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.
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:
But, as with so many of the old criticisms and reductiones ad absurdum, this one seems to me to be making some good arguments in favor of tax resistance while trying to invent and discredit bad ones:
I am vouched by authority on which I may place some confidence that certain friends set forth particular articles of ware (or goods) to be distrained for tithes.
Truly… “to buy an article for the express purpose of its being distrained, is certainly a mockery of non-payment.”
How “a young man” who “may be balloted for the militia,” and “by purchasing a horse or a cow to be distrained,” “preserves his unity with the society” I must leave with this intelligent (once) member, and such of you, my friends, to settle.
Sure I am it is repugnant to your written “testimony” and advices, which warn you that “what is not taken away by force, but with consent or connivance cannot be regarded as a suffering for truth.”…
I will only observe, the above is as “inconsistent,” and as ridiculous, as that man who pretends that his conscience will not allow him to pay such and such a tax, and yet apply to parliament for a new method, or for any method of compelling him to pay such a tax at a easier rate.
But of all your “inconsistency of practices,” that of paying “the assessed taxes,” is not amongst the least.
Many respectable persons (of other religious denominations) have queried to me the propriety or “inconsistency” of your society paying any taxes at all.
And of all the manly, fair, and judicious reasoning on this important point of doctrine that I ever met with, none appear to me in so clear and convincing a point of view, as your contemporary, William Matthews: and I unite with him in recommending this to the serious attention of your society.
It is well known that the assessed taxes already imposed, (“as well as the enormous call, the income tax,”) is for the express purpose of war.
“Permit me (says this judicious author) to transcribe the following words of the title and preamble to the act itself,” passed for raising; new taxes.
Act for granting to his Majesty an Aid and Contribution, for the prosecution of the War!
.
Most gracious Sovereign!
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 human law, which virtually calls for a suspension of your ‘testimony against wars and fightings?’
“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 favor of paying the new assessed taxes, 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.
Permit me, therefore, briefly to repeat, and urge, for your consideration, what my leading reflections were mainly intended to impress, that, as you must find yourselves involved in augmented inconsistency, by now imposing on your own members, as you have done, your society laws, relative to tithes; you would wisely relax from that unnecessary, unhappy, and I wish I could not truly say, unchristian severity: a severity which you cannot, without the most glaring absurdity, continue to prosecute, — and which all you have written, or attempted to say, in the style of rational argument, is wholly insufficient to palliate!”
If “inconsistency of practice” is to be the standard to judge of the principles of religion, (to say nothing here of the conscience,) I might query, if — “all hostilities, whether offensive or defensive, are believed by the Christian Quaker to be in direct opposition to the express commands of Christ,” can the contribution to the support of war by the voluntary payment of any tax levied for that express purpose, be regarded in any other light than as a dereliction of one of the most important and distinguished testimonies of your society?
But I find several friends have been under considerable exercise of mind, from a desire to bear their testimony faithfully against the having any concern in, or giving any countenance to the promotion of war.
“This difficulty (it is said) was so strongly felt by some persons in the more affluent ranks, that they had believed it right for them to discontinue keeping their carriages, rather than, by a payment of the tax imposed on them, contribute so largely to the support of war; and this, for the sake of an article which might perhaps be regarded as a luxury,” and pride too.
As this doesn’t have much direct connection to Quaker war tax resistance as it was being practiced in the Americas, I probably won’t include this in my upcoming book (which I’m trying to hold down to a manageable size by restricting it geographically), but I liked it enough that I couldn’t resist including it here.
In , a convention was assembled to amend the state Constitution of New York.
Whether that Constitution would exempt Quakers from mandatory militia service, and if so, what if anything would be required of them instead, was an issue in this convention.
Representatives of the Society of Friends in New York, via Samuel Parsons, sent a “memorial” to the convention to make their case:
The memorial of the representatives of the Society of Friends in the state of New-York, respectfully shows —
That having observed in the recent proceedings of the Convention, that a proposition has been introduced, requiring all persons who, from scruples of conscience, are averse to bearing arms, to pay an equivalent in money, to be estimated according to the expense in time, money, and equipment of an ordinary able-bodied militia man; and as such a measure would, if enforced, be a grievous burden upon the society of friends, your memorialists consider it to be their duty, in behalf of the society, respectfully to invite your attention to the subject.
Since the existence of the society, it has always maintained the doctrine, that war, in all its forms, whether offensive or defensive, is entirely at variance with the precepts and examples of Jesus Christ; and in consonance with this belief, they have uniformly declined to comply with all military requisitions.
We are aware, however, that it is considered by many, that although friends cannot, in conformity with their profession, bear arms, yet that they might and would pay a fine or tax as an equivalent, especially if its amount was applied to purposes, to which, in ordinary cases, they would be willing to contribute.
But it must on reflection be evident, that as the original requisition is repugnant to their sentiments, they could not conscientiously agree to any substitute for it, nor make any commutation for an act which they believe to be forbidden by their religious principles.
And they apprehend that any application of the moneys, however benevolent in its nature, would not lessen the force of their objections, as it cannot be supposed that a change in the appropriation of a tax can alter the principle upon which it is levied.
The obligation which they feel themselves under, not to comply with any military requisitions, nor to pay any equivalent, is founded, they conceive, not only on the doctrines of the Christian religion, but derived from the undeniable dictates and the unalienable rights of conscience, which can neither be communicated nor controlled by human authority; but which belongs essentially to the relation existing between man and his Creator:
And the free exercise of conscience, when it cannot be alleged that it tends to acts of licentiousness, or to the injury of others, is believed to be in accordance with the liberal views of the age in which we live, the republican institutions of the United States, and the spirit of the present constitution of this state.
Such an evidence of national liberality, of public regard to private and individual feeling, as is now sought for, will not be peculiar to the council of this state, as it is understood that under several of the state governments, the society of friends, on account of their conscientious scruples, are entirely and unconditionally exempt from all military requisition.
Your memorialists can have no doubt, that on a deliberate examination of the provision proposed to be introduced into the constitution, it will be seen that whilst it appears to have been designed to give some relief to those who are conscientiously scrupulous in this respect, it results in reducing that relief to the price of a substitute; which, as respects the society of friends, is placing it on a footing with which they can no more comply, than they can bear arms.
We therefore consider that it is not asking too much of the convention to request it to pause and deliberate, before a proposition is adopted which cannot be repealed from year to year, when its oppressive consequences are experienced — consequences which will be severely felt by the members of this society, exposed, as they must be, to the exactions of collectors, who in taking their property by distraint, often make the seizure to an extent entirely disproportionate to the sum demanded.
Your memorialists respectfully yet earnestly solicit, in behalf of the members of the society of this state, that the subject may again receive your serious deliberation, and that the constitution may be so modified, as that the religious society of friends called Quakers, may not only be exempt from bearing arms, but from incurring any fine or penalty in lieu thereof.
As it turned out, the convention wasn’t willing to go that far.
The relevant section of the state Constitution read:
“The militia of this State shall, at all times hereafter, be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service; but all such inhabitants of this State, of any religious denomination whatever, as from scruples of conscience may be averse to bearing arms, shall be excused therefrom by paying to the State an equivalent in money; and the Legislature shall provide by law for the collection of such equivalent, to be estimated according to the expense, in time and money, of an ordinary, able-bodied militia-man.”
Delegate Erastus Root complained that even this was too likely to let the Quakers completely off the hook:
The patriots of the revolution, in forming our present constitution, exempted Quakers from military service, provided they would pay an equivalent; but our legislature have passed laws from time to time, till they at length came to the conclusion that their services were good for nothing, and that nothing would be an ample equivalent.
This law passed both branches of the legislature, and went through the council of revision, constituted in part of the wisest and greatest jurists in our state, without a word of objection, notwithstanding it was in the face and eyes of our constitution.
Now, if these wise men, who were set as a guard to prevent the legislature from encroaching upon the rights of the people, could not prevent this violation of the constitution — how are we to expect our governor, who has now the only veto upon laws, to withstand these Quakers, and be conscientiously scrupulous?
The Quaker policy on militia fines got a thorough going-over in the course of the general denunciation:
We see the treason against God of one of the principles of Friends — that on which they refuse incorrigibly, either to bear arms in any case, or to pay the fines very properly levied against delinquents or exempts.
They plead conscience!
What right have they, I ask, to keep such a conscience?
Is it conscience “resisting the ordinance of God?” And what respect deserves it from man?
I answer, just as much as it gets from God.
It is nothing better than a piece of will-worship, according to the inspiration of a man’s deluded feelings, ignorant or cowardly or perverse or indolent or perhaps compounded of all these, leading him religiously to have his own way at all events.
Hear the word of God: “For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.” It was the military government of the Cæsars to which was the direct reference of the apostle at the time.
But Friends say, we cannot pay militia fines; nor do any thing to uphold the military power.
Ah! truly: — and why do you ever become adjuncts and allies and officers of such a civic dynasty? or vote for the ministers of such a power?
What are you doing at the polls, but upholding that very power?
What moral right have you there? to vote or be voted for?
And yet all of you (generally) exercise the right of suffrage.…
“What right have they, I ask, to keep such a
conscience?”
Here, a footnote, in which Cox acknowledges that “Some are so conscientious or consistent that they never vote; viewing it as unlawful for them and for all men.”
…And you virtually appeal to the sword, whenever you sue a man, and invoke the armed interference of the law to coerce him to his duty!
Have I no right here to suggest that casuistry is sometimes marvelously convinced, not by evidence but by influence; not by the Bible, but the — purse!
If the government charged a pecuniary bonus or capitation tax for the privilege of voting, I presume there would be heard some new conscientious groaning against the military power — even by Friends!
But it gives them influence in a cheap way; and hence they forget the dreadful horror they sometimes feel in doing any thing to uphold a military government.
Without such a government, there is not a right, nor a possession, nor an endearment, they could call their own, one single day or night!
And yet — others must do the fighting or pay for the war: they only enjoy the privileges; which blood and treasure other than their own, procured for them and still preserves.
In the defense of the commonwealth, they refuse all responsibility: and just so — by proxy — do they support and diffuse christianity in the world! translate the scriptures, defend them, and so forth!
The Father of his Country, in answer to an address of the society, congratulating him in their way on his accession to the presidency of the Union, gives a marked and just reproof of their unequal principles, “receiving benefits and rendering none,” to the power of the State.
His words are very kind, dignified, and worthy of himself; commending their principles in reference to order and peace, “except their declining to share with others the burdens of the common defense” He also very exemplarily assures them that “it is his wish and desire that the laws may always be as extensively accommodated to the conscientious scruples of all men, as a due regard to the protection and essential interests of the nation may justify and permit.” Thus nobly wrote Washington in .
He had witnessed during the revolution some of their twistical proceedings; and taken several of their luminaries into his own custody, lest their “scruples” might incline rather too far toward royalty and England.
In the last war () some became sudden converts to Quakerism; growing quite conscientious in the time of danger against such profane exposures of life — and either joined the Society, or pleaded a kindred exemption from military responsibilities.
In the revolution, a number of courageous and patriotic men of the society, took the field; who were called, on their return, “Free Quakers,” being disowned by Friends.
What a pity that their own good sense on some other subjects, can not be brought on this to act with equal light and love of evidence! “Render therefore to Cæsar, the things which are Cæsar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21, 1 Peter 2:13–17.
It’s too bad Cox didn’t take the scriptural arguments Quakers put forward for pacifism seriously enough to address.
And it’s also too bad he only considered as an afterthought (as I think his footnote shows) that some Quakers did try to extend their convictions to their logical conclusions and renounce voting and reliance on the armed enforcement powers of government courts and constabulary.
Still, this is a good example of a typical knee-jerk opposition to the Quaker
peace testimony and its tax-resistance ramifications, and some of its rhetoric
has a good ring to it.
A Quaker writer going by the pen name “Pacificus” complained in The Friend () that some Quakers were coming up with shady ways of getting around that point of Quaker Discipline that disallowed paying militia exemption fines.
This piece is remarkable, I think, for the suggestion it makes about the power of civil disobedience to reform a nation — something that is commonly heard nowadays, but that I don’t see much of before this essay.
“Pacificus” writes: “If Friends were faithful to maintain their testimony against war in all respects… in a very little time the system would be exploded.
Were nothing to be gained but the incarceration of peaceable citizens in prison for conscience sake — no reward but the accusations of a troubled spirit — no honor but the plaudits of militia officers, and the averted looks of the considerate of all classes, it would require stout hands and unfeeling hearts long to support the system.”
“If Friends were faithful to maintain their testimony against war in all respects… in a very little time the system would be exploded”
Here’s what “Pacificus” wrote:
From a knowledge of the character of the present collector of militia fines in the city of Philadelphia, and the unusual efforts recently made to collect them, taken in connection with the very small number of cases sent up to our late quarterly meeting, I have been led to fear that our Christian testimony against war has not been maintained as it should have been.
Perhaps there are not many (are there not some?) who deliberately pay the demand, and openly violate the testimony of the Society; yet it may reasonably be feared, that under our name are to be found individuals who connive at its payment by others, and secretly rejoice that they can thus avoid suffering, without putting the Christian principle of peace to open shame.
Such are not only injuring themselves, but bringing reproach upon truth.
“Have you no friend to pay it for you?” is the enquiry of the collector; “Friend so-and-so always has his paid.”
“Mr. S—— is a Friend, and he pays me his fine; so does Mr. T——; they never make a disturbance about it.”
The secret payment of this fine in lieu of military service or training, or the connivance at its payment by others, is a direct encouragement of the onerous militia system.
If Friends were faithful to maintain their testimony against war in all respects, even keeping in subjection a warlike spirit in relation to this very oppression, and no one through mistaken kindness being induced to pay the fine for them, in a very little time the system would be exploded.
Were nothing to be gained but the incarceration of peaceable citizens in prison for conscience sake — no reward but the accusations of a troubled spirit — no honor but the plaudits of militia officers, and the averted looks of the considerate of all classes, it would require stout hands and unfeeling hearts long to support the system.
Yes! let it be impressed upon the weak and complying among us, that they are supporting this oppressive system — that it is to them, mainly, that the militia system, as far as regards Friends, is prolonged — that they are binding their fellow professors with this chain; and that if entire faithfulness was maintained on the part of all our members in refusing to pay these fines, or allowing others to do it, the spoiling of our goods and the imprisonment of our members for this precious cause — the cause of peace on earth — would soon be a narrative of times that are past.
One weakness begets another — the laying waste of one part of the enclosure of the Society, enfeebles and makes way for the prostration of another portion of the hedge.
When called upon to pay militia fines, some of our members who have already departed from plainness of dress and address, are ashamed — yea, ashamed — to acknowledge the motive which should induce them to refuse compliance with these demands, from a consciousness that they do not look like Quakers, that if they are sheep, they are not in their clothing, and, through weakness begotten of this very cause, they fancy themselves compelled to act in accordance with their appearance.
It is very much to be desired that the testimony to the peaceable nature of Christ’s kingdom on earth may not be lowered in our Society, at a time too when the views so long peculiar to Friends in this respect, are spreading with others; but that all, more especially those who can no longer be ranked among the youth, the middle aged, may be aroused to the importance of having clean hands in this respect.
It is not a mere matter of business between you and the collector; you are not to solace yourselves with the belief that no harm will come of it; every fine paid in this manner goes to encourage and sustain the system, to weaken your own hands, to bind fetters upon your brethren, to lay waste the testimonies of the Society, and to prepare for yourselves moments of bitter reflection when the unflattering witness comes to commune with you in the cool of the day.
Many of the younger class of our Society, it is encouraging to believe, have a proper view of the unlawfulness of war for Christians, and are endeavoring to walk worthy in this respect of their vocation, and while these may be encouraged to continued faithfulness, it is desired that some who are a few years their seniors may profit by their example.
“we cannot in any way be engaged in war or contribute to its support”
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.
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.
Aristides Monteiro paints what he thinks of as a comic picture of patient Confederate bandit guerrillas trying to steal requisitions from a furious Virginia Quaker family, in his book War Reminiscences by the Surgeon of [John Singleton] Mosby’s Command:
“I endeavored to explain to the infuriated Quaker, that even death could not protect his corn-crib, or save his bacon, and that it was our duty, in obedience to orders, to take his provisions whether he lived or died, and as good soldiers and patriotic citizens, we had no especial objections to his dying whenever his duty or pleasure prompted the sacrifice he then contemplated”
The county of Loudoun, one of the most fertile in Virginia, furnished some of the bravest soldiers in the Confederate army and retained many of the bitterest foes to the Southern Cause.
Amongst the Union men most active and acrimonious in their opposition to Confederate authority, may be noticed the brotherhood or sect, known as the society of Friends.
The Quakers of Loudoun may have been friendly to each other, but they were decidedly unfriendly to the Southern soldier.
These quaint, peaceful, and thrifty followers of Wm. Penn, possessed the most beautiful and profitable farms in the county of Loudoun.
They were generally wealthy and lived well, yet refused to pay their taxes to the Southern Government.
The only method that presented a reasonable certainty of gathering the taxes of the Union Quakers, was that adopted by our battalion.
Mosby ordered a detachment of one hundred and twenty-eight men to go down into their settlements, quarter the troops upon the rebellious Quakers, and send into the county of Fauquier one-tenth part of their grain, forage and bacon.
The men deputized to execute this unpleasant order, were divided into squads of ten or twelve.
Each squad was ordered to quarter upon some convenient Union man who had refused to pay his tithe of grain and meat, to the Confederate Government.
I remember well riding through a beautiful and fertile region with my twelve rangers to the well-tilled and comfortable farm of Mr. R. T——.
We found the old gentleman in his front portico.
He was a fat and robust man.
His red face and rotund appearance, bespake a thrifty agriculturalist.
Everything about his domicile indicated ease, comfort, and plenty.
Yet the first expression that escaped his lips proved beyond all controversy, that he was not happy.
Indeed, the Carthagenian had no stronger aversion to the Roman, than did this phlegmatic Quaker of Loudoun county, for the soldiers of Mosby’s command.
I rode directly up to the front door of the house and asked if he was the proprietor.
In reply to a direct and civil question, the old gentleman asked if we belonged to that infernal band of freebooters, cutthroats and thieves commanded by the rebel highwayman, Mosby.
The tone and gestures of the old man spoke more eloquently than his words.
I had often heard of the quiet disposition and peaceful doctrines of the staid and gentle sect, of which he was a leader and was not prepared to witness such electric sparks of anger as seemed to flash from the old man’s chin.
I gently informed him in as mild manner as possible that we came into his county for the simple and laudable purpose, of collecting from himself and other Union men, the government tax of one-tenth of the products of their farms, that I demanded the keys of his stables and barns, for the purpose of examining hay, corn, &c.; also, I desired him to feed our horses and men for a few days.
A sprightly imagination may possibly conceive the intensity of anger that kindled the ire of old Douglass, when Lord Marmion called him a liar; but no one can picture the extreme rage that exploded the temper of this demure old man, when he fully comprehended insult added to aggravated injury.
His chronic habit of economy was assaulted and his sense of prudence violently shocked, at the prospect of serious loss, and his pain was infinitely increased by the thought that the vile enemy inflicted the wrong.
The old man yelled with rage at the bare idea of rebel horses feeding upon his valuable grain.
He foamed at the mouth, stamped his feet, and exhibited more activity and vituperation than I had seen before in one of his advanced years.
He accused us of all the crimes known to the law, and declared vehemently, that he preferred instant death to the surrender of his property, and he promised to die before he would give up the keys to his corn-house.
I made the matter as plain as language could make it — that, in obedience to the orders of Colonel Mosby, we were compelled, no matter how painful the duty, to feed our horses and men at his expense for a few days, and send up to our headquarters one-tenth part of his crops as the tax he justly owed to his government.
This was more than Quaker flesh and Union spleen could bear.
He screamed with rage and leaped into the air like some powerful wild animal shot in the head.
He looked exceedingly comical, dressed as he was, in short breeches, heavy brogans, working jacket and broad-brimmed hat.
His chubby figure and grotesque costume, did not coincide with his active and extreme manifestations of indignation and anger.
He uttered whole volumes of abusive epithets with a rattling rapidity of sound, very much like that made by pouring a stream of dried beans upon a sonorous surface.
He wildly shouted in despair his fixed determination to die in defense of his corn-crib.
I endeavored to explain to the infuriated Quaker, that even death could not protect his corn-crib, or save his bacon, and that it was our duty, in obedience to orders, to take his provisions whether he lived or died, and as good soldiers and patriotic citizens, we had no especial objections to his dying whenever his duty or pleasure prompted the sacrifice he then contemplated.
I reminded him that he was at the mercy of the very men that he abused in such unmeasured and unreasonable terms, and suggested the propriety of prudence under the unhappy circumstances that environed himself and his coveted corn-crib.
In mercy to the old man I explained that even his death would not diminish the exact amount of tax we were ordered to collect from him, and it would be the part of wisdom, for him to live longer and raise another crop, as we would probably pay him one more visit for the same purpose the coming year.
At this new insult he strutted awkwardly into the house and slammed the door with great energy behind him.
A few loud raps with the butt end of a heavy pistol, aroused him from his profound indignation and brought him to the porch again.
I now demanded the keys, with a warning that my men were becoming unmanageable, and I seriously apprehended that they would soon resent his insults in a manner to be deplored.
Trembling with anger and fear, he surrendered the keys, with the exclamation that God would inflict a distinct and terrible curse upon us for every ear of corn we dared to steal.
The men proceeded rapidly with their work of measuring the old man’s corn, while he poured out his vials of wrath and vituperation, upon all God-forsaken rebels in general and our little partisan flock in particular.
The dull sound of his corn, as it rattled into the rebel measure, was wormwood to his Union soul.
His rage seemed to wear itself out gradually as the deep sense of his loss, overspread his niggardly mind and parsimonious disposition.
The sensitive old miser, crouched down upon the steps of his corn-crib and wept as bitterly over the trivial loss of a few bushels of grain as a true patriot would, over the loss of his country’s rights.
When the rust of a metallic conscience oxidizes the microscopic soul of a contemptible miser, the sudden loss of a few pennies jars upon his sordid emotions with acutest agony.
The sentient nerve structure of a base nature, will vibrate only to the touch of pecuniary loss.
Such creatures feel no sympathy with the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
They care not for their kind, kindred, or country.
The old Quaker felt more acute pain at the loss of a few bushels of corn than the true patriot feels when he proudly offers up as a gift offering his gallant life upon the altar of his country’s honor.
The tears of a hungry crocodile make a respectable fluid compared with the lachrymal secretion of a chronic miser.
His paroxysm of passion had subsided into a wail of distress, when I again aroused his anger by demanding that my men should be provided with food.
This demand he stubbornly resisted, and declared that if the infernal hell-hounds entered his house they should enter “over his lifeless corpse.”
I solemnly assured him that we would have no real objection to doing so, if it was at all desirable to him; that we were disposed to be accommodating, and would endeavor to please him either dead or alive; and were not very particular on that point, as indeed it was a matter of absolute indifference; but we were determined to be fed for a few days at his expense.
I expressed the belief that he would find it more economical to prepare a dinner for the men, than to give up his keys to them — that we had no good cooks in our squad, and I feared they would be rather extravagant in an impromptu culinary enterprise.
He comprehended this reasonable suggestion, and agreed to prepare a dinner for his enemies.
Within less than two hours my order was obeyed, and a very excellent repast was ready for a dozen hungry partisans.
“that hell-bound robber, cut-throat and murderer, Colonel John S. Mosby”
After dinner it became my painful duty to make another very unpleasant proposition to our antipathetic host.
“Mr. T——, we are compelled to avail ourselves of your hospitality for the night.
You will please prepare room and beds for twelve.”
When I uttered this sentiment, or “words to that effect,” a torpedo under a camp-meeting would scarcely cause more confusion, consternation and noise.
Even the ladies of this quiet abode manifested a lively interest against us.
They gathered around a small table in the room in which we had dined, and by a given signal from the head of the household, that sounded like the discontented grunt of a wild boar in distress, this interesting family group, knelt down and prayed.
The old man led off in a devout growl; followed in indistinct murmurs by the younger and lesser members of this delectable group.
The head of the house devoutly asked the merciful Ruler of the universe to condescend, in the infinitude of his power and mercy, to damn every rebel in the world; and, if he ran short of general curses, to please be kind enough to specially damn, without the power of revocation or appeal, the infernal devils in gray uniforms commanded by that hell-bound robber, cut-throat and murderer, Colonel John S. Mosby.
The good Lord was petitioned, in most pious accents, not to spare any rebel; but if, in the discretion of Divine wisdom, anybody had to be spared the endless torments of a perennial hell, “do, good Lord, visit the extreme terrors of your chastening wrath, upon those unconscionable scoundrels that stole our corn.”
In three previous Picket Line entries (, , & ) I’ve included excerpts from Stephen B. Weeks’s Southern Quakers and Slavery: A Study in Institutional History () concerning Quaker tax resistance in the years before, during, and after the American Revolution.
Today, an excerpt that covers the Civil War period:
In , a conscription act passed the Confederate Congress which ordered every man between eighteen and thirty-five into the army.
The North Carolina Meeting for sufferings had a called session and drew up memorials to the State Convention and to the Confederate Congress.
The latter was presented by John Carter and Nereus Mendenhall.
It was laid before the Senate by Hon. William T. Dortch and before the House by Hon. J.
R. McLean.
The committee continue: “We were treated with respect by every one with whom we conversed on the subject, and by some, with tenderness of feeling.
We may particularly mention William B. Preston, of Virginia, chairman of the committee on military affairs for the Senate, and William Porcher Miles, chairman of a similar committee for the House.
On an interview with the former, he told us to make ourselves entirely easy on the subject; that the Senate committee, in acting upon it, were unanimously in favor of recommending an entire exemption.
He said that some were for requiring us to furnish substitutes, but that he was well aware that we could not conscientiously do that, and that nothing but a clear and full exemption would meet our scruples.
Miles, chairman of House committee, invited us to a hearing, in their room, before the committee at large, and took pains to arrange the sittings as much as possible to suit our convenience.
We here had the very acceptable company and assistance of John B. Crenshaw, who labored faithfully in word and doctrine.”
They did not secure what they desired, however. Friends were exempted from
military service by Congress only on the payment of $500 each into the
public treasury. Strictly, to the Quakers this was no favor at all, for they
were no more willing to pay the fine than to go into the army itself. In
taking action on this proposed exemption the committee report: “While,
in accordance with the advice issued by 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 this
specific tax, it being imposed upon us on account of our principles, being
the price exacted of us for religious liberty.” To this statement of
principle they add: “Yet do we 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 where parents, moved by sympathy, or young men
themselves dreading the evils of a military camp, have availed themselves of
this law, that they be treated in a tender manner.”
Here, a footnote:
Some North Carolina Quakers who went to Indiana to escape being conscripted into the Confederate Army found themselves drafted into the Federal Army, and had to pay an exemption fine to keep out of service.
One of these was Albert W. Brown, of Northampton County.
Hon. George
W. Julian writes me, under
, concerning the
Indiana Quakers: “The large body of Quakers whose Yearly Meetings are held in
Richmond not only have a good anti-slavery record, but a record for
patriotism. I think it is conceded that in proportion to their number they
had more soldiers in the war for the Union than any other religious
denomination.”
Weeks continues:
It is reasonable to conclude from the tone of this report that those Friends who preferred to clear themselves by paying the requisite sum were not held to a strict account by the Society.
But there were cases where Friends declined to pay the ransom, and to escape conscription were compelled to hide in the woods in caves, or “dug-outs,” and were subject to no little hardship.
There were also cases where Friends were drafted into the army and on their refusal to perform military duty were treated harshly, even cruelly, but it is probable that such instances were few in number.
The class to suffer most were those who were convinced of Friends’
principles after the beginning of the war. The Society was thus liable to
become a refuge for men who were for any reason unwilling to fight, and the
term “war Quaker” became a term of reproach. No provision had
been made for them under the Confederate exemption act, and we have record
of several cases of much suffering. It is but just to say, however, that the
Society did not allow itself to become a refuge for men whom it thought to
be insincere, and that many of these newly-convinced Friends remained
faithful to the cause which they had espoused.
And here, another footnote:
See… Sufferings of Friends, , and an interesting article on The Cave Dwellers of the Confederacy (Atlantic Monthly, ), by David Dodge (O.
W. Blacknall).
The fortune of Southern Quakers has been treated exhaustively by Fernando G. Cartland in his Southern Heroes or the Friends in War Time (Cambridge, ), 8°, pp. 480, with portraits; and in novel form by Lydia C. Wood in The Haydock’s Testimony (Philadelphia, ).
I’ll reproduce sections from Cartland’s and Wood’s books in later Picket Line entries.
See The Picket Line for for the Cartland excerpts, and for the Wood excerpts.
