were extracting their toll: “The tax in this country [is] pretty well collected and many in this city particularly suffered by distraint of their goods and some being near cast into jail.”
Two decades later, when the bigger test of the Revolutionary War came and the “fighting” Free Quakers separated, tax refusal was so well established that some Quakers appear almost to have over-reacted.
In The Quakers in the American Colonies, Rufus Jones writes:
“There was plenty for the overseers to do in these early days of the war.… Shutting their hearts against the pleadings of mercy for their brothers and sons who had joined the ‘associators’ or paid war taxes, or placed guns for defence upon their vessels, or paid fines for refusing to collect military taxes, or in any way aided the war on either side, they cleared the Society of all open complicity with it.
The offense was reported to one Monthly Meeting, and at the next the testimony of disownment would go out.”
While by today’s permissive standards of the Society such peace witness seems more hysterical than historical, we need to be aware that in this period as in the Civil War, “tax” sometimes meant the substitutionary amount paid in lieu of military service by COs.
In New England the question of paying war taxes to the rebelling colonial governments was the precipitating cause for the split-off of Free Quakers.
There, as elsewhere, when the Revolutionary War broke out, Friends generally agreed they should not pay specific war taxes but on “mixed” taxes — the subject of the 1755 Epistle in Pennsylvania — there was no consensus.
Job Scott in New England Yearly Meeting was the most erudite and detailed advocate of not paying mixed taxes.
In his essay, subtitled “A truly conscientious scruple with respect to the payment of such taxes as are in part demanded for and applied to the support of war and fighting,” and addressed to “Friendly reader,” he reasoned in 1780:
“Now then, if a collector of taxes comes to me and in Caesar’s name demands a tax of £20 which I am persuaded is so far mixed, part for war and part for other charges, that my conscience forbids my paying it… I am not to blame for not paying it: if Caesar pleaseth to separate them I can gladly pay the one part and refuse the other.… though magistry be a divine ordinance, yet it does not follow that every requisition of the civil magistrate ought to be actively obeyed, anymore than because it is a duty indispensable and incumbent on all mankind to pay all their just debts, that therefore we must pay all demands however unjust.”
Tradition-minded Friends who used the Caesar argument sometimes pointed to George Fox who in , paying a specific war tax for the Dutch war, made a distinction between this and direct military service.
But the homeland of Quakerdom by had also moved towards tax refusal; in London Yearly Meeting minuted its censure on “the active compliance of some members with the rate (tax) for raising men for the Navy” and directed local Friends to have such cases under their care.
Those who paid war taxes without even waiting for the process of distraint were considered to have acted “inconsistently.”
In less material on taxes was published by Friends.
Perhaps there is here a fruitful field awaiting some researcher of yearly and quarterly minutes [indeed there is –♇].
Was there less interest in the problems, or was refusal taken for granted?
Did non-Friend Thoreau’s ringing call to refusal in the Mexican-American War preempt the field?
Whatever the reasons, as Friends face today’s violence with its automated battlefields and nuclear missiles — where the conscription of human bodies for mass armies may become less important — and conscription of money for sophisticated technology more important — the relevancy of the tax question to a modern, effective peace testimony has reached an all-time high.
In its issue, the Journal noted that the IRS had made a half-hearted attempt to seize Zahn’s “1955 Dodge station wagon” for $6.58 in resisted phone tax.
Although contemplating lying in front of the car as a final protest before the towing, Franklin calmly removed his personal effects from the car and showed no agitation at this seizure of his property.
At the last minute, however, the IRS men suddenly removed the chains, saying, “We just got new orders — we’re calling off the dogs.”
The mood changed from one of tense formality to joviality as the men left.
“It was as though,” Franklin says, “they were glad the little bluff had failed.”
A letter-to-the-editor from Zahn appears in the issue, in which he responds to “a frequent objection to war tax refusal: that it logically leads to a host of other tax refusal.”
He suggests that because military expenses are such an overwhelming part of the federal budget, only war resisters are likely to find tax resistance to be a tempting tactic.
And anyway, “if a few other than war objectors choose to refuse, I see no objection to their doing so.”
In the issue, Zahn writes in to make a fresh case for war tax refusal:
In refusing personal service, one considers one’s integrity — conscience: Can I be part of a machine geared to agony and death?
But often a different criterion is applied to refusal to pay: How effective a protest is it?
If the protest-value of tax refusal is the only consideration, Friends may feel the effort is better spent in writing a legislator or phoning the White House.
(But I have found that a letter to the government saying I am refusing to pay war taxes is one letter officials never ignore.)
Arguments against the effectiveness of war tax refusal can be self-fulfilling prophecies.
Friends may not wish to join a public witness which is so small it attracts little notice — therefore it remains small.
Yet it is possible that an announcement of intention to pay no further war taxes would be the most single effective act against the arms race that members of the Society of Friends could take.
But sudden, dramatic decisions for effectiveness are not in the manner of Friends.
Perhaps we should forget all about witness and consider tax refusal purely as personal integrity.
This basis, after all, is the one for our day-to-day decisions in matters of principle.
We refuse to steal, not as some witness in influencing others, but because for us stealing is wrong.
We refuse to cheat, not as some protest against dishonesty or against anything else, but because cheating is not the way of the life of the Spirit.
Questions of effectiveness become irrelevant.
The corresponding question for taxes could be, explicitly: Should I, a person in whom there is that of God, voluntarily pay all money asked of me for the purpose of injuring and killing millions of other persons in whom there is also that of God?
If trying to hold back some one-third of our federal income tax (which will go next year for current military uses) is too boggling, we can start modestly and refuse payment of only ten dollars — a small pinch of incense not voluntarily laid on Caesar’s altar.
It can, to our conscience, be a symbol of our refusal of total submission to the military-industrial complex.
But it can also symbolize the positive.
It can be given to the Right Sharing of World Resources of Friends World Committee.
It is possible a small amount like ten dollars will not even be collected by IRS.
Each of us can try such an experiment for one year, and from then proceed as way opens.
Finally, in the issue, the Journal announced Zahn’s death (nearly a year after ).
It called him “a peace activist and worldly ascetic” and said that he practiced “religious asceticism — regular meditation, vegetarianism, celibacy, and voluntary poverty — as both the sustenance for his personal spiritual life and public witness to the power of love and truth in the world.”
He was among those conscientious objectors who at first accepted alternative civilian service, and then decided to resist the draft entirely.
He also was among those who tried to sail into nuclear weapons test zones to disrupt the tests.
the American Revolution was portrayed as the culmination of a tax revolt in this educational cartoon short that aired frequently between Saturday morning cartoons in the United States in
War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in
your humble editor and his little brother in
I was a little too young to be much of an observer of the political scene, but I remember as being something of an orgy of innocent patriotism.
America was sick of being cynical and wanted to go back to being stupid — besides, the Vietnam War was mostly over, at least for most Americans, and we’d given Nixon the heave-ho — and so there were plenty of red-white-and-blue commemorations of the bicentennial of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
The Friends Journal wasn’t quite so willing to get with the star-spangled program.
In particular, it intensified its coverage of war tax resistance during the bicentennial year.
The issue was the Friends Journal’s first special issue devoted to war tax resistance.
It starts off with a couple of inspiring quotes on the subject from A.J. Muste and David Dellinger, then opens with a piece by Jennifer S. Tiffany on how she met the challenge of deciding whether to pay or to resist.
Excerpts:
This fall was a time when I was grappling a great deal with the question of war tax resistance.
To start with, I knew and had known for a long time that I could not be clear in paying taxes to any state which would use them to pay for war-making.
Particularly, I could not contribute to the nuclear death race between this nation and the Soviet Union.
Perhaps it goes back to the civil defense tests and simulated nuclear air-raids which had terrified and confused me when I was a child.
Anyway, the imperative, the need to keep clear of war (to use Bruce Baechler’s words), had always been strong.
I had been acting on it, in small ways, for a long while-avoiding earnings beyond the taxable minimum, for example, and claiming six “peace dependents” on my W-4 form when my income did exceed this minimum.
I also corresponded with the IRS concerning my views and actions.
However, a disclarity still existed regarding full resistance, with all the possible ramifications on my life and lifestyle.
The question was, to me, was I strong enough and centered enough to maintain a taxable income level, restructure my life in such a way as to prevent eventual government levies, and go on with my resistance?
Could I face creatively the possibility of putting a good deal of energy into court cases with the eventuality of prison?
I came into meeting for worship one morning at the height of these grapplings.
As I settled in, I was astounded.
Somehow the fears and conflicting leadings within me changed.
They did not fade or diminish, but grew into context.
The spirit of the meeting, the presence of loving Friends, who loved whether or not they agreed with one another’s approach, literally overwhelmed me.
The presence of God wholly covered the gathering, and finally clearness came.
Our God, the Presence in our worship and acts of witness, is a gentle, healing, loving, empowering God, one who speaks strongly and softly from within us.
At the same moment as making demands on our lives, this Presence says, “You need not fear; if you act on this I will sustain and strengthen you throughout the whole process.
I am…” This was a moment of resolution for me.
I was no longer entangled in a negative refusal to pay taxes, but was healed and sustained and led to a positive witness.
I could go on.
It is in this context that tax resistance has its roots and life.
War tax resistance, any resistance to war and to those authorities which bring about war, is not a negative presence: every no implies a yes, and this no to killing and death can be a yes to healing and life.
Within tax resistance dwell seeds which can help a whole new order to grow — seeds which deny fear and powerlessness in the face of death; seeds which lead us to the creation of healing alternatives to structures which sustain death.
As John Woolman puts it, “to turn all we possess into the channel of universal love becomes the whole business of our lives.”
I can speak only of my moment of resolution, the clearness and joy which is liberated in my life through a tax witness.
As I see it, this issue of Friends Journal is not a coercive tool, saying “you must for these reasons refuse to pay your taxes or I will no longer judge you to be a good Friend.”
The point of this issue is not to define terms for judgment, to draw lines of inclusion and exclusion.
Our faith is an experiential one, and your experience of real clarity is as right and valid for you as mine is for me.
The point is to lay ourselves open to what speaks truthfully in us, to really open ourselves to the spirit which utterly denies war, to really grapple with the questions this raises and the demands it makes on our lives.
One of those questions has to do with tax resistance.
This is an invitation to grapple with it, and a reaching out which says there is a great company of people, past and present, who have done so.
There is a process of empowerment, growth and the birth of community among people which can take root through tax resistance.
First comes the knowledge that the authorities of death are not all-powerful, that the laws and structures which sustain any war machine are in fact quite weak.
As Marion Bromley says in her article, “What can they take away that is of real value?”
Second dawns the realization that alternatives are possible: through the flaws in the death order, we glimpse the order of life.
And, although such consequences as possible imprisonment or loss of property, and the inward struggle with fear, are largely borne alone, the vision is shared by a growing company of sisters and brothers.
Isolation is hard to feel when so many glimpse the possibility of a new order — an order beyond war.
Finally and especially, tax resistance often grows as an act of ministry, an act of obedience to the loving and healing spirit.
War tax resistance is one aspect of a community set on fire with the presence of a gentle, empowering God.
Bruce Baechler thought the question of whether Quakers should resist war taxes was a no-brainer.
He wrote in from prison (where he was doing time for draft resistance) with this defense of war tax resistance.