Fernando Gale Cartland, in his book Southern Heroes: The Friends in War Time, tells how Quakers in the Confederate states coped with the military draft, exemption fees, and war taxes.
We have learned that the appeal to the Confederate Congress was so far considered by that body as to result in the passage of an act exempting Friends from military service, if they were at that time members of the Friends church, upon the payment of five hundred dollars each.
The following is a copy of the act:
Laws Relating to Non-Combatants
Orders from the Adjutant and Inspector General’s office, .
Sec. Ⅶ.
Friends, Dunkards, Nazarenes, and Mennonites.
All persons of the above denominations, in regular membership therein on , shall be exempt from enrollment on furnishing a substitute, or on presenting to the enrolling officer a receipt from a bonded quartermaster for the tax of five hundred dollars imposed by act of Congress, and an affidavit by the bishop, presiding elder or other officer whose duty it is to preserve the records of membership in the denomination to which the party belongs, setting forth distinctly the fact that the party, on , was in regular membership with such denomination.
The affidavit must be taken and certified before a justice of the peace or other officer appointed by the law of his State to administer oaths, and his authority to administer oaths must be certified by the clerk of a court of record, under the seal of the court.
All assistant-quartermasters to whom the said tax is tendered will receipt for it, and pay the same into the treasury of the Confederate States without unreasonable delay.
The enrolling officer will receive the receipt and forward it to the commandant of conscripts, by whom it will be forwarded to the quarter master-general, who will charge the assistant-quartermaster with the amount received by him.
“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”
The first meeting of North Carolina Yearly Meeting of Friends, following the passage of this bill, was held at New Garden, Guilford County, in .
It took this subject into consideration and made the following minute expressing its united judgment:
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.
Notwithstanding this declaration of the yearly meeting, many of the members did, sooner or later, pay the exemption tax; and the yearly meeting, having officially cleared itself of responsibility, was not disposed to censure those who felt freedom of conscience so to do.
We may recognize how great a temptation it was thus to purchase freedom from prison and severe suffering, when we consider that, on account of the depreciation in the value of Confederate money, the tax demanded was finally not more than the price of a barrel of flour or even of a pair of boots.
There were, however, many Friends who would not purchase their liberty, even at so small a cost.
Their consciences were unyielding, and rather than disobey what they understood to be God s command to them, they chose to suffer persecution, yea, death itself.
Upon these, therefore, and upon those who joined Friends meetings after the exemption act was passed the trial came most severely; and the test to which the principles of Friends were put in this particular exceeded in severity any ever known, even that of the great Irish rebellion in 1684, during which the lives of only two Friends were taken, and they had sacrificed their principles and resorted to arms.
Last year I shared some excerpts from Joshua Maule’s book Transactions and Changes in the Society of Friends, and Incidents in the Life and Experience of Joshua Maule.
These concerned Maule’s frustrating efforts to get his fellow-Quakers to take a strong stand against paying war taxes.
One paragraph from these excerpts, from , concerned Ann Branson, one of Maule’s allies in this:
Ann Branson was at our meeting at one time when this matter was under discussion, and, the shutters being opened at her request, she directed her communication very much towards it.
She compared those who were paying and encouraging others to pay the war money to the man with an unclean spirit, “who came out of the tombs;” and said it was a “swinish spirit” that promoted this evil work, declaring that the covering would be stripped off them; and, suiting the action to the word, she stripped her shawl from her shoulders.
“Some, and I believe most, consider it better to pay, than suffer, or contend.
Oh, what a breach!”
Branson’s journal was published in , and it tells her opinions on the subject in her words:
— … I told Friends that I had been held captive amongst them week after week, whilst my face had been covered, that I had not seen the ground, or cause of my tarriance, or exercises; that I had to bear my own burdens, and dig through a wall of opposition in order to walk in the obedience of faith; but now I believed it right for me to tell them, that it had appeared to me that I was set for a sign amongst them.
Many no doubt querying, What do you?
Why tarry you so long amongst us?
What good can such a strange and unaccountable act as that of keeping your Minute so long, do?
But now it was for me to tell them, that unless there was a deepening in the root of life and speedily turning to the Lord, they would go into captivity, even the princes of the people, and die there, though they should see it, or know it.
That this vision concerns the princes of Jerusalem, and all the house of Israel that are with them.
Sampson was a strong man, a judge in Israel, but through the importunity of Delilah, he was shorn of his strength, and those who were in any way compromising our precious testimony against war were in danger of being shorn of their strength, and those who could pay a bounty tax to induce volunteers to join the army, had already some of their seven locks taken off.
I knew of none in that meeting that had done so, but if there were any, they were in a dangerous situation.
Much more I had to say in the way of warning, counsel and encouragement, to turn with the whole heart to the Lord.
.— Received a few lines this morning from a leading Friend of this meeting, saying, that he believed my communication yesterday towards the close of their Monthly Meeting, was in the authority of Truth, and partly, if not altogether for himself.
That he had been drawn into a snare to pay the bounty tax, not only for himself, but for several of his friends; that no act of his life had given him so much uneasiness, though it was altogether unintentional, when he went to pay his common tax, to pay the bounty; yet for want of making proper investigation into the matter, and not properly keeping the watch, he had been drawn into the snare, and balked that precious testimony, which he ought to have been the first, or amongst the first, to have supported.
Friends have now in the limits of that Monthly Meeting, with one exception, paid the bounty tax upon whom it was levied; several not living in that county (Jefferson) of course not included in the number, or implicated in this breach of our Christian testimony; but some, and I believe most, consider it better to pay, than suffer, or contend.
Oh, what a breach!
Though several Friends, for whom the tax had been paid, as before stated, were very much tried and distressed therewith.
May the Lord heal the wounds that have through unwatchfulness been made.
After the American Civil War ended, Nathan F. Spencer compiled An Account of the Sufferings of Friends of North Carolina Yearly Meeting in Support of Their Testimony Against War .
Here are some excerpts concerning Quakers who were persecuted and abused for refusing to pay militia exemption fines:
It was not until the summer of that the great and general trial came.
By the passage of a Conscription Act in the Confederate Congress, in , every man between eighteen and thirty-five years of age was required to enter the army.
This Act, as early as , was made to include all between the ages of eighteen and forty-five; and finally, in , all between seventeen and fifty years of age.
Meantime, in , Friends had petitioned both the State Assembly and the Confederate Congress for relief.
The State Government first passed an Act of Exemption, releasing them from military duty upon the payment of one hundred dollars each, and on a similar bill passed the Congress at Richmond, which exempted all who were members at upon the payment of five hundred dollars.
“Such were the heroes of the Army of Peace!
Who shall estimate the power of such examples?”
Unlike our Friends in the Northern States, it was not upon a few that the trial came; but upon the many.
And in another more important respect our positions differed widely.
In our own case, the existing Government and the officers who executed its will, were far from having sympathy with us.
We were still loyal at heart to the Government of the United States, and though submitting passively to a temporary usurpation, this was little merit in a community that called for the utmost zeal in the new cause.
We testified against slavery, and in the fresh effort to establish it more firmly this was no small offence.
Above all, we could not fight, and with the spirit of war so rampant in our midst, that the preaching of the Gospel of Peace gave way in almost every place of worship to a call to arms, the hatred and malice thus aroused fell with much violence upon us.
In proceeding to give some details of the consequent suffering, it may be well, for the sake of clearness, to group them under three heads, viz.:
Cases of suffering previous to passage of the Exemption Act, or under irregular proceedings.
Cases among the Newly Convinced Members, on whom the persecution fell most heavily.
Cases of those who could not conscientiously pay the Exemption Tax.
Skipping ahead to the third of these…
We come now, under the third division, to cases of still greater suffering, and under circumstances which gave the closest possible test of fidelity to Christ as the Prince of Peace.
Some Friends accepted the provisions of the Exemption Act; others again could not conscientiously do so.
The Yearly Meeting of , adopted the following Minute upon the subject:
We have had the subject under serious consideration, and while, in accordance with the advice issued by 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, being 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, moved by sympathy, or young men themselves, dreading the evils of a military camp, who have availed themselves of this law, be treated in a tender manner.
In the Spring of two brothers, H.M.H. and J.D.H. were drafted, arrested and taken to Raleigh.…
These were Himelius and Jesse Hockett (William B. Hockett is also mentioned later on).
See The Picket Line, for Himelius Hockett’s own take on this.
…Being allowed to return home for ten days they faithfully reappeared.
They were soon sent to Weldon, where they were required to drill, and were warned of their liability to be shot if they proved refractory.
They were, however, only kept in close custody in the guard-house, and the next month were discharged and sent home.
About a year after this, they were included in the Conscription.
They were assigned to an artillery company at Kinston, and after various threats were sent to Gen. R[ansom], who declared that his orders should be carried out at all hazards.
They were now confined in an upper room without food or drink.
Various persons were allowed to converse with them, and, as day after day passed on, so far from sinking under the suffering, they used their little remaining strength gladly in explaining their testimony, and telling of their inward consolation.
They felt that, in this time of fiery trial, this did indeed turn to them for a testimony, and that they knew the promise fulfilled.
“It shall be given you in that same hour what you shall speak.”
Their sufferings from thirst were the most acute.
On the third night the brothers were wakened from a peaceful sleep by the sound of rain.
A little cup had been left in their room, and from the open window they could soon have refreshed themselves.
The first thought of each was to do so.
They were in nowise bound to concur in this inhuman punishment.
Yet an impression was clearly made upon their minds, before consulting each other, that they must withhold, and they scarcely felt the copious showers tempt them.
The next morning several officers entered the room and questioned them closely.
They claimed it to be impossible for them to retain so much strength without any food, and charged them with having secretly obtained it.
They then, in much simplicity, told them of their not feeling easy to take even the rain that fell.
This evidently touched the hearts of the officers.
Soon after the end of four and a half days’ abstinence, a little water was allowed, and about the end of five days their rations were furnished again.
This remarkable circumstance was widely spread and they had constant opportunities of bearing an open testimony to Christ, and not a few of those who crowded around, appeared to be persuaded of the truth which they held.
Even ministers of different denominations came and encouraged them to be faithful.
J.D.H. was next taken before General D[aniel], who said he would not require him to bear arms, but would set him in the front of the battle, and use him to stop bullets.
On declining to work on the streets as a part of the soldier’s duty, he had a log of wood tied on his shoulders and was marched around until quite exhausted.
He was next sent to a guard-house, then placed in a dungeon for a day — then in a prison cell.
His persecutors seemed at their wits’ end, but they finally devised a rude and barbarous punishment.
A forked pole was thrust round his neck, and upon the prongs, as they projected behind it, a heavy block of wood was fastened.
This they blasphemously called the Cross of Christ.
The soldiers and town’s-people were looking on, while he was thus “made a gazing stock by reproaches and afflictions.”
No sooner had the Captain fairly completed this work than in a rage he pulled it off again, and tied another log upon his shoulder, and marched him about till exhausted, when he was sent back to jail.
Meantime his brother H. had been enduring a different punishment.
At three different times he was suspended by his thumbs, with his feet barely touching the ground upon the toes, and kept in this excruciating position for nearly two hours each time.
They next tried the bayonet.
Their orders were, they said, to thrust them in four inches deep; but, though much scarred and pierced, it was not so severely done as they had threatened.
One of the men, after thus wounding him, came back to entreat his forgiveness.
In the various changes of the next four months, some kindness was occasionally shown to them, hut mingled with much cruelty.
It was not till seven months had been passed in these fiery ordeals, that their release was obtained — another Friend thinking it right to pay their exemption money for them.
The value of this tax, at that time, was only equal to a little more than a barrel of flour — a small sum indeed, could they have felt themselves easy to avail themselves of this provision.
It was no small addition to their sufferings that their families at home were sharing in it.
In the extreme scarcity of labor, their wives were compelled to toil hard in the fields to raise the food for the coming winter, and this proved not merely a passing hardship, but left one of them in greatly enfeebled health.
Another brother of the same family, W.B.H. was arrested on the .
The officers to whose division he was assigned, were unusually rough and severe.
Finally, after a full explanation of his views and the necessity he was under of refusing all military duties whatsoever, the Colonel said he should be shot, and the only favor allowed should be the choice of time — that night or the next morning.
After a little pause, W.H. replied, that if it was his Heavenly Father’s will that he should lay down his life, he would far rather do it than disobey one of his commands.
But if it was not His will, none of them could take his life from him; however, they might give the order to do so.
He then spoke of the three men who were cast into the burning fiery furnace, and of Daniel in the lions’ den, who all trusted in God, and He delivered them.
As to the time of his death, he could make no choice.
The officer seemed greatly at a loss, and sent him to the wagon yard for the night.
The next morning he was ordered out with a foraging party.
He explained that he had two objections to this.
It was, in the first place, military work, and besides, it was taking the property of others.
The Colonel, now greatly excited, came forward and had him laid on the ground, while a gun was tied to his back.
He refused to rise with it on.
The men were then ordered to run their bayonets into him, but they continued only to pierce his clothes.
A squad of men was then drawn up in readiness to fire; but as the order was about being given W.H. raised his arms and said, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Not a gun was fired, and some of the men were heard saying, “They could not shoot such a man.”
The enraged officer struck at his head, but missed his aim.
He then spurred his horse repeatedly to ride over him, but the horse sprang aside at each attempt, and he remained unharmed.
The officer then left, saying, he was not yet done with him — but was himself killed the same or next day in the battle of Gettysburg.
As W.H. was sick at the time of this battle, no attempt was made to force him into it.
He found in the retreat, with which he was unable to keep up, a shelter and kind care at a farm house, but was soon taken prisoner by the Union Cavalry and sent to Fort Delaware, as a rebel prisoner.
He had been ill there a week before a message could reach Philadelphia.
Application was at once made at Washington, and a telegram was promptly dispatched from the War Office ordering his release upon taking an affirmation of allegiance to the United States.
But loyal as he had ever been, he could not promise “to support, protect and defend” the Constitution and Government.
He had already suffered too much and been too marvelously preserved to flinch now from bearing any portion of his testimony.
He was told, while thus apparently upon the eve of his release, that there were two alternatives — this affirmation or imprisonment until the close of the war.
But upon a fuller explanation of the nature of his scruples, an alteration was promptly made in the form of the affirmation.
He was released, and like many others, found a home in the West till the close of the war allowed him to return to his beloved family.
The God whom be served had indeed been able to deliver him.
At the same time that W.B.H. was arrested, four others, having a birth-right membership with us, and opposed to the payment of the Tax, were taken by force from their homes in Randolph County, C. and A.B., brothers, and T. and J.H., also brothers, and cousins of the former.…
In Fernando Gale Cartland’s Southern Heroes, these people are described as “Two brothers, Thomas and Amos Hinshaw, and two Barker brothers, Cyrus and Nathan, their cousins” (see The Picket Line, ).
Othersources list the four as Thomas & Jacob Hinshaw, and Cyrus & Nathan Barker.
I don’t know the reason for these discrepancies.
…Although detained in the army for nine months, they suffered comparatively little from the cruelty of officers; yet the uncertainty of their lot, and the painful surroundings of camp life, kept them in constant dependence upon the care and loving kindness of their Lord.
On their passage from Weldon to Camp French, near Blackwater, Va. the Conscripts were packed standing so closely in a car, that they could only rest themselves by leaning on each other’s knees, and were kept in this way without water, and with only the little food a few chanced to have with them for nearly twenty-four hours.
They were assigned to the 52nd N.C. Regiment.
On declining to drill, they were entreated to pay the commutation tax, and were assured that their money should be used only for civil purposes.
They steadily urged that liberty of conscience ought not to be purchased in any way.
The Colonel then assigned them to Captain K[incade], and from him and his company their quiet and consistent course won unexpected favor.
The Lieutenant, however, for a time was very harsh, and ordered his men to compel them with guns and bayonets to aid in clearing ground for a camp.
He was just ordering two men to press steadily upon them with the points of their bayonets, until they moved, an order which they contrived to evade for a few moments, injuring them but slightly, — when Captain K. appeared, and reproving the Lieutenant, told them they might remain quiet for that time.
As they trusted in the Lord, He often turned the hearts of their commanders, so that even this same Lieutenant became kind and considerate.
All sorts of work were offered to them, cooking, waiting on the sick, etc. But though willing to do the work itself, they could not accept such labor as military service.
At one time they were ordered to help bring in some fodder.
On refusing, they were first fastened together and then tied behind a cart, so as to force them to run or be dragged three or four miles and back, through mud and water, upon a very cold day.
If they still refused to load the fodder, the order was to pitch them into the river, — but such orders were more easily given than executed.
Even the wagon master, who at first seemed fierce, relented, and after watching them pass through this humiliating trial, declared he could not help respecting men who stood up to their principles in that way.
Their presence in the army became more and more perplexing.
The wish was expressed that they would run away, but this they would not do.
Furloughs were often given, and a written endorsement on one of these assigned as a reason for it, that “they were of no manner of use in the army.”
At the battle of Gettysburg, their prayers were heard, and though often ordered to the front, they were never forced to go.
They shared the same lot as their friend W.B.H. and were released from Fort Delaware by the same order.
Such were the heroes of the Army of Peace!
Who shall estimate the power of such examples?
Volumes may be written upon the impolicy and evils of War, but how feeble are all words by the side of such quiet deeds wrought in the Grace of their Blessed Leader.
Most meekly, yet most nobly, did they keep the charge — “You therefore endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.”
Let it be remembered, they were in the hands of men whom slavery had long trained in the exercise of almost irresponsible power.
The many lawless and cruel threatenings which they endured exhibit this most clearly.
Such threats were not infrequently executed upon others.
Ethan Foster, in The Conscript Quakers: Being a Narrative of the Distress and Relief of Four Young Men from the Draft for the War in (), wrote of Quaker efforts to lobby the Lincoln administration for better treatment of conscientious objectors.
“Why don’t the Quakers fight?”
Soon after we entered the War Office, the Secretary of State (William H. Seward) came in and took a seat.
He remained silent until our conference with Secretary Stanton was concluded; when Charles Perry (who had an impression that Seward, when Governor of New York, had recommended the passage of a law to exempt from military service those who were conscientiously opposed to war) turned to him expecting a word of sympathy and encouragement, and remarked that he would perceive why we were there; upon which he suddenly and with much vehemence of manner asked, “Why don’t the Quakers fight?”
Charles replied, “Because they believe it wrong, and cannot do it with a clear conscience.”
He reprimanded us severely because we refused to fight.
After a little pause I said, “Well, if this world were all, perhaps we might take your advice;” to which he responded, “The way to get along well in the next world is to do your duty in this.”
I replied, “That is what we are trying to do; and now, I want to ask you one question, and I want you to answer it; whose prerogative is it to decide what my duty is, yours or mine?”
He did not answer the question, but became more angry and excited; asked, “Why, then, don’t you pay the commutation?”
We told him we could see no difference between the responsibility of doing an act ourselves and that of hiring another to do it for us.
On this he sprang from his seat and strided around in a circle of some eight or ten feet across, exclaiming, “Then I’ll pay it for you” and thrusting his hand into his coat pocket, added, “I’ll give you my check!”
And further on…
General Canby listened considerately to our plea, but said he thought we might pay the commutation without any sacrifice of principle; that it was put into the law purposely to meet such cases.
We replied that we could see no difference between taking up arms ourselves and hiring others to do it in our places; that by the law this commutation was to be used to hire a substitute.
In , in the middle of the United States Civil War, the United States Senate met and debated, among other things, Quaker conscientious objection.
They didn’t seem to be particularly well-informed as to the extent of or the reason for Quaker objection to paying military fines, but it’s interesting how much attention they gave the subject at such a time.
The following amendment to the conscription law was being considered:
That ministers of the gospel and members of religious denominations conscientiously opposed to the bearing of arms, and who are prohibited from doing so by the rules and articles of faith and practice of said religious denomination, may, when drafted into the military service, be considered non-combatants, and shall be assigned by the Secretary of War to do duty in the hospitals, or to the care of freedmen, or shall pay the sum of $300 to such person as the Secretary of War shall designate to receive it, to be applied to the benefit of the sick and wounded soldiers; and such drafted persons shall then be exempt from draft during the time for which they shall have been drafted.
John C. Ten Eyck
“We must not only relieve them from the draft, but from the liability of paying the commutation money”
Senator John C. Ten Eyck of New Jersey told his colleagues that this would not go far enough to satisfy Quaker conscientious objectors:
One of the objects of the amendment is to relieve the religious Society of Friends from the burden of this bill, and the Senator from Rhode Island has stated very truly the difficulties to which members of that society have been heretofore subjected, and the persecutions, to adopt his language, that have been heaped upon them in regard to the performance of military service.
If we intend to do them a favor and to relieve them from the consequences of this act, I respectfully submit that we must go further.
We must not only relieve them from the draft, but from the liability of paying the commutation money, for I have always understood that Friends, as they call themselves, not only object to the performance of military service, but to the payment of any fine or commutation in lieu thereof; and many of them, even who were possessed of large estates, have lain for months in jail rather than violate what they understood to be a principle of their faith by paying a miserable fine of from one to five dollars for not discharging military duty under the militia system in the several States.
I think it will not reach or answer the purpose that certain gentlemen have in view, to so amend this bill as to relieve them from the discharge of military service by the payment of the commutation.
In all the petitions and in all the proceedings as published coming from this very large respectable class of citizens in the United States, I have seen the objection raised to both features of the bill, and, to adopt their language, they bear testimony as strongly against the payment of the money as they do against going into the field.
So, without stating how I shall vote myself upon this amendment, I suggest that if we design to respect their conscientious scruples and to relieve them on account of them, we must relieve them also from the payment of the commutation money.
When this matter was before the Senate a year ago, I voted against relieving them.
James Harlan
“They say, ‘We might as well bear arms as hire a man to bear arms in our stead’ ”
Senator James Harlan of Iowa hoped that the clause allowing conscientious objectors to do hospital service might be acceptable to Quaker conscientious objectors:
I think the amendment, as modified, meets the case suggested by the Senator from New Jersey.
This amendment relieves the party drafted in the case named from military duty entirely, and provides that he may serve in the hospitals, or that in lieu of this hospital service he may pay a sum of money to be applied for the relief of sick and wounded soldiers.
The objection made by Friends to paying money has been to paying it as an equivalent for military service.
They say, “We might as well bear arms as hire a man to bear arms in our stead.”
This amendment, if I understand it, relieves them from the performance of military duty entirely, but it provides that they shall perform duty in the hospitals, and then gives them the alternative of paying money rather than performing this hospital service.
Henry B. Anthony
“These opinions may seem very absurd; I know they do, by Senators smiling around me; but they are opinions that have been entertained for two hundred years by as intelligent men as have ever spoken the English language”
Senator Henry B. Anthony of Rhode Island thought that maybe by hypothecating the militia exemption fine to humanitarian purposes they could evade Quaker scruples:
I would say, in justice to the scruples which the Friends have as to the payment of money, that I do not think they object to a military fine being collected from them by warrant of distress, as, I think, the lawyers call it, or by taxation.
They do not pay them voluntarily, but they do not go to prison rather than have their property levied upon.
But under the enrollment bill a man must either serve or pay $300 for the procuration of a substitute.
They can see a difference, but no great difference in principle, between serving themselves and hiring somebody else to serve for them.
The money which they pay is “for the procuration of substitutes.”
If the money could be appropriated to any hospital purposes, to any purpose towards which they can conscientiously contribute, they have no objection.
These opinions may seem very absurd; I know they do, by Senators smiling around me; but they are opinions that have been entertained for two hundred years by as intelligent men as have ever spoken the English language, and men have borne every persecution that the old martyrs ever bore in defense of these principles — educated, intelligent men; and I think we ought to respect them.
James H. Lane
“The attempt to collect money from the Quakers in lieu of military service will cost the Government ten dollars where they obtain one, if they get it at all”
Kansas Senator James H. Lane agreed with Senator Harlan that drafting Quakers to serve in hospitals was the answer:
I have had some dealings with the Quakers, and I desire to say… that it is perfectly ridiculous to attempt to force a Quaker into the ranks of the Army.
It cannot be done, or if you should succeed in doing it, he would be worthless as a soldier.
Besides, the attempt to collect money from the Quakers in lieu of military service will cost the Government ten dollars where they obtain one, if they get it at all.
It is a losing business to attempt to collect money from Quakers in lieu of military service.
But if you adopt the proposition of the Senator from Iowa, giving them the privilege of serving in hospitals, and permitting them to pay their money in lieu of hospital service, they will promptly and cheerfully come forward and pay that money, their conscientious scruples not being violated by such payment.
Lazarus W. Powell
“If a man cannot conscientiously go to war, and cannot conscientiously give money to carry on war, how can he conscientiously pay the taxes that the Government imposes for the purpose of carrying on the war?”
Senator Lazarus W. Powell thought either his colleagues or the Quakers or both must be crazy.
Ironically, perhaps, his characterization of the Quaker point-of-view was in many ways the most accurate yet.
And his reductio charging that paying taxes to a government that is conducting a war is no different from paying commutation fines to pay for a conscription substitute is, instead, a pithy argument for war tax resistance:
I was in favor of exempting Friends; but I cannot understand the subtle logic of gentlemen who seem to think that if you compel a Friend to pay $300 commutation money in lieu of hospital service he can do it conscientiously when he cannot pay the money in lieu of military service.
The hospital service is just as much an attendant upon war as any other service connected with the Army.
You frequently have to detail soldiers to attend to your sick and wounded.
Assigning them to hospital service and to military service is in effect the same.… How a man can conscientiously pay the taxes that the Government imposes for the purpose of raising men and paying them and buying munitions of war, when he cannot conscientiously pay the commutation money, is a matter that I cannot well comprehend.
I cannot see any difference.
If a man cannot conscientiously go to war, and cannot conscientiously give money to carry on war, how can he conscientiously pay the taxes that the Government imposes for the purpose of carrying on the war?
Why, sir, if a man can conscientiously pay the taxes, he can just as conscientiously pay commutation money.
As the law now stands, a man can exempt himself from military duty by paying commutation money.
That is but a form of taxation for the purpose of getting soldiers into your Army.
The money goes to hire substitutes or to pay bounties.
So the money that is raised by taxation is taken out of your Treasury for the purpose of paying bounties to soldiers and paying them their monthly stipend or wages.
Where is the difference?
There is none.
Senator Anthony thought the best approach might be to take advantage of the fact that Quakers typically would put up with distraints of their property without resistance:
I offer another amendment, to insert the following as new sections:
And be it further enacted, That any person drafted into the military service of the United States, who is conscientiously unable to perform military service, or pay commutation therefor, by reason of his religious scruples against bearing arms, may apply by petition to any judge of any court of the United States for the circuit or district wherein he resides, setting forth the facts; whereupon the said judge shall proceed summarily to hear and determine the case; and if it shall appear that such petition is true, and that such petitioner shall have maintained a consistent character in accordance with his well-known religious professions, incompatible with military service, the judge shall certify the fact to the board to enrollment for the enrollment district in which such petitioner shall reside, and upon the receipt of such certificate the board of enrollment shall take no further proceedings, nor shall any proceeding whatever be taken to enforce such conscientious person into the military service of the United States under that draft, or for the period of three years from the date of such certificate.
And be it further enacted, That at the time of issuing such certificate by a judge of the district or circuit court, as aforesaid, or as soon thereafter as practicable, such judge shall issue an order to the clerk of the district or circuit court of which he is the judge, to issue a warrant of distress directed to the marshal of the district, or to his deputy, against such conscientious person for the sum of $400, with all lawful costs upon the said petition and warrant, and the same shall be served by levying the same upon the goods, chattels, moneys, lands, and tenements of such conscientious person, and when recovered, the said penalty shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States, and the costs to the persons entitled to receive the same.
The effect of this amendment is, that a person conscientiously scrupulous against bearing arms is relieved from the obligation to pay $400 for the procuration of some other person to do that which he believes God has forbidden him to do, and provides that the fine shall be collected by warrant of distress.
He then submits to the law, the law takes his property, and he makes no complaint or opposition; but he is not required to do it voluntarily, and that is a great relief to the consciences of a great many intelligent men.…
James R. Doolittle
“I do not understand any Quaker in the world to object to ministering to the wants of those who are sick or who are wounded in war”
Mr. Doolittle. The bill as it stands does not require them to go as combatants at all, but simply gives them their choice, either to take care of the sick and wounded, or pay over their $400 for the purpose of providing for the wants of the sick and wounded.
I do not understand any Quaker in the world to object to ministering to the wants of those who are sick or who are wounded in war.
They are willing to do everything to alleviate the results of war.
What they object to is bearing arms and being instrumental in the killing of men themselves.
Mr. Anthony. A great many of them object to rendering any service which relieves another man from the obligation of that service and enables him to go into the Army.
Mr. Johnson. That is going too far.
Mr. Anthony. It is going too far, I know, but it is no further than very honest and very intelligent men go.
They have held these opinions, and their ancestors before them, for a great many years.
As it is the same thing to the Government, and will be a material relief to them, I cannot see any objection to the amendment.
Reverdy Johnson
“That is going too far”
Senator Ten Eyck tried to reassert his point:
Mr. President, I think these persons ought either to be exempted altogether or not exempted at all.
I have on my table a memorial placed there this morning, which comes from the meeting representing the Ohio Yearly Meeting of Friends, held at Damascus on , in which these memorialists state—
That the Society of Friends has from its rise been conscientious against fighting or bearing arms under any circumstances, or paying an equivalent in lieu thereof.
After stating the grounds of their belief, the memorial winds up by saying:
We therefore respectfully ask for exemption from military service, and from all penalties for the non-performance thereof.
Congress finally decided to go with the original plan of allowing conscientious objectors to be drafted into noncombatant roles or to pay a commutation fine.
The edition of The Advocate of Peace, which was put out by the American Peace Society, addressed Quaker war tax resistance, suggesting that it either went too far or not far enough:
“The right to use at will the force necessary for the execution of its laws lies at the bottom of all government as indispensable to its existence and effective power; and this right we as truly recognize by voting, or by paying ordinary taxes, as we should by the payment of military fines”
[W]hile unable to agree with the Friends on every point, we cannot withhold our admiration of their transparent sincerity, and unfaltering fidelity to principle.
Nor do we deem it at all inconsistent with this respect to submit a few queries for their consideration:—
1. Does consistency require peace men, believers in the incompatibility of war with the gospel, to decline the payment of money in lieu of military service?
They can pay, as merchants often do duties deemed excessive, under protest against the service as wrong; and the simple fact of their refusal for such a reason would bear their testimony against war as unmistakably as if they should go to the stake.
Is not this degree of scrupulosity quite superfluous?
In many other ways they are constantly testifying against war, and thus leave no doubt anywhere about their views on the subject.
The payment under protest of a fine or a commutation fee would answer precisely the same moral ends as a pertinacious refusal to accept what is meant by government as a kind concession to their scruples.
Would it not be better thus to requite its indulgence?
Would not God, as well as man, regard this as perfectly satisfactory?
2. If this be not so, we may well doubt whether we can consistently recognize civil government, as Quakers themselves do, by voting, and paying general taxes.
The right to use at will the force necessary for the execution of its laws, lies at the bottom of all government as indispensable to its existence and effective power; and this right we as truly recognize by voting, or by paying ordinary taxes, as we should by the payment of military fines.
Do not nine-tenths of our taxes confessedly go to pay war-expenses?
Is not our national debt all for this end?
Everybody knows it is; but shall peace men refuse on this ground to pay their taxes?
It seems to us just as right or just as wrong to do so, as it is to avoid military service by paying a military fine.
The Westbury, New York Monthly Meeting of the Society of Friends reported on what happened to one New York Quaker who refused to submit to the draft or to militia exemption fines:
The Monthly Meeting appointed a Committee to collect account of the sufferings of Friends in the maintenance of our Christian testimonies against war.
They found that quite a number of Friends were drafted for the army, but more were excused, and a few paid commutation fine.
One young man bore his testimony against war by refusing to comply to any military requisitions.
He resided at River Head, Long Island, and his name was Joseph G. Miller.
He was drafted in and required to appear at Jamaica, Long Island, and a pass sent him to use in the Railroad, but he did not feel at liberty to use it, and paid his own fare arriving in the morning of the day appointed, and was kept all day near the door of the Court House.
In the afternoon of the next day he was informed he must appear in nine days prepared to be enrolled as a soldier, or pay a fine of $300. In reply he said he could not pay the money, nor allow any one to do so for him, but would be there at the time appointed.
He reported at the time and was told as some other Friends had paid the fine, he was acting willfully to refuse to do so.
He showed our Book of Discipline and pointed out that portion on bearing arms and paying fines in lieu thereof.
He was then conducted to a house in the village where his clothes were exchanged for a soldier’s uniform.
He made no resistance, and was taken to a military board in the next room and was accosted by a man who had been active in the Court Room, and observed that he believed it to be the duty of every Christian to support the government, but a few words from Joseph, in reply to the question “What would become of the government and of us if we did not fight,” appeared to have such an effect upon him that at Joseph’s departure he took his hand and said, “If we could only feel as you do what a happy people we should be.
Hold fast to your trust in God and all will be well,” and then gave him his address with a request that he should write and inform him how he fared.
Our Friend was then taken to the camps on Rikers Island without an overcoat, as he was not permitted to take his own, and did not feel at liberty to wear a military one.
Having but one blanket, and being obliged to lie on the damp ground, he took severe cold from which he suffered much, as well as the severe treatment from officers because he would not observe the ordinary civility to them, which soldiers usually do.
But when it became known that he was a Friend acting from conscientious scruples their manner changed.
In about three weeks he was removed to Governors Island, and in time allowed to resume his own clothes and required to do nothing contrary to his feelings.
On he was liberated on parole.
He said his lot had not been cast in a barren place during his confinement of two months, but that his faith had been increased in the sufficiency of that Power which would enable all who submitted to its influence to experience themselves the fulfilment of the prophetic declaration “And the Lord shall judge among many people and rebuke strong Nations, and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”
The Haydocks’ Testimony is a novel by Lydia Cope
Wood that was “published by request of the Christian Arbitration and Peace
Society, Philadelphia” in . It concerns the
fate of Quaker conscientious objectors in the Confederacy during the American
Civil War, and one character refuses to pay military exemption fines. Here are
some excerpts:
…Several friends in the neighborhood had been drafted into the army quite
lately, some of whom had no objection to paying the Exemption tax, and thus
avoid engaging in bloodshed; but two of them did not feel free to avail
themselves of this way of escape and had gone with the soldiery, though
refusing to bear arms. This refusal either to pay what the Exemption Act
demanded, or to bear arms, excited much wrath among the soldiers with whom
they had to deal, and very rough treatment was bestowed upon those courageous
followers of Him whose teachings are to “Love your enemies, and pray for
those who despitefully use you” No loss of life had, however, befallen those
who steadfastly adhered to Christ’s precepts, and their confidence was
strengthened by such evidence of His protecting power.
James Haydock did not believe in paying the Exemption tax, and his wife
dreaded the possible attempt to force him to either give up his principles or
suffer for them.…
In giving an account of the experiences of Friends throughout the South
during the civil war, our story almost unavoidably assumes, the cast of a
religious controversy. And although it is as far as possible from our purpose
to arouse any antagonism in the many truly earnest Christians who hold
different views from those maintained by the Quakers, we cannot but put these
views, and the steadfast trust with which they were carried out, in the
strongest possible light. They were a vital matter with this people, and any
trivial handling of the subject would fail to give a true impression of the
feeling existing among them. We rejoice in the clear light of today, after
twenty-five years have been added to our national history, that many in all
Christian denominations are beginning to see the wickedness of war, and to
take their stand with the sect which has ever borne testimony against it,
suffering almost to the giving up of life, as many years before that time the
Friends had also suffered indignity and hardship for their belief in the
freedom of all mankind.
The next morning a Confederate officer rode up to the Haydock’s dwelling, and
with a courteous bow handed a folded paper to Frances Haydock who came
forward to ask what his errand might be. She took it with a sinking heart and
carried it to her husband. He opened the paper and read it slowly, while his
wife leaned over his shoulder and read likewise. It was an order to report at
Richmond for military service, or else to pay the Exemption tax, before the
next three days had passed.
James Haydock leaned back and looked up at his wife; her face was white, and
a pleading look was in her soft brown eyes; she stroked the wavy locks on his
forehead with the same caressing touch as of yore.
“James, will you not pay the tax and stay with us?” she asked.
“Would you have me do so?” he said, looking lovingly at her.
“Many of our Friends have done so,” she responded.
“I know, but what is your own feeling about it?” her husband persisted.
“Oh James, I cannot let you go,” Frances exclaimed, coming round in front of
her husband, who, rising, took her in his strong arms in a close embrace,
which, while telling her how inexpressibly hard it would be to leave her, in
some manner conveyed to her so clear an impression of the strength and power
of the Master they both served that she was calmed and comforted.
“I want us to see eye to eye in this matter, Frances, my wife,” James Haydock
said.
“We always have, James,” she replied, “and I will not fail you now. But, oh,
when will this horrible struggle be over and our country at peace once more?”
“In the Lord’s own time, Frances. He never forsakes those who trust in Him,
not one of our Friends have lost their lives.”
Mr. Gordon had served a year in the Southern army, had been
wounded, and was now unfit for further service. For some unknown reason Rosco
was not as yet drafted, and his frequent association with James Haydock had
so far convinced him of the evil of war, that he had never felt willing to
volunteer his services to the army. With perhaps a keener observation than
his father, Rosco Gordon perceived the shade that had fallen over the usually
serene face of his host.
“You are in trouble, Mr. Haydock?” he asked respectfully. “Is
any one ill?”
“No one, Rosco,” James Haydock replied, “but trial has come to us in common
with our neighbors and in three days I must go to Richmond.”
“I am awfully sorry to hear this, Mr. Haydock,” said the older
Gordon. “Why don’t you pay the Exemption tax and stay at home?”
“I cannot feel easy to do that,” replied James Haydock, “although many of our
Friends have, it seems to me like assisting in a strife that is altogether
opposed to our Lord’s teachings?”
“I do not see why you have to look at it in that way. Why the money goes for
provision, for blankets, for tobacco, for quantities of things that don’t
hurt anybody, but do them good. Come here, Miss Molly, good-morning to you,”
as the girl entered the room, “your good father thinks he must leave you, and
I want you to help me persuade him it is all nonsense.”
“You will not do that, I think,” said Molly, gravely.…
“You don’t want him to go, do you, Miss Molly?” pursued Mr.
Gordon.
“I would give all I have in the world to prevent it! What shall we do without
him?” the girl exclaimed vehemently, raising her eyes to meet those of Rosco
Gordon’s fixed on her with earnest sympathy; the bright sunshine lying on the
polished floor seemed to throw upward a gleam that kindled a glowing spark in
the light hazel eye of the young man.
“Can we do nothing to keep Mr. Haydock at home?” he asked.
“He shall not go,” asseverated Molly.
“The soldiers will take me I fear, Molly, whether I wish to go or not,” said
her father, tenderly regarding her.
“Oh, and what will they do to you?” she exclaimed in distress, rising and
walking to the window. Rosco followed, but she could neither talk nor listen
to his attempts at consolation, and after Mr. Gordon had urged
James Haydock once more, to avail himself of the loop-hole offered by the
Exemption Act, the visitors mounted their horses and rode away. Just before
leaving, old Mr. Gordon whispered to Molly:
“We will pay the tax for your father, my dear, and keep him here in spite of
himself.”
“Thank you; he would not allow it. You are very kind, but it is no use,”
Molly said sadly.
…toward noon, a band of gray-clad soldiers appeared coming up the avenue
leading to the Haydock homestead; they halted at the porch and one of them,
seemingly the captain, dismounted and went up the steps, bringing dismay to
the hearts of Frances Haydock and her daughter. A knock, neither gentle nor
hesitating, was answered by James Haydock himself.
“You’re Mr. Haydock, I take it?” said the soldier, bowing with
some politeness of manner as the tall dignified figure confronted him.
“That is my name,” was the reply.
“Well, sir, I’m sorry to say it, but you must shoulder your musket and come
with us to Richmond at once. We have a horse ready for you.”
“I will accompany you, but I can neither take arms nor engage in army
service,” said James Haydock.
“I suppose you’re a Quaker,” said the Confederate officer. “Well, you’ll just
have to put your objections in your pocket now, and join the service like
every other decent man has to. Here is your horse, sir. Have you any traps?”
Frances Haydock brought out the small bundle she had prepared for her
husband; there was no emotion that threatened to overcome her just now, but a
wonderfully calm and uplifted feeling. It had been with her since their
morning waiting before the Lord, when they had given themselves to His all
powerful protection, and felt His almost visible presence.
“Tom, bring up that horse; now, sir, here’s your musket; take it if you
please.”
James Haydock mounted the horse, but the musket remained untouched.
“Why don’t you take it?” exclaimed the captain. “Come, we have no time to
waste. Don’t you mean to shoulder it? Remember you are under orders now.”
“I am under orders, but of a higher captain than this world generally
acknowledges. He tells me not to shed blood, and I cannot disobey His
commands.”
“All confounded nonsense,” impatiently responded the captain. “Still, I am
mighty sorry for you all,” he said looking at the family grouped in silence
on the piazza, Molly’s arm around her mother’s waist, who, however, hardly
looked as if she needed support, but would rather impart strength to others.
John’s blue eyes flashed, and he grasped the hatchet with which he had just
been cutting wood with a clutch indicating he would like to use it on
different material than cedar and light pine.
“Can’t you pay the Exemption fee and stay at home?” asked the officer. “I’ll
take that gladly.”
“Thanks for the willingness, but I do not feel easy to do it; it all comes to
the same thing,” was the response.
“I don’t see that; but if you won’t pay, just take your musket and come
along.”
Still the musket was not accepted…
Long and weary for James Haydock was the journey to Richmond. At first the
soldiers taunted and annoyed him in every possible way, but the gentleness
with which this treatment was received and the various little helpful actions
performed by him whenever opportunity offered, at last won the tolerance, if
not the regard, of his companions; and when he went with the captain to
report at Richmond to the authorities who were to decide into which regiment
he was to be detailed, there was no attempt made to prejudice the officers
against him; in fact, another offer was made, even urged upon him, of
obtaining immunity from service by paying the Exemption tax. This was,
however, distinctly refused and the officer in authority ordered him to be
placed in the —— regiment and sent to Petersburg, Virginia. It was at this
place that the mining and countermining of the Northern and Southern forces
ended later in a scene of such awful destruction that the name of Fort Hell
was given to one of the fortifications.
One of the more in-depth explanations of the Quaker position against paying commutation, bounty, or militia exemption fines, came from the Meeting for Sufferings of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in :
That it is a relief to be placed on the list of non-combatants is obvious; inasmuch as it releases from liability to be sent into the battle-field; but the law does not afford a mode of escape from military duty which our discipline acknowledges as consistent with the religious principles of Friends.
Believing that liberty of conscience is the gift of the Creator to man, Friends have ever refused to purchase the free exercise of it by the payment of any pecuniary or other commutation to any human authority.
From no other class of citizens is the payment of $300, the service in hospitals or among the Freedmen, required; and it is obviously in consequence of their conscientious scruple against war that these are demanded of Friends; and the payment of the money, or the performance of the service, would be an acknowledgment that human authority may abridge and control the Christian’s liberty of conscience, which our Society has ever denied.
The money, moreover, is only applicable to military purposes; and therefore paying it is violating our Christian testimony.
The long established Discipline of Friends prohibits such payment; declaring it to be “the judgment of the Yearly Meeting that,” if any of its members do, either openly or by connivance, pay any fine, penalty or tax in lieu of personal service for carrying on war “and are not brought to an acknowledgment of their error, Monthly Meetings should proceed to testify against them.”
This rule was confirmed and explained, a few years afterwards by another, which says: “It is the sense and judgment of this meeting that it is inconsistent with our religious testimony and principles for any Friends to pay a fine or tax levied on them on account of their refusal to serve in the militia, although such a fine or imposition may be applied toward defraying the expenses of civil government;” and it directs the same course to be pursued by monthly meetings, as in the former case, toward such as violate it.
In endeavoring to discharge the duties of their appointment; while the committee have been much aided and cheered by the kind consideration shown by the officers of the government; they have been pained to find that some of our members have compromised our peace principles by paying the penalty imposed; thus lowering our profession of religious scruple in the estimation of those in authority, and greatly adding to the embarrassment and difficulty of such members as could not, for conscience sake comply with the demand.
Another source of trial and discouragement to us has been that some members have subscribed to funds raised for the payment of bounties to Soldiers, and others have paid taxes levied and applied expressly for the same object; both which are clearly violations of our Christian testimony and discipline, and have tended to discourage and weaken the hands of faithful Friends, as well as to lessen the weight and influence of the Society when appealing to government for the relief of our drafted members.
If those who thus aid in hiring men to fight were transported to the field of battle, and could witness the angry passion engendered, see the soldier who was tempted to enlist, and hired for his work, in part by their money, dealing destruction around him, wounding, maiming, and killing men who are strangers to him; hear the piercing cries and groans of the poor sufferers, and perhaps behold the man himself sent from the murderous employ to his final reckoning; and witness the grief of the bereaved widows and the destitute orphans, in their desolate homes; surely they could not but lament that they had incurred the responsibility of helping forward the dreadful business, with its awful consequences.
Distance from the scene of action does not lessen their accountability.
A mystery I’ve been wanting to get to the bottom of is what happened to Quaker war tax resistance in the United States after the American Civil War.
There was a strong element of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends all the way through the war, but then it seemed to peter out, until by the turn of the century it seemed hardly to exist at all, and Quakers who took it up again in the late 20th century often seemed as though they were starting from scratch.
Here’s another data point, though it doesn’t seem to get us much closer to an answer.
It comes from an New York Times article reporting on a sermon by Oscar Hugo, a visiting protestant minister from Hungary.
Hugo was promoting the use of the Bible in public schools, and ridiculed those Catholics who were opposed to what they feared would be taxpayer-funded Protestant Bible study and indoctrination, and who felt it unfair to pay such a tax.
The speaker referred to the Quakers.
Did they refuse to pay the war tax because they do not believe in war?
No.
They knew the maintenance of the Army and Navy was necessary for the perpetuation of the country.
So, by , Quakers had become a case study in why war tax resistance was not a reasonable form of conscientious objection.
Remarkable!
I am sorry to hear of the sufferings of our friends in the army around Petersburgh, I hope their sufferings may soon be alleviated.
For the confederate Congress to require friends to be taken into the army or pay an annual tax of $500 of their surplus, and that too to the government or the soldiers wives, and that at schedule prices, it looks to me they have become perfectly reckless and have lost all regard for conscientious religious liberty or that they do not understand the position of Friends.
We cannot consistently with our principles pay said tax.
It is expected that the entire community of Quakers will object to pay the income-tax which is about to be levied as a war tax.
In years gone by the Quakers always refused to pay war taxes, and the collectors had frequently to distrain upon their property to recover the money.
Whether they will have to do so when the new tax comes to be collected remains to be seen.
This is after the point when war tax resistance seems to have mostly stopped or gone underground in American Quaker meetings.
On …
The [Woodstown Meeting] committee on suffering cases reported the amount of fines against eight Friends to be 4 pounds, 9 shillings, and 4 pence, and the amount of property taken from them to make that sum was 31 pounds, 16 shillings, 6 pence.
These fines were for non-attendance at muster on training day; in regard to which Friends of that day were concerned to bear a faithful testimony, neither could they consistently pay the fines.
A few years later a law was enacted exempting from military duty in time of peace all members of fire engine companies.
Many Friends availed themselves of this law and enrolled themselves as members of such associations, by this means avoiding military service and relieving themselves from needless extortions.
The Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature (volume 2, ) of London published a couple of letters on the subject of Quaker war tax resistance:
To the Editor of the Monthly Repository.
Sir,
I have been reading lately with great pleasure, “Clarkson’s Portraiture of Quakerism,” and though I am not sufficiently acquainted with the sect of the Quakers to form an idea of its likeness to the original, I confess I think it a beautiful picture.
But when I read the chapter on war, &c. I wished to have a Quaker by me to explain why they refuse to pay for a substitute if drawn in the militia, and yet pay, which I am informed they do, a tax avowedly styled a war tax, — namely, the tax on income!
As the Quakers are, we are now told, an informed, reading people, it is probable some of them may see this, and I will thank any one of them if he will, through the medium of your Magazine, explain this seeming inconsistency.
I am Sir, yours, P.M. Blackheath
To the Editor of the Monthly Repository.
Thy correspondent P.M. having in a friendly manner requested that one of the Quakers will “explain why they refuse to pay for a substitute drawn in the militia, and yet pay a tax avowedly styled a war tax, namely, the tax on income,” I will endeavour briefly to explain this seeming inconsistency, as it is termed by P.M.
The Quakers or rather Friends, as being the name by which they call themselves, have always believed it to be their duty to “render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s,” by paying all taxes levied for its support by the government under which they live, considering that the governors and not the governed are responsible for the application of such taxes.
The supposed difficulty occasioned by the specific avowal of the intended application of the income tax would not be removed by a refusal to pay that tax only, since there is scarcely a single tax, duty, or custom that was not originally exacted virtually, if not specifically, for the same object, neither can we suppose that the taxes paid to the corrupt and warlike government of Rome were less exceptionable in their appropriation, the payment of which was nevertheless authorized and enjoined by Christ and his apostles.
See Matt. ⅹⅶ.
24 to 27. ⅹⅻ.
21. Rom. ⅹⅲ.
6, 7.
The Friends’ objection to pay for a substitute in the militia rests upon the same ground as their refusal to be hired by government to kill their fellow men; for as in this latter case they would by their own personal act, violate their principle against war of every kind, so they consider it an equal violation of their principle to hire another man to kill and destroy in their stead.
In both these instances the act being all our own, by which we immediately promote and sanction “the sanguinary progress of human destruction that is going on in the world,” the responsibility is our’s also; whereas in the former case we conscientiously submit to the ordinance of our rulers who are placed over us for the salutary purposes of promoting the good and harmony of civil society.
If the means they employ be not always such as we can approve, still the object itself is good, (Rom. ⅹⅲ.
1 to 4.) and the responsibility rests with them.
The bill to enroll and call out the national forces, mentioned as having been passed by the U.S. Senate, was afterwards adopted by the House, with some amendments.
Stevens, of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment exempting from the draft persons conscientiously scrupulous against bearing arms, and who shall declare on oath or affirmation that such has been their religious principle for three years; but the proposition was rejected.
Committees from the Meeting for Sufferings in Philadelphia and the Representative Meeting of New York proceeded to Washington last week, with memorials to Congress, asking that Friends shall be exempted from the draft, also from the procurement of substitutes and from fines.
As the amendments in the House made the return of the bill to the Senate necessary, there was still an opportunity for the suggested change, but no disposition appeared on the part of the majority in Congress to grant exemption on religious considerations, and the law was finally enacted on
No provision is made for the collection, by distraint, of the amount required for furnishing a substitute; so that a person who cannot conscientiously bear arms, nor procure a substitute, or pay the amount required for one, will not be liable to a seizure of his property, but must suffer whatever penalty may be imposed upon him, as a deserter, by a court-martial.
His penalty may be “death, or such other punishment as by sentence of a court-martial shall be inflicted;” and relief can be obtained only through the clemency of the President.
The Friends’ Review of editorialized about a proposed Militia Law for Pennsylvania as follows:
On , a
leaden coffin, containing the mortal remains of one of the most illustrious
advocates and exemplars of the Peace principle, was deposited in a humble
grave at “Jordan’s” in Buckinghamshire, England. And
, a
proposition has been entertained in the State which he organized and
governed — in the city which he wisely planned — to bring hither the dust and
ashes of his cast-off garment, and to erect a splendid monument over the new
grave of one who has slept in Jesus for a century and a half.
And how does Pennsylvania vindicate her claim to the keeping of the mortal
remains of William Penn? Is it by the enactment of a law in direct violation
of those principles of religious liberty, for the exemplification, enjoyment,
and protection of which this Commonwealth was founded? A law against which he
would have solemnly protested, and oppressive to the consciences of his
successors in the faith of the gospel of peace. A law, too, applied specially
to the city of Penn, by which the goods of his co-religionists must be
distrained on their declinature to abandon a principle, which, it is
well-known, has been organic with them from the day
“When Pennsylvania’s founder led his band
From thy blue waters, Delaware, to press
The virgin verdure of the wilderness.”
Would not a manifestation of the respect entertained by Pennsylvania for her
founder seem equivocal at least, if not hollow and heartless, if its
expression should be in the two inconsistent and simultaneous acts of
spoiling the goods of the Quakers for a paltry war tax (this, too, in time of
peace), and expending more money than such tax would yield, in an
ostentatious monument to the memory of Penn, whose aspiration was not for the
praise of men?
The members of the Society of Friends do not base their claim for exemption
from military requisitions in any and every form upon the respect due to
William Penn. Their right to the free exercise of conscience, under both
National and State Constitutions, is fundamental, and lies deeper than any
statute. This right, not derived from but paramount to human enactments, was
distinctly guaranteed in the charter granted by William Penn, and is declared
involate by the bill of rights of the existing Constitution. Friends are a
Christian people, implicitly believing in the teachings of the holy Prince of
Peace. They hold an indubitable conviction that war is sinful — that it was
forbidden by our Lord — that it is contrary to the spirit and tenor of the
New Testament, and that it must be offensive to God. So believing, they can
neither bear arms, nor pay money for not doing so. They cannot implicate
themselves in any way in a military system. If their property is seized, they
do not resist, yet they regard it as persecution for conscience’ sake, and a
violation of their right to obey the Supreme authority which transcends all
human legislation. “To require it under legal penalties,” said Benjamin
Bates, “is to reduce them to the alternative of refusing a compliance with
the laws of their country, or of violating what they most solemnly believe is
to them a law of God, clothed with the most awful sanctions.”
Another article in the same issue reads as follows:
The Moravian makes the following very incomplete
statement:
The Friend, a Quaker paper published in
Philadelphia, complains that members of the sect are served with notices to
pay the State militia tax. It advises them to resist the demand as long as
possible.
This does not fairly state the case. Not resistance but
non-compliance is advised — and this not “as long as
possible,” but always, altogether, and at whatever sacrifice of
property. The Moravian has unintentionally conveyed
an erroneous impression. A Friend can no more, with a clear conscience, pay a
Militia-tax, than could the Moravian pay tribute to
the Pope of Rome. An instance of resistance to legal authority
cannot, we believe, be found in the annals of our religious Society. We are a
law-abiding people. We “render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.” We
may disapprove of a law and think it oppressive; still we are found among the
first to obey it, unless we are convinced that obedience will conflict with
our duty to God. And then — we peaceably and patiently (but not without
protest) bear the consequences of non-compliance. The advice given by
The Friend was “patient submission to wrong” — and
to “take cheerfully the distraint of their goods.” The editorial to which the
above summary reference is made, gave a clear and irrefutable reason for the
position taken — and in the same Journal of
the ground is logically sustained…
An act to compel the Quakers to perform military service, or to pay money in
lieu thereof, might properly be entitled, “An act for the extinction of
the Religious Society of Friends.” Such would be its effect if Friends,
as a whole, should comply with the requirement. The peace testimony, though
only one of the Society’s principles, is so connected with its Christian code
that
“One link broken, the whole chain’s destroyed.”
A letter-to-the-editor by “J.H.” from the Friends’ Intelligencer:
I am one of those (I suppose there are others), who have felt an extreme
unwillingness to help maintain our wars by the use of the revenue stamps,
which were legalized expressly for war uses. Our forefathers would have made
an emphatic protest against it, if indeed they would not have refused
entirely to use the stamps, and borne the consequences, whatever they might
have been. Within a day or two, in a letter from a young Friend, I observed
his feeling on the subject; he said that at least we could restrict the use
of checks (for example) wherever possible, and diminish in this way our
contributions to the war fund.
The History of Woman Suffrage (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Matilda Joslyn Gage, editors, ) has a chapter on Lucretia Mott based on a eulogy by Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Here are some excerpts that concern the influence on her from Quaker reformer Elias Hicks:
In our last conflict with Great Britain, Elias Hicks called the attention of “Friends” to a faithful support of their testimony against war and injustice, desiring them to maintain their Christian liberties against encroachment of the secular powers, laws haying been enacted levying taxes for the support of the war.
At one meeting there was considerable altercation; as some Friends who refused payment had been distrained some three or four fold more than the tax demanded, while others complied, paid the tax, and justified themselves in so doing.
On this point his mind was deeply exercised and he labored to encourage Friends to faithfulness to exalt their testimonies for the Prince of Peace.
Elias Hicks preached against slavery both in Maryland and Virginia.
He says of a meeting in Baltimore that he especially addressed slave-holders.
Further, he opposed the use of slave-grown goods.
At a meeting in Providence, R.I., he said he was moved to show the great and essential difference there is between the righteousness of man comprehended in his laws, customs, and traditions, and the righteousness of God which is comprehended in pure, impartial, unchangeable justice, They who continue this traffic, and enrich themselves, by the labor of these deeply oppressed Africans, violate these plain principles of justice, and no cunning sophistical reasoning in the wisdom of this world can justify them, or silence the convictions of conscience.
Some other Friends were much opposed to the use of slave products, but the Society in general “had no concern” on this point.