Excerpts:
Do Friends support war?
At one time this could be answered with a “not at all.”
These days, though, it seems to depend on how one defines support.
Friends, generally, denounce war in the strongest terms. Indeed that’s all many people know about us.
But for the most part Friends can no longer claim to renounce, or “utterly deny” war.
Friends today are not compelled to bear arms… instead of fighting with outward weapons ourselves, we are merely asked to buy the weapons through taxation, and leave the dirty work to others.
And most of us do.
Yet we cling to our traditional peace testimony, often expressed as early Friends did in the Declaration of :
We utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretense whatsoever; this is our testimony to the whole world.
This is strong language.
One cannot, without being hypocritical, utterly deny something and still give it material support.
But most Friends do.
There are many reasons given for paying taxes.
Most of these are quite valid, if one thinks of tax resistance as a protest.
But I see a difference between various types of protests, such as vigils and letters to Congress, and nonsupport, or remaining clear of war, as by tax resistance.
In protesting, one makes her/his views known, but leaves it up to someone else (the government) to make the decision.
Governments are not noted for their receptivity to the pacifist message, and it is unlikely they will be in the near future.
I am not deriding protest — much has been accomplished through it.
I am just saying that it is not enough.
Nonsupport, on the other hand, emphasizes individual responsibility.
To refuse to pay one’s taxes is to accept responsibility for the way they would be spent, and to refuse to allow them to be spent for immoral purposes.
Tax resistance should not mean just withholding taxes from the government.
An integral part of tax resistance is to redirect the money normally spent for taxes into life supporting channels.
In many places this is done through Alternative Funds, where the resisters in a community band together to make most effective use of the money.
Thus not only is money diverted from warmaking, but at the same time it is made available as a resource for peaceful activities.
Perhaps the biggest problem most Friends have with not paying for war is that it is illegal.
One faces the prospect of prison for it, and this alone is enough to make most people give it only superficial consideration.
Hopefully the World Peace Tax Fund, if established by Congress, will alleviate some of this problem in much the same way that the Conscientious Objector provisions in the draft laws gave a legal alternative to the army.
But in the meantime the problem remains.
Friends have often suffered for their beliefs.
Throughout our history large numbers of Friends have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed for preaching and practicing the message of the Inward Light.
Would you stay away from a Meeting for Worship if to go meant certain arrest?
Would you attend but not speak when moved, if that would be dangerous (a situation facing Korean Friends today)?
Would you join the army to avoid prison?
Kill to avoid being killed?
The question is where to draw the line.
When, to you, does the personal suffering involved in a course of action outweigh the reasons for taking that course?
Each person must decide for her/himself.
Another response to the problem of imprisonment is that if any substantial number of Friends did engage in tax resistance, the likelihood of their being imprisoned would be small, and some provision in the law would probably be made for them, thus eliminating the problem and encouraging more people to resist.
Jack Cady shared his long, meandering letter to the Director of the IRS.
Excerpts:
[O]ur first confrontation… will be the examination of my tax return.
I expect the examination is prompted by my refusal last year to pay half of my income tax.
I will refuse. to pay half of the tax again this year, although because of withholding, your agency already has most of the money.
I refuse to pay half of the tax on various grounds, some of which are moral, some of which are legal.
The refusal is prompted by the expenditure by our government of over fifty percent of tax monies on the maintenance and purchase and use of armies and weapons.
Through its agency, Internal Revenue Service, the United States Government seeks my complicity in the violation of twenty centuries of moral teaching.
The government is in further violation of the Constitution of the United States.
It is also in violation of various international treaties and agreements, and is, in fact, engaged in crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.
In requiring that I pay taxes for the support of war, planning for war, offensive weapons and the maintenance of a standing armed force sufficient to engage combat on a worldwide scale, the U.S. Government through its agent IRS is in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees my religious freedom.
I am a member of the Port Townsend meeting for worship of the Society of Friends (Quaker).
The Quaker belief and effective detachment from war dates from the beginnings of the Society in .
The precedent of refusal to pay war taxes in America dates from when John Woolman, John Churchman, and Anthony Benezet refused to pay for the French and Indian wars.
Nonviolence and refusal to pay or endorse either side in a combat dates in U.S. history from the revolution when Quakers who refused to kill were stoned or beaten under the brand of Tory.
I claim my devout belief in God and the injunction that we may not kill as sufficient reason to refuse this tax.
I would expect that opposition to this view would also have to overcome three hundred years of Quaker nonviolence and two hundred years of U.S. acceptance of Quaker attitudes that insist on nonviolence.
[I]n asking taxes, the U.S.A. through its agent IRS seeks my complicity in crimes against peace and crimes against humanity as defined by the Nuremberg Principles.
These principles hold that citizens of a nation are guilty of crimes committed by that nation if they acquiesce to those crimes when, in fact. a moral choice is open to them.
In requiring that I pay taxes to support a war industry and armed forces capable of contending on a worldwide scale, the U.S. Government is threatening both my moral and my physical existence.
I am not being protected, because the U.S. builds atomic weapons, B-1 bombers, atomic submarines, poison gas, lasers, rocketry, napalm and all of the other expensive paraphernalia of war.
These do not protect me.
They invoke the suspicion and fear of other nations, and they provoke among other nations the building and stockpiling of similar weapons.
[T]he U.S. now gives every indication that it is, in fact, not a nation of laws but a nation of men and corporations.
This, despite the resignation from office of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.
I charge that the freedom of the citizen is largely illusory, and that the payment of taxes, the keeping of tax records, the invasion of privacy by IRS and other agencies of government, the making of rules by agencies (rules that have the force and effect of law but which are not to be challenged in courts), the maintenance of records or files on the political, religious, economic and moral statements and actions of the individual, the power to levy fines and licenses by agency rule, and the presumption by government that citizens are guilty of any agency charge and must therefore bear the burden of proof of their innocence; all of these show the citizens of the U.S. are no longer free.
I have two main intentions in this tax refusal.
The first is quite clear.
I do not intend to pay for the destruction of other human beings, nor endorse by word or deed the crimes of the United States.
The second intent is a little more nebulous but it is just as strong.
It is strong because I love my country.
In this refusal I intend that the United States will display by its action whether or not a citizen, raised to believe in U.S. principles of freedom, equality, protection under the laws; raised, in fact, under statements like, “With a proper regard for the opinions of mankind,” can indeed trust and believe in the way he has been raised.
Either the Constitution is sound or it is not.
The U.S. will either honor its national and international commitments or it will not.
The courts will either face issues or the courts will duck them.
…If the rules of IRS are bigger than the Constitution, the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles and the Christian teaching of two thousand years, then I believe it is time that the U.S. acknowledge this…
The next article came from Marion Bromley.
Excerpts:
Ernest and I began a tax refusers’ newsletter soon after our marriage in .
In all the time since, only a tiny proportion of Friends and other pacifists have become tax refusers, and we sometimes try to understand why.
It has been, for us, more a personal imperative than a carefully reasoned political position, though we have done what we could to expound on all aspects of refusing to allow one’s labor to be taxed for war and weaponry.
Most people, whether they are pacifists or not, seem to respect our “right” to refuse taxes when we have a chance to explain how we feel about it.
In turn we have to accept the “right” of others to continue to pay large sums in taxes, even though the U.S. budget continues to be overwhelmingly devoted to war and the war system.
Before 1800 taxes were levied largely for specific things such as bridges, schools, highways.
A levy for war was as separate as the others.
Quakers, Mennonites and a few others who had strong scruples against paying for the militia or for gunpowder refused to pay and sometimes suffered distraint of goods or imprisonment for their stand.
When all these items began to be lumped together into one, general tax, it was no longer so simple an issue.
Some, with a considerable feeling of relief, began to pay; others paid more out of frustration.
And one of the most potent testimonies against war during became lost.
Now, in , probably no reasonable person believes that the billions to be spent for weapons research, deployment of armies and nuclear weapons, nuclear submarines prowling the ocean floor, planes carrying nuclear bombs, and intercontinental ballistic missiles will be in any sense a “defense” for anyone.
Since such policies and practices will probably lead to a nuclear holocaust at some future time, maybe distant, maybe near, paying for these weapons comes close to being an evil act.
It may be that the reason most Friends do not see it in that light is that they are conscientiously committed to liberalism — to the direction the federal government began in and from which there is now no retreat.
The federal government, in order to ease suffering and to maintain control over its own populace, began to assume some social responsibility.
Possibly most Friends are in the same position as those who began paying the “mixed” taxes in .
But in the whole world has witnessed the kind of horror that a powerful military state can unleash even without resort to the ultimate weapon.
…In an individual such behavior would be deemed madness.
Would a mad individual be permitted to continue such activities because that individual was also performing some useful services?
Another aspect of liberalism that has probably influenced Friends greatly in the past fifty years is the commitment to law.
I cannot explain why most Friends think it is almost a religious principle to honor the law and the courts, while I feel it is very low on my list of loyalties.
My religious instincts are insulted when I observe a judge in the robes of a priest, high above others in the courtroom, the witnesses and observers in pews and the bailiff enforcing a hushed silence.
My view is that this holy-appearing scene is for the purpose of defending the property and the power of the people who have those commodities.
It is the same in a socialist or a capitalist state.
It is certainly an acceptable arrangement for people to agree on certain codes or laws, agreements about property.
I would not disobey laws for frivolous reasons.
But I have no qualms about disobeying laws which would force me to pay for murder and other crimes related to the war system.
Civil disobedience which requires long-term adherence, such as arranging to make one’s living without the withholding system, perhaps is considered impossibly difficult by many conscientious people.
For many Friends, commitment to a service type vocation seems to require “fitting in” with a professional life style.
The scale has not been invented which could balance service that is beneficial to others with the negative effects of supporting warmaking and possibly silencing one’s conscientious stirrings.
The only contribution I can make to such considerations is my testimony that refusing to pay income taxes has proved to be a blessing in many ways.
For one thing, it resulted in our “backing into” a simple life style, consuming less than we otherwise would.
Friends who have valued simplicity know of its blessings — the simple life is more healthful, more joyful, more blessed in every way.
A new friend we met following seizure of Gano Peacemakers’ property, our home for 25 years, wrote us after moving from Cincinnati that he supposed we were having a very sad summer at Gano this year, knowing that we would be evicted in the fall.
This notion was quite contrary to the way we felt.
We were enjoying the time here more than ever before.
The growing season seemed more productive than ever, and the surroundings more beautiful.
We were working very hard, preparing leaflets, signs and press releases, corresponding, thinking of new ways to tell everyone who would listen that the IRS claims were fraudulent and politically motivated.
We expected to be evicted but never had the feeling that we would “lose” in the struggle.
(The following paragraph, concerning the eventual IRS surrender in the Gano Peacemakers case, is largely obscured in the PDF.)
One of the pleasant feelings we have about the reversal of the sale (besides knowing that we can continue to live on these two acres) is that many people have told us they got a real lift when they heard that some “little people” had prevailed in the struggle with the IRS.
We had the feeling that our daily leafleting and constant public statements during the seven months’ campaign had, at the least, the effect of showing that people need not fear this government agency.
People do fear the IRS and that is an unworthy attitude.
What can they take away that is of real value?