Lucretia Mott used “free goods,” and thought that Elias’ preaching such extreme doctrines on all these practical reforms, had their effect in the division.
To refuse to pay taxes, or to use any “slave produce,” involved more immediate and serious difficulties, than any theoretical views of the hereafter, and even Friends may be pardoned for feeling some interest in their own pecuniary independence.
To see their furniture, cattle, houses, lands, all swept away for exorbitant taxes, seemed worse than paying a moderate one to start with.
From these quotations from the great reformer and religious leader, we see how fully Mrs. Mott accepted his principles; not because they were his principles, for she called no man master, but because she felt them to be true.
In her diary she says:
My sympathy was early enlisted for the poor slave by the class-books read in our schools, and the pictures of the slave-ship, as published by Clarkson.
The ministry of Elias Hicks and others on the subject of the unrequited labor of slaves, and their example in refusing the products of slave labor, all had effect in awakening a strong feeling in their behalf.
…
The cause of Peace has had a share of my efforts; leading to the ultra non-resistance ground; that no Christian can consistently uphold a government based on the sword, or relying on that as an ultimate resort.
…
But the millions of down-trodden slaves in our land being the most oppressed class, I have felt bound to plead their cause, in season and out of season, to endeavor to put my soul in their souls’ stead, and to aid in every right effort for their immediate emancipation.
This duty was impressed upon me at the time I consecrated myself to that Gospel which anoints to “preach deliverance to the captive,” to “set at liberty them that are bruised.”
From that time the duty of abstinence, as far as practicable, from slave-grown products was so clear that I resolved to make the effort “to provide things honest” in this respect.
Since then, our family has been supplied with free labor, groceries, and to some extent, with cotton goods unstained by slavery.
…
In , a vigorous debate about war tax resistance hit the pages of the Friends’ Intelligencer.
You can find most of this in Volume ⅩⅩ at Google Books… with the exception of the opening article in the debate.
The two pages that contain that article are tantalizingly missing from the on-line volume.
I had to delve into the microfilm in the basement of the Berkeley university library this morning to find it.
First, some context: on , two years into the American Civil War, U.S. President Lincoln signed the Enrollment Act, which organized the first federal military draft in U.S. history.
The Friends’ Intelligencer debate is prompted by this Act, which allowed drafted men to either hire a substitute or to buy themselves out of the draft for $300. The long-standing Friends “discipline” instructed Quakers never to pay such a commutation tax, but, of course, neither could they serve in the military or hire a substitute.
Nathaniel Richardson, who was about 23-years-old at the time, opened the debate (he’s referred to as “N.R.” — “our friend from Byberry”).
The Intelligencer knew they were stirring up a hornets’ nest, and so prefaced Richardson’s piece with an introductory paragraph reading “The subject here brought into view… may be considered as a disputed point, and in giving this essay a place, we of course open our pages to other friends who may feel it right to offer their sentiments.”
I’ll reproduce the whole of Richardson’s argument below (since you can’t find it anywhere else on-line), but I’ll try to briefly summarize it here first:
I acknowledge that there is a Quaker testimony against paying war taxes and commutation money, but this tradition that we have been handed down from our ancestors is unsuited to the present crisis where we are surrounded by difficulties unknown in former times.
Past generations could uphold the testimony against paying war taxes and commutation money without encountering much serious difficulty aside from distraint of property or occasional imprisonment.
Now, though, Quakers who refuse to pay or to fight risk being shot as deserters.
So Quakers ought to closely examine their discipline and make sure it is strictly necessary to uphold their principles.
I think we can abandon this practice without violating our principles.
When the government demands money from us, they are asking for something — property — that is a creation of government.
It is the government’s to bestow or to demand just as surely as the coin with Cæsar’s image on it belonged to Cæsar.
If the government were to ask us to act in violation of our consciences, it would be overstepping its bounds, but not if it merely asks for the return of the property that it superintends.
Some Quakers argue that to pay money in lieu of military service would be a tacit agreement that the government has a right to compel such service (and that such an agreement is itself a violation of our peace testimony).
But this isn’t good reasoning, since, for instance, when somebody settles a lawsuit out of court by paying some portion of the suit’s demand just in order to avoid the expense going to court, nobody insists that this necessarily means that the lawsuit was valid.
Similarly there’s no contradiction between paying the $300 in order to avoid military service and believing that you shouldn’t have to pay to avoid military service.
In the following issue, “W.G.” wrote in to chide the Intelligencer for calling this “a disputed point,” since it was a firmly-settled part of the Quaker discipline that Quakers could not “either openly or by connivance pay any fine, penalty, or tax in lieu of personal service for carrying on war.”
The render-unto-Caesar episode, thinks W.G., doesn’t fit the case, since it did not involve a tax in lieu of personal service or one expressly for funding war.
, “H.S.K.” wrote in to dispute Richardson’s characterization of property as being solely an arbitrary creation of government and therefore the government’s to dispose of as it wills.
H.S.K. argues that since it is easy to come up with examples in which the government enforces property rights justly or unjustly, there must be a law of justice regarding property ownership that precedes and supersedes the arbitrary decisions of government.
Property may be defended (or threatened) by government, but it is not invented by government.
Because of this, Richardson must be wrong when he says that government requests for money are not questionable on grounds of justice.
My money, says H.S.K., “is an instrument of power just as certainly as is my right arm,” and I’m responsible for how I use that instrument.
H.S.K. also disputes Richardson’s lawsuit-settling analogy, saying that settling a lawsuit to avoid the expense of a court battle is a qualitatively different decision than paying a commutation tax to purchase a substitute to fight a war in your place, because avoiding expenses is a morally neutral thing while purchasing a substitute is not.
“What would we think of the moral rectitude of that man who would pay for the support of crime, merely to avoid litigation?”
Meanwhile, the draft proved to be very unpopular.
In mid-July, the New York City draft riots broke out.
One of the frequent complaints about the draft was that the $300 commutation fee allowed rich people to buy themselves out of the war, leaving the poor to fight their battle for them.
Gideon Frost continued the debate in the first issue of the Intelligencer.
He starts by saying that the published discipline of the Society of Friends is explicit and unambiguous about not permitting Friends to pay military exemption taxes.
It’s one thing to say that maybe Quakers ought to reconsider that part of their discipline, but it is improper, says Frost, to do as Richardson did and encourage Quakers to disregard it.
Frost thinks it is extremely unlikely that the U.S. government would actually shoot a Quaker for desertion because he refused to enlist, hire a substitute, or pay a commutation tax, so Richardson’s panic is unwarranted.
Frost also wonders if Richardson suggests Quakers who can afford to do so go ahead and pay the $300, what does he suggest for Quakers who cannot afford it?
Frost also disputes Richardson’s reading of the render-unto-Caesar episode.
He denies that Jesus’s reply suggested that all money belongs to Caesar, or that it has anything to do with a tax in lieu of government service or a tax to pay for war (after all, he suggests, the reign of the Caesar in question was “rather a pacific one”), or that what Jesus had to say about Caesar specifically can necessarily be extrapolated into a teaching about government in general.
“C.O.N.” then writes in, saying, in part, that the property the government seizes from tax resisters by distraint and then sells is just as useful to it in carrying out its war policy as cash money would be, so the practical effect is the same, with the only difference being in the resister’s conscience.
He recalls an episode from his youth when a tax collector came to seize property for such a military tax and, “out of what he professed to be a humane charitable feeling” confiscated money from an unlocked cash drawer instead, so as to cause “the least trouble and distress.”
“W.G.” wrote in again and put the argument this way: Quakers happily render unto Caesar what Caesar is due, but they have determined that Caesar is never due their military service.
Therefore, Caesar cannot be due the monetary equivalent of military service either.
A draftee wrote in next, saying that in spite of his sympathy for the Union cause, he cannot join in the war or pay the commutation money “or even the hundredth part of it” for this “would be bartering my conscience, a gift from heaven… it would be purchasing an ‘indulgence’ for the right of enjoying a divine principle.
It would be giving the means to others to purchase flesh and blood to take my place.
No! the ‘filthy lucre’ proposition on the score of principle is hypocrisy of the worst kind.”
“R.H.” put it this way:
“If Friends cannot themselves fight, it is wholly inconsistent for them to pay a fine or tax in lieu of it, as that would be an acknowledgment that the demand is just, and that liberty of conscience is not our due… Shall we pay our money, to save ourselves, our sons, or our friends, from going to the battle-field to slay, or to be slain, and lay down our testimony against this awful evil, war?”
Nathaniel Richardson then responded to his critics. In his view, when someone asks us for money, he says, the primary moral consideration is always, do you owe the money or not.
If you do owe it, you must pay it, and there is no reason to investigate further and try to decide whether the recipient will spend the money wisely or not before you hand it over.
So when the government asks us to pay a tax, all we should do is ask whether the law requires this tax from us, and if it does, we should pay it without inquiring further.
By doing this we in no way violate the laws of Christianity because “we make no contract, exercise no influence, and are in no respect accountable: we sacrifice no right of conscience.”
That added fresh fuel to the fire.
“Y.T.” replied next, warning that “to allow our money to be made use of to procure substitutes — for that is its meaning — would permit the taunt to be hurled at us that we were too cowardly to fight ourselves, but allowed others to be hired to fight in our places.”
“A.H.L.” noted that the Conscription Act explicitly says that the $300 commutation money is meant “for the procuration of [a] substitute,” and so to pay the money is just an indirect way of hiring a substitute to fight in your place, which everybody agrees is against Quaker principles.
He also disputes Richardson’s argument that the government can create an unquestionable monetary obligation by fiat.
Furthermore, he says there’s something rotten about trying to purchase a conscientious stand — “such a conscience as can be purchased with money and for an advertised price is not worth having.”
He then alludes to a “late decision” that if a conscientious objector refused to fight, hire a substitute, or pay a commutation fine, the amount of the fine would “be made a lien against the Society of which he may be a member.”
That, he says, puts Quakers in quite a spot, and he thinks that either they will stick by their principles, or, by abandoning them to save their meetings they will end up killing “the Society itself, as a true religious body.”
In , in order to finance the United States’ war effort in the American Civil War, Congress passed a tax law that included the first federal income tax and that gave birth to the Internal Revenue Service (or Bureau of Internal Revenue, as it was known at the time).
But the income tax was only one of the taxes specified by the law.
Also to be taxed were several categories of (mostly legal and financial) documents, medicines, playing cards, matches, photographs, and certain other consumer goods.
People paid the tax on these items by purchasing a tax stamp and affixing the stamp to the item to demonstrate that the tax had been paid — in much the same way that you see stamps affixed to cigarette packages today to indicate that the excise tax on tobacco has been paid.
After the war, in , most of the stamp taxes went away (except for stamps on bank checks), but a stamp tax returned in to help pay for the Spanish American War, and again during World War Ⅰ.
Seeing as how the stamp taxes were collected for the purpose of war funding, you would expect that there might have been some concern from Quaker quarters, though I haven’t seen much evidence of this.
…although it is known that the Income and Excise taxes are essentially war taxes, and that even the National currency in daily use was issued mainly if not exclusively to pay the expenses of the army and navy and other military demands, yet the payment of these taxes and the purchase and use of the Government notes, appear to be almost universally regarded by Friends as unavoidable.
As Friends, in common with other citizens, were happily exempt before the rebellion from the trouble and expense of using revenue stamps, we are not aware that there is any special advice in our American Disciplines on the subject.
That contained in the English Discipline may, however, be considered as now applicable in this country.
It is as follows: “The writing in books, or on invoices, or other unstamped paper, or the accepting of terms intended to convey the substance of what should be written on receipt stamps, is illegal, an is an evasion unworthy of the character of a member of our Society.
Where Friends observe, in any of their members, deviations in this respect from that uprightness which becomes us in every part of our conduct, we desire that they will extend tender private admonition on the subject, which will, we believe, be found the most effectual means of removing this occasion of concern.”
In other words: although these taxes are clearly war taxes, there is no easy way to straightforwardly avoid paying them, and any attempt to evade this tax sneakily would be unbecoming of a Quaker.
We sometimes look upon each red stamp that we spend on a bank check — a tax imposed by war — with the sad confession, “It is the price of blood.”
For every two cents which the demon of War extorts, shall we not assign at least an equal tribute to the Prince of Peace?
If by the professed Friends of Peace throughout our land the stamp tax were repeated to save the lives of these Christian standard-bearers, the amount would go far in tiding them over to a season of self-support.
I am one of those (I suppose there are others), who have felt an extreme unwillingness to help maintain our wars by the use of the revenue stamps, which were legalized expressly for war uses.
Our forefathers would have made an emphatic protest against it, if indeed they would not have refused entirely to use the stamps, and borne the consequences, whatever they might have been.
Within a day or two, in a letter from a young Friend, I observed his feeling on the subject; he said that at least we could restrict the use of checks (for example) wherever possible, and diminish in this way our contributions to the war fund.
Another data point for my quest to determine what happened to American Quaker
war tax resistance after the American Civil War — when it seemed to begin to
almost disappear (only to come back to life after World War Ⅱ).
This comes from
The New York Times of
, and shows that at least
that late into the nineteenth century, Quakers (or the Rogerene Quakers around
Mystic River anyway) were still notorious for war tax resistance:
Meeting of the Peacemakers.
New-London,
Conn.,
. —
The date when the peace-loving and military-tax-hating Quakers of Ledyard
will hold the seventeenth annual meeting of the Connecticut Peace Society has
been fixed for
and .
The services will be under a big tent at Mystic River, near the former home
of James D. Fish. The speakers who will attend are Donasturo De Merceteau of
Madrid, Spain; Alfred H. Love, President of the Universal Peace Union; E.H.
Coates, H.S. Chibb, editor of the Peacemaker, and
Mr. and Mrs. J.M. Washburn, all of Philadelphia; President Deys, of the
Dutchess County Peace Society; George T. Angell, of Boston; ex-Senator Thomas
F. Fowler, of Washington,
D.C.; B.P.
White, of Pawtucket,
R.I.;
Hamilton Wilcox, of New-York City; L.F. Gardner, of Eastman’s College,
Poughkeepsie, and the Rev.
C.H. Kimball, of Manchester,
N.H. It is
expected that peace advocates from all parts of the world will be present.
I replayed an debate from the Friends’ Intelligencer about whether Quakers should pay a $300 commutation fee to avoid the military draft.
there were other drafts, and Congress changed the rules a bit.
In the original draft, any draftee could ether hire a substitute or pay $300 in commutation money to get out of it.
As time went on, Congress tightened the rules on substitutes and commutations, but at the same time tried to carve out some concession for conscientious objectors.
In one example, members of religious denominations that had a pacifist creed were, when drafted, to “be considered non-combatants” at which point they had two choices:
get assigned “to duty in the hospitals, or to the care of freedmen”
“pay the sum of three hundred dollars, to be applied to the benefit of sick and wounded soldiers”
This opened another debate in the Friends’ Intelligencer (and elsewhere) over whether Quakers could in good conscience take advantage of either of these routes of legal conscientious objection, or if they would have to stick to their guns (as it were) and just resist the draft entirely.
The New York “Representative Meeting” sent out a notice about the new draft act to its Quarterly Meetings, saying that the new legal provision allowing conscientious objectors to be assigned to non-combatant roles “was felt to be a very important concession by the Government, for which we should be grateful, and… calls for acquiescence on the part of Friends as far as they can feel a freedom to do.”
The Friends’ Review reproduced this note, and editorialized in favor of the position it took, saying:
We understand that Ohio Meeting for Sufferings has, with much unanimity, taken similar ground, and we do not see how Friends can justly take any other unless they assume the position that they have no “duties of faithful citizenship” to perform, or that the Government, by recognizing their right of conscience, and granting them religious liberty and exemption from bearing arms, forfeits all claim to any other service from them, however consonant it may be with their religious principles and their benevolent practice.
Such assumption would, of course, be preposterous.
The Review editorialist then went on at some length to defend this point of view.
One of the arguments went like this: Quakers are prohibited by their beliefs from taking oaths or swearing.
The law sometimes accommodates Quakers by permitting them to “affirm” in contexts where other people are told to “swear” something (for instance, when giving testimony in court).
Since Quakers don’t mind affirming things, they also don’t object to doing so formally in these contexts, even though the affirmation is given as a substitute for an oath.
Similarly, since Quakers don’t have any objection to treating the wounded and sick or helping freed slaves, they shouldn’t raise a fuss about being drafted by the government to do so, even though this is a substitute for military service that they would object to.
The editorial then, in sort of a sideways fashion, accused people who thought Quakers could not take advantage of the provisions of “invent[ing] crosses and sacrifices,” “[seeking] to be martyrs” and relying on a “mere technicality of language.”
The whole of the editorial was aggressively dismissive of opposing points of view.
Gideon Frost, in Friends’ Intelligencer, responded to the Review, making these points:
Neither the New York Meeting message nor the editorial mention the $300 commutation option specifically, leaving the implication that it too is a provision that Friends should be encouraged to take advantage of.
The oaths/affirmations analogy does not hold.
Quakers have no objection to verifying their word, they just opposed the oath-taking ritual as being anti-Christian.
But Quakers do have an objection to participating in war, and not just to participating in it in some particular form in such a way that the form could be superficially altered to make such participation okay.
Quakers who have held fast to the peace testimony and have refused either to serve in the military or to do any of the various substitutes (such as commutation fines) — on both sides of the lines during the Civil War — have, after enduring some persecution, have been relieved by their government of their legal obligations and have prompted those governments to make further concessions to conscientious objectors: proving the worth of taking such a stand.
Samuel Rhoads, the Review editor, and probably the author of the original editorial, responded in the Intelligencer.
He says that Frost’s accusation that the Review was silent on the $300 commutation fee “is not correct.”
The $300, remember, was designated by the law “to be applied to the benefit of sick and wounded soldiers.”
Rhoads clarifies his stand on whether Friends can pay such a fee without impermissibly supporting the war effort: “it is inconsistent with Friends’ principles,” he says, “to give an indiscriminate care and support of the sick and wounded in military hospitals — because these form a necessary part of the military system.
In individual cases, where the sick and wounded are so far disabled as to be released from their obligation to return to the army, it is probable few Friends would object to rendering them needful aid.”
(Did he expect that after paying the $300 or being drafted into hospital service, a Quaker could then choose the money or the service only to go to such soldiers as were unable to return to battle?)
Frost replied that “[w]hen a Friend is drafted for military purposes, and assumes the performance of hospital duties in lieu of personal service, he complies with a military requisition, as really as if he served in the army… [this] is either a compliance with a military requisition, or it is the payment of a penalty for non-compliance,” both of which are explicitly forbidden by the Quaker Discipline.
A variety of positions on these questions were being taken by other writers and other Meetings at this time.
You can find some other examples in American Quaker War Tax Resistance.
Samuel Rhoads
Rhoads had his own concerns about the intersection of money and Quaker morality.
According to Still’s Underground Rail Road Records (1879), Rhoads,
…while sympathizing with other phases of the Anti-slavery movement, took
especial interest in the subject of abstaining from the use of articles produced by slave labor.
Believing that the purchase of such articles, by furnishing to the master the only possibility of pecuniary profit from the labor of his slaves, supplied one motive for holding them in bondage, and that the purchaser thus became, however unwittingly, a partaker in the guilt, he felt conscientiously bound to withhold his individual support as far as practicable, and to recommend the same course to others.
[Around ] he united with the American Free
Produce Association, which had been formed in 1838, and in 1845 took an active part in the formation of the Free Produce Association of Friends of Philadelphia, Y.M.; both associations having the object of promoting the production by free labor of articles usually grown by slaves, particularly of cotton.
Agents were sent into the cotton States, to make arrangements with small planters, who were growing cotton by the labor of themselves and their families without the help of slaves, to obtain their crops, which otherwise went into the general market, and could not be distinguished.
How far should Friends carry their protest against all war?
Should it extend to a refusal to pay that proportion of the Income Tax which is equivalent to the proportion of the revenue spent by the Government in maintaining the army and navy and military establishments at home and abroad?
We are required by law to pay a certain sum towards the support of Government and administration.
Does our responsibility with respect to that money cease once it is paid in to the National Exchequer, it being understood that we have done our utmost by legal means to prevent public money being spent on munitions of war?
Or, knowing the way in which part of the money will be spent, are we justified by the higher law in resisting the law of the land and in refusing to pay more than that proportion which we calculate is spent on peaceful projects?
Thine sincerely, J.W. Gillie
The editor of The British Friend responded:
It appears to us that in fulfilling the two obligations of rendering “unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s,” and “unto God the things that are God’s,” we must be guided by such light as our conscience possesses.
For ourselves we are quite satisfied to believe that we are not responsible for what we cannot control.
The responsibility for the appropriation of a general tax levied for the use and maintenance of the Government of a country does not rest with the taxpayer, but with the Government.
This appears to be the principle acted on by our Lord in paying the Temple tribute money; it is implied in His words “Render unto Cæsar,” etc. Matt. ⅹⅻ. 21; and bears a wide application in Rom. ⅹⅲ. 6, 7, where Paul exhorts the payment of tribute, notwithstanding the fact that such tribute, paid by Roman Christians, was in part used for military and other purposes, very open to exception, as well as for civil government.
This was not a Quaker group, but a non-sectarian Christian pacifist group founded around (part of a movement that began to emerge in the United States around ), associated with the American Peace Society, and influenced by the teachings of Thomas C. Upham of Bowdoin College, as given for instance in his The Manual of Peace.
The quoted booklet section is titled “On Preparation for War” and consists of a dialog between “Frank” and “William.”
It includes this section:
Frank — But is every body put in jail that refuses to train [in the militia]?
William — No.
Many people escape by paying a fine.
Frank — Why then should you not pay the fine?
William — I do not think it would be right.
These fines are paid to the [militia] companies, and go to support the military system.
I must not escape doing a wicked thing by paying other people to do it for me.*
Peter Brock, in his book Liberty and Conscience, attributes the dialog to Charles Whipple.
Whipple was also the author of the pamphlet Evils of the Revolutionary War that made an argument for the power of large-scale nonviolent resistance that impressed me as being insightful and ahead-of-its-time.
I now see that much of Whipple’s argument in that pamphlet was anticipated in Upham’s The Manual of Peace (and in Jonathan Dymond’s Essays on the Principles of Morality), and so was not so far ahead-of-its-time as I’d thought.
Upham’s book also includes the following section on militia fines:
It is possible, that some will make the inquiry here, whether, taking as we do the ground of refusing to perform military duty, we ought to pay military fines?
Certainly not, if the fines, as is generally the case, are exacted and are applied for military purposes.
As far as principle is concerned, you might as well fight yourself, as pay others for fighting.
But if the legislature, taking the constitutional course of exempting from military duty and all military taxation those, who are conscientiously opposed to war, should at the same time impose on the Pacific Exempts, in consideration of their exemption, a tax, which should be expended for roads, schools, the poor, civil officers, hospitals and the like, it might be a question, whether it would not be a duty to pay it.
But every one should be well persuaded in his own mind; he must feel well satisfied, that such a payment is not made to contribute, in any way whatever, to the purposes of war.
If he can be fully persuaded of this, we are not prepared to say, that there would not be a benefit in such a tax.
It would probably tend to satisfy public feeling, and to hush complaints; it would be an evidence of our sincerity; and would discourage those, (for undoubtedly some such would be found,) who might for the sake of saving their time and money, hypocritically pretend conscientious scruples in regard to war.
We do not, however, express ourselves on this point with entire confidence; but would merely take the liberty to suggest this view of the subject, as worthy of deliberate consideration.
— Whether such a tax could be imposed, consistently with some of the principles of the State and National constitutions may, indeed, well be questioned.
But that is an inquiry, which time and the examinations of men learned in the laws will ultimately determine.
All we ask now is, that we may have nothing to do with war, either directly or indirectly; and we ask it on the ground of our religion.
We do not ask it, because we wish to save our time and save our money, although this would be a reason of some weight, since we believe that time and money expended upon war are worse than thrown away; but because we conscientiously believe wars to be forbidden.
We wish to show ourselves good citizens in every possible way; but we ask to be exempted from compulsory disobedience to that great Lawgiver, whose commands should always take the precedence of those of every earthly legislator.
If our legislatures choose to increase our burdens in consequence of our religion, whether they can do it consistently with our principles of government or not, we shall consider it of but comparatively little consequence, provided our religious rights are not violated.
But this is the point of difficulty.
If by paying any tax whatever, on the principle of commutation, (that is to say, on the principle of purchasing an exemption from military duty,) we find that we are promoting, even in the least degree, the cause of war, we cannot rightfully do it.
And if we are forced to pay such a tax, then there is a violation of religious right.
Going on Gospel principles, no military service is to be performed; no military fine is to be paid; nor is there to be a payment of any commutation tax, imposed for exemption from military services, so long as such payment is in any degree subservient to the purposes of war.
But whether this is, or is not the case in any given instance, it is desirable, that each one should examine for himself, and, as we have already said, should be persuaded in his own mind.
Upham later compares taxpaying Christians who oppose war rhetorically, with moderate drinkers who oppose the evils of drunkenness but who aren’t willing to give up alcohol entirely and end their enabling ways:
Professing christians occupy precisely the same position in regard to the great pacific reformation, which must sooner or later inevitably take place, that temperate drinkers but recently occupied in respect to the Temperance reformation, which is now in such encouraging progress.
It is but a few years since, and drunkards universally appealed for example and authority to those, who were not drunkards, but nevertheless advocated the right and the expediency of drinking occasionally, only let it be done temperately.
Nothing could be effected under such circumstances; it was found necessary, that a new principle should be adopted; before a reformation could reach the drunkards, it was necessary, that there should be an absolute and total reformation of the temperate drinkers.
And now we have another great reformation in hand still more important; and in pursuit of it we declaim against military men and military statesmen; but we do not touch their conscience; we do not start them an hair’s breadth from that position of crime and cruelty which we believe they occupy.
And why not?
It is because they are sustained by professors of religion; it is because while they avowedly drink often and deeply into the spirit of war, the followers of the benevolent religion of Jesus support them by drinking temperately; it is because they see Christians cheerfully paying taxes for their support, and behold Christians in their own ranks, and hear Christians praying for their success.
This is the secret, as time will assuredly show, of the great strength of that spirit of war, which has so long pervaded the world.
* The Friend, in a
footnote, is careful to distinguish this position from the Quaker point of view on military fines, which is that even if the fines were not paid directly to the military and were to be designated by the government specifically for a non-military, unoffensive purpose, they would still be objectionable: “For the law of man has no right to make us violate the law of God, neither has it a particle more right to make us pay for obedience to God.
The principle is wrong, and we cannot comply with a wrong principle and be held guiltless.”
The British Friend published a series of articles over many, many issues that spanned several years, with the title “Friends: Their Origin, Distinguishing Principles, and Practices.”
I’m not sure when the series started, since Google Books only has the volumes going back to #4, but in an issue in volume #10, published on , they got around to the subject of War.
Curiously, though, the section on war taxes gets a footnote in which the editor argues with the author:
Friends have been charged with inconsistency in refusing military service, and yet in paying those taxes which are expressly for the support of wars.
To this charge they reply, that they believe it to be their duty “to render to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s,” and to leave the application of it to Cæsar himself, as he judges best for the support of the government.
This duty they collect from the example of Jesus Christ, who paid the tribute-money himself, and ordered his disciples to do it, and this to a government not only professedly military, but distinguished for its idolatry and despotism.…*
* We fear our author has misunderstood the practice of Friends, in admitting that they pay “those taxes which are expressly for the support of wars.”
It is true that they believe it their duty to “render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s,” but there is a wide difference between the payment of taxes for the general purposes of government, and that of a tax for the express support of war.
The latter, we believe, has been very rarely imposed; and were such a tax attempted to be levied, we conceive it could not, in consistency, be paid by the members of our Society.
— Eds.
Clarkson himself was an Anglican, not a Quaker, and is now remembered mostly as a hero of the British abolitionist movement.
I think it is remarkable how much ink The British Friend used to print the writings of a non-Quaker explaining the Quakers to themselves.
Clarkson’s interactions with Quakers in the abolitionist movement gave him a lot of sympathy for the sect.
On , The Friends’ Review published an article by someone identified only as “Z” entitled “Partaking of the Sins of Others.”
Here’s an excerpt:
As we cannot “go out of the world,” it is worthy of careful examination how far we should hold ourselves entirely isolated from the community; and how far, by living with others as neighbors and friends, we may become partakers of their sins.
Should we “remain in the ship,” or cut loose from it entirely?
Different persons have honestly adopted differing views.
There are some Christian sects which refuse in religious matters to have any connection with others; there are others who endeavor to extend their influence and useful labors among those who may differ in certain points.
It is so in sustaining human governments, nearly all of which are upheld by military power.
Most of us pay taxes [Mark 12:17], although nearly all of the money thus raised goes to build forts, construct war ships, pay armies, establish the military rule over the soldiers, a rule more cruel and despotic, as our friend Hubbard has asserted, than American slavery.
War slaughters thousands and carries untold misery to desolated homes; but many professed peace men pay taxes which support it, and all the present three political parties place men in nomination and vote for them, who have never repudiated war, and some who have acquired their fame in its achievements.
Even those who will not thus partake of its responsibilities, accept the protection of military governments by using government bank notes, the payment of which is enforced if necessary by military law, and they accept titles to the land they occupy, their control of which is virtually sustained at the point of the bayonet, should the government titles be questioned by lawless marauders.
Francis T. King sent a letter to the Friends’ Review in November to let them know how things were going with Quakers on the other side of the lines in the American Civil War.
Excerpt:
Our Yearly Meeting convened at the usual time and place [] John B. Crenshaw, of Baltimore Yearly Meeting, (Richmond, Va.,) was in attendance.
It was thought best to draft Epistles to all the Yearly Meetings, though we received none.
All of the Quarters were represented but two, Eastern (mostly within the Federal lines), and Lost Creek (East Tennessee); two Friends were present from the former, but not as Representatives.
The attendance was small, and it was particularly noticeable that very few young men were present, many of them having been taken to camp, under the conscription act; towards many of them, however, I am glad to learn that much respect is shown.
Some few have paid the exemption tax and have been released, but the Meeting for Sufferings does not sanction this mode of exemption.
A letter to the editor of The British Friend from its issue:
Dear Friend,— It would be interesting to know whether the conscience of Friends is clear in paying the increased income tax, which is doubtless caused by the restless Foreign policy and Militaryism of the Government.
The excuse Friends have, till lately, had, that it was impossible to separate the civil from the military expenses will hardly avail now, as the difference between the old and new tax will represent the difference between a policy of peace and one of war.
I believe Friends would direct public opinion into a very practical channel by refusing to pay the increased tax.
It may be useful to know that the collector cannot distrain without a competent appraiser, and that he must leave an inventory of goods, sell by public auction, make a statement of realisation, and return any balance which may accrue.
There can be little doubt that the buyers of the goods would be few.
I am, respectfully, J.S.
This would have been around the time of what the British call the Second Afghan War.
On , members of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting considered how to apply their peace testimony to tax resistance in the midst of the Civil War.
The gist of their conclusion: “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.”
From a Meeting of the Representatives of the Religious Society of Friends in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, etc., held in Philadelphia .
To the Members of the Yearly Meeting of Friends of Philadelphia.
Dear Friends:
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 Savior 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.
Signed by direction and on behalf of the meeting aforesaid, Joseph Snowdon, Clerk.
I related a debate that took place in the pages of the Friends’ Intelligencer in .
As it turns out, though, I should have kept hunting, as parts of the debate slipped my notice during my first pass through that volume of the journal.
Here, for example, is Nathaniel Richardson’s response to his critics, written in :
“Reasoning at every step he treads Man yet mistakes his way.”
— Cowper
It was believed by the writer hereof to be his duty to cite, for re-examination, certain traditionary views of the Society of Friends — long cherished and embodied in their Discipline.
This he endeavored to do in an essay which appeared in the 16th number of the current volume of Friends’ Intelligencer, which was followed a few weeks later by another essay, intended further to elucidate the subject.
The views which he has thus presented have been assailed by nearly a dozen different writers, who have, in some instances, even called in question the propriety of such subjects being discussed in a Friends’ periodical.
These numerous articles have been carefully read and considered by N.R., who, with desires for the prevalence of truth, has, he trusts, but little of the feelings of an antagonist towards their several authors.
And now being more and more confirmed in the correctness of his views, and consequently thinking that he sees in the objections of his commentators, both fallacy and error, he believes it right for him to review and reply to some of their most prominent arguments and conclusions.
He presumes that none of them will ascribe to all that is contained within the lids of our book of discipline, so high a degree of sacredness as must forbid to the members of the Society on whom their rules are to operate, all enquiry and all discussion of their correctness.
Such enquiries and such discussion we are accustomed to hear in our public meetings, particularly those for discipline, and the reason is not very apparent why this liberty of speech should be approved, and at the same time, the pen and the press be placed in thraldom, and their use gravely denied for the expression of similar concernments.
We, as a people, believe in the peaceful nature of the Christian religion, and there is every reason for believing that those whose minds are imbued with its spirit, whose wills are subjected to its power, will continually, in their daily walk, bear a living testimony that peace is its essential character.
But is there not a manifest and wide difference between this kind of heartfelt testimony, which shines with its own Divine light, and a prescribed rule or form?
If there is a difference, then was N.R. correct in making a distinction between them, characterising the first as a principle, and the latter as the manner prescribed for bearing a testimony to it.
The first, he regarded as immutable; but the latter, as the deduction of an argument, which argument he held to be open to the scrutiny and judgment of the human understanding.
The correctness of this view has been denied in words, but confirmed in practice, by nearly every one of his opponents; for they use many arguments to show that the rule or form is a fair deduction from the principle.
Much has been written to show the impropriety of employing the faculty of reason on the subject, by those who have in the same article indulged largely in reasoning about it.
Several of the commentators have, perhaps inadvertently, substituted other terms and phrases for his, and have thus built up absurdities of their own, which they could easily demolish; for instance, in speaking of the relations of government and property, he has called property the creature of government, which the commentator has treated of as though he has ascribed to government the power of creating the various objects in nature, which, by the influence of government, are liable to become property.
Again N.R. has said that it is government which enables man to possess or hold property.
Now for this word “enables,” the commentator substitutes the word “right,” and goes on to show its absurdity; for, as he says, rights are inherent and inalienable, and were before government.
Now N.R. would observe that ability and right are not exactly synonyms of each other, that they are sometimes in opposition, as in the sentence “The slave has the right to liberty, but has not the ability to attain it.”
These are but samples, the list might be largely extended, but they are enough for the present occasion.
In reference to man’s accountability, it is well to consider what he is accountable for, whether it is the motive which really prompts his action, and the meaning and intention with which it is performed, or is he accountable for what others impute to him as being his motive?
Thus, if a man from feelings of Christian benevolence, administers to the wants of a sick or wounded soldier, will he receive condemnation, because some bystander charges him with having done it in approval of the soldier’s military career?
And so when our sons are drafted, and are offered the choice of either paying a specific sum of money, or of entering the army ranks, what are the ruling motives which prompt the parent to part with a portion of his property, and thus ransom his son?
Is not the motive a combination of all the finer feelings of his nature, and of the Christian virtues of his heart, and whilst attentive to these, and actuated by them, is he to be condemned, because some one — the Government — calls it a “commutation,” says it is paid in lieu of something else?
There surely is nothing criminal in the act of parting with so much money; the motive it is that gives to the act its substance and character, or the motive is essentially itself the act.
The subjects involved in this discussion are numerous and of great importance to the welfare of the Society of Friends.
The line indicated in these essays, as forming the boundary between those requisitions of Government, with which Friends could yield a ready compliance, and those with which they cannot at all comply, is broadly and distinctly marked by the palpable difference in the natures of the matters demanded, being on the one hand property, and on the other, personal service affecting the convenience.
To do justice to the subject might occupy a volume, but having done all towards developing his views of it, which he thinks can be accomplished by such short essays as are adapted to a periodical of this character, the writer will here take his leave.
N.R.
Byberry, .
Also in , an anonymous writer responded to Richardson’s latest argument as follows:
In some of the essays on this subject that have appeared in the Intelligencer the writers appear to lament that any thing should have been published tending to lessen the obligation the members of the Society of Friends should feel to uphold the discipline in relation to their testimony against war.
Truth rarely suffers by a free and candid examination, and a mind that is properly balanced will remain undisturbed by the sophistry of false reasoning, and will settle down again in its original conviction.
This we believe will be found to be the result of the arguments pro and con on the subject of government requisitions.
And notwithstanding an energetic effort has been made to shake the ground on which our Society has stood on this point, so far as there has been an opportunity for a comparison of views in any official capacity, all branches of the Society of Friends still look upon the voluntary payment of a sum of money to buy an exemption from military service demanded by the government, to be a violation of the Society’s testimony against war.
It is contended that this view, coeval with the existence of the Society is the result of an argument.
Can there be no convictions of Truth on the mind other than such as may be considered to be fundamental?
Cannot the mind of Truth be sought for and obtained as to the mode by which a principle may be upheld to a gainsaying world?
Evidently so.
“A good man’s ways are ordered of the Lord.”
This view, though not received and adopted by the world, is eminently characteristic of the Society of Friends.
They profess at least to move under the teachings of the spirit of Truth, not only in giving forth the abstract doctrines of the Society, but in the more important concern of the advancement of practical righteousness.
To this end, they have at various periods adopted certain articles of discipline, as to them best wisdom seemed to direct, and not as the result of an argument, but from a feeling sense of its being right in the Divine sight.
And in this view it is a remarkable fact that the Society has rarely, if ever, so changed its discipline as that at one period its provisions have conflicted with those of another.
It is true that changes have been made, but these, it is believed, have been in accordance with further openings of the same divine light, and with the great objects originally in view and not antagonistic to them, but suited to the changed conditions of Society in the different periods of its existence.
Assuming therefore that the mode and manner of upholding a testimony is not necessarily the “result of an argument,” but may be equally the mind of Truth as the testimony itself, it necessarily follows that the foundation laid by N[athaniel].
R[ichardson]. is not on a stable basis; and when compared with the life-long feeling sense of the Society, must be shorn of its tendency to weaken our position on this important testimony, in this eventful period of the world’s history.
Earlier , the Intelligencer printed the following from “W.M.W.”:
I suppose that all are ready to admit, that the true and living disciple of Jesus Christ is not his own, but the servant of another, to whom he has yielded himself to obey in all things; for no man can be my disciple, said the Divine Master, except he take up his daily cross and follow me.
These, have no difficulty in discovering the true path, for his sheep know his voice, and follow him, and will not follow the voice of the stranger — he ever goeth before them, and in the time of uncertainty, saith, “this is the way, walk in it.”
Such a man, while he is passive to the government, and performs all its requirements which are consistent with his duty to his heavenly Father, holds with [William Ellery] Channing, that, “man’s first duties are not to his country, and his first allegiance not due to its laws.”
And while he very properly appeals to the reasoning powers, in order to convince his fellow man of the truth or falsehood of a proposition, he is satisfied that he cannot in this way know his duties to God, for these will ever be revealed in the soul by his divine spirit, which alone can comprehend the deep things that belong to his everlasting kingdom.
Hence, if we will but cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils, our duty in these times of commotion and violence will be clearly manifest; we shall not be in doubt in regard to taking up arms, finding a substitute, or paying an equivalent.
Our fathers had a testimony to bear against war; many of them suffered extremely, on account of their unwillingness to bear arms. The Divine Spirit, the light of Christ, which they as humble devoted children looked to at all times, as their bishop to oversee them, their shepherd to feed them, and their prophet to reveal divine mysteries unto them, led them out of all war and contention, and firmly established them in his peaceable kingdom, which is ever taken by entreaty, and kept by humility and lowliness of mind.
This testimony was not to them as it is to the great mass of their descendants, a mere tradition, but a living conviction, that burned within them.
Now the all-important inquiry for us to make individually, is this, have we this testimony to bear? do we feel, that the Divine Spirit requires this testimony at our hands? or is it a mere tradition from the fathers, that has simply recommended itself to our judgment, through the intellectual man, and which we are at liberty to hold or cast aside, as shall be most convenient.
Are some of us ready to doubt, that the religion of Jesus, requires us to sheathe our swords at a time like this, when all the powers of hell, if I may so speak, are arrayed against truth and right; at a time, too, when the government is contending for man’s right to be free, for the inestimable blessings of civil and religious liberty.
The Divine Master led our fathers out of all war, without any regard to the purpose for which it may have been carried on, and the same spirit, will not lead the children into that which it led the fathers out of, for truth never goes backward, but is ever onward and upward.
We may rest assured that we are benighted, and overcome by evil when we turn backward.
Our testimony is against war as a means, and most assuredly if we feel as the fathers felt, if we appreciate this great testimony as they appreciated it, if the Divine Master lives and speaks in us, as he did in them, if we know in whom we believe and in whom we live, as they knew, and feel the certain evidence of his power and spirit, in us and over us, as they felt, we cannot take up arms to destroy our fellow men, creatures of the same God, and inheritors of the same blessed promises.
Feeling and knowing, that the great God has called us to peace, and forbidden us to take up carnal weapons, we cannot obey man, and go forth into the field of carnage and blood, neither can we employ an other, for this we must feel is equivalent to doing it ourselves, and would thereby offend our heavenly Father, whose favor we seek and desire more than all else beside.
Nor yet can we do the third requirement, if we are sincere in our objection to the first.
Not however because the money will be used to carry on war, for I agree with N[athaniel].
R[ichardson]. that if the money is due the government we have no right to withhold it on the ground, that it may be devoted to a bad purpose; we might on this plea get rid of paying many of our honest debts.
When Cesar asks for tribute, we should pay him without asking any questions for conscience sake; but when he requires us to deny our Divine Master, or otherwise pay a ransom, we should boldly answer him, as the apostles Peter and John did the multitude, “whether it be right to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye.”
I think that N[athaniel].
R[ichardson]., on a little more reflection, will admit that the three hundred dollars is not due the government from the truly conscientious man.
God is sovereign lord of conscience, and government (which is nothing more than a combination of individual men) has no right, in the first place, to compel any man to violate his conscience towards God.
The conscientious man refuses to fight, not that he desires to thwart the purposes of government, but because God has called him to peace; ho is already a conscript in the Lamb’s peaceable warfare, hence owes no military service to any man or combination of men, and can owe none, unless man has the right to stand between his fellow-man and his God, and say thus far and no farther shalt thou obey the great King of kings.
Now it is evident if he does not owe the service, the equivalent is not due, and that it is an equivalent is plain from the fact, that it is asked of none but those whose services have been required, and it being such, he cannot pay it without violating his conscientious convictions; yet N[athaniel].
R[ichardson]. says, “he would be only violating an argument.”
Government asks him to do that which he believes his Maker positively forbids him; now if he voluntarily renders an equivalent, he thereby acknowledges its right to require it at his hands, and therefore balks his testimony to peace.
He makes a positive contract with the government, that he will pay three hundred dollars, in lieu of his body in the field; he closes the bargain by paying the money required, receives a receipt clearing him for a specified time; from what?
Why from actual service in the field, and has therefore purchased with filthy lucre the heaven-born privilege of serving God, rather than suffer for the testimony of truth.
But when and where have the martyrs of any age been willing to pay a bonus for the privilege of serving God?
Surely we have forgotten our lathers, who suffered months and years of imprisonment, rather than pay their jail fees, lest they by so doing should acknowledge the justice of their commitment.
We should ever bear in mind, that the highest aim of the disciple of Jesus, is to know his Master’s will, and to do it, nor has the Good Shepherd left him without a witness, in the deep recesses of the soul, that he is compelled, in emergencies like the present, to search the letter of the Decalogue or even the record of the doings of Jesus and his apostles.
The same merciful Father, that sleepeth not by day, nor slumbereth by night, that revealed himself to the prophets and apostles, still continueth in these last days, to set up his kingdom in the hearts of his obedient children, and those whom he now calls to peace, will not acknowledge by word or action, that the government under which they live, has a right to require them to embrue their hands in their brother’s blood.
He that is true to God and his own soul, will not seek for pretexts to violate God’s commandments; the question with him (as a Friend) is not, how shall I act so as to avoid the penalties of the discipline of society, but how shall I keep a conscience void of offence both towards God and towards man?
In perusing the different essays that have appeared on the subject of military requisitions, this query forcibly arrested my attention, “who shall decide when doctors disagree?”
It is evident that we have an umpire to refer all doubtful questions that arise in the mind relative to our duties which is independent and superior to all arguments and theories.
Acquaint thyself with God and be at peace with Him, is the highest law, the grand tribunal to judge in the mind; for it is from Him alone all true wisdom is derived.
He sees the motives that govern our actions, the spirit that animates us, and by that alone He judges, let our outward appearance to men be what it may.
Nothing is more clear than that we are not all called to perform the same duties nor walk the same path through life, neither have all arrived to the same religious growth.
Each of the Father’s devoted children has his way cast up day by day, as He in his wisdom sees meet and their duty is humbly to follow it.
Through the want of duty considering this condition of things, some professing Christians become censorious and uncharitable towards their brethren, because they do not pursue the same line of duty with themselves; judging improperly their motives and faithfulness.
As instances of this spirit we can refer to some eminent members, who, advocating freedom to the slave, have felt it right to abstain from the proceeds of their labor; and, applying the same law of duty to others who did not refrain from these products, argued that as the receiver of stolen goods is as bad as the thief, consequently those that participated were as guilty of all the enormities of slavery as the master, and the slave trader.
All sin is an infraction of a Divine law plainly written or impressed on the mind of man by Deity himself.
We have reason to believe thousands of faithful Christians have departed to their everlasting rest, at peace with their Maker, who have never been required to attend to this subject of abstinence from slave labor.
That truly good man, John Woolman, among other testimonies borne to what he saw to be right, argued that the practice of dying cloth was wrong.
His reasonings were conclusive, no doubt to his mind, but how few are called to follow his example.
Also in our testimony against war it is evident that we have different ideas of duty, and that we shall pursue paths diversely from each other; and we have need to act widely and charitably in all respects towards our government and each other.
Our nation has endeavored to act as leniently as justice to others would admit, and those that disobey its injunctions by refusing to contribute to its aid, should feel that not through arguments or theories, but through obedience to Divine requiring, they refuse.
And if called to suffer the penalty of the law, let it not be with pride like Jehu, “come see my zeal,” but let them suffer with the meekness and patience of a disciple of Christ.
We all have need to examine ourselves closely to see what manner of spirit we are of.
The spirit of war may exist under a plain garb as well as under military trappings; and if the spirit of envy and revenge against a brother, or the love of power and covetousness rule in the heart, the lusts that war in our members from whence wars and fightings come are there.
I.H. .
The same issue also featured the following letter from “Y.T.”:
A number of essays on the above subject have appeared in the Intelligencer for some time past.
The subject matter of most of them I approve; but there are some points presented in some others that seem to me to require comment.
Of this latter class, is that of “N[athaniel].
R[ichardson].,” in the issue of the 12th.
This essay, if I understand it, (and I do not wish to misrepresent “N[athaniel].
R[ichardson].,” or any other writer,) seems to create the impression “that property is the creature of government;” that government is necessary; that it is “the power of government that in any sense ‘enables us to hold property;’ ” and that “by paying to that government ‘a certain sum of money,’ we do not violate the Decalogue, or any of the precepts or examples of Jesus, or the precepts or examples of the Apostles;” and that we have no right to inquire what government intends to do with this money, even though we know that the meaning and intent of this commutation money is to enable the government to provide a substitute for those who prefer paying to going themselves into the army.
Now it seems to mo that the foundation of this position is wrong, and the whole superstructure consequently fallacious.
Government in no sense gives us the right “to hold property;” it prescribes how property may be held — how it should be disposed of, &c.; but the right to property is above and beyond law: it is one of those inalienable rights co-existent with that to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” for liberty and happiness could not exist without it; and the declaration that those rights are ours, did not give us those rights; they belonged to freemen before declarations and constitutions were written.
When the Creator commanded Adam to “subdue and replenish the earth,” he plainly implied the right of property to be in him, for he could not perform those functions without tools and implements.
Look at the pioneers in our western domain; when they go out beyond the jurisdiction of laws, they acknowledge the right of property to be inherent in each individual; and they act under this right, and mutually protect each other in it when they make locations.
If I understand the testimony that Friends have hitherto borne against war, it is that we are not to take up arms against our fellow-men in any case, Christ having commanded us to “love our enemies, to do good to those that hate us, to pray for those that despitefully use us and persecute us;” and as we cannot take up arms ourselves without violating this command, we cannot employ another to do so for us, or pay a commutation to a third party, to enable that third party to procure a substitute in our place.
To do either, would, in my estimation, alike implicate us.
I was very much pleased and interested by a letter said to have been written by a young man who had been drafted, published some weeks ago in the Intelligencer.
That letter presents a right view of the subject, and corresponds with what I conceive to be the testimony of the society of Friends, as heretofore held.
And I exceedingly regret to see language used that would insinuate that in paying “a specific sum of money,” in lieu of personal service, “we only violate an argument.”
I believe that, by so doing, we as much violate the “precepts and examples of Jesus,” and the principles and testimonies of our society, in the one case as the other.
To call this principle “a misnomer,” and the argument founded upon it “a fallacy,” appears to me to lower our testimony, so that there will be little left worth possessing.
For to allow our money to be made use of to procure substitutes — for that is its meaning — would permit the taunt to be hurled at us that we were too cowardly to fight ourselves, but allowed others to be hired to fight in our places.
The society of Friends have testimonies against both war and slavery; but there is danger, under present circumstances, of allowing our testimony against war to be modified or lessened, from the fact that this war will certainly be the means of putting down slavery.
This war having been begun by slaveholders more firmly to secure themselves in their authority over slaves, we cannot be sorry to see that authority overthrown; yet it is done by a means that we, as Christians, cannot recommend or uphold.
The principles laid down by Christ were designed to apply to all circumstances under which his followers could be placed; and we are not to set them aside from motives of human policy.
This would be to deny him before men.
“N[athaniel].
R[ichardson].” appears to me to be in error when he says, “there are also numerous claimants to abridge our ownership;” (that is, of property;) “the claims of our families — the claims of charity — and claims for the public good,” &c. These claims, so far from abridging our right to property, are strong arguments in favor of that right — for these claims could not be fully carried out without it.
We should be careful not to bring the testimonies of our society to “the scrutiny and judgment of the human understanding” alone; there is a Divine understanding promised by Christ to his followers, which has been graciously given to all true seekers, by which we should regulate ourselves; and as this is lived up to, we shall be less solicitous to make alterations in our discipline, than to endeavor to live up to its spirit.
The present is a time of deep proving and trial to our society, and it is much to be desired that Friends everywhere may seek for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that we may be enabled to advance and carry out the testimonies given to our forefathers, and not confer with flesh and blood in so doing.
Y.T. .
The Friends Intelligencer and Journal published a translation of a letter from a German Quaker written on in which the author, Max Rasche, discussed the decline of the Society of Friends in Germany, due in large part to the persecutions the sect had undergone because of their refusal to serve in the military or pay war taxes.
Excerpts:
The young people, if they would not become soldiers, had to emigrate.
Besides, a military tax of three per cent. of their incomes was laid upon them.
Since the payment of this tax to support the militia was not freely given by most of the Friends, the Government resorted to attachments and seizures.
Induced by all these adversities, the weak fell off.
Many, almost all, emigrated to America, principally to Philadelphia, (), so that the number gradually decreased, and to-day only about thirty members exist here.
And now, in consequence of the military exactions, almost all the able-bodied young people have wandered away, the old are dying, — there is no fresh growth left behind.
Nereus Mendenhall wrote to Friends’ Review on to correct the record about how Quakers fared under the governments of the Confederacy during the American Civil War.
Some excerpts:
I do not hesitate to say that in my opinion the course of North Carolina and of the Confederate government was as liberal toward Friends as that of the United States government, or even more so.
In the North the Friends were in sympathy with the government.
It is supposable that they rejoiced over every Federal victory, and were sad at every Federal defeat.
They could go into hospitals, they could do other service, they could pay the commutation money.
Not so the Friends in the South.
They had no sympathy with the Southern cause; they were opposed to the war, as Christians, as citizens, as men.
They regarded every Confederate victory with sorrow, believing, as they did, that it but prolonged the bloody contest.
And yet, under the knowledge of this well-known feeling, the Convention of North Carolina had such respect for the sincerity of their convictions that it passed an ordinance releasing them from military service on the payment (I think) of $100. And the Confederate Congress — that ogre, as some would regard it — clearly released Friends on the payment of $500 — $500 of Confederate money, even when the whole sum was not worth more than $10 or $20 in gold.
Which acted most in accordance with the principle of Friends in this matter, those who served in the hospitals, thus enabling the United States to keep as many fighting men in the field, or those who refused either to do this or to pay the trifling sum of $500 Confederate money, and thus acknowledge the right of the Government to tax us for our consciences, may here be left without answers.
The editor of the Review answered:
The Discipline of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting discountenances the performance of any military duty whatever by its members, or the procuring of a substitute.
The Meeting for Sufferings also, soon after the civil war began, issued an advice that members should not pay the commutation tax in lieu of service.
Although this was felt by many young men as going farther than their own consciences would require, we know of no instance in which such commutation was paid, or service in hospitals, etc., rendered instead of bearing arms, by any member of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
Almost certainly the number of Friends in the North who adopted the measure proposed for their relief by the Government was very small.
The number who abandoned the principles of peace would seem to have been proportionally much smaller than at the time of the war of the Revolution, when many Friends entered the army.
During the Crimean War the British government hiked the income tax in order to raise funds to carry on the fight.
This led to a debate amongst British Quakers over whether this income tax increase was a “war tax” that they should refuse to voluntarily pay.
Income Tax.
To the Editors of The British Friend
Esteemed Friends, — Doubtless many Friends have seen and read the Act of Parliament, passed in the last session, for increasing the Income Tax, yet I should think by far the greater majority have not done so; especially as the act was not passed until the holding of the Yearly Meeting.
I have thought if the accompanying extracts were published, a more extensive and correct knowledge of the tenor of the act would be obtained, and might lead Friends to consider whether it be right for them to pay such tax.
If these views coincide with yours, the insertion of the accompanying will be esteemed.
William Wood. The Retreat, York, .
Extracts from the Act passed in
.
We, &c., the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, towards raising the supplies to defray the expenses of the just and necessary war in which your Majesty is engaged, have freely and voluntarily resolved to give and grant unto your Majesty the rate and duty hereinafter mentioned.
6th.
This Act shall commence and take effect from and after ; and, together with the duty therein contained, shall continue in force during the present War; and until the 6th day of April next after the ratification of a Definitive Treaty of Peace, and no longer.
At the London Yearly Meeting, in , this war tax was on the agenda, as The British Friend reported:
An attempt was also made to elicit some authoritative opinion in reference to the Income-tax, this having been imposed, as expressly stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the purpose of enabling this country to carry on the war.
The question raised was, whether, as a Society, we could, in consistency with our well known testimony against all war, pay this assessment.
Reference was made to the minuteness with which the Society inquired into infractions of our Testimony against tithes, till it seemed impossible to discover, in some instances, whether they had the most remote bearing on our Testimony in this respect.
In the Income-tax, however, were we to pay it unhesitatingly, it appeared to be the opinion of the two or three individuals who introduced the question, that we should be decidedly violating one of the most important of our Society’s testimonies; and it was therefore desirable that the Yearly Meeting should pronounce distinctly what was the duty of our members in regard to the payment of this impost.
The whole subject was at last referred to the Large Committee; and, to allow of its having time for interchange of sentiment, the meeting adjourned about half-past six, when the said committee came together, and sat till after eight o’clock, having before it the consideration of the returns of tithe distraints, &c., and subsequently the disposal of the question last referred to, when the conclusion arrived at was, to frame a paragraph expressly bearing upon it in the general Epistle.
I found what I think were the “general” epistles for on-line.
The last two are vague on the subject of war taxes, which suggests that those meetings were unable to come to a consensus on recommending a particular course of action.
The epistle merely noted that the meeting had “been introduced into very solemn and painful feelings” and had issued “an Appeal to our fellow-countrymen on this deeply affecting subject” (of the war, not of war taxes) and recommended that Friends should “so watch over their own spirits that they may be preserved from in any way countenancing the war-spirit either in conduct or conversation,” which could only be interpreted as a call to war tax resistance by those who were already convinced along those lines.
The epistle was even weaker: because the Crimean War was over by that time, most of the references to war were thanksgiving for the end of the latest one.
The epistle was more explicit, saying that:
no plea of necessity or of policy, however urgent or peculiar, can avail to release either individuals or nations, from the paramount allegiance which they owe unto Him who hath said, “Love your enemies.”
… Let us honestly examine our own hearts, whether we are ourselves so brought under the holy government of the Prince of Peace, as to be willing to suffer wrong and take it patiently, and even, if required, to sacrifice our all for the sake of Him and his precious cause.…
Under existing circumstances, we would entreat our friends everywhere to be on their guard against entering into any engagements in business, which would be likely to involve them in transactions connected more or less directly with the maintenance of war or of a military establishment.
Still not a straightforward advocacy of war tax resistance, but more in harmony with it.