Jack Powelson struck a dissenting note, listing war tax resistance among a number of popular Quaker positions that he felt to be sentimentally motivated and economically naive.
Excerpt:
Friends are concerned about paying taxes to a government that allocates a high proportion of its budget to the military.
But we also know that if enough Friends refused to pay taxes so that the government was seriously impeded in its operations, the first items to be cut would be welfare and education, and the poor would suffer.
The Journal then quoted John A. Reiber on his vision for “a cultural revolution with political implications, not a political revolution with cultural implications.”
Excerpt:
The most effective social changes are not going to come from within the system, but without it.
We must realize that the vast, impersonal and powerful institutions are not intrinsic to our survival and well-being, but, in fact, extrinsic and harmful.
What we must do to achieve a cultural (r)evolution is to, first of all, withdraw our support of our unendurable, tyrannical and inefficient institution of the government.
One way of doing this is through tax resistance.
But tax resistance, by itself, is only a part of the solution.
Money, time and energy should be channelled into alternatives to our technological mass consumption/ mass waste society, our irrelevant and oppressive educational institutions and our mass media which don’t meet our informational needs.
Craig Simpson next gave a report on war tax resistance as it was practiced internationally.
Excerpts:
During the Peace Research and Peace Activists Conference in Holland in , I met Susumu Ishitani, a member of the Japanese Conscientious Objectors to War Taxes Movement (COMIT).
The group is the first of its kind in Japanese history and was started in .
It is made up of Christian pacifists — Mennonites, FOR members and Quakers — as well as non-church pacifists.
The group apparently has been growing rather quickly.
They have meetings all over Japan, print articles in newspapers, and hold press conferences.
Their emphasis is on the refusal of the 6.5% of their taxes which goes for the so-called “Self-Defense Forces.”
They have even written a “Song of 6.5% or 6.5% for a Peaceful World” protesting war taxes and expressing the need for money to stop death and the pollution of our environment.
Susumu is a wonderful and gentle member of the group.
Outside of his job as a university professor he is active as a member of the local Friends Meeting in Minato-ku (Tokyo).
He also trains students in nonviolence and works to raise consciousness about the Japanese government’s involvement with the repressive South Korean government.
He clearly sees the importance of not sending his money to the government for destructive purposes.
COMIT was still in operation at least as late as , but I haven’t been able to find much about them on-line.
France… has a long tradition of resistance to war and the military.
The tax refusal movement began in its present state in during the first French atomic tests in the South Pacific when a number of people decided to refuse the 20% of their taxes which would go to the war department.
This money was redistributed to organizations working for peace and developing social alternatives.
Groups soon were organizing in Orleans, Paris, Mulhouse, Lyon, and Tours and by were working in cooperation with one another.
They then made a decision to broaden the movement by asking people to refuse only 3% of their income tax.
They felt this way they would be able to attract more people because of the minimum of risk.
Many of these people decided to redistribute their money to the peasant-worker struggle in Larzac.
Larzac is a plain in Southern France where a group of peasants, farmers and shepherds have been resisting the expansion of an army training base onto land where they have lived and worked for centuries.
The Larzac struggle has become extremely important in France.
It receives broad support from leftists, environmentalists, workers and antimilitarists.
The peasants, who have come to believe strongly in nonviolent struggle, have used some very creative tactics to draw attention to their plight.
For example, they drove their tractors from Southern France onto the streets of Paris.
On the way, they were met in Orleans by 113 tax refusers who gave their tax money to the peasant struggle instead of to the military.
This link between the peasant struggle against the military and the people who refused taxes solidified the movement and both benefited.…
By , 400 French people had become tax refusers and at latest count as many as 4,000 are giving their money to Larzac instead of the government.
Many farmers, workers and pacifists are involved now in the refusal of taxes to support the Larzac struggle.
Most recently in France, pacifists are discussing and organizing for 100% refusal of their taxes as their non-cooperation with the military becomes more consistent with their lifestyles.
the issue also had a list of resources interested Quakers could use to find out more about war tax resistance
There were also several letters to the editor on the subject:
Mary Bye wrote in to explain the rationale behind her tax resistance.
“I believe that my tax dollars go to support a system which perpetuates misery and suffering in large parts of the world.
Here at home we have set up a monstrous military budget while the programs for the poor, the minorities, the disadvantaged and the defenseless are being cut.
I believe that the first step to moral health is to realize the callous role of oppressor we, as a nation, play abroad and at home.
The second step is to act.”
She said tax resistance works for her because “I know of no other way to introduce this concern into the courts, and… I want to commit my money to help meet human needs neglected by the government.
I give voluntarily an amount equal to that computed by IRS regulations to help build a community of caring.”
Ross Roby wrote in to promote the World Peace Tax Fund Act.
“Essentially, this bill would provide conscientious objectors to war (male and female, young and old) an alternative to having their Federal tax payments used to finance government agencies that wage war and those that contribute to the waging of war by our government and by other governments of this world.”
He complained that the proposal hadn’t gotten much Quaker support: “Are we unable to recognize a friendly hand when it does not come in Quaker garb?
Or, has vocal pacifism fallen so irrevocably into the hands of radical resistants that a congressional bill which proposes accommodating conscientious objection to the realities of the Internal Revenue Service (and vice versa) is automatically dismissed?”
He described the mechanism of the Act this way: “It sets up a Fund for Peace to which we, conscientious objectors to war, would automatically contribute as we paid our usual federal income tax.
If the federal budget were determined, by an impartial authority, to contain sixty per cent for military purposes, then sixty cents of each dollar we pay would enhance the treasury of a fund that builds peace…”
Jim Forest wrote about his decision to stop tax withholding from his paycheck by filing a new W-4 form.
“We will be using these moneys for human needs that aren’t being adequately met in the present world: hunger, housing, resistance to militarism, various efforts for impoverished people, etc. We receive fund appeals each day which, had we the means, we would respond to, or respond to more generously.
Now we will.”
Donald Hultgren gave a report of Robin Harper’s talk about war tax resistance and charitable redirection at the Quaker Meeting in Cornwall, New York.
Harold R. Regier, the Peace and Social Concerns secretary of the General Conference Mennonite church, wrote to thank the Journal for its “encouragement in our efforts to work at war tax payment/resistance issues.”
Harold R. Regier, the last letter writer I mentioned, said that: “One of our efforts along this line was to convene a war tax conference to look particularly at the theological and heritage bases for war tax resistance.”
The Journal article that followed concerned this conference.
A note at the top of that article said that “[o]ne hundred twenty persons registered” for a Mennonite/Brethren in Christ sponsored conference to seek theological and practical discernment on war tax issues.”
That conference issued a summary statement, which the Journal reprinted.
Excerpts:
After considering the New Testament texts which speak about the Christian’s payment of taxes, most of us are agreed that we do not have a clear word on the subject of paying taxes used for war.
The New Testament statements on paying taxes (Mark 12:17, Romans 13:6–7) contain either ambiguity in meaning or qualifications on the texts that call the discerning community to decide in light of the life and teachings of Jesus.
Although those in the Anabaptist tradition were generally consistent in their historical stand against individual participation in war, they were not of one mind regarding the payment of taxes for war.
Evidence suggests that most Anabaptists did pay all of their taxes willingly; however, there is the early case of the Hutterite Anabaptists, a sizable minority in the Anabaptist movement, who refused to pay war taxes.
In the later stages of Anabaptist history there is no clear-cut precedent on the question of war taxes.
During the American Revolution most Mennonites did object to paying war taxes, yet in a joint statement with the Brethren they agreed to pay taxes in general to the colonial powers “that we may not offend them.”
The record continued to be mixed until the present day.
Only a small minority chose to demonstrate their allegiance to Christ through a tax witness.
So far most discernment on the war tax issue has been done on an individual level as opposed to a church or congregational level.
Although individuals struggling with the issue have been supported by similarly concerned brothers and sisters, wider church support has been lacking.
While recognizing the need for a growing consensus in these matters, we know that not all in the Mennonite/Brethren in Christ fellowship are agreed on an understanding of scriptural teaching and a faithful response regarding war taxes.
We are ready to acknowledge this disagreement and seek to continue discerning God’s will in this.
But as a church community, we feel we should be conscious of the convictions and struggles of our sisters and brothers and supportive of the steps they have taken and are considering.
And all that’s just from one issue!
The issue included an article by Robin Harper about the Brandywine Alternative Fund, one of “a series of experiments [that] go by various names: fund for humanity, people’s life fund, life priorities fund, war tax resistance alternative fund.”
Excerpts:
As many as forty sprang into existence in as the country’s agony over Vietnam reached a crescendo.
Though each is organized and operated a bit differently, the basic concept is to pool federal war taxes (both telephone and income) conscientiously withheld from the IRS and redistribute them, by loans or grants, to community groups working for peace, social justice, and other areas of social change.
…the Brandywine Alternative Fund serves Delaware and Chester Counties just west of Philadelphia.
Although the greater part of the Brandywine fund comes from “reallocated” federal taxes, we also encourage deposits of personal savings.
This policy has not only enlarged the fund but has also broadened participation to include persons eager to help “reorder our nation’s priorities away from the military” who don’t choose to use the particular method of principled tax resistance.
In addition, seven monthly meetings, churches and civic groups have made deposits or contributions to the alternative fund, following the precedent of London Grove Friends Meeting.
This development of religious and other community groups investing in Brandywine is, I believe, a rather new departure for the alternative fund movement and offers an opportunity for sensitizing even larger numbers of people to issues of war preparations, civilian priorities and tax accountability.
Through the growth of our alternative fund, we have begun to take our central concern to the people of the communities in which we live; we are seeking creative ways to support financially some of those groups which are addressing a range of social and economic problems largely neglected by government; and we have undertaken the task of stripping the mask off one of our most powerful institutions — the IRS — as we portray its grim role in the betrayal of our society’s and world’s ultimate security.
World Peace Tax Fund promoters tried to jump on the bicentennial bandwagon with a bizarre logo they promoted in the issue
The issue had some Revolutionary War-era history lessons.
Nonviolence theorist Gene Sharp wrote an article on “The Power of Nonviolent Action” in which he pointed out (among other things) the usefulness of tax resistance in the struggle for American independence:
During the Townshend resistance, in … for example, a London newspaper reported that because of the refusal of taxes and the refusal to import British goods, only 3,500 pounds sterling of revenue had been produced in the colonies.
The American non-importation and non-consumption campaign was estimated by the same newspaper at that point to have cost British business not a mere 3,500 pounds but 7,250,000 pounds in lost income.
Those figures may not have been accurate, but they are significant of the perceptions of the time.
The attempt to collect the tax against that kind of opposition was not worth the effort, and the futility of trying eventually became apparent.
Finally, Lyle Tatum examined the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s activity around .
Excerpts:
Although the Yearly Meeting was clear that members should not participate in military activities or pay direct war taxes, some areas were more difficult to decide.
Bills of credit, a form of negotiable instrument sanctioned by the colonies, were controversial.
The use of them stood in a similar position to the payment of taxes today.
To those Friends who were trying to get other Friends to stop using bills of credit, the Yearly Meeting minuted a bit of advice:
…we affectionately exhort those who have this religious Scruple, that they do not admit, nor indulge and Censure in their Minds against their Brethren who have not the same, carefully manifesting by the whole tenor of their Conduct, that nothing is done through Strife, or Contention, but by their Meekness, Humility and patient Suffering, that they are the Followers of the Prince of Peace.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of met in , just a little more than two months after .