The Society of Friends had a rough go of it in France, in large part due to
government persecution. Government intelligence kept a close eye on Quakers
like Stephen
Grellet, restricting their movement and forbidding them to evangelize or
distribute Quaker literature.
On the prefect of
Rotours “on behalf of the Prefect of La Manche, who was away,” explained the
seizure of Quaker publications from an English visitor this way:
As Quakerism forbids military service on which the preservation of the State
depends; as it forbids an oath, also the payment of certain taxes which are
constituted a duty by our laws, it is sufficient justification for the legal
seizure of the books which teach its dogmas and for taking vigorous measures
against the men who would spread them.
On , The British Friend ran the following letter from “I.L.” in which he tried to explain why Quakers ought to restrict their war tax resisting to those taxes that were explicitly and exclusively for war, even to the extent of paying taxes that were implicitly and largely for war:
Ought Friends to Pay Income Tax?
It is well known that the Income Tax was in the first case a war tax, and has been found so convenient by each succeeding chancellor of the exchequer since the days of Pitt, so easy to manipulate where a few extra millions are required, that no national financier has been willing to relinquish it.
But whether Friends can consistently pay this Tax when they have so long withstood the claims of a State Church, should be a question which may well be asked by those who wish to have a clear conscience.
This question comes home to us with the more urgency when we know that quite recently 2d. in the £ has been added solely on account of the Egyptian and Soudanese wars.
At the first glance it would seem that if we paid the additional charge we should be providing the “sinews of war,” and to a certain extent we are; but as the government do not make a distinct war tax, and provide war estimates out of the general exchequer, it is clear that we do not know which portion of our taxes are devoted to this lamentable, and, as we think, unnecessary and wicked purpose.
The Society of Friends is often twitted about its willingness to supply the means for carrying on war and participation in the supposed protection afforded by fleets and armies, but there can be little doubt they would be quite willing to do without both war taxes and all that they represent, and if a time of trial were to come such as an attack upon our shores, or an enforced conscription, we believe that the present generation would show that they have not departed in peace principles from the faith held by their forefathers.
Indeed it will be quite reasonable to suppose that were such a time to come (and it may be nearer than we think), others besides Friends would be found willing to suffer persecution rather than break the law of God in taking the life of a fellow-creature.
As regards the question at issue, the payment of taxes is clearly binding, for our Saviour sanctioned it in paying taxes or tribute money to the Roman government which was not only a military, but an idolatrous government.
There can be no doubt that were Friends, or any other considerable body of people, to refuse to pay the Income Tax, they would cause a large amount of trouble, and perhaps people at large would think more of the wickedness of wasting the public money; but, on the other hand, we are distinctly enjoined by the apostle to obey the magistrates, to be in subjection to kings and governors, etc.
Now we know that the administration of a country cannot be carried on without money.
It is clearly, then, our duty to pay the demands made upon us, and leave the disbursement of the funds so raised to the responsibility of the “powers that be.”
When the war tax is collected separately — and it can be shown that such tax is devoted solely to war purposes — then we may expect to see as much difficulty experienced in the collection of it as was caused by the firmness of Friends in refusing to pay church rates — a refusal which has had the effect of almost entirely abolishing this unpopular form of contribution to a State Church.
This comes from The British Friend, dated , and is prefixed with the note “Dear Friends, — The following is the copy of a paper I am about to post for the Friend.
As the subject is interesting to Friends generally, will you insert it in your periodical, and thus oblige your Friend, B.”:
An inquiry from A. appearing in
The Friend, for this month, as to whether those
called Church Rates may be considered as taxes on property or not, I confess
that, however interesting the question may be, as one of curious legal
research, I do not see how its decision could reconcile Friends to such
payments. What we object to is surely this, the interference of man
in the things of God. If so, it matters little whether one is
called on to pay “church rates” to repair a building connected with state
religion, or to pay “property tax” for the very same purpose.
Willingness to be led by Christ’s Spirit we believe to be the essence of
Christian worship, but in all state churches “law is substituted for
love,” and force for voluntary homage.
“B.” goes on to denounce
establishmentarianism, and concludes:
We utterly deny the man-made ministry of national “churches,” and as
steadfastly affirm that none ought to be compelled to
repair the places in which such teachers officiate.
In the Herald of Peace, some years ago, mention was
made of a Friend in Wales who suffered distraint for the property tax,
then existing, because that tax had been granted expressly
as a war tax. This is a case in point. When a tax or rate
is levied and set apart for a definite object, there can be no mistake,
because it is not mixed up with the general mass of rates or taxes.
The letter immediately following this one told of a shoemaker, John Gardner of
Garstang, whose goods were seized to pay 1 shilling, 1½ pence of church rates,
plus £1, 8 shillings of various fees associated with the auction (in other
words, the total amount seized was more than 25 times the amount of the
resisted taxes).
On , the London Yearly Meeting met to discuss the peace testimony.
W.H.F. Alexander said that many young Friends had felt that the loudest protests raised against the iniquity of war did not come from the Society of Friends; and that upon the question of increased armaments it was not a Friend who turned the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that our defence was not in a strong navy but in reliance upon the power of God.
They felt that the Society did not raise the highest note upon that question.
People believed that a man was really in earnest when he was prepared to suffer in pocket.
Was not the time coming when those who felt that war was wrong should refuse to pay at least one-third of their direct taxation.
Alexander was part of a group of Friends who undertook a humanitarian mission during the Second Boer War (in part, returning family bibles that had been seized by the British as war booty).
Alexander later moved to New Zealand, where he became a prominent anti-militarist and anti-conscription author and lecturer in the years leading up to World War Ⅰ.
The minutes from the London Yearly Meeting (of the Society of Friends) includes, about war tax resistance, only this brief note (from ):
In relation to the advices on War, Richard Brockbank mentioned that two members had refused to pay the 1½d. income tax imposed to meet the Egyptian war expenses.
It would be well if the whole Society had done so.
In , the United Kingdom began a more or less pointless and stupid war in Egypt.
Of course, morons then as now rallied around the flag even for pointless wars.
Legislators in particular exemplify this effect.
Somewhat distressing to British Quakers, though, was that those members of parliament who professed to be members of the Society of Friends also went along with the call to war.
Here’s what The British Friend wrote about this:
The Vote for the “Sinews of War”
Surprise and disappointment is the correct definition of the feelings evoked
among the friends of peace on learning that not a single Quaker
M.P. has
supported the veteran
Henry Richard
against the vote of credit on the calling out of the Reserves for the war in
Egypt. And the surprise and disappointment were deepened when it was seen
that two well-known and much-respected members of the Society of Friends had
so far forsaken traditional principles and testimonies as to vote for the
grant of £2,300,000!
It is difficult to understand how any members of our Society can support war
under any circumstances — least of all, a war which, the more we know of it,
the more complicated and distasteful does it appear.
After two centuries of the advocacy of peace, during which the Society of
Friends has alone among professing Christians denounced war as the offspring
of man’s lusts, and the work of the “great enemy of souls,” how humiliating
is it to find that our representative
M.P.s,
from motives of expediency, and a desire not to embarrass the Government, are
willing to submit to an ignominious compromise, and allow others to take our
protest out of our hands!
The hands of the Society of Friends will not be clear of the blood of the
Egyptians unless we disavow in some way or other any complicity in this war.
How can we conscientiously pay the increased income tax when the Prime
Minister has stated so distinctly the purpose for which it is required?
The beautiful exhortation of the Apostle Paul, where in Romans ⅹⅲ. he advises the early Christians to “be subject to the higher powers, and to pay tribute, for they are God’s ministers,” etc., cannot possibly be twisted into any kind of encouragement of unjust wars.
The Jews were at that time banished from Rome on account of their seditious
tendencies, and it is probable that the Christians were included with them in
this edict. So that Paul, knowing his letter might possibly fall into Roman
hands, will be seen to have handled a difficult and delicate subject with
much wisdom and dexterity; advising his Christian brethren, and also pointing
out the duties of kings, governors, and magistrates at the same time.
But this payment of the war tax must be left to individual conscience. Those
who are persuaded that the Government is right in taking up the cause of
Tewfik will not
hesitate to pay the tax without a protest. But if Henry Richard’s noble
protest against non-intervention, spoken against the motion or the vote of
credit, be a truthful statement of facts, this war is as unjust as either the
Afghan or
Zulu war.
Printed reports of this speech, as also
an address by
Frederic
Harrison, given in the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, on
[sic; actually on
], may be had on application to the
secretary of the Peace Society… and it is the more desirable that these
should be widely circulated, inasmuch as “the press” seems to have “entered
into a conspiracy of silence” (to use Henry Richard’s own words) against any
statement opposed to the present policy.
The more things change…
It was decades before Egypt regained some independence from their British
occupiers.
A London Daily News article,
quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer of ,
tried to make the case that there was unanimous patriotic war fervor in the
North — even among the nominally pacifist Quakers.
This was probably a mix of propaganda and wishful thinking, though that it
could be reprinted without caveat in a Philadelphia paper may mean it wasn’t
so far from the truth as to seem ridiculous. On financial contributions for
war, the article says:
The Quakers shed forth their treasure with as much magnificence as anybody.
They cannot pay for powder and ball, nor for substitutes, but they spend
freely for hospital necessaries and comforts, and for the support of the
families of soldiers.
In fact there was a lot more variety and nuance in Quaker positions at that
time about what sorts of aid they could offer, and to whom, in a time of war.
I made note of people and groups that had deliberately exposed themselves to extraordinary taxes, or had flouted the conditions of tax-exemption, in order to be subject to a tax that they could then resist.
That reminded me of the draft resisters during the Vietnam War who deliberately refused to invoke exemptions from the draft for which they were qualified (such as the draft exemption granted to ministers) so that they could resist in solidarity with draft resisters who did not qualify for any such exemptions.
Some of the examples I mentioned are a variety of tactic that has occasionally accompanied tax resistance campaigns: renouncing of government privileges and titles.
Here are some additional examples from this category:
When Gandhi was commander-in-chief of the Indian independence movement, his campaign of non-cooperation included tax resistance and other forms of civil disobedience, but he not only instructed his nonviolent army to resist taxes, wear untaxed domestic cloth, break the British salt monopoly by harvesting salt, and so forth — he also told them to resign their government posts, renounce any government-awarded titles or authority, take their children out of government schools, not ask for protection from the government’s law or courts, and stop voting or running for office.
He explained why:
This is the way of non-co-operation, or peaceful severing of relations.
That is, that we should neither seek help from the Government nor offer it any help.
How can we part company with it?
First we should renounce titles.
For us now to hold titles is a sin.
Next we should give up the courts.
The dispensing of justice should lie in our own hands.
The courts strengthen the roots of the Government.
Lawyers should give up their practice.
If it is possible for them they should, after giving up legal practice, serve the country.
Even if they cannot serve the country the giving up of legal practice would be by itself sufficient service.
They should take up other trades.
Parents should withdraw their children from schools and universities.
Boys who have reached the age of 16 should be treated as friends and advised to withdraw.
They should be told not to continue their studies in these institutions.
They should be told to go to school at institutions where they can remain free.
We should not go for education to a place where the Government’s flag flies.
The Congress has also said that we should not go into the Councils.
The election to the Councils will take place on .
It is the day when we shall be tested.
First we should persuade the candidates to withdraw.
If they do not give in, it will be the duty of voters to remain at home and not to cast their votes.
We should go on pleading with the candidates till the night of .
We should fall at their feet and beseech them not to stand for the Councils.
If they do not come round but persist in going into the Councils it will be your duty to refuse all help and do no work for them.
Again, soldiering is a sin.
You should not get recruited as soldiers, but it is your duty to become soldiers of freedom.
…With great humility I ask you: What have you done?
Have you withdrawn your boys from schools and colleges?
If your boy is grown up have you made him aware of his duty?
Have you given him your blessing in this matter?
If you have not done this, why are you gathered here?
It is the duty of boys to leave schools and to convince their elders.
Have you decided not to vote?
Have you taken the swadeshi vow?
These questions concern everyone.
Government recruitment should stop.
We should take our litigation to our elders and seek justice.
This will put an end to the “prestige” of the Government.
The Government will at the same time realize that its hundred thousand whites can no longer rule over three hundred million people.
So long the Government has carried on its rule over us by making us quarrel among ourselves, by offering us enticements and by giving and taking help.…
The British occupation government responded by asking its Indian employees, who were normally forbidden to engage with political questions, to explicitly oppose Gandhi’s movement.
This instead triggered even more resignations from those who were not active in the independence movement but who felt they could not explicitly oppose it.
During the Bardoli satyagraha, for example, many members of the Bombay Legislative Council resigned in protest, some of the first resigners co-signing a letter in which they wrote that “when a Government forgetful of its own obligations commits grave breaches of law, and ruthlessly attempts to trample under foot such noble and law-abiding people, it is but fair and proper for us, as a protest against the high-handed policy of Government in that taluka [district], to resign our seats on the Bombay Legislative Council, and so we request your Excellency to accept our resignations of the same.”
Many local officials also resigned their posts, which meant a great deal of sacrifice for them and their families.
Gandhi said of them: “More purifying than this suffering imposed by godless and insolent authority is the suffering which the people are imposing upon themselves.”
By resigning, these officials, who were often part of the indigenous elite who had been bought off by the Raj with titles and state-guaranteed privilege, were risking all of that.
Resistance spokesman Sailendra Ghose noted that “the government in some provinces has refused to allow village officers to resign, dismissing those who refuse to carry out their duties and thus depriving their heirs of their hereditary rights as village chiefs.”
Quaker Meetings would frequently not only require that members adhere to their peace testimony by refusing to participate in military service or pay war taxes, but also that those members who had been in the military prior to becoming Quakers renounce their claim to military pensions.
Here is how the New England Yearly Meeting put it in their “rules of discipline” of 1808:
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.
Ghislaine “Ghis” Lanctôt embarked on a project of absolute individual independence from the governments of the world, something she termed “personocratia,” in .
She refused to cooperate with the government in any way, but also took a careful inventory of the benefits and privileges of the citizenship granted her by the government, and was careful to refuse those too.
She started by giving up her state health insurance card, later tossed her driver’s license and stopped paying traffic fines, gave up her claim to a family trust, and eventually let her passport expire.
She made a list of various state privileges that she was turning her back on: social security, professional licensing, insurance, legally protected property, certifications, intellectual property rights, the courts, access to banks, and so forth.
In Beit Sahour, during the first intifada, one of the ways the Israeli military occupation authorities would retaliate against tax resisters was to seize their identity cards, which would make it difficult for them to travel, get medical care, be employed, avoid arbitrary arrest, or “to pursue anything resembling a normal life under occupation.”
But the residents fought back in a creative and daring fashion: Hundreds of them voluntarily turned in their identity cards.
During the French wine-growers tax strike of , the municipal governments of the region resigned en masse.
The Mayor of Narbonne will open the strike.
He and the entire Municipal Council will resign , after having previously dismissed all municipal employes.
Officers of other cities will follow suit in the course of a few days.
Tax strike leader Marcelin Albert claimed that “12,000 cities, towns, boroughs, and villages in the south of France” were left without municipal governments as a result of the resignation.
The quitting of municipal officers is usually attended with much ceremony.
Generally a crape streamer is hoisted at the flagstaff, and the Mayor burns his official sash in public.
Beatrice and Cornelis Boeke
War tax resisters Beatrice and Cornelis Boeke felt that in order for their tax resistance to be consistent, they must also refuse to use state-run monopolies like the postal service and railways, relinquish their passports, stop contributing to retirement accounts, and renounce any claim to the protection of the police, courts, and military.
When the government started providing funding even for private schools, they withdrew and homeschooled their children.
They even stopped handling government-issued currency.
They took this to the point of abandoning their home rather than calling the police when vagrants moved in.
In Tasmania, in , 26 magistrates resigned their offices rather than try to enforce a widely-resisted tax.
Such an expressive demonstration on the part of gentlemen holding the commission of the peace incited the people to stronger resistance; for it appeared to them that a law which could not be conscientiously administered by the retiring justices was unworthy of obedience.
When trying to bring new tax resisters into a movement, there are lots of hopeful short-cuts, but sometimes there is no substitute for addressing potential resisters individually: whether that be through letters, petitions, or face-to-face meetings.
When the United States approved a billion-dollar military aid package to the government of Colombia in , the president of the Mennonite Church of Colombia, Peter Stucky, and Ricardo Esquivia, the director of that church’s Justapaz organization and the coordinator of the Evangelical Council of Colombia’s Human Rights and Peace Commission, wrote a letter to their sister churches in the U.S..
In that letter, they explained the disastrous consequences of fueling the civil war and the military wing of the war on drugs there, explained how the church there was trying to respond more productively to the crisis, and called on churches in the U.S. to do their part:
In reality, the government of the United States, using the tax-payers money, is supporting the Colombian government in what we consider to be a negative form.
This means that the message arriving from the North to the Colombian people becomes a message of death and destruction.
For that reason we are calling the churches in the North to redeem their taxes, on one hand by demanding that the U.S. government invests this money in life-producing projects, and on the other hand by redirecting part of their taxes toward a different project in your community or the world that promotes abundant and dignified life, as our Lord Jesus Christ has commanded us.
The American Mennonite Central Committee responded by urging taxpayers to redirect their taxes from the U.S. government to the Mennonite-run “Taxes for Peace” fund, which in turn would be dedicated that year to peace-building efforts in Colombia.
This sort of advocacy can be dangerous, as this next example will show.
In , R.W. Benner, a Mennonite minister, got worried reports from members of his congregation who were being told in no uncertain terms that they would buy so-called “Liberty Bonds” to support the U.S. war effort, or they would answer for their refusal.
Benner wrote to his bishop, L.J. Heatwole, who responded with a letter in which he reiterated the position of the church that Mennonite brethren “Do not aid or abet war in any form… [and] Contribute nothing to a fund that is used to run the war machine.”
He noted:
In a number of places where brethren have refused to contribute to the different war funds, outlandish threats have been made and in a few cases have been put into execution — such as, tar and feathering, painting houses yellow, decorating autos and buildings with flags to test them out on their principles of nonresistance.
But he urged his fellow-Mennonites to keep the faith and to embrace this sort of martyrdom like good Christians.
Benner conveyed this message to his flock.
For this, both of them were charged under the Espionage Act and convicted.
(To give you some idea of the railroading involved, Heatwole did not learn that a guilty plea had been entered on his behalf by his court-appointed attorney until after he appeared for the trial!)
Letters, or “epistles,” from war tax resisting Quakers to their fellow-Friends were an important way of spreading and maintaining the practice in the Society.
American war tax resistance can be said to have begun on , when John Woolman, Anthony Benezet, and several other Quakers addressed a letter in which they explained to other Friends why
as we cannot be concerned in wars and fightings, so neither ought we to contribute thereto by paying the tax directed by the [recent] Act, though suffering be the consequence of our refusal, which we hope to be enabled to bear with patience.
David Cooper reflected on how thoughtful letters like these helped him maintain his war tax resistance in times of doubt:
I read with singular satisfaction the piece which you lent me respecting taxes, as it was very strengthening to my mind, which before was somewhat encompassed with weakness on this account.… I have since felt much weakness, and had come to no solid conclusion of mind, until I read your little manuscript, which caused my heart to rejoice, under a feeling sense that it is the truth which leads those who walk and abide in it to hold forth this testimony unto the world.
And oh, says my soul, that I may yield faithful obedience to its monitions, let what will be the consequence.
Yearly Meetings would sometimes send letters to Quarterly or Monthly Meetings to reiterate the Quaker position on war tax resistance and give instructions as to how it should be enforced.
For instance, this is from an letter from the North Carolina Yearly Meeting:
…all our members should stand firm, and be faithful in bearing their testimony against war and military operations; taxes and fines appertaining thereunto, either directly or indirectly; or any way conniving or compromising with the specious and plausible offers of the legislature, by the tax proposed in the late act, to screen us from muster fines or military services.
And in order that all our members may be clearly informed on this subject, and be fully prepared to meet the trial likely to come upon us by this law, we have thought it best to send it down in this epistle.
An organizer of the Dublin water charge strike recalls:
…months of work had been done in local areas convincing people of the primacy of [non-payment].
This was done through local public meetings, door-to-door leaflets and even knocking on doors and talking to people… The building of the campaign in this way was crucial.
Local campaign groups were built and then came together and federated, rather than a central committee being formed first and then coming along to organise people.
…it became clear that while people might not have come out to the meeting, they had kept the information about the campaign and the campaign contact numbers had their place on a lot of fridge doors.
American women’s suffrage activist Anna Howard Shaw wrote a letter to women in the movement in , urging them to refuse to fill out income tax returns.
“In this manner we can show our loyalty to those who struggled to make this a free republic and who laid down their lives in defense of the equal rights of all free citizens to a voice in their own Government.
… Let our protest be universal, and let every believer in justice unite in this mode of passive resistance and steadfastly refuse to assist the Government in its unjust and tyrannical violation of its fundamental principle that ‘taxation and representation are one and inseparable,’ and thus prove ourselves worthy descendants of noble ancestors, who counted no price too dear to pay in defense of liberty and equality and justice.”
She told a reporter: “Since my letter was sent all over the country, I have received letters of encouragement and support from all directions,” and she soon thereafter won support for her stand from the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage.
Only some of the women’s suffrage activists in Britain were responsible for paying taxes, so although tax resistance was an important part of the campaign there, it was a part not everybody could participate in.
The movement made a special effort to find women who had taxes they could resist.
For example, at one meeting in , Margaret Kineton Parkes “asked anyone present who knew women who paid taxes to send in their names, that they might be approached by her society.”
In , Marie Lawson launched what she called a “snowball” protest: a sort of chain letter in which she sent out letters that advocated tax resistance (and protested on behalf of an imprisoned resister) and that asked the recipients to join her and to in turn send the same letter “to at least three friends.”
Public burnings of poll tax notices were good excuses for people to join in festive resistance activities.
The campaign to resist Thatcher’s Poll Tax used some creative outreach techniques (quotes from Danny Burns’s history of the movement):
“The Aberdeen Anti-Poll Tax group was formed when people from the radical bookshop came together with a community arts group:
“…The local community arts group had a theatre group called “Wise Up” and they got a show together about the Poll Tax.
They took this show around the estates with information for people about registration and how to fight it, to encourage them to set up local groups and support networks.
The plays were performed in local community centres.
Attendance for the plays varied from about 10 to 40 or more.
The meetings which followed were encouraging because people gave their names as contacts or asked people to set up future meetings.”
“In my local group… the union was built up through a door-to-door campaign.
A group of five or six people (mostly friends) formed the core.
They advertised a public meeting on the Poll Tax and about 50 people turned up.
Out of these some joined the organising group.
This small group then mass-produced a window poster which said ‘No Poll Tax Here.’
The poster was dropped through the letter-boxes of 2000 households and the group waited to see who put them up.
Posters appeared in about 100 windows.
Activists then went round and spoke to these people individually, inviting them to attend the next organising meeting; about fifteen did — enough to form the core of a group.”
“[Our] network was strengthened by a door-to-door survey of over 500 households.
The survey was not intended to be scientifically accurate.
Its purpose was to give the APTU a fairly accurate picture of what was happening on the ground, and, perhaps more significantly, it was a pretext for engaging people in conversation about the Poll Tax, informing them of the non-payment campaign and encouraging them to join their local APTU.… Over a third of the people canvassed became paid up members of the union.
By the end of the exercise Easton had over 300 members and street reps for almost every street.
The canvass was not left there.
The key to its success was the second visit.
The group compiled all the statistics on a street by street basis and many of the reps then went back, door-to-door, and told people the results of the survey in their street and the neighbouring streets.
A newsletter was delivered to everyone telling them what the overall results were for Easton.
This meant that people knew how few of their neighbours were going to pay and it gave them confidence not to pay themselves.
They had spoken to the canvassers personally, so they knew that the survey was genuine.”
“An independent television company approached the Easton group in order to work with us on a film about the Poll Tax.
The film was never shown, but the way the community was engaged in the process of making it is instructive.
The film producers wanted a shot of all the doors in the street, opening one by one as the occupants came out of their houses with banners and signs.
Charles, the local street rep, went round to people’s houses every evening for a week and explained to them what was wanted.
Out of 30 houses in the street (a cul-de-sac) 28 agreed to participate.
The street is multi-racial with a fairly wide class mix.
It was inspiring to see white working class men standing shoulder to shoulder with Asian women and their kids, holding the same banners and engrossed in conversation.
Some of them had never spoken to each other before.
The film was made, but more importantly, as [a] result of making it, virtually every one of those households joined the Union, and most still had posters in their windows a year later.
People were brought into the campaign, not through a leaflet or a canvasser, but through an interesting activity.
They didn’t have to go to the campaign, it came to them.”
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.”
One way a tax resistance campaign can claim victory is by convincing the government to either formally rescind the tax, or to recognize the legal validity of tax resistance.
Charles Ⅰ went around Parliament to create a new property tax, and John Hampden famously said “no” in .
He lost his court case, but the next Parliament legalized his resistance by voiding the “ship-writs” tax and declaring the court judgment against him invalid.
American Amish, after a long campaign of lobbying, lawsuits, civil disobedience, and public relations, successfully won an exemption to the U.S. social security system, including its tax, and also canceled the outstanding social security tax bills of 15,000 Amish resisters.
A number of pacifist groups, frequently including war tax resisters, have been trying to get their governments to recognize or legally formalize a right to conscientious objection to military spending that would permit conscientious objectors to pay their taxes in a way that would not pay for the military portion of the government’s budget: a “Peace Tax” as it were.
So far, none of these long-standing efforts — which have included legal challenges using a variety of arguments, lobbying, and appeals to international legal bodies — have borne much fruit.
Governments seem universally hostile to the idea, and those international legal bodies with any clout have been unwilling to push the point.
Besides this, it is difficult to separate a government’s military budget from the rest of its budget in a way that would make a separate “Peace Tax” plausible.
The American version of the “Peace Tax” legislation, for instance, would ironically result in more taxpayer money going to military projects.
Italy has an otto per mille tax, which people can designate either for their church or for “humanitarian and cultural projects” of the government’s choosing — this resembles the sort of plan the “Peace Tax” promoters have in mind, but Italy’s government cunningly declared its participation in the Iraq War a “humanitarian and cultural” project and siphoned the funds off that way.
A tax resister who was opposed to the death penalty came to an agreement with the state of Delaware in which the state permitted him to pay his state taxes into a fund designated for paying state tax refunds of other taxpayers, rather than into the general fund that funded the prison system and executions.
American Quaker war tax resister Joshua Evans was so persistent that eventually the tax collector gave up.
“I was told it was concluded that as I gave myself up very much to the service of Truth, it was not proper I should be troubled on account of military demands; and I understood my name was erased, or taken from their list.”
Occasionally something similar happens today, when because a war tax resister has so few assets, or those assets would take too much trouble to discover, the IRS formally lists the resister’s file as “uncollectible” and gives up the attempt to force payment.
After ten years, a delinquent income tax payment hits a statute of limitations and the U.S. government is generally forbidden to pursue the matter further.
American suffragist activist Sarah E. Wall resisted her taxes for 25 years, when finally, according to Susan B. Anthony, “I do not know exactly how it is now, but the assessor has left her name off the tax-list, and passed her by rather than have a lawsuit with her.”
Something similar happened to English suffragist tax resister Charlotte Despard and some others: “[T]he Government rather than go to the trouble of selling up the recalcitrant ‘debtor,’ and attracting attention to the principle involved, had quietly dropped the matter in several instances.
Mrs. Despard had had no application for taxes since she had been sold up last year.”
Ellen C. Sargent patiently pursued legal challenges in California to try to promote women’s suffrage with a “no taxation without representation” argument.
She began by petitioning the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for a refund of her property taxes, and then filed a lawsuit when this petition was denied (the lawsuit also failed).
When farmers in drought-ravaged regions of Argentina threatened a tax strike in , the government responded with a clever bit of ju-jitsu — it declared an agricultural emergency in the area which exempted those farmers from paying taxes.
Utah governor J. Bracken Lee stopped paying his federal income taxes in the hopes of prompting a Supreme Court test case that would invalidate what he considered to be extraconstitutional federal spending.
(The court declined to take his case.)
A group referred to as “the Texas housewives” resisted paying the social security tax on the salaries of their household help, and pursued a two-year parallel legal challenge to have the tax invalidated, before finally being turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Property tax resisters in Depression-era Chicago won a court case that found property assessments in the city to have been performed incorrectly — with $15 billion in property held by wealthy, well-connected Chicagoans somehow left off the rolls — thus effectively legalizing the resistance.
“As the matter stands,” a newspaper account put it, “citizens howled about their taxes, refused to pay them and a court upheld them.
They are in revolt with legal sanction.”
During the Land League’s rent strike in Ireland, Charles Stewart Parnell reported that “a large majority of landlords” reduced the rents on their properties, “[which] shows that they did finally recognize the situation, and that they determined to make the best of it.”