As we have seen, pressure on the peaceable testimony had been growing over the previous few years.
In the face of this, the Yearly Meeting minuted:
…we cannot consistent with our Christian peaceable Testimony… be concerned in the promoting of War or Warlike Measures of any kind, we are united in Judgment that such who make religious Profession with us, & do either openly, or by Connivance, pay any Fine, Penalty, or Tax, in lieu of their personal Services for carrying on the War under the prevailing Commotions, or do consent to, and allow their Children, Apprentices, or Servants to act therein do thereby violate our Christian Testimony, and by so doing manifest that they are not in Religious Fellowship with us…
In spite of their many hardships, Friends were holding firm.
Loyalty oaths were going strong in .
It was minuted:
…in some places Fines or Taxes are and have been imposed on those who from Conscientious Scruples, refuse or decline making such declaration of Allegiance and Abjuration, it is the united Sense and Judgment of this Meeting, that no Friend should pay any such Fine or Tax…
War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in
War tax resistance remained very much on the agenda at the Friends Journal at the beginning of the Reagan era of aggressive military build-up in .
A letter from Jenny Duskey in the issue read, in part:
I belong to a community of disciples called Publishers of Truth.
Our testimony is that Christ’s disciples can have no part in war or preparation for war, and that this means not joining the military or being drawn into legally designated “alternatives” to conscription even when the law demands, as well as not paying taxes destined for military use when we can refuse them.
“Publishers of Truth” (see also the advertisement pictured in ♇ ) was centered around Larry and Lisa Kuenning, who came to prophesy an emerging paradise on Earth, centered on Farmington, Maine.
I’m tempted to do some further research in this direction, but am afraid of getting lost in some interesting by-ways.
Lisa Kuenning was a collaborator with Timothy Leary, and for a time an important figure in the psychedelic renaissance.
Last I checked, the Kuennings were running Quaker Heritage Press, which specializes in reprints of old Quaker books.
The issue had an in-depth article by Richard K. MacMaster on Christian Obedience in [American] Revolutionary Times, that included a discussion of Quaker responses to war taxes and militia exemption taxes.
Excerpts:
The Pennsylvania Assembly voted on to recommend to conscientious objectors “that they cheerfully assist in proportion to their abilities, such persons as cannot spend both time and substance in the service of their country without great injury to themselves and families.”
This would be a subsidy to poorer Associators, men who could not supply themselves with a musket and bayonet and needed help from their neighbors.
It was a far cry from the kind of nonpolitical relief work that the sects had in mind.
The Continental Congress did not help matters when it decreed in that members of the Peace Churches should “contribute liberally in this time of universal calamity, to the relief of their distressed brethren.”
Were these distressed brethren the poor of Boston or poor families in their own neighborhood or George Washington’s makeshift army camped on the hills overlooking Boston harbor?
The Peace Churches took the Congressional resolve as a last-minute reprieve and insisted that their contributions were for the poor, even though the money would be turned over to the County Committee.
“For we gave it in good faith for the needy,” a Lancaster County Brethren pastor explained, “and the man to whom we gave it gave us a receipt stating that the money would be used for that purpose.”
The Lancaster County experience was repeated in other Pennsylvania counties and in other colonies where Quakers, Brethren, and Mennonites were numerous.
Most communities tried voluntary contributions, but in Frederick County, Maryland, and Berks County, Pennsylvania, the committees levied fines on men of military age who did not drill with the Associators.
The nonresistant sects had fallen into a trap.
No matter how they labeled them, the authorities understood their voluntary contributions as donations to the war chest.
And if contributions failed to come voluntarily, they were already preparing for compulsory payment of money as an equivalent to military service.
Time was running out on the Peace Churches by .
Soon after the elections, military associators began petitioning the Pennsylvania Assembly that
some decisive Plan should be fallen upon to oblige every Inhabitant of the Province either with his Person or Property to contribute towards the general Cause, and that it should not be left, as at present, to the Inclinations of those professing tender Conscience, but that the Proportion they shall contribute, may be certainly fixed and determined.
These petitions asked much more than an increased tax assessment on the conscientious objectors.
The petitions explicitly stated that every member of the community had an obligation to make some contribution to the common cause; the additional tax would be a concession to those who could not meet that obligation on the field of battle.
The Peace Churches rightly put their case on the high ground of religious freedom.
Quakers expressed their “Concern on the Endeavours used to induce you to enter into Measures so manifestly repugnant to the Laws and Charter of this Province, and which, if enforced, must subvert that most essential of all Privileges, Liberty of Conscience.”
They asked the Assembly not to infringe the solemn assurance given them in Penn’s Charter, “that we shall not be obliged ‘to do or suffer any Act or Thing contrary to our religious Persuasion.’ ”
The revolutionary government rose to the challenge.
All sixty-six members of the Philadelphia Committee proceeded in a body to the Assembly chamber to present their response to the Quaker address to the Speaker of the House.
The same day, the Assembly heard petitions from the Officers of the Military Association of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia and from a Committee of Privates.
They first narrowly construed the grant of religious freedom in the Charter and threw out of court the sectarian contention that religion was more than a Sunday worship service.
We cannot alter the Opinion we have ever held with Regard to those parts of the Charier quoted by the Addressors, that they relate only to an Exemption from any Acts of Uniformity in Worship, and from paying towards the Support of other religious Establishments, than those to which the Inhabitants of this Province respectively belong.
The representation from the Committee of Privates went still further.
They insisted that “Those who believe the Scriptures must acknowledge that Civil Government is of divine Institution, and the Support of it enjoined to Christians.”
Quakers ought not to question what governments did, according to this Committee of Privates, but simply obey; God had ordained the powers and thereby gave sanction to every action of the state.
The lines were thus clearly drawn between the sectarian view of supremacy of conscience and the secular view of the primacy of the state.
The Mennonites and Church of the Brethren simply set down the limits of what they could do in good conscience.
Their petition made little difference to the course of events.
The day after the Mennonite and Brethren statement was read the Pennsylvania Assembly voted to require everyone of military age who would not drill with the Associators “to contribute an Equivalent to the time spent by the Associators in acquiring the military Discipline.”
Later in , the Assembly imposed a tax of two pounds and ten shillings on non-Associators, which would be remitted for those who joined a military unit.
Under new pressure from the Associators they raised the tax to three pounds and ten shillings in .
The Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention incorporated the principle of taxing conscientious objectors as an equivalent to military service in the Declaration of Rights they adopted.
It made explicit what most Patriots already believed:
That every Member of Society hath a right to be protected in the Enjoyment of Life, Liberty and property and therefore is bound to Contribute his proportion towards the Expence of that protection and yield his personal Service when necessary or an equivalent… Nor can any Man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing Arms be justly compelled thereto if he will pay such equivalent.
Participation in warfare was a universal obligation, in their view, falling equally on every citizen; those who could not fight must pay others to fight in their place.…
The Assembly and the Convention clearly intended to make the Peace Churches pay for war and imposed the tax as an avowed equivalent to military service.… Religious pacifists carried the whole burden of the tax.
But a tax imposed on conscientious objectors as an equivalent to joining the army and intended for the military budget definitely infringed on the religious liberty guaranteed by William Penn’s Charter.
The war tax issue thus arose in a context of freedom of conscience curtailed for those whose Christian faith forbade their “giving, or doing, or assisting in any Thing by which Men’s Lives are destroyed or hurt.”
Maryland and North Carolina followed Pennsylvania’s example in levying a special tax on conscientious objectors; the North Carolina law made payment the grounds for exemption from actual service with the army.
Virginia and several other states required conscientious objectors to hire substitutes to take their place whenever their company of militia was drafted for combat duty.
Special tax assessments for military purposes passed every state legislature as the war dragged on.
And the rapidly depreciating Continental and state paper money that fueled a run-away inflation was itself a war tax.
Wherever Quakers, Mennonites, or Brethren lived, the problem of paying for war soon caught up with them
Could a valid distinction be made between military service and war taxes?
The Reverend John Carmichael, Scottish Presbyterian pastor in Chester County, Pennsylvania, had little sympathy with the nonresistant sects who refused to pay war taxes, but he saw no distinction between fighting and paying the cost of war.
In Rom 13, from the beginning, to the 7th verse, we are instructed at large the duty we owe to civil government, but if it was unlawful and anti-Christian, or anti-scriptural to support war, it would be unlawful to pay taxes; if it is unlawful to go to war, it is unlawful to pay another to do it, or to go do it.
Some Brethren, Mennonites, and Quakers agreed that no real distinction could be made and consequently refused to pay taxes levied for military purposes.
In his sermon, Carmichael spoke of Mennonites “who for the reasons already mentioned will not pay their taxes, and yet let others come and take their money, where they can find it, and be sure they will leave it where they can find it handily.”
They would not resist the tax collector in any way; but they could not cooperate in wrongdoing by voluntarily paying war taxes.
The law took this practice into account and permitted collectors to seize the property of those would not pay their own taxes.
Quakers officially discouraged payment of war taxes and militia fines.
Many Friends went to jail for their refusal and still a larger number allowed the authorities to take horses, cattle, furniture, farm implements and tools to pay their taxes.
They refused to accept any money from the sale of their goods over and above the tax and fine.
In the Shenandoah Valley and in other Quaker communities, their neighbors found rare bargains when the sheriff sold a Quaker farmer’s property for taxes and purposely kept the bidding low.
Virginia Yearly Meeting protested to the authorities about the sale of slaves, freed by their Quaker masters in defiance of the law, who were taken up and sold to pay their former masters’ war taxes.
Refusal to pay taxes for military purposes had a close parallel in Quaker refusal to pay taxes to support an established Church; they accepted the right of civil government to appropriate money for either purpose, but denied that civil government could coerce their consciences, even at the cost of jail sentences.
This was a minority position among English and American Friends, even after John Woolman prodded their conscience on war taxes.
Woolman’s influence can be seen in a circular letter issued by Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in , when Braddock’s defeat left Pennsylvania exposed to French and Indian raids and the Assembly ordered new taxes for mounting a fresh campaign.
The tax was a general one, including military appropriations with all the other functions of civil governments, but Friends agreed “as we cannot be concerned in wars and fightings, so neither ought we to contribute thereto by paying the tax directed by the said act, though suffering be the consequence of our refusal.”
The issue in was much clearer: the taxes were levied entirely for military purposes and intended as an equivalent to military service.
With the passage of years, Friends had the meaning of nonresistance in much sharper focus and a much greater number accepted the challenge of faithful discipleship.
Mennonites also responded to the challenge by refusing to pay war taxes.
When the Pennsylvania Assembly passed an act in to require a tax of three pounds and ten shillings from everyone of military age who refused to turn out with the militia, Mennonite opinion was divided.
Christian Funk, bishop in the Franconia congregation, allowed payment of the tax and tried to convince his brother ministers.
But refusal to pay war taxes had taken deep roots in the Mennonite tradition by .
The mere rumor that Funk permitted payment of the tax was enough to bring complaints against him at the time of preparation for the Lord’s Supper in and to lead to his ouster from the ministry.
All of the preachers and a great many other Mennonites in eastern Pennsylvania opposed payment of the tax.
Andrew Ziegler, bishop in the Skippack congregation, spoke for them, when he declared: “I would as soon go into the war, as to pay the three pounds ten shillings if I were not concerned for my life.”
Zeigler and others could see little difference between fighting and paying for war.
In the face of a long-standing tradition of paying taxes without questioning the purpose of the tax, men of faith testified from their own conscience that for them there could be no distinction between refusing to fight and refusing to pay for war.
These Mennonites, Brethren, and Quakers willingly accepted the penalty for their conscientious objection to war taxes in imprisonment and loss of property far in excess of the tax.
Their action reminded their brethren of the need for careful discrimination in rendering to Caesar the things that are really Caesar’s. They refused to let a majority vote in the legislature be their conscience and rejected the easy way of confusing Caesar’s will with the will of God.
In the same issue, Bill Durland of the Center on Law and Pacifism reviewed the attempts to get a sympathetic court hearing in the United States for the argument that conscientious objection to military taxation is a Constitutionally-protected right of citizens.
He described the founding of the Center in by himself, Robert Anthony, Bruce & Ruth Graves, Barbara & Howard Lull, Peter Herby, and Richard McSorley, and then described the various avenues of appeal the group was pursuing in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Anthony put his legal argument this way: to be compelled to pay war taxes “would force [him] to accept a creed, and practice a form of worship foreign to his convictions, and to establish as the only normative religious belief and practice, that adhered to by most Christian denominations, i.e., that it is both a Christian and an American duty to fight in just wars and pay for them.”
The Supreme Court wasn’t interested.
The Center tried again with the Graves’ case, asserting that the First Amendment’s assertion that “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” means that the governmental interest in having an efficient and uncomplicated tax system is trumped by the citizen’s right to a religious practice that forbids funding war.
Again, the Supreme Court turned up its nose.
The Center then made an attempt with the Lulls & Peter Herby as petitioners.
As the First Amendment arguments had failed to make any headway, this time they made a Hail Mary pass with a Ninth Amendment argument.
“This amendment recognizes that there are certain fundamental, inalienable rights not enumerated in the Constitution which the people possess that are preexisting to any constitution, are inherent in the individual, and are not subject to divestment either partially or completely by the state.
These rights have also been called ‘natural’ and are those held by an individual in a state of absolute liberty.
In contracting to enter into a state of society, the people collectively, and the person individually, only divest themselves of those natural rights which they expressly relinquish by enumeration.”
Nice try, but the Supreme Court yet again denied cert.
The article notes that in addition to First Amendment-based arguments, “each of the three cases raised at the Federal Court level a compelling legal position based on International Law and, in particular, the Nuremberg Principles.”
(Not compelling enough, apparently.)
An article in the same issue, by William Strong, profiles war tax resister Bruce Chrisman.
Excerpts:
[H]e cannot pay that portion of his federal taxes that he knows will be used for preparations for war.
For that, he is serving a criminal sentence that includes one year of humanitarian service without pay, three years of probation, a fine of $2,400 for court costs, and the payment of all back taxes due.
He deems this result a moral victory, however — the sentence could have been up to one year in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Over the years Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s minutes have reflected the repeated return of the war tax concern.
In a striking, sensitive minute was approved.
The unity reached at that time calls upon “all Friends to continue to search themselves deeply on their responsibility to separate themselves from preparations for war.”
Where does that searching lead?
“We encourage dialogue between conscientious war tax refusers and other concerned people struggling with the issue of paying war taxes.
We seek to build a community of deeply committed persons.”
Friends offer their real support — spiritual, moral, legal, and material — to that growing community, and close the minute by reaffirming:
Our strength and our security are derived from our belief in the reality of a loving God and the oneness of that of God in all people.
In order to say yes to this belief, we must seriously consider saying no to payment of war taxes.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s “War Tax Concerns Support Committee” works to carry out that minute.
Its mandate is broad, from war tax refusal and resistance, questing for administrative (IRS) and judicial relief, to a spectrum of wholly positive approaches.
The committee seeks “legislative relief” in pursuing the World Peace Tax Fund law that proposes alternative service for war taxes, for conscientious objectors to monetary conscription.
In the war tax concerns section of our Peace Testimony, as in most fields of Quaker endeavor, certain Friends are ’way out front.
They have been going down a committed road for years.
George and Lillian Willoughby, Bob Anthony, Lorraine Cleveland, and Robin Harper in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting come to mind.
“Not to worry” — most of us are beginners, and we don’t need to catch up.
What stride do we take this year — or this quarter — in the Light? We tackle the big issues by taking the next step, getting a bit more involved.
Saying “no” to that small, lingering, now two percent Vietnam War telephone tax, which does indeed produce a billion dollars in direct war taxes, is one such step.
Adjusting our withholding so that we take more control of our tax payments, with more options, is another.
Or do we match what the government requires of us in war taxes with comparable contributions to peace organizations?
Everyone ultimately decides his own next step, but often it comes out of shared, caring discussion with other Friends, “wrestling as I am, with the harder questions of our faith and practice.”
That issue also had a few short notes that mentioned war tax resistance:
“In Japan, COMIT (Conscientious Objection to Military Tax) is planning to sue the government for breach of constitution by taxing for war.”
“In Switzerland, 300 people belonging to the group ‘Pour une Politique de Paix Active’ refused to pay their military tax or some part of the duty levied for national defense.”
“[N]ine members of the Pacific Yearly Meeting Peace Committee testified ‘against rendering unto Caesar that which is God’s’ by declaring their solidarity with those Friends who refuse to cooperate with war taxes and draft registration.
Some seventeen others present at the yearly meeting also signed the statement.”
“A statement from Orange County Meeting asks: ‘If we recognize our involvement in militarism through the payment of taxes used for military purposes but do not act to end such involvement, then are we not hypocritical to tell Friends faced with registration to refuse military service?’ ”
The issue included a mention that the Australian Yearly Meeting was pursuing its own Peace Tax Fund plan “as a method of allowing taxpayers to direct a proportion of their tax to peace purposes instead of military spending.”
The issue noted that a “Historic Peace Church Task Force on Taxes is preparing a packet of study materials to provide information on the biblical basis of war taxes and the World Peace Tax Fund… together with suggestions for personal and political action.”
Maurice McCracken wrote in to the issue to chide anti-war activists for their timidity.
Excerpts:
Indeed it is a feeble gesture to do what we do not believe in; even though we protest doing it.
The only valid protest is resistance and complete noncooperation with what we believe to be wrong.
[A] law… threatens anyone who advises a young man not to register for the draft with the same penalty as the non-registrant — a possible prison sentence of five years and a possible fine of $5,000. In the draft registration resistance movement I find that considerable time is spent on how to counsel young men about registration so it will not appear that we are actually advising them not to register.
Why this hesitancy and timidity?
I not only advise young men of draft age not to register.
I urge them not to register.
This military juggernaut which threatens to destroy all human life and all animal and plant life on the planet must be stopped.
It must be resisted at the point of not filing a federal income tax return and of not registering for the draft.
A thief-says, “Your money or your life.”
The Pentagon says, “Your money and your life!”
I refuse to give either one!
Won’t you join me?
In the issue, E. Raymond Wilson tried to envision a “Quaker Peace Program” that would be adequate to the challenges of .
He advocated working toward a more powerful U.N., drastic disarmament, global economic/social development with an emphasis on underdeveloped areas, and active reconciliation of global adversaries.
Much of this work would involve lobbying and other pleading with powerful people whose inclinations are largely in the opposite direction; but there was also a nod toward conscientious objection:
an ad in the issue of Friends Journal
Friends should seriously consider the recommendations of the Second New Call to Peacemaking Conference that individuals should withhold all or part of their income tax going to military and war appropriations, now estimated at more than forty-eight percent of the budget controlled by Congress.
War tax resistance came up at the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in .
War tax resister John Beer wrote down some questions that people had about resisting, and in a Friends Journal issue , Bill Strong (of the Meeting’s “War Tax Concerns Support Committee”) answered them.
The questions were:
“If we refuse $100 of our federal war taxes and give it to some organization working for peace, what steps will the IRS take?”
“What options do we have in dealing with the IRS actions?”
“Is the initial letter we send with our tax return, stating the reasons for our tax refusal, important in terms of the subsequent legal proceedings?”
“Should we get help from a lawyer or tax refusal group in composing the letter?”
“What kind of advice can you provide which will allow us to profit from the experience of those who are already refusing to pay war taxes?”
“What happens to persons who refuse war taxes year after year?”
Some excerpts from the answers give a window into how war tax resistance was practiced by Quakers and by Meetings:
Both at Celo (NC) Meeting and at Central Philadelphia Meeting members asked others to share their examination or audit with IRS agents.
The first was in the refusers’ home, the latter in a federal office building.…
One Friend has been refusing for 23 years.
His witness continues and collection is still in the future, so much of the obligations of the early years have lapsed.
Another Friend, whose refusal goes back even further, has had the funds due taken at irregular intervals from her checking account.
A report in the issue noted that the Lake Erie Yearly Meeting in had “considered a minute on war tax concerns” based on queries from the New Call to Peacemaking Conference:
“If we believe that fighting war is wrong, does it not follow that paying for war is wrong?
If we urge resistance to the draft, should we not also resist the conscription of our material resources?”
The minute concluded: “We reassert the historic peace witness of the Society of Friends.
We commit ourselves to wrestle with the contradictions between our testimony and our government’s tax regulations.
To continue quiet payment for war preparations is to the conditions for war.”
Each meeting was urged to appoint a representative to the World Peace Tax Fund.
Finally, the issue brought a meditation on “the peaceable kingdom” by Susan Furry.
She believed that the Kingdom of God, the peaceable commonwealth, was “at hand” as Jesus said it was, and that it was the duty of Christians to “begin to live there.”
She reflected on how she came to include war tax resistance in her vision of how to carry this out:
an ad in the issue of Friends Journal
…I felt that I had to begin to look into the question of war tax resistance.
This led to a long period of study and self-examination.
To me, becoming a war tax resister meant making a final commitment to pacifism, and I didn’t do it lightly.
It took a lot of prayer and thought and the help and support of many people in my meeting to bring me to a point of clearness, where I know, solidly and comfortably, that this action is right for me.
Since then I have found myself being led not only to resist war taxes for myself but also to speak about it to others and to offer counsel and support to those who are considering this action.
I have helped prepare a packet called “Quakers and War Taxes” which is on sale at my meeting and have been involved in setting up the New England Friends Peace Tax Fund, an escrow fund for tax resisters under the care of my yearly meeting: I’ve been given a lot of encouragement to continue and to grow in my tax resistance activities through the support of others in my meeting, many of whom are not tax resisters themselves but friends who recognize that it is the right thing for me to do.
I’ve found that obedience to the divine leading I have felt in this matter has brought me closer to God, has given me new courage, and has opened me to further leadings.
In practical terms, war tax resistance seems to be a futile, irrational, and perhaps risky undertaking.
I think by now I’ve probably heard all the possible arguments against it.
The only answer I can really give is, “This is something I must do, to be faithful to my conscience and my understanding of God’s will.”
For it is part of the foolishness of God, which is wiser than human wisdom, as Paul tells us in First Corinthians.
It requires me to acknowledge my dependence on God’s guidance and strength.