When the Prussian quasi-autocracy tried to ignore the legislature and govern on its own, the legislature formally declared tax resistance to be legal, and said that the autocrats had no authority to raise or spend money.
Something similar happened in Russia half a century later, when the Czar dissolved the legislature, which then reconvened in Vyborg and called on the citizens to refuse to pay any more taxes to the Czar.
According to a book on war tax resistance: “In Russia became the first country to establish legislation exempting pacifists from paying war taxes.
Thirty British citizens were invited by Czar Alexander Ⅰ to establish a cotton mill.
Because some of the employees were Quakers, a petition was submitted to the Czar from the employees asking for freedom of conscience and an exemption from military service, church taxes for war, etc. The Czar issued a certificate which read ‘His Imperial Majesty has given his gracious assent to this petition … all … shall be exempted from all civil and military taxes … the sect of Quakers may now and in future be freed from war taxes for the support of the Military…’ Two English Quakers visiting Russia in found these provisions still in effect.”
The Great Confederated Anti-Dray and Land Tax League of South Australia began as a tax resistance and mutual insurance group, but was soon successful in convincing the government to rescind the offensive tax.
But history is also full of lessons about the foolishness of trusting the government when it responds to your tax resistance campaign by insisting that it’s on your side and wants to help.
For example:
When tax resistance leader Wat Tyler was assassinated while negotiating with the King in , the king boldly went out to the enraged crowd and told it that he would be their leader and would press for their demands.
Instead, he waited for the fuss to die down, then executed some of the other leaders of the rebellion.
When the Whigs were whisked into power in the wake of the Reform Act agitation around , the tax resistance movement celebrated its victory… only to find that the Whigs could be just as tyrannical about prosecuting those who promoted tax resistance as their Tory cousins.
The recent American TEA Party was quickly coöpted by the Republican Party, which learned how to lead it by the nose with witless rhetoric, but conceded nothing on the tax-and-spend big government front.
During the Annuity Tax strike in Edinburgh, the government passed something called the “Edinburgh Annuity Tax Abolition Act.”
Despite its name, that act did not abolish the annuity tax, but merely concealed it with an aim to making it more difficult to resist.
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 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.
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 United States Civil War.
The U.S. Civil War period ()
Once the United States was an established fact, it took a little while for the individual state governments to solidify their constitutions, and for the federal system to evolve into something stable.
In the early years of there were some interesting debates in state legislatures when they were discussing laws (or sometimes new state constitutions) and trying to delineate the boundaries of legal conscientious objection to military service.
Frequently such bodies were aware that Quakers would not serve in the military or provide substitutes, and that it was a waste of time to try to force them to, but many felt that if the citizenry in general was going to be burdened with involuntary military service that it would be unfair to let Quakers off the hook entirely, so they tended to impose a tax or fine on conscientious objection (which Quakers generally would not voluntarily pay, but which the state could recoup through distraint).
Quakers occasionally appealed to their legislatures to exempt them from such fines, without much success, but these appeals bring out another interesting facet in the debate.
The peacefulness, charity, and self-reliance of Quakers was brought forward in their defense as to why they should not also be burdened with military defense.
Here is Maine legislator Samuel Reddington making this point in :
They pay their taxes for other purposes, but they cannot discharge a military assessment.
They do not wish their property or lives to be defended at the cannon’s mouth.
They never give offence to others, and history can furnish no example of their wars.
In reality however they pay more than an equivalent for military services.
They support their own poor, and this alone is more than an equivalent.
No poor Quaker was ever known to apply to the town for relief.
In addition to this, they pay their proportion for the support of the poor of the towns in which they live.
They also support their own schools, and they never asked or received any public lands of the Legislature.
North Carolina’s version of the law expressly allocated the militia exemption fines to the “literary fund” — hoping that such an obviously innocuous destiny for the money would make the Quakers give in.
No such luck.
The North Carolina Yearly Meeting declared: “[I]t is inconsistent with our principles for our members to pay any tax or fine on account of their refusal to muster or serve in the militia, although such tax or fine may be applied to the most laudable and humane purposes.”
Much of the documentation I have collected from concerns this debate over how far states could or would go to humor Quaker conscientious objection.
At the same time, the militias were becoming more slack and more ridiculous in their peacetime practice, and the tax collectors were becoming more corrupt and brazen in their plunder.
Quaker war tax resistance was also growing lax in some areas, with Quakers resorting to various subterfuges to have their militia exemption fines paid on their behalf without risking being denounced by their meeting by paying it directly.
A writer going by the name Pacificus complained about this in a letter to The Friend (Orthodox) in 1835:
The secret payment of this fine in lieu of military service or training, or the connivance at its payment by others, is a direct encouragement of the onerous militia system.
If Friends were faithful to maintain their testimony against war in all respects, even keeping in subjection a warlike spirit in relation to this very oppression, and no one through mistaken kindness being induced to pay the fine for them, in a very little time the system would be exploded.
Were nothing to be gained but the incarceration of peaceable citizens in prison for conscience sake — no reward but the accusations of a troubled spirit — no honor but the plaudits of militia officers and the averted looks of the considerate of all classes, it would require stout hands and unfeeling hearts long to support the system.
Yes! let it be impressed upon the weak and complying among us that they are supporting this oppressive system — that it is to them, mainly, that the militia system, as far as regards Friends, is prolonged — that they are binding their fellow professors with this chain, and that if entire faithfulness was maintained on the part of all our members in refusing to pay these fines or allowing others to do it, the spoiling of our goods and the imprisonment of our members for this precious cause — the cause of peace on earth — would soon be a narrative of times that are past.
In , Pennsylvania changed its law so that a small (50¢) militia exemption fine would be quietly added to the ordinary state tax of anyone who was not enrolled in the militia.
This caught some Quakers off guard, and the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was quick to send out warnings to Friends to carefully inspect their tax bills and see if there was an extra charge on it, and if so, not to pay it.
This again brought up the difficult topic of “mixed taxes” and whether this militia tax had somehow become uncontroversial because of the new way it was being applied.
The smallness of the fine, and the muddled way in which it was assessed, made it easy for Quakers to casually overlook it and neglect their testimony.
When the Civil War came, the sympathies of most U.S. Quakers were very much with the North and with the abolitionist cause, and many Quakers bent over backwards to make excuses for paying the new and newly-elevated taxes the U.S. government was using to raise funds to fight the Confederacy.
Joshua Maule has left us a series of poignant and pleading essays from this period.
When the government levied an 8½% war surtax atop its regular general tax, though the tax was explicitly for war, it was not a new tax but a new increase of an old tax.
Many, perhaps most Quakers who had paid the former mixed tax also paid the new surtax, reasoning that it was really just another part of the mix and was therefore unexceptional.
Maule and some others felt that because it had been explicitly added as a war tax, they could not pay it, and they withheld this 8½%.
Maule found that the people in leadership roles in his meeting were paying the tax and discouraging those who felt they could not, and he wrote:
I have no doubt the sin was less with many who, without proper consideration and ignorant of the precepts and commands of Truth, went into the field of battle, than with those whose eyes had been enlightened to see the peaceable nature of the Redeemer’s kingdom and were professing to uphold it, and who yet voluntarily paid the wages of the warrior in a war that imbrued the nation in blood.
Nathan Hall, on the other hand, set forth a good set of arguments for why paying the new surtax should not be objectionable if paying the rest of the tax was not:
[W]hether we pay less or more of that tax, a certain proportion of it goes for military or war purposes.
And it avails nothing to say: “We did not pay it for that purpose, and if wicked and bad men so apply it, it is their lookout, not ours.”
We can say that of all the tax as well as a part.…
To illustrate it more fully I will suppose a case which I believe is strictly parallel, thus: We both have a testimony against the use of ardent spirits, but are, being very thirsty, placed in a situation where we can get no water except some that has a small portion of whiskey in it.
Being under the necessity of taking something, you may, by inquiry and calculation, find what proportion of the objectionable article is contained in it, and leave just that much in your bowl — while my understanding will be that in partaking I partake of both good and bad, and in refusing refuse both.
Maule had a hard time convincing Friends that other taxes that funded the general fund and that had been increased because of war expenses were okay for Quakers to pay, but the surtax, only because it was explicitly called a war tax by the powers that be, was not.
In some places, many Friends slipped even further, and paid militia exemption taxes, although this was still, in most Meetings, an offense against the Discipline.
This backsliding was by no means universal, and there were Friends who suffered on both sides for their unwillingness to either fight or to pay a fine.
In a few cases in the Confederacy, Quakers were drafted into the military, and, being unwilling to either serve or to pay a tiny exemption tax, were cruelly tortured.
In the North seemed that it would surpass the South in cruelty when a draft law was enacted that would enable draftees to get out of service by providing a substitute or by paying a $300 commutation fine (which was explicitly declared to be for procuring a substitute, and which Quakers could not pay in any case) but that did not allow for distraining and selling property in order to pay unpaid fines.
Draftees who failed to enlist, to provide a substitute, or to pay were to be treated as deserters and were subject to be shot.
This was too much “suffering” for the stomach of some friends.
Nathaniel Richardson wrote an op-ed for the Hicksite Friends Intelligencer in which he advanced the idea that since currency is a creation of government, the government should be able to ask for it back at any time without Christians having any reason to complain, under the “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” principle.
This led to spirited dissent in the pages of that magazine from defenders of the ancient Quaker testimony against paying militia exemption taxes or for substitutes to serve in their places, but showed that war tax resistance was losing its footing and had become a debatable part of Quaker doctrine.
In , a modified version of the dreaded Union law was passed, which designated the $300 militia exemption tax to go toward the care of sick & wounded soldiers rather than to the procuring of a substitute, and which would enable conscientious objectors to be drafted into non-combatant roles like hospital service.
The (Orthodox) New York Yearly Meeting decided that it would be okay by them if Quakers in their Meeting took advantage of these options, and a Friends Review (Orthodox) editorial agreed (editorials in the Friends Intelligencer and in The Friend disagreed).
While Friends were splitting hairs about some of these particular explicit war taxes over which they had once had fairly universal agreement, resistance against mixed taxes and war-funding seigniorage had ground to a halt.
A Friends Review editorial remarked casually that “the universal practice of Friends tacitly acknowledges” that Quakers may and ought to pay “national taxes levied in large degree for the support of war, and… the purchase and use of the national currency — popularly known as ‘greenbacks’ — which was issued mainly ‘for the payment of the army and navy.’ ”
After the war, there was a “bounty tax” which was meant to fund the bonuses that had been paid to recruits by the Union army.
This was a clear war tax of the sort that Quakers normally could not pay, but, for instance in Ohio, this tax was collected at the same time as other state and local taxes.
A taxpayer was told the total amount of taxes owed, but the taxpayer would have to do some research to determine how much of that amount represented the “bounty tax.”
Many Quakers apparently did not do this research, and taking cover under the theory that the total tax amount represented an unobjectionable “mixed” tax, paid the whole thing.
This led to a division in the orthodox Ohio meeting.
When I read the material from this and from the previous periods, the impression I get is that while in the period between the French & Indian war and the Civil War much of the American Quaker writing about war tax resistance is about efforts to broaden and radicalize war tax resistance, most of the writing from the Civil War period is about defending traditional Quaker war tax resistance practices from weakening or from being disregarded or ignored.
The practice was clearly in decline.
By the time of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in , only a single monthly meeting reported any “sufferings” for refusal to pay a military tax.
But interestingly, around the end of the U.S. civil war, a non-sectarian (though still largely Christian) peace movement began to flourish in the United States, and it began to take seriously the questions Quakers had long grappled with concerning their peace testimony, including war tax resistance.
Some of the groups in this movement took up the cause of Zerah C. Whipple, a “Rogerene” Quaker (not exactly part of the Society of Friends, but a closely-related off-shoot, similar enough that Whipple was often described as a Quaker) and secretary of the Connecticut Peace Society, who had been imprisoned for failure to pay a militia tax.
His case became a cause célèbre amongst the various peace societies in the American peace movement.
This cross-pollination between the Quaker and non-Quaker peace movements would become important in reseeding war tax resistance in the Society of Friends after the Great Forgetting period when Quaker war tax resistance almost vanishes from the record.
The special commission trying the Rebeccaite cases continued on
, starting by considering
the cases against David Jones and John Hugh, who were captured during a
Rebeccaite attack on a toll booth. They chose to plead guilty, probably as
the evidence against them was pretty near identical to what the same jury had
been convinced by a couple of days earlier in the trial of John Hughes, who
had been captured alongside them.
The court sentenced Jones and Hugh to be exiled to a penal colony in Australia
for seven years. Hughes, however, got sterner treatment:
He appeared to be one in a station of society far above the rest — one not
likely to be misled by others, and upon evidence proved to be a leader, if not
the leader of this lawless multitude.
He got 20 years of penal colony exile. The court then moved on to other cases.
The charges against David Lewis were dropped. Lewis Davies was charged with
destroying a turnpike-gate, and pled guilty, but was not yet sentenced.
Morgan and Esther Morgan pled guilty to assisting in the assault on the man
sent to take Henry Morgan prisoner, but the prosecutor, “[c]onsidering their
advanced age and other circumstances connected with the case,” declined to
pursue the felony charge. Margaret, Rees, and John Morgan also pled guilty,
Margaret to the assault itself, and the others similarly with abetting. The
prosecutor again declined to pursue the felony charges, “and observed that,
having ascertained the circumstances under which this aggravated assault had
taken place, he did believe they were under a mistake with respect to the right
to resist. Under these circumstances he was not disposed to press for a severe
punishment in this case…” Margaret was sentenced to six months in prison, and
Rees & John to twelve months each.
The Rebeccaites were “bad cops” that allowed peace-loving, law-abiding,
innocent Welsh farmers to play “good cop” and use the implicit threat of
Rebecca to get more attention for their grievances. Here is an example (from
the
Monmouthshire Merlin):
Sir, — I am sorry no abler pens than mine have undertaken to draw the
attention of our neighbourhood to the monstrous high rate of tolls, as well as
the unequal system of collecting them. For instance, from Nash or Goldcliff we
only travel one mile on the turnpike road, and have to pay
9d a horse, while in
many districts it is only
3d or
4d, and where, too,
materials are much more expensive.
Again, the toll to Caerleon from Newport, I understand, is
17d or
18d for one horse.
Surely, the tolls might be arranged so that a person might pay in proportion
to the distance he has to travel, for under the present system he might go
thirty or fourty miles for the same money he is obliged to pay for one — As we
small farmers find great difficulty in scraping our rents together for our
landlords, I hope and trust the proper authorities will look after these local
burdens, as they were advised to do by Lord Granville Somerset at the last
Quarter Sessions, in order to prevent tumults and outrages like those which
are disgracing South Wales, for we ar really very desirous that Rebecca and
her children should never come among us to create an anti-toll rebellion — we
would rather have our grievances redressed after a lawful fashion.
Should you think these few remarks deserve a corner in your intelligent paper,
till some abler advocate may come forward you will greatly oblige,
Several Poor Little Farmers.
PS. Would not our
monthly agricultural meeting do a good service to us, by taking the matter
into consideration, with a view to assist.
Nash,
Henry Joseph Wilson, member of Parliament and tax resister
Nobody knew at the time that the struggle would go on for years.
In the tax resistance campaign against the provisions of the Education Act that allowed for taxpayer funding of sectarian religious education was still ramping up.
It was a campaign that would inspire the later tax resistance struggles of the women’s suffragists and of Mahatma Gandhi, and which would associate the term “passive resistance” with nonviolent civil disobedience and with tax resistance in particular (a phrase that Gandhi chafed at, leading him to coin his own term: satyagraha).
The editions of The Sheffield Daily Telegraph and Evening Telegraph carried a letter from Henry Joseph Wilson, a Liberal Party member of parliament, to the assistant overseer for Sheffield in which he explained his refusal to pay the complete taxes.
Some excerpts:
I beg to enclose cheque for the amount of your demand note, less the sum of £1. I decline to pay that sum, as a protest against the education policy of the Government, and particularly against the Education Act of
I wish to state, briefly, why I make this protest.
He then makes the by now familiar case against the Act’s “encroachments on popular rights, and on freedom of conscience, which, so far from enduring any longer, we are bound to resent, and to oppose to the utmost of our power.”
Under these circumstances, my wife and I, having protested in every way hitherto open to us, have decided that I ought to make the further protest involved in the indignity of a summons, magisterial proceedings, and distraint.
Below this were these articles:
“Passive Resisters” in Sheffield.
The Sheffield magistrates will be busy with “Passive Resisters” in a few days.
Already 47 summonses have been issued at the instance of the Sheffield overseers, and now the overseers for Ecclesall are about to take action against some 67 defaulters.
In both instances the lists contain ministers of religion, and leaders of the “Nonconformist conscience.”
The Sheffield cases will be heard on , and those from Ecclesall township probably .
The amount involved in Sheffield is about £14, out of the £117,000 that the rate will produce.
One of the Ecclesall “resisters” had a singular experience.
He had appealed against his assessment, but while awaiting the result of the appeal, his rate fell due, and he paid it less a small amount, which he withheld because of his so-called “conscientious objection to pay for the maintenance of Church Schools.”
His appeal was successful, and the balance in his favour was greater than the amount he had withheld, so that he has been robbed of all the glory of posing as a “Nonconformist martyr.[”]
The overseers of Nether Hallam have agreed to allow “Passive Resisters” to pay the undisputed portion of their rates.
A “Case” at Chesterfield.
The assistant overseer for the borough of Chesterfield (Mr. George Broomhead) has received a letter from the Rev. J.E. Simon, who is the pastor of the Congregational Chapel, Brampton, which the Mayor (Mr. C.P. Robinson) attends, stating he is unable to pay that part of the rate “which is levied for the support of sectarian schools.
By this rate I am required to pay directly for the teaching of Romanism and doctrines of the Established Church, which I believe to be untrue.
This I, as a Protestant and Nonconformist, refuse to do voluntarily.”
The amount which Mr. Simon was “prepared to pay” has been tendered to the rate collector, but as it was not the amount the last-named was “prepared to receive,” the sum was refused.
Interesting developments are anticipated.
The Rights of Overseers.
Mr. Vicary Gibbs, M.P., has sent the following reply to a constituent in the Albans Division, who asked whether he could obtain from Mr. Walter Long a definite opinion in regard to the rights of overseers in accepting or refusing part payment of local rates in connection with the Passive Resistance campaign:– “Mr. Walter Long writes me that he has looked very carefully into the question, and finds that the overseers are vested by law with the responsibility of deciding whether or not they will accept part.
I think you will agree that nothing would be gained by my asking him a public question.”
The Burnley Gazette of told the tale of another new resister:
Rev. W. Robinson as a
Passive Resister
This week, Rev. W. Robinson, formerly pastor of Hollingreave Congregational Church, Burnley, and now pastor of Market street Congregational Church, Farnworth, was one among others summoned before the magistrates for not paying a portion of the Education rate.
Mr. Martin, assistant overseer, produced the poor rate book for the rate laid .
Mr. Robinson’s rate was £7 19s., of which he had paid £6 16s. 11d., leaving £1 2s. 1d. unpaid.
He had received the following letter from Mr. Robinson:–
, — Dear Sir, — Herewith find my cheque to cover the amount of the demand made by the overseers on the note enclosed, less that part of the amount demanded for the Education Committees’ expenses.
This I shall not voluntarily pay, as it goes to the support of schools not popularly controlled, and to some schools in which teaching is given that has for its end the destruction not only of Free Churchmanship, but the overthrowing of English Protestantism.
— Yours, sincerely, William Robinson.
Mr. Martin, continuing, stated that he had received a precept from the Farnworth Education Committee for £1,650, to be devoted to educational purposes.
The Rev. W. Robinson was sworn in the Scottish fashion [this apparently means that he was sworn in by raising one hand, rather than by kissing the bible which was the default; this may have been for a number of reasons, hygiene among them], and Mr. Hall suggested that as he admitted owing the rate, he should simply be asked if he refused to pay on conscientious grounds.
They had all their own opinions on this matter.
The magistrates had theirs, and he didn’t think it worth while going further — Mr. Robinson said he objected to payment of the rate on conscientious grounds, and had deducted the amount which would be devoted to what he termed sectarian schools.
He would have deducted this money if all demanded had been going to the education of children in Congregational schools.
He was a Congregationalist minister, but objected to pay money towards any denomination whatsoever.
He thought if any man held a religious opinion or a negative opinion on matters of religion it was no affair of the State, and that no man ought to be penalised because he did not believe or because of what he believed. he would have objected to pay this money were it all going to Francis-street Congregational School — Mr. Hall: I suppose you pay income tax?
— Mr. Robinson: I do.
— Mr. Hall: And you know that a proportion goes to the Consolidated Fund, and for educational purposes?
— Mr. Robinson: The matters are entirely different.
My income tax is a mere trifle.
I know I may be charged with inconsistency, but surely you do not suggest that I should object to pay the income tax.
It would lead to much more contention than this.
— Mr. Hall: I suggest that to be consistent, you should.
— Mr. Robinson said that supposing he had two properties, and in order to have the opportunity of expressing his conscientious objection he paid the rate on one and not the other, would that not be equally inconsistent?
— Colonel Ainsworth: It depends upon the law.
— Mr. Robinson: Of course, and we Congregationalists are among the most law-abiding subjects.
When, however, the law encroached on a man’s conscience, he could not pay the money.
— Mr. Hall: With all due respect to you, I think we have heard enough.
— Colonel Ainsworth: We are here to administer the law, and we cannot help it if you think the law is wrong.
It is your business to get the law altered…
Here the article begins to lose legibility.
There is an interesting exchange in which Mr. Hall asks whether the defendants would pay up without going through the process of distraint (the panel evidently having decided against them).
On hearing that they would not, Hall asserts: “I remember the Church Rate days, when the Quakers refused to pay [illegible].
They, however, did not go to the extent of having their goods taken.
If shopkeepers, they would leave [illegible] open, and tell the officers to help themselves to the cash.”
Distraint warrants were issued.
The article notes that “The Court fees… were considerably reduced owing to the cases being taken together…” — evidently Robinson had been joined by some others at some point in the illegible paragraphs — “This will be much less than if they were not acting in concert.”
On the same page as the above article appears a letter from the Rev. J.B. Parry to the Burnley Borough Treasurer explaining why he was under-paying his general rate, giving a subset of the usual arguments.
The Rev. A. Gray, who seems to have become a spokesperson for the movement, penned an article for the Burnley Express and Advertiser:
The Passive Resistance Movement
The Right Hon. W.H. Long, President of the Local Government Board, in an address delivered at Devizes, Wilts, on , “appealed to passive resisters not to defy the law, but to try by constitutional means to obtain a repeal of the Education Act if they considered it to be unjust.”
We are glad to note that at least one member of the Government is sufficiently impressed with the strength of the movement as to “appeal” to the passive resisters on the point at issue.
Whilst we appreciate the spirit of the right hon. gentleman towards us, we cannot acknowledge the ground of his appeal.
We disavow any intention “to defy the law.”
Perhaps the name we bear is responsible somewhat for that misconception of our attitude toward the law.
Just as the term “Nonconformist,” which is purely negative, is being slowly but surely changed for that of “Free Churchman,” which is positive, and more truly expresses our position to-day, so the term “resister,” which is negative, should be changed to obeyer, which is positive.
Whilst we cannot, for conscientious reasons, pay the education rate, that is, the portion of the rate which is to be devoted to denominational schools, but leave the authority to collect it in such a way as it deems good, we thereby do render obedience to the law.
It is “not active obedience,” but it is “obedience.”
It is “passive obedience.”
We intend “to give the State the honour which is due to it, without depriving the conscience of the honour which is due to it.
The State was entitled to assistance only within its own proper sphere, and when the State went beyond its own sphere, it could not rightly claim the assistance of the citizens.”
I’m not sure what Gray is quoting there at the end.
A little further on, he continues:
Because we feel [the Act’s] injustice we have taken this step.
The injustice will be impressed upon the minds of the people as they see the goods of their fellow men distrained and sold to pay this rate.
Further, we can assure Mr. Long, that we shall in addition to passive resistance work earnestly for the repeal of the sectarian clauses, and the general amendment of the Act.
He quotes a Sir Walter Foster, member of parliament for Ilkeston Division, who said in part: “As to passive resisters, he was glad that he had hundreds of them in his own constituency.
If there was one thing that could save the nation, it was the men of strong conscientious conviction…”
He also addresses the dilemma of Free Church schools that qualified for funding under the same objectionable clauses that might fund Catholic or Anglican schools.
Some of these Free Church schools were refusing to accept such funds, but others, like the schools in the Wesleyan Conference, could not resist the temptation.
This raised the spectre of some nonconformists being distrained upon for their refusal to pay education rates that were destined for sectarian schools run by their own sects, which threatened to appear ridiculous.
Gray reprinted the remarks of Robertson Nicoll, who condemned the Wesleyan Conference’s decision.
Nicoll also wrote:
“Public opinion will shortly make it impossible for overseers and magistrates to refuse part payment, and as soon as the slow processes of the law permit, we shall know how far the authorities are entitled to make excessive distraints.
We believe it will be found that they are not entitled, and that they can be punished for going beyond their commission.
If so, steps will be taken to call every transgressor to account.”
Gray continued:
Whilst we are waiting the decision of the legal authorities consulted by the National Passive Resistance Committee on the question of excessive distraint, attention may be called to the fact that at Sheffield the following declaration by a K.C. was quoted:– “It is beyond question illegal to make an excessive distraint.
The bailiffs have no right to remove more goods than are estimated in reason to meet the account of the rate and the cost of distraint.
If the people who are taking part in the passive resistance movement feel that the bailiffs have been unreasonable, they can claim damages in court, and it is for the jury to decide.
A vindictive distraint is also illegal.
A distraint has been held to be vindictive where valuable goods have been removed against the wishes of the occupier, who has tendered other goods.
A bailiff is not necessarily to take what is offered him, but if he take things that he is requested to leave, he may be convicted of vindictive distraint, and the owner may be awarded damages.”
The Shields Daily Gazette reported in their edition:
The Policy of Passive Resistance
In not a few Tyneside towns, including South Shields, the past few days have witnessed the painful spectacle of the invasion of the homes of respectable law-abiding citizens by police and bailiffs, and the carrying off of household treasures to be stored in common sale rooms and sold “for non-payment of the rates.”
In most places the overseers have taken what we cannot but think the very high-handed course of refusing to accept part of the rate when tendered, and of levying execution for the whole amount.
This may be law — although the question is not yet definitely settled, pending the appeal from West Ham to the High Court — but it is certainly not equity.
Moreover, it is contrary to what appears to be the general usage of the overseers, whose collectors frequently accept part payment of the rate.
Indeed, every demand note issued bears the significant line at the top “arrears of former rates” and arrears could hardly exist unless the collectors were in the habit of accepting part of the rate when tendered.
…it seems nothing short of monstrous that warrants should be issued and costs imposed for the full amount of the rate, when in reality the defendants have only declined to pay a very small proportion thereof.… The local authorities who are apparently bent upon making matters as unpleasant as possible for the Passive Resisters are unquestionably arousing deep and wide-spread sympathy for those sturdy protestants, even amongst those who do not see eye to eye with them in the course they have taken.
The following article comes from the Kent & Sussex Courier:
Passive Resistance at Tunbridge Wells.
Auction Sale Under Distraint Warrants.
.
Scene in the Police Yard.
“Boohing” the Auctioneer.
Prayer Meeting Precedes Sale.
the sale by auction of the goods and chattels of the four defendants who were recently summoned for non-payment of the Education Rate took place in the police yard, adjoining the Town Hall, in the presence of some hundreds of sympathisers and other spectators.
The local Passive Resistance Committee had organised a demonstration for the occasion of the sale, on the morning of which the Town Crier was sent round to remind the public of the fact contained in the auctioneer’s announcement placarded about the town, as follows:–
In the County of Kent.
Borough of Tunbridge Wells.
Sale by Public Auction, under distress warrants, in the yard adjoining the Police Station, Calverley-street, Tunbridge Wells, on .
MR. W. LAING, Auctioneer, will OFFER for SALE, at the time and place above-mentioned, by PUBLIC AUCTION, the undermentioned goods, which have been seized under warrants of distress, issued by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction acting in and for the Borough of Tunbridge Wells:–
Lot 1.—Silver Cake Basket and Silver Salver.
Lot 2.—Thirteen Silver Spoons.
Lot 3.—Five Mahogany Chairs.
Lot 4.—Copper Coal Scuttle and Scoop, and Silver Fish Servers, in case.
Each Lot to be paid for and cleared immediately after the Sale.
Chas. Prior, Chief Constable.
.