I don’t know where my action will lead in practical terms, but I trust God to make use of it; I don’t know what the consequences will be for me personally, but I trust God to help me to face them.
In one way or another, perhaps, peacemaking may bring all of us to that place of acknowledging our dependence on God.
For me it has come through tax resistance.
For another it may come through the old dilemma about Hitler or through an experience of physical violence on the street.
In any case one comes to a place where one has to say, “I don’t know what will happen, but I place my trust in the God of love and accept the consequences.”
In coming to rely on God more, I have begun to learn that God really is dependable.
I have felt God working through the beautiful support I have received from many individuals and from my meeting.
I’ve been to tax court twice and was sustained by a powerful sense of God’s presence.
I’ve faced the certainty of financial loss and found that it doesn’t trouble me as much as I feared it would.
However, I still worry about the future; I haven’t reached the point where I can really leave it all in God’s hands.
Sometimes I even wonder about going to jail.
Right now the government isn’t prosecuting many war tax resisters, but it is always a possibility.
My actions are not very unusual; there are over forty war tax resisters in my meeting alone and many more in New England.
I know many people who have sacrificed more and taken greater risks for peace than I have.
But I have learned that when you follow God one step down the road, God usually asks you to take another step.
Who knows what God may ask of me in the future?
I have friends who have gone to jail for conscience’ sake, and I wonder if I could face that if it came to me.
My action in refusing to voluntarily pay taxes for war is largely symbolic — like the early Christians who refused to put a pinch of incense on Caesar’s altar.
Is it worth the risk to make a symbolic gesture?
Such questions take me back to the Christian roots of my faith.
I know that my way of thinking about these things and the language I use do not work for everybody, but these are the symbols which make sense to me, so I must use them.
War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in
The few mentions of war tax resistance in the Friends
Journal in were mostly looks at
war tax resisters from Quaker history, though there was some mention of
Daniel Jenkins’s ongoing attempt to get the courts to discover a Constitutional
right to conscientious objection to military taxation.
The issue contained a
letter-to-the-editor from Perry Treadwell in which he chided Friends for
letting their peace testimony slacken. Excerpts:
I received another of those
IRS
letters that I have been getting off and on for the past 35 years. They tell
me to pay back taxes, penalties, and interest. It still gives me that slight
kick in the stomach. I sent back another letter informing them again that as
a member of the Religious Society of Friends my belief dictates that I cannot
pay for killing.…
Where is the passion of the
Friends to witness our Peace Testimony?
Recently a member of Atlanta
(Ga.) Meeting defended his
paying income taxes by using the same argument that Stan Becker proposes in
his Viewpoint in the October issue, "How Can We Work More for Peace Than for
War?" [see ♇
]: using money and/or
time commitment for peace purposes. How many cluster bombs have been bought
with their tax money? Each day I weep seeing the list in the
New York Times of those killed in Iraq,
particularly the 18–20-year-olds. I cannot describe the impact the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis we have slaughtered has on me.
What if 500 Friends withheld $10–$100 from their
tax returns? What if more did so
? Throw sand in the wheels of the
IRS.
Put our money where our collective mouths are when it comes to Peace Tax Fund
legislation. That might get Congressional attention.
What are we afraid of? War tax refusal is not to be feared. In fact, it has
opened up for me whole new opportunities for service and ministry.
The issue included Daniel Jenkins’s article “The Liberation of Nathan Swift,” which concerned the arrest of a Quaker in for his refusal to pay a militia exemption tax, and his subsequent release from jail when New York Governor William Seward intervened.
Seward later, in an address to the legislature, endorsed an amendment to the state Constitution that would release conscientious objectors from the militia exemption tax (Jenkins finds indications that a subsequent Constitutional Convention did in fact change the Constitution in this way).
Jenkins saw this story as inspiration for the movement advocating a Peace Tax Fund law, saying it showed that with persistent witness and lobbying, it is possible to get a government to make concessions to conscientious objectors to military taxes.
The author’s note mentioned that Jenkins had “taken a military tax objection case into the federal courts with the support of a clearness committee, financial assistance from Purchase Quarterly Meeting, and an amicus brief submitted by New York Yearly Meeting,” and that the article was a revised and expanded version of “an oral report presented by the Conscientious Objection to Military Taxation Sub-Committee of the Peace Concerns Committee at a yearly meeting session held in .”
A later update on Jenkins’s legal case noted that his appeal had been turned down by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:
Jenkins… bore witness to the leading of his conscience that paying taxes for
war is wrong by withholding his payment of federal income tax and setting it
aside in escrow until the government agreed to use it only for nonmilitary
purposes. For this he had been penalized not only with the tax and ordinary
penalties and interest, but also with a $5,000 fine for bringing forth what
the government contended was a “frivolous” case. Lawyer Fred Dettmer, clerk
for the Witness Coordinating Committee of New York Yearly Meeting…, argued
the appeal.
Relying
on the First and Ninth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution,
he argued that Jenkins wanted to pay his taxes but the government must
accommodate his conscientious insistence that his money not pay for military
expenditures. On , prior to
the argument of appeal, more than 30 Friends had gathered in the cafeteria of
the Federal Court House in Manhattan for a special meeting of worship. In
rejecting the appeal, Judge Jose A. Cabranes wrote that such religious
objections to military activity have previously been rejected and that
Jenkins’ appeal was no different, though it was “presented in unusual garb.”
The Witness Coordinating Committee is conferring on next steps, including
possibly appealing to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
(An update in the issue noted
that Jenkins was denied cert on his appeal to the Supreme Court on
. It said that Jenkins was
preparing an appeal to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.)
Jenkins’s article was mentioned in the issue’s introductory editorial, where
editor Susan Corson-Finnerty wrote that “[t]he willingness of Quakers in that
period to risk the loss of their property and their freedom and to go to jail,
as Nathan Swift did, for the sake of their belief in nonviolence and their
faithfulness to that leading was remarkable.”
A historical overview of Carolina Quakers in the
issue noted:
Carolina Quakers as a rule stuck hard by the Peace Testimony; their refusal
to bear arms was honored to some degree, at least during more peaceful times.
As tensions rose between colonists and the Crown over exploitation of
resources and taxes, Quakers and other peace church people in the
Carolinas — Mennonites, Brethren, and Moravians — suffered
disproportionately. For instance, in they
were assessed a threefold amount for requisition of supplies for the army.
The Advice issued by Western Quarterly Meeting was to refuse compliance, and
many did so; many property seizures ensued. Others suffered also, as many
agents of the Colonial government were corrupt and were pocketing much of
their collections; seized property was often sold for small sums to friends
and relatives of these agents.
At the upcoming national gathering of NWTRCC at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, I’m going to be presenting a summary of the history of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends (Quakers).
Preparing for this talk has been daunting.
It’s a huge topic, spanning centuries and continents, and there are gaps and biases both in the historical record itself, and in my personal knowledge about it.
I’m also not a Quaker, and so am in the awkward and somewhat suspect position of trying to explain Quaker history to Quakers (I expect many of the attendees will be Quakers, particularly as Earlham College is a Quaker institution) as an outsider.
Indeed I’m not Christian or even religious, so when I read a Quaker testifying that the holy spirit or “the light” or something of that nature is compelling him or her to take a certain course of action, I just have to sort of take it “on faith” that they know what they’re talking about.
So I’m going to ask you to indulge me as I think “out loud” on The Picket Line while I’m trying to organize my notes.
Most of the material I’m working with while assembling this history comes from two sources: the huge stash of documents I assembled into the collection American Quaker War Tax Resistance, and the archives of the Friends Journal.
Both of these sources are biased towards reports of American Friends and Meetings, leaving out much of what may have been happening elsewhere.
They also leave time gaps.
The first stops at ; the second covers .
I’ve tried to supplement this with material from other sources when I could find it.
There seem to me to be some distinct “periods” of Quaker war tax resistance:
War tax resistance has been part of Quaker practice almost from the very
beginning.
George Fox paid his war taxes and counseled Quakers to do so, but Robert Barclay’s Apology published in reports that Quakers “have suffered much… because we neither could ourselves bear arms, nor send others in our place, nor give our money for the buying of drums, standards, and other military attire.”
Quakers ran the colonial legislature in Pennsylvania, founded by Quaker
William Penn.
This allowed them to put their pacifist principles to the test, which they did to some extent.
But most commentators on the period portray the legislature as refusing to enact requested war funding measures mostly as a negotiating gambit, and that they eventually would cough up the war money in thinly-veiled ways.
This led several individual Quakers to pledge to refuse to pay taxes to the Quaker government, which in turn led the London Yearly Meeting to come out against such war tax resistance.
Eventually this tension became too great, and Quakers gave up government control in Pennsylvania.
The conscientious Quaker dissidents in America proved influential and
their ideas spread, even, eventually, to London, where the meeting found itself coping with a new, home-grown challenge to war tax paying.
American Quakers suffered much during the American Revolution for their refusal to give material support to the rebel army, and some dissident Quakers broke off from their meetings because of this.
A purifying and intensifying tendency began to rock the Society of Friends, in the aftermath of the war, which tended to strengthen the testimony against paying war taxes, but ended by splitting the Society.
American Quakers identify with the abolitionist cause, which eventually
becomes a war aim of the Union side in the Civil War.
The society largely maintains its peace testimony and refusal to pay war taxes through the war, at least on an official level, but there is a slackening in how it is practiced and enforced, and in the aftermath of the war both are shadows of their former selves.
War tax resisters are few and fairly quiet for decades.
When war tax
resistance is mentioned, it is as a relic of a former time like “thees” and “thous”.
To the extent that it still remains on the record as a part of Quaker discipline, it is ignored as something belonging to another time.
By and large, Quakers pay even explicit war taxes without complaint.
A war tax resistance movement begins to coalesce in the United States,
but it’s notable how few of its prominent members are Quakers.
Eventually, though, this begins to embolden the remaining American Quaker war tax resisters and to rekindle interest in the Society of Friends.
The cold war nuclear arms race and the Vietnam War cause a resurgence of
war tax resistance in the Society of Friends around the world, from Japan to Norway.
By , pretty much all American Quakers must have confronted the issue of war taxes and made a decision about what to do about it.
Some Meetings began resisting taxes as a group.
War tax resistance becomes a central part of the Quaker peace testimony, and American Quakers who are not resisting in some fashion are on the defensive about it.
The end of the cold war took some of the urgency out of the war tax issue
for some Quakers, and those who still felt a concern about war taxes often looked for magical ways to make the issue go away without having to resort to actual tax resistance — such as “peace tax fund” legislation or increasingly desperate and fruitless legal appeals.
Remnants of the renaissance period war tax resistance stands still exist, but have little vitality or momentum.
Most mentions of war tax resistance in the Friends Journal are seen in the obituaries column.
In some of these periods, to be a Quaker was necessarily to be a war tax resister, as just about every household was subject to some sort of explicit war tax or militia exemption tax and the discipline of Quaker meetings required Friends to refuse to pay such taxes or to risk being disowned.
In other periods, such explicit war taxes had vanished, and the government paid for war through less explicit, less transparent, more general-purpose taxes.
In those periods, Quaker war tax resistance was more a subject for individual decision and debate and there was a less clear-cut orthodox opinion on how Friends should behave.
At the upcoming national gathering of NWTRCC at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, I’m going to be presenting a summary of the history of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends (Quakers).
Today I’m going to try to coalesce some of the notes I’ve assembled about the second, and possibly most important, period of Quaker war tax resistance — between the establishment of the Quaker colony in Pennsylvania and the relinquishment of political control there by Quakers during the French and Indian War.
The Pennsylvania experiment ()
The advance of war tax resistance among English Quakers had ground to a halt.
Quakers in England still would not pay certain explicit war taxes like “trophy money,” nor pay for substitutes to serve in their places in the military, nor buy goods stolen at sea from enemy nations by government-sanctioned pirates, but attempts failed to extend this testimony to other taxes that were clearly designed to pay for war.
For example, Elizabeth Redford tried to convince Quakers to refuse a new tax in on the grounds that it was obviously meant to fund the Seven Years War (the act that enacted the tax was entitled “For granting to his majesty certain rates and duties upon marriages, births, and burials, and upon bachelors and widowers, for the term of five years, for carrying on the war against France with vigour”).
Her meeting brought her up on charges of violating the discipline and declared that whatever the purpose of the tax, it was being raised by the crown for expenses of its choosing and Quakers should not inquire further into what those expenses were but should pay the tax without question.
Several years later, during the War of the Spanish Succession, this got thrown back in Quaker faces.
William Ray, in a letter to Quaker Samuel Bownas, argued that Quakers should stop resisting tithes because they had stopped resisting war taxes: “though the title of the act of parliament did plainly show that the tax was for carrying on a war against France with vigour” he wrote, “since the war against France began your Friends have given the same active obedience to the laws for payment of taxes as their fellow subjects have done.”
Bownas did not deny this, but instead he tried to argue that tithes were different.
Meanwhile, Quaker William Penn was granted a royal charter for a large North American colony, to which many Quakers emigrated and established a colonial government that would be run, to some extent, on Quaker pacifist principles.
I say “to some extent” because it was still a royal colony, under the military protection of the crown, and with an explicit colonial mandate to engage in military battles against enemies of the home country.
The Quaker Assembly of the colony was also subservient in many ways to the crown-appointed governors and to the British government itself.
Occasionally during wartime, that government would appeal to the Pennsylvania Assembly to raise some funds to help out the war effort — to help defend Pennsylvania against pirates, Frenchmen, hostile Indians, and the like.
The Assembly would sometimes respond to such requests with noble-sounding statements of Quaker principle, like this one by Assembly Speaker David Lloyd in : “the raising money to hire men to fight or kill one another is matter of conscience to us and against our religious principles.”
But most commentators on the period, even those who are sympathetic to the Quaker pacifist position, tend to read these statements cynically.
The Assembly used these requests for money as opportunities to try to wrest more control from the governor and from London.
These statements of conscience seemed often not to be principles so much as gambits in the negotiation process.
The Assembly would usually, in the end, grant the requested money, or some amount anyway, but would thinly veil its nature by eliminating any wording about the money being intended for the military and instead would simply decree that it was intended as a gift to the crown from its grateful subjects, “for the Queen’s [or King’s] use.”
This was such a transparent dodge that it became hard for anyone to take seriously the part of the Quaker peace testimony represented in Lloyd’s quote.
On one occasion, according to colonial legislator Benjamin Franklin, the Assembly refused to vote war money, but instead granted funds “for the purchasing of bread, flour, wheat, or other grain” knowing that the governor would interpret “other grain” to include gunpowder.
The Assembly were able to get away with this, in a colony full of ostensibly conscientious Quakers, because the orthodox point of view about war tax resistance in the Society held that only explicit war taxes were to be resisted, while generic taxes that only happened to be for war were to be paid willingly.
So long as the government kept the name of the tax neutral and didn’t detail how it would be spent, a Quaker could pay it without having to worry about it.
But some Quakers were unable to remain blind to the Assembly’s sleight-of-hand.
In , the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting sent emissaries to some of its rebellious Monthly Meetings who were beginning to refuse to pay state taxes on these grounds.
In , William Rakestraw published a pamphlet in which he agreed that “we ought not to ask Cæsar what he does with his dues or tribute, but pay it freely,” but added: “if he tells me it is for no other use but war and destruction, I’ll beg his pardon and say ‘my Master forbids it.’ ” He argued that the latest “for the Queen’s use” grant, in spite of its generic name, should fool nobody: it was meant to fund war, and no Quaker should pay a tax for it.
Thomas Story, who visited the colony from England, defended the orthodox position, and had traveled Pennsylvania encouraging Quakers to pay their war taxes.
During the French & Indian War, Pennsylvania was invaded from the west.
The westernmost European settlers in Pennsylvania were largely non-Quaker, and were impatient for a military defense — they felt that the Quaker pacifists in Philadelphia were using them as a shield.
The Pennsylvania Assembly eventually gave in to their demands.
It organized a volunteer militia and appropriated money for fortifications.
This time it did not use the “for the King’s use” dodge by giving the money to the crown and letting it allocate the funds to war expenses, but instead the Assembly appointed its own commissioners to spend the money, and so became responsible itself for the war spending.
(The legislation itself still tried to put a happy face on things, saying the grant was “for supplying our friendly Indians, holding of treaties, relieving the distressed settlers who have been driven from their lands, and other purposes for the King’s service,” but it was that last clause — “other purposes” — that hid where most of the spending would actually happen: largely building and supplying military forts.)
This compromise pleased few.
Back in London there were calls to ban Quakers from colonial government entirely for their refusal to support the military defense of the colonies.
London Quakers were urging pacifist Quakers to resign from the Pennsylvania Assembly as a way of forestalling complete disenfranchisement.
At the same time, a set of American Quakers felt that this was the last straw and if Quaker legislators were going to abandon their pacifist principles and enact a war spending bill, it would be up to Quaker taxpayers to refuse and resist.
Several of them, including Anthony Benezet, sent a letter to the Assembly announcing that “as the raising sums of money, and putting them into the hands of committees who may apply them to purposes inconsistent with the peaceable testimony we profess and have borne to the world, appears to us in its consequences to be destructive of our religious liberties; we apprehend many among us will be under the necessity of suffering rather than consenting thereto by the payment of a tax for such purposes.”
That petition was not viewed sympathetically by the Assembly.
They reminded everyone that nobody had had any problem paying those “for the Queen’s use” taxes in the past, and that this new tax was really not very different, even though the fig leaf had been removed.
Meanwhile, the anti-Quakers in London got word of the petition which further inflamed them and gave them ammunition in their fight to get Quakers disenfranchised.
The London Yearly Meeting was furious about the petition and it sent two emissaries to the colonies with orders to “explain and enforce our known principles and practice respecting the payment of taxes for the support of civil government.”
The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting held a conference in to try to come up with some guidance for Friends on whether or not to pay the new war taxes.
They were unable to reach consensus.
A group of them, including Benezet & John Woolman, sent a letter to quarterly and monthly meetings that set out the reasons why they were choosing to resist.
The Assembly’s attempt to hide its war tax as a “mixed” tax with beneficial spending in the mix did not impress them.
They wrote:
[T]hough some part of the money to be raised by the said Act is said to be for such benevolent purposes as supporting our friendship with our Indian neighbors and relieving the distresses of our fellow subjects who have suffered in the present calamities, for whom our hearts are deeply pained; and we affectionately and with bowels of tenderness sympathize with them therein; and we could most cheerfully contribute to those purposes if they were not so mixed that we cannot in the manner proposed show our hearty concurrence therewith without at the same time assenting to, or allowing ourselves in, practices which we apprehend contrary to the testimony which the Lord has given us to bear for his name and Truth’s sake.
This is one answer to the dilemma many Quakers find themselves in today.
The U.S. government is in a constant state of war and threatens the whole world with its vast nuclear arsenal and its drone assassins.
But it pays for this out of the same budget and with the same taxes as it pays for everything else it buys — including today’s equivalents of “such benevolent purposes as supporting our friendship with our Indian neighbors and relieving the distresses of our fellow subjects who have suffered in the present calamities” — so what is a good Quaker to do?
Benezet, Woolman, and the rest took the position that mixing good spending and bad doesn’t erase the stain from the bad, but stains the good.
The capitulation by the Quakers in the Pennsylvania Assembly was not a compromise that satisfied either the militant Pennsylvanians, the anti-Quaker antagonists in London, or the prominent pacifists in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
In , under pressure from all sides, most Quaker legislators resigned from the Assembly, and the experiment in Quaker government in Pennsylvania came to an end.
Meanwhile, what had become of those London Quaker enforcers who had come across the pond to knock some sense into the war tax resisting faction?
Something unexpected happened: they met with representatives from both the taxpaying and tax-resisting factions, held a two-day meeting on the subject, and ended up agreeing to disagree.
The London representatives, rather than chastizing the resisters, instead recommended that Quakers “endeavor earnestly to have their minds covered with fervent charity towards one another” on the subject without taking a position one way or the other.
That’s not what the London Yearly Meeting had in mind.
But the logic of the war tax resisters’ position, and the sincerity with which they presented it, had an infectious tendency.
Not long after the emissaries returned home, the London Yearly Meeting had been expected to issue a strong condemnation of the resisters who had signed the letter urging Quakers to consider refusing to pay the war tax.
Instead, the topic was dropped from the agenda entirely.
Why?
Because the more Quakers in England heard about the war tax resistance in Pennsylvania, the more sympathetic they became.
The Yearly Meeting authorities decided it was better not to discuss the matter at all rather than risk facing the sort of enthusiasm for war tax resistance that had rocked the Philadelphia meeting.
At the upcoming national gathering of NWTRCC at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, I’m going to be presenting a summary of the history of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends (Quakers).
Today I’m going to try to coalesce some of the notes I’ve assembled about how the Quaker practice of war tax resistance evolved, particularly in America, during the period of time surrounding and including the American Revolution.
The American Revolution and Aftermath ()
When Quakers resisted tithes, militia exemption taxes, explicit war taxes, and things of that nature, the government would usually respond by seizing the resister’s property and selling it at auction in order to recover the tax.
(In the earliest years of the Society of Friends, many such resisters were imprisoned, but this practice later became uncommon.)
Quaker meetings developed a protocol that good Quakers were supposed to follow when such property seizures took place.
They were not supposed to cooperate in any way, but neither were they supposed to resist.
They were not supposed to suggest which property the tax collector might seize, and they certainly were not supposed to leave the amount of the tax lying out on the table in plain view (some Quakers evidently tried this way of getting out of resisting).
Instead, when the collector came and said he was going to seize property for unpaid taxes, the Quaker was supposed to step aside and say something along the lines of “do as you think you must,” perhaps explaining the reason for his refusal to pay, but not otherwise interfering.
If the collector seized property worth more than the amount of tax, and was able to auction it off for more than the amount owed, the collector (if honest) might try to return the surplus to the resister.
A Quaker was not supposed to accept such money, it having been tainted by the process.
(However, if the collector seized too many items, and only auctioned off some of them, the Quaker could accept the return of the additional items themselves.)
This part of the protocol made Quakers especially vulnerable to particularly unscrupulous tax collectors.
Such a collector could seize the most valuable thing he could get his hands on, sell it, apply some of the proceeds to the tax, and then pocket the rest.
Many other collectors were also accused of selling property at cut-rate prices to themselves, to their friends, or in exchange for kick-backs.