A big crowd had consequently assembled and awaited the unlocking of the gates of the station yard, and a good many people had evidently come in from the surrounding districts to witness the proceedings.
, the Chief Constable escorted the Rev J. Mountain and the Rev H.C. Palmer, with several ladies, to the gates, and the crowd, recognising the ministers, gave them a very cordial reception, to which they bowed their acknowledgments.
As soon as the gates were open there was an excited rush to enter the yard, in which a considerable proportion the fair sex came in for some derangement of their toilette, and in a very few seconds the crowd in the street had transferred itself en masse into the yard, where a posse of stalwart constables was drawn up on either side of a temporary rostrum erected for the auctioneer, and directly communicating with the door leading into the police officer — a strategic arrangement in view of possible contingencies.
The Chief Constable had very diplomatically discounted any likelihood of a disturbance of the peace by affording the demonstrators the greatest possible latitude.
The platform erected for the sale was placed at their disposal for a protest meeting both before and after the sale.
It was eminently judicious of Mr Prior not to confine himself to the strict letter of the law, but to permit the demonstrators to demonstrate as much as they pleased within orderly limits.
The station yard being full and a further crowd in the street beyond, the preliminary protest meeting was at once proceeded with.
The Chief Constable smilingly escorted the Rev. Dr. Usher, the Rev. J. Mountain, the Rev. W.H.C. Palmer, and the Rev. Dennis Cooper to the rostrum, and an outburst of cheering greeted their appearance, which was renewed when the word went round that the redoubtable Dr. Clifford was also present.
Placards of protest were affixed to the rostrum to give place later to a bill of the auction, and then Dr. Usher gave out the hymn “O God our help in ages past,” after which the Rev. Dennis Cooper engaged in prayer.
The Rev. Dr. Usher then explained that they were allowed to meet by the courtesy of the Chief Constable, a gentleman whose acquaintance they had been proud to make.
He had met them in the kindest and most conciliatory manner (hear, hear).
They had met as citizens to protest against a law which went against the religious beliefs of millions of his Majesty’s subjects.
The grievance was as real as those under the Uniformity Act, the Conventicle Act, and the Five Mile Act, or as the progress of Ritualism in the eyes of their evangelical brethren.
It had been said they did this for political purposes, but Free Churchmen had been in advance of political leaders in this matter.
They were called law breakers, but he denied that they were.
They submitted passively.
Their doors were open and their furniture could be seized for that which they could not as matter of conscience pay voluntarily.
But if they were law breakers, they were proud to bear the shame in such company as Latimer and Ridley, who went to the stake when the Law said do one thing and God said do another.
They heartily sympathised with their four friends in what they had had submit to.
They protested not against the auctioneer or the Chief Constable, but against the political power of the land and particularly the Bishops, for the way in which they had misused political power.
If those present wished to show true sympathy with their cause, they would allow the proceedings which were to follow to be conducted in an orderly manner.
Those proceedings would be repeated if need be a dozen times.
There were plenty more defaulters waiting to have their goods seized for conscience sake, and he asked them never to forget that in , in a town like Tunbridge Wells, they had seen the goods of true citizens sold for religious purposes.
The protesters then proceeded to vacate the platform, but the Chief Constable informed them that they had another five minutes yet in which to demonstrate, as the sale would not commence before .
Accordingly the hymn, “Stand up, stand up for Jesus,” was given out, and was immediately succeeded by a decided contrast.
The hymn-singing changed to a different sound as the crowd proceeded to booh at the top of their voices when the auctioneer made his appearance and hung his card over the rostrum.
This bore the inscription, “Wm. B. Laing (late Savage and Son), Auctioneer, 127, New Road, and Whitechapel Road.”
Above the groaning and hooting could be heard various insulting expressions hurled at the auctioneer, who smilingly informed the crowd that he was not in a hurry and could wait.
The address appeared to take the fancy of the crowd, who shouted “Whitechappeler,” “Coster,” “Hooligan,” “German-Jew” until they were hoarse.
Dr. Usher appealed in pantomime for silence, and Mr Fryer, who was standing conveniently near the rostrum to buy in some of the effects, was heard by those near to shout to the crowd that the auctioneer was not a German, but a Scotchman.
“More shame to him” roared the crowd, and the boohing was renewed with redoubled vigour, in which even the shriller voices of the ladies present could be heard above the hubbub.
The auctioneer lost no time in announcing the sale and putting up the first lot.
“You have not read out the conditions of sale,” bellowed a gentleman, who had been doing his best to drown the auctioneer’s voice.
“I have just done so,” retorted the auctioneer.
“I never heard you,” retorted the gentleman, with unconscious humour, as he proceeded to booh louder than ever as the auctioneer attempted to make himself heard.
Had the devotional exercises failed to soothe the passions of the crowd?
The auctioneer, amid laughter, removed his silk hat to a place of greater security, and pointed to the auction bill as he stentoriously called for Lot one.
Several gentlemen who had arranged to buy in goods stood on the alert, and Mr Mountain and Mr Palmer supported each other in the absence of the other two defaulters — Mr Alexander and Mr Edmonds — who are enjoying themselves on the Continent.
The Chief Constable, notwithstanding the eulogy just passed on him, found it quite as difficult to obtain a hearing as he stated, amidst renewed hooting, that he was there to do his duty by carrying of the magistrates’ orders under the distress warrant, and that the auctioneer, who was doing his duty, had come down at a very moderate charge to carry the law into effect.
Amidst considerable hubbub, the articles in the first lot were then handed out from the police office window under the guardianship of the constables.
This lot consisted of a silver cake basket and silver salver, the property Mr Edmonds.
“Who bids £1”? shouted the auctioneer.
Mr Elwig promptly bid £2 15s on behalf of the owner, and the auctioneer knocked down the bid, and before the crowd realised it, the goods were handed back into the police office.
Lot 2, a dozen silver spoons, the property of Mr Alexander, were next handed up in the same way, and at once knocked down to Mr Drake, acting for Mr Alexander, for £2. Lot 3, five mahogany hair stuffed chairs, the property of the Rev J. Mountain, were promptly bought in by the Rev Dennis Cooper, for £2, and the concluding lot, a copper coal scuttle and silver fish servers, the property of Rev. W. Palmer, were similarly knocked down to Mr Fryer, on Mr Palmer’s behalf, for 30s.
The auction, which concluded in dumb shew had not lasted five minutes, was over before the crowd had finished hooting the auctioneer, and then some missile was heard to strike the window behind the auctioneer.
It turned out to be only a match box, and the police, who were interspersed in the crowd, at once seized the offender, bat as he appeared to have only jocularly thrown the missile, which was first thought to be a stone, he was not arrested, and no proceedings will taken against him.
The auctioneer and his clerk, Mr E. Smith, promptly vanished within the police office, where the bidders followed them to write out their cheques, and claim the furniture, after which the protest meeting was resumed, and proceeding without incident, except that an elderly man, named Sewell, living in Kirkdale road, was overcome by the heat, and had to be removed to the Hospital on the police ambulance.
Dr. Clifford then mounted the rostrum, and had an enthusiastic reception.
His remarks were somewhat inauspicious, as they related instances of other sales, where the auctioneers had “not dared show themselves,” but the doctor as he went on cleared himself from any suspicion of arriere pensee by congratulating the crowd on their orderly behaviour.
He went on to add that their protest was not against magistrates or chief constables, but against the bishops.
He congratulated Tunbridge Wells on having a Chief Constable of such fairness and moderation — a remark which the crowd, who had just hooted Mr Prior, now responded to by cheering in the utmost good humour.
He was glad that the vindictiveness of magistrates at other places was passing away, and they were being treated with consideration.
They were being forced to pay for religious teaching they did not believe in, and to submit to their children being proselytized.
A Voice: That is Christianity.
Dr. Usher: No, Churchianity.
Dr. Clifford: It illustrates the tyranny of the Established Church.
It was one of the most atrocious spectacles that the opening of the 20th Century could witness — a pampered, favoured, law-established sect forcing itself by political means upon those who conscientiously differed from them.
This Act could not last.
It would have to be repealed, because it would injure the Established Church more than it would injure these who resisted it.
These scenes would have to go on until the Act was repealed.
His father took him as a boy to witness a distraint sale for refusing to pay a Church rate, but the Education Act was more iniquitous than that.
The Church rate was to maintain church buildings, but the education rate was to proselytise their children.
This Act would be swept away, and they would not rest till they had a free system fair to the children, fair to the parents and teachers, and fair to the ratepayers.
J. Mountain spoke next, saying nothing particularly unexpected, unless it was to call Clifford “the Oliver Cromwell of this century.”
Then W.H. Palmer spoke:
Rev. W.H. Palmer said they had been taunted that this was a matter of pocket, but it was not so.
His education rate was 4s 9d but the recovery of it would cost him 30s.
They had the expense of an auctioneer from London, because no local auctioneer would lower himself to perform the task of selling goods which were suffered to be seized for conscience sake, or, rather, the Chief Constable had not asked any local auctioneer to so degrade himself.
At a local auction the goods could have been sold more cheaply, viz, for 2s in the £, but they were glad no local auctioneer could be found, even though to obtain 4s 9d from him 30s had been spent.
This would show it was not a question of pocket, and they did not keep their conscience in their pocket.
He was proud to be one of the first to be summoned, but there were plenty more waiting to stand in the same position.
Some 40 persons had already intimated their readiness to be summoned.
The Rev. Dr. Usher expressed the sympathy of those present with the four martyrs, and added that he himself expected to be in the next batch, and they should go on till the victory was won.
In conclusion, he asked those present, for the sake of the ladies, to leave the yard with less of a rush than they came in.
The Doxology and a verse of “All hail the power of Jesu’s name,” and a verse of the National Anthem concluded the proceedings; while outside the cheering was renewed as the furniture was displayed on a cart decorated with flags and evergreens, and bearing an inscription.
“This the furniture of gentlemen who refused for conscience sake to pay the Priest’s rate.”
The cart was drawn in triumph to the owner’s residences, and a sale of memorial cards adorned with coffins, to represent the burial of the Education Act was proceeded with among the crowd.
The proceedings, though noisy, were orderly; and the Chief Constable is to be congratulated on his excellent arrangements.
Immediately following this article was another, featuring many of the same cast of characters, describing a meeting “on the Common in the evening,” and then another, describing an “evening meeting at the Great Hall” that followed.
These were rallies that were meant to remind attendees of what was at stake and to encourage them to keep up the struggle to the bitter end, but the reports do not otherwise shed much light on how the campaign was progressing.
One thing I thought was noteworthy was a slideshow that included scenes from that afternoon’s distraint auction:
The room was then darkened for local views of passive resistance taken by Mr Lankester and Mr Jenkins, to be exhibited and explained by Dr. Usher.
The views commenced with portraits of passive resisters, commencing with Alderman Finch, who was introduced as the first Nonconformist Mayor.
Then came portraits of the Chief Constable, the Town Clerk, and Alderman Stone, the latter two being loudly boohed.
A series of views were next shown taken outside the rate collector’s office (a group of resisters refusing to pay rates), outside the Town Hall (after the hearing of the summonses), outside the residences of the several defendants (at the distraining of the goods), and lastly, a series of snapshots taken of the sale that afternoon, and of the meeting on the Common.
A portrait of Mr Hedges, with an injunction to vote for him at the next election concluded the series.
Clifford then spoke, saying among other things:
He asked them to regard this as one of the services a town could render an Empire.
They were assisting a national work.
Nothing was so characteristic of the movement as its spontaneity.
It was springing up not only in large towns, but in little hamlets.
He quoted cases of resisters upwards of 70 and 80 years of age, of resisters in poor as well as affluent circumstances.
A nation was judged by its ideals, and we were at a turning point in national history.…
The Evening News of Portsmouth reported in its issue:
[T]he Passive Resistance movement seems to be spreading like a prairie fire.
Over sixty persons will shortly be proceeded against in the Sheffield Police-court.
Ninety-nine resisters have now appeared before the Magistrates at Bath; a huge furniture van has been driven round Edgbaston, Birmingham, by the bailiffs and police, who carried off drawing-room suites, clocks, and other articles of furniture in great quantity.
No part payment is accepted in the city of Mr. Chamberlain, but relentless thoroughness has been thus far the order of the day on the part of Overseers and Magistrates.
It is remarkable how the well-to-do people are joining the movement.
In Bath some of the best known public men are Passive Resisters.
Mr. Ansell, of Birmingham has been a leader among the “Unionists”; Mr. Percy Rawson, the Liberal candidate for the Stamford division, is among those whose goods have been seized; while Mr. W.B. Bembridge, a Magistrate of Ripley, Derbyshire, has resigned his position on the Commission of the Peace because he cannot conscientiously apply the penalties of the law to Passive Resisters.
Some of the Resisters are looking to Portsmouth J.P.’s to take sides with them and become Resisters too, but it is hoped they, like the Lord Mayor of Sheffield, will not resign unless called upon by the proper authority to do so.
But they should refuse to sign summonses of distraint upon others.
The article goes on to say that Clifford and others had met with “Liberal leaders” and had gotten their promise “that should they come into power at the next election the repeal or amendment of the Education Act should be their first business.”
The Liberals would come to power in and hold the reins of government .
Any guesses as to whether they’ll keep their promise?
This, and the resistance slide show that ended pointedly with “[a] portrait of Mr Hedges, with an injunction to vote for him at the next election” show that then, as now, politicians are quick to swoop in on a grassroots activist campaign and coopt it for the purposes of furthering their careers.
Following that article was this one:
Some Lively Scenes
At a Passive Resistance Sale.
Auctioneer Goes with a Revolver.
Lively scenes were witnessed on at a sale of goods of sixteen Wimbledon Passive Resisters in Plough-road, Battersea, and the auctioneer, fearing an attack from the crowd, armed himself with a revolver.
Over 2,000 persons besieged the closed saleroom, and the large staff of police could not prevent a rush being made for the auctioneer, Mr. Thomas Spearing, who is an elderly man of slight build.
Mr. Spearing was severely handled before he could reach the saleroom, and two Pressmen who found themselves mixed up in the crowd were arrested.
When the auctioneer reached the saleroom the attitude of the crowd became more threatening.
Mr. Spearing, therefore, before admitting the public, and, beginning the sale, took up a loaded revolver.
The police, however, anxious to prevent anything in the nature of a riot, persuaded him to put the revolver away, and after some difficulty they succeeded.
At first only about a dozen persons were admitted to the saleroom, but the crowd clamoured for admission, and protested that the auction was not public, and therefore illegal.
Four times the auctioneer postponed the sale, but at last, at the request of one of the overseers, he proceeded, amid laughter and hooting, a portion of the crowd gaining admission.
With the exception of a perambulator and a baby’s chair, for which the late owner had no further use, all the lots were bought in by Mr. Robert Hunter, on behalf of the Resisters.
Courteous Magistrates.
At Nailsworth (Gloucestershire) Police-court, on , two Baptist ministers, of Stroud and Minchinhampton, and five other Passive Resisters were summoned.
The court was crowded, and several Nonconformist ministers were present.
The Bench decided to allow all the defendants to pay part of the rate, and to allow a fortnight to pay the balance.
The defendants had made their protest, said the Chairman of the Bench, and now he hoped the remainder of the money would be paid.
If not, it must be recovered in the usual way.
Defendants thanked the Magistrates for their courtesy.
Distress Warrants Granted
There were several cases before the county Magistrates at Kidderminster on in which Nonconformists were summoned for refusing to pay their poor rates.
In each case they objected to pay because of the education rate forming part of the amount demanded.
The Magistrates declined to hear any objections except as to the validity of the rate.
The defendants admitted its validity.
In each case an order for distress was granted.
The Berwickshire News and General Advertiser quoted from the Edinburgh Evening Dispatch in its issue:
In an English newspaper devoted to this resistance movement accounts are given of the rowdyism of the mob and the vehement protests of the clerical resisters.
In one case “several townsfolk were ready with a sack to capture the auctioneer with,” and this functionary has invariably to be protected by strong bodies of police from being subjected to bodily violence.
Below this was an article about eight Passive Resisters being charged at Berwick Police Court, and applications for distress being granted.
In that case, the overseers were willing to accept partial payment.
The edition of the same paper gives an account of a trial that gives a feel for some of the jousting between resisters and officials, the former trying to turn their trials into opportunities to demonstrate against injustice, the latter trying to reduce this inconvenience:
Spittal Passive Resisters Summoned.
A Minister and Town Councillor Proceeded Against.
A Scene in Court.
At Berwick Police Court, on , Rev. Archibald Alexander, Minister of St. Paul’s English Presbyterian Church, Spittal, was summoned for non-payment of poor rate in full, the sum of 1s 7d being left due.
On being charged, defendant said— I am summoned here to show cause why I have refused to pay.
Am I at liberty to show cause?
The Clerk— Do you acknowledge the summons?
Defendant— I believe I am here to answer the Magistrates.
The Mayor— You must answer the Clerk’s question.
That is your first duty.
Defendant— I decline to answer that question.
Robert Lambert, rate collector, Tweedmouth, was accordingly called to prove the rate.
The amount required from Mr Alexander was £1 1s 10d of which £1 0s 3d had been paid, leaving 1s 7d for which defendant had been summoned.
The Clerk— The rate was one which was legally made and allowed by the Magistrates.
Do you wish to ask any question from witness?
Defendant— I have no desire to ask any question from witness.
The Mayor— Have you anything to say about the legal aspect of this?
Defendant— It is an outrage that I should be called upon to pay to support schools which are sectarian and which are to detach our young people from the religion of their fathers, and make them indifferent and even opposed to that religion.
I protest against this outrage before this Court.
The Bench decided that the usual order for payment should be made.
Three other cases were decided in a similar way.
Another article on the same page gives a little more detail about how the property seizures were carried out:
Berwick Passive Resisters’ Goods Seized.
On , the distress warrants issued is the case of Berwick Passive Resisters — 8 persons including 3 ministers — were carried into effect.
Mr George Moor, Assistant Overseer, accompanied by Police-Sergt. Wm. Moor, drove round to the houses of the 8 defendants, and seized goods to the amount required, the proceedings passed off quietly.
In all cases payment of the rate, less the disputed portion, with expenses up to the issue of the warrants, was tendered and accepted, the balance being distrained for.
The articles taken were of small value.
They will sold by public auction next week.
The articles that have been seized include biscuit-boxes, and boxes of cigars, and one case a picture.
Three of the Resisters brought the articles down to the Police-station themselves.
As has been said the portion of the rate not in dispute was tendered along with expenses up to date, 1d in the £ being deducted as the amount at present levied for educational purposes, and this was accepted.
Some article in the household was then accepted to realise the amount disputed and the expenses to be yet incurred.
In the majority of cases the articles seized were small.
It is alleged that the Overseers are having difficulty in securing the services of an auctioneer to dispose of the goods.
The next example comes from the North Devon Journal:
Passive Resistance at Barnstaple.
Eight Persons Before the Magistrates.
Great Demonstrations.
Barnstaple is the first town in Devonshire to furnish passive resistance cases, eight summonses having been heard before the Borough Bench on .
The day was marked by two great demonstrations under the auspices of the Barnstaple Citizens’ League.
At a prayer meeting in the Congregation Schoolroom was conducted by the Rev. F.J. Kirby, (President of the League), and shortly before , the hour at which the Borough Bench sat, the passive resisters and friends marched to the Guildhall in procession singing “Onward, Christian soldiers.”
There was a crowded attendance at the Guildhall, sympathisers with the passive resisters appearing to predominate; and the proceedings were very lively from start to finish.
In these cases, the overseers were not willing to accept partial payment, which increased the amount of antagonism between the resisters and the authorities.
The individual cases proceeded on a now-familiar track, with the resisters trying to plead the injustice of the rates, the mayor trying to rubber stamp distraint orders as quickly as possible, and impatient crowds siding with the resisters giving cheers, boos, and other peanut gallery calls.
Here is one example
When Mrs. Martha Blackwell, of Alexandra-road, the first lady to be proceeded against in Barnstaple, entered the box, she received a tremendous ovation.
— When the cheering had subsided, Mr. Ffinch [the mayor] said to the Head Constable (Mr. B. Eddy): Take some of them into custody.
We shall know how to deal with them.
That didn’t seem to deter anyone, as “renewed cheering” greeted the following defendant.
Some of those summoned were only willing to pay the offensive portion of the rate when ordered by the court to do so; others were unwilling to do so even then, and would only relinquish the money involuntarily via distraint.
The defendants also raised a number of procedural points about their cases that had nothing to do with their conscientious objection, which suggests to me that they had adopted the strategy of trying to clog the courts and make each case take as long as possible to resolve.
After the proceedings, the resisters held a rally in the marketplace.
Rev. F.J. Kirby announced that the overseers had decided, after all of that courtroom fuss had annoyed the Mayor, that they would accept partial payments after all, so the resisters won that particular skirmish.
The speeches were rousing rally cries urging the crowd to resist what was painted as an Anglican/Papist conspiracy to wipe out nonconformity by indoctrinating children.
The rally ended with the singing of the national anthem.
There was a second demonstration in the evening at the Music Hall: “a crowded and enthusiastic attendance [with s]everal hundreds of persons [who] were unable to gain admission” and the Salvation Army Band playing “Onward, Christian Soldiers” as they marched in “followed by a large contingent of young people.”
The Rev. H.J. Crouch spoke first, and, among other things, explained that he had been one of the token nonconformists on the Walton-on-Thames School Board but realized that he had no influence and was disgusted that the board was grilling prospective teachers about what religious denomination they belonged to during the hiring process.
He said he resigned from the board in disgust and resolved to join the passive resistance movement.
The Rev. G.F. Owen exemplified the increasing rhetorical temperature when he concluded his speech this way:
He was not born to have a saddle upon his back, and he would not be sat upon by the despotism of kings or Parliaments either.
He was free, and every bone in his body should be broken, and every drop of blood shed, before he paid a penny to help the priest to degrade the children and lock them up in the darkness of heathenism and superstition for generations to come.
(Cheers.)
F.J. Kirby spoke next and gave some more detail about how the authorities were proceeding against the resisters:
Up to he was unaware that any proceedings were to be taken against any of those who had been made known as active members of Barnstaple and District Citizen’s League.
To his great surprise on , on opening the North Devon Journal — that paper cherished by North Devon people next to their Bible — he read that summonses had been issued against eight citizens who had decided not to pay the Education rate.
Not more than ten minutes afterwards a ring came to his door and a gentleman in blue presented himself.
“Well,” said Mr. Kirby, “I believe he was more afraid than I was.”
(Laughter and applause.)
He was most courteous, as had been all the authorities, with one or two exceptions.
All had been as kind as they could be under the circumstances.
When they knew that they had to appear before the magistrates that day they had at once in their minds the determination to make some means of voicing their convictions before the public of Barnstaple.
They soon got together speakers and sympathisers, and were able to put upon the bills the names of those who spoke and at that meeting.
But that meeting did not require eloquent speakers.
It was itself eloquence.
Kirby also issued a plea to the Wesleyans and Brethren to show solidarity with them by refusing to take Education Act funds for their own schools, something they had apparently thus far been unwilling to do.
A Councillor Hopper spoke next, advocating that resisters insist on stating the conscientious grounds for their stand in court, and replying to one of the magistrates’ suggestion (or threat) that the authorities strike nonconformists from the voter rolls if they refuse to pay their full rates.
Finally, an article in the Dover Express and East Kent News covered a meeting of a passive resistance group:
Passive Resistance at Dover
Nonconformists’ League Describes Its Policy and Aims.
On a public meeting under the auspices of the Dover Citizens’ League, an association for the promotion of “passive resistance” against the Education Rate, was held at Salem Chapel.
There was an enthusiastic gathering of Nonconformists, the chair being taken by Mr. John Scott (the President of the Dover Free Church Council), who was supported on the platform by Mr. W. Bradley, the Rev. W. Holyoak, the Rev. W.H. Parr, G. Clark, etc.
Scott put the struggle in the context of other civil disobedience struggles that nonconformists had to go through over the ages, just to be allowed to hold their own services for instance, and said that it was the duty of modern nonconformists to stand up like their predecessors had and to refuse to submit to an unjust law.
The other speakers addressed various arguments concerning the Act and the tactic of tax resistance.
Finally:
Mr. Lewis explained at the conclusion of the meeting that the Dover Citizens’ League consisted of members who agreed not to pay the Education Rate, and also Associates who approved of the policy of passive resistance not being ratepayers, or for other reason, would not offer passive resistance.
The subscription was not less than 6d. per quarter, paid in advance.
That takes us through the end of in what I’ve collected (certainly only a sample) of the newspaper coverage of the opening year of this tax resistance movement.
The Edinburgh Review for included a long article about the church-rates controversy.
A couple of things in it caught my eye.
One was a quote the article attributes (approvingly) to William Gladstone:
When the legislature makes a demand on its subjects for a part of their property, whatever be the purpose to which it is applied, the demand of the legislature absolves the conscience of its subjects.
I thought that was a concise and well-put statement of this particular opinion, though it’s not an opinion I have much respect for.
The article sources this quote to “Hansard, ”.
Hansard gives the quote slightly differently:
[W]hen the Legislature made a demand on its subjects for a part of their property, whatever might be the purpose to which it was applied, the demand of the Legislature absolved the conscience of its subjects.
Gladstone was speaking in opposition to dissenters who claimed conscience as their legal justification for refusing to pay church rates.
Gladstone recommended that they instead willingly take on the consequences of their illegal actions, as the Quakers do:
They might use every means of getting rid of [the church rates], but as long as the payment was law, no scruple of conscience could fairly resist it.
Every kind of suffering and hardship, as in the case of the Quakers, should rather be endured, than that they should be entitled to absolve themselves, under a scruple of conscience, from its payment.
The Review also brings up the example of the Quakers, grudgingly admitting their sincerity thusly:
We freely allow, indeed, that in a few cases (as amongst the early Quakers, for example) where extreme fanaticism is united with ignorance of the first elements of moral philosophy, they may by possibility be genuine.
The author later expands on this:
The Quakers, as we have just said, are an exceptional case; they give implicit obedience to all the traditions of George Fox, and oppose passive resistance to all ecclesiastical payments, as he taught them.… [S]o perverse is human eccentricity, that we believe Fox and his followers were honest in pursuing this line of conduct.
But then it must be remembered that they proved the reality of their scruples not by noisy opposition, but by patient endurance, and in times when they had everything to lose and nothing to gain by refusing to pay what they allowed the law to take.
And that passage was footnoted as follows:
Even the Quakers are not consistent in their scrupulosity, for they pay war taxes.
In the committee on church-rates, Mr. Bass, a Quaker witness, is asked, “Should you object to pay a national rate for the support of a war?”
Answer. “Yes, I should.”
Question. “But have you not done it all your life?”
Answer. “…The taxes for war are so mixed up with unobjectionable charges, that it is impossible to dissect them.… If the Government were to ask me for a war tax, I should not pay it.”
Mr. Bass now has an opportunity of showing his consistency, by refusing the double income-tax, which is expressly declared by the statute book to be a war tax.
Should you object to pay a national rate for the support of a
war?
A
Yes, I should.
Q
But do not you; have not you done it all your life, for
instance?
A
I do not know that that has anything to do with this question;
but the taxes for the carrying on of war are so mixed up with demands for civil services, and other unobjectionable charges for the support of the country, that it is impossible to dissect them, whilst this church rate comes only and simply as an ecclesiastical demand.
Q
I asked you whether, in a national rate mixed up with other
rates, you would not pay for the support of the fabric of the church?
A
If there was any means of escaping it I should, and very likely
should suffer for it.
I do not know how that would be.
I can hardly give an answer to that.
Q
You pay to a national rate for a war, which you think an unjust
purpose?
A
Yes.
Q
Religiously?
A
Yes; I pay taxes on the principle of rendering to Cæsar the
things that are Cæsar’s
Q
You pay for a war when the money is collected in a national
rate?
A
We have no means of dissecting it; if the Government were to ask
me for a war tax I should not pay it.
Q
If they could blind the church rate sufficiently, you would pay
it?
A
It is not blinding it; they ask me for a rate mixed up with all
other purposes and we cannot dissect it.
Q
If that tax was a little heavier, and you only supposed that it
might be for church rate, you would pay it?
A
Measure has nothing to do with it, either heavy or light.
That was a portion of the examination of Isaac Bass, a Quaker from Brighton, before the House of Commons’s Select Committee on Church Rates on .
I can’t remember any examples in my research so far of British Quakers refusing to pay the double-income-tax for the Crimean War, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so there may be some out there waiting for me to discover them.
While I was researching the history of Brethren attitudes towards war taxes, I came across Samuel F.
Sanger’s The Olive Branch of Peace and Good Will to Men: Anti-War History of the Brethren and Mennonites, the Peace People of the South, During the Civil War, .
It included this