The result of all of this meant that tax resisting Quakers were often setting themselves up for considerable financial losses.
These “sufferings” were part of the glory of being a Quaker, and, as such, were well worth the price to some Friends, but to others they were just an unwelcome financial hardship.
Meetings had to be diligent to keep wavering Friends from trying to sneak out from under the requirements to refuse to pay certain taxes, to refuse the return of surplus money, and to not cooperate with the tax collector as a way of trying to ameliorate the burden of the seizure process.
If a Friend failed in any of these ways, someone at their meeting might “produce a testification” against them.
The meeting would then investigate the charges and would send out a delegation to talk to the wayward Quaker and try to bring them back into compliance.
This often would include the Quaker standing up at a future meeting to read an acknowledgment of their error and promise never to do it again.
If the Quaker refused to get with the program, the meeting could “disown” them — basically kick them out of the meeting.
Simply not reporting any “sufferings” to the meeting for failure to pay war tax might be enough to start this process.
(“We notice thou hastn’t had any property seized this year for failure to pay the bounty tax, Friend Johnson.
Care to tell us how thou hast been so lucky?”)
American Quakers during the American Revolution were, in many places, pillaged ruthlessly by the authorities by this process of property seizure.
Several things contributed to this:
The Society of Friends was not united.
Dissident Quakers promoted paying taxes to the rebel government, and some “Free Quakers” even abandoned the peace testimony entirely to enlist in the rebel army.
This made it even harder for resisting Quakers to appeal to Quaker beliefs and practices as an explanation for their stand.
Quakers had wavered in their war tax resistance stand in the recent past, for instance when the Quaker-led Pennsylvania Assembly voted to tax the colony to pay for fortifications during the French & Indian War.
This was deployed as a precedent to argue that Quakers only have scruples against war tax paying at convenient times or depending on their sympathy with the particular war or government.
The Quaker peace testimony was often publicly expressed with an eye to being reassuring to the authorities.
So often it would include phrasing like this:
[T]he setting up and putting down kings and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to himself: And that it is not our business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy bodies above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn of any of them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good of all men, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty, under the government which God is pleased to set over us.
For this reason, some Quakers felt that to adhere to this testimony they could not cooperate in any way with the rebel government, as to do so would be to contribute “to plot and contrive” against the king (others disagreed, feeling that the rebel government had become the one “which God is pleased to set over us”).
Such absolutist resisters were easy targets for patriotic anger.
Both armies were authorized to take any property they needed during the course of their campaigns.
They were usually supposed to pay for what they took, but Quakers, being under an obligation not to supply goods to belligerents, could not accept money in such cases.
This made their farms and stores particularly tempting targets for thrifty officers.
Quakers who would neither serve in the military, pay war taxes, nor take oaths of allegiance to the rebel government (Quakers generally would not take oaths of any kind) were suspected of using their conscientious scruples as a cover for loyalist sympathies.
Speaking of oaths, Quakers could be fined for refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the new American government.
They were forbidden by Quaker discipline from paying such fines.
So this became another opportunity for plunder and to me it looks like this was used deliberately as a revenue-raiser or as a way of punishing Quakers for their lack of enthusiasm for the rebel cause.
An additional complication for Quakers at this time was the fuzziness over what counted as a “war tax.”
For example, one of the ways the Continental Congress funded its military campaign was to issue its own paper currency and make the acceptance of this currency as legal tender mandatory.
This was certainly easier than trying to raise the money through an explicit tax, but it amounted to just as much of an imposition: as the Congress issued more and more currency to finance the war, the value of the currency plummeted, taking resources away from people who were forced to use it.
Some Quakers refused to handle the continentals, and some were imprisoned and others were threatened with execution.
In other cases, such refusers were declared outlaws and boycotts were enforced against them — in one example “it was publicly proclaimed that there was no protection for him [John Cowgill], that all persons were forewarned at their peril to have no dealings with him.
Even the miller was threatened with the destruction of his mill if he ground for his family, and the school-master forbid receiving his children at school.”
The official stand of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was neutral on the currency question, and asked Friends to come to their own decisions and not to chastise one-another about it.
The Virginia Yearly Meeting, on the other hand, formally forbade Friends from using continentals.
The official Philadelphia Yearly Meeting position on war taxes, as put forth in , was much as it had long been: “It is the judgment of this meeting that a tax levied for the purchasing of drums, colors, or for other warlike uses, cannot be paid consistently with our Christian testimony.”
Timothy Davis published a tract in laying out the case for why American Quakers should pay most of the taxes being demanded by the rebel congressional government.
He was disowned by his Monthly Meeting, both for the content of the tract and for publishing it without the Meeting’s approval.
He left and took a few other Quakers with him to found a rival Meeting.
This conflict was still dividing the Society a decade later, when the Revolution was over and American Quakers had pretty much all adjusted to the new government God was pleased to have set over them.
The tract was well argued.
Those Quakers who were trying to strengthen and broaden the practice of war tax resistance beyond what the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was willing to advocate tried to come up with an authoritative and thoroughly scripturally-backed response.
Benjamin Mason, Anthony Benezet, Moses Brown, and Samuel Allinson all pursued efforts in this direction.
I’ve seen some drafts of their work and their correspondence, and Allinson’s draft, at least, seems to have been widely-distributed in manuscript form, but as far as I know, no official version ended up being published.
Benezet believed that because the stronger position they were advocating would demand more from Quakers than before, and would subject them to more persecution than before, it would make the Society of Friends stronger and less-corrupted by worldly riches:
[It] will not be like a passing storm but an abiding trial, which, as it will come heavier upon those who are most loaded & encumbered with the clay of this world, will have I trust a blessed effect to every one who will willingly receive it to keep us low & humble.
Part of what may have restrained them from publishing was caution about introducing new doctrinal innovations at a time when the Society of Friends was already beginning to show signs of fracturing on party lines.
Part also may be that the Meetings that would have to authorize the publication of such a pamphlet were probably hoping to quiet such debate rather than stir up a new hornet’s nest.
But there was also the emerging trouble of an ultra-radical war tax resistance position that was beginning to develop.
Moses Brown wrote to Anthony Benezet about this concern, saying:
[S]ome Friends refuse all taxes, even those for civil uses as well as those clear for war and others that are mixed, and thereby dropping our testimony of supporting civil government by readily contributing thereto, [and] it has been a fear whether this variety of conduct won’t mar rather than promote the work… I understand some Friends have fallen in with or been overpowered by the common argument that civil government is upheld by the sword, and therefore they decline paying to its support, which appears to me a great weakness…
Around this time, you start to see meetings supplementing their discipline about not paying explicit war taxes (“for drums, colors, and military attire”) with advice that Friends not criticize one another over their positions on whether or not to pay “mixed” taxes.
Apparently the arguments in Meetings had become troublesome and did not seem to be near a resolution.
The way Quaker Meetings recorded “sufferings” went something like this: When a Quaker was subjected to persecution of some sort for taking a conscientious stand required by Quaker discipline, that Quaker would report this to his or her Monthly Meeting.
That Meeting would periodically forward on a list of such reports to its Quarterly Meeting, which in turn would compile these into a report that it would submit to the Yearly Meeting.
At each stage, a Meeting might decide that some particular report wasn’t worth recording for some reason.
During this period, for instance, some Monthly Meetings were recording the sufferings of Quakers who were persecuted for resisting mixed taxes, as well as for explicit war taxes.
Some Quarterly Meetings dropped these reports from their submissions to the Yearly Meetings.
This could lead to debate in the Meetings, which would bring the issue of war tax resistance back on to the front burner.
The Rhode Island Yearly Meeting, for instance, decided to begin accepting such reports in .
The Salem Yearly Meeting debated the issue and eventually followed suit.
The war tax question didn’t end with the end of the fighting.
The war still needed to be paid for, and the continental currency that funded it needed to be redeemed, and the government used a variety of taxes to do this.
Among these were a new set of import duties instituted in to pay war debts.
A few Quakers took note of this and decided they could not pay.
For example, Joshua Evans stopped using imported goods.
Isaac Martin, who ran a drug store, stopped stocking and selling imported products.
The new government was also working on a unified militia law, which, though it enabled Quakers to be exempt from service, required any such conscientious objectors to pay a fine in lieu of service.
A representative of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting addressed Congress, telling them that Quakers would feel obligated to refuse to pay such a fine and to suffer the consequences.
Many Quakers did refuse to pay and were fined (and, as usual, the tax collectors took far more from them in property than the amount of the fines).
In one area, a law was passed exempting members of the volunteer fire department from militia service without necessity of paying a fine, and this led many Quakers to sign up.
Meanwhile, what was happening in England?
Quakers there were much more restrained than their American counterparts on the war tax question.
When they reprinted John Woolman’s Journal in , they omitted the parts where he talked about his war tax resistance.
There were some exceptions to this relative conservatism.
John Payne, for example, boarded up a third of the windows of his home to avoid a property tax, put his coach up on blocks to avoid a vehicle tax, and rode miles out of his way to avoid toll gates, all to avoid paying for the war to suppress the American rebellion.
He also wrote a tract chastising the Society of Friends for investing in government bonds, on the same grounds.
In the years before his death he gave away his property to members of his family so that he would not be liable for any estate tax.
The War of 1812 was largely funded, on the American side, by debt spending, and so explicit war taxes did not become such an acute issue, though the issue of “mixed” taxes again became a heated topic.
The military would again requisition supplies from Quakers, which Quakers felt obligated to refuse to voluntarily give them or to accept money for.
And Quakers were frequently fined (and then plundered for their refusal to pay) when they would not join the militia.
Influential Quaker Elias Hicks reported in (before the Hicksite/Orthodox split) that he had addressed his Meeting’s “meeting for discipline” to ask “whether while we were actively paying taxes to civil government, for the purpose of promoting war or warlike purposes in any degree, we were not balking our testimony in that respect and pulling down with one hand what we are pretending to build with the other.”
He compared this to abolitionist Quakers who nonetheless supported slavery by buying slave-produced goods.
In , several young Quaker men were imprisoned in Baltimore for their refusal to pay militia exemption fines.
The state court would not interfere, as they were imprisoned under a federal regulation at the pleasure of the military, and the judge recommended that they instead apply to President Madison for help.
They did, and the president said that he wouldn’t do anything about it, as the law was clear on the point.
But as the Quaker delegation was leaving the president’s makeshift office (the White House had been put to the torch by the British the year before), the president’s wife, Dolley Madison, called them aside and asked to speak with them.
She had been raised a Quaker.
When she heard what had happened, and what the president’s response had been, she told them “I am determined that the President shall never close his eyes in sleep until these children are liberated from confinement.”
It took the delegation two days to return to Baltimore, and when they got there they learned that the Quaker conscientious objectors had been released on the President’s orders.
I end this period, somewhat artificially, at .
This doesn’t represent a firm boundary in the evolution of the practice of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends, but it does mark a significant milestone in the Society itself.
By that year, the society had fractured into irreconcilable Orthodox and Hicksite factions that would each form their own structures of Meetings and would evolve separately in parallel for decades.
This was caused in part by a passion for strengthened religious purity among American protestant Christians that peaked in .
This striving probably both contributed to a strengthening of war tax resistance (among other traditional Quaker practices) and distracted from it by making other issues more central.
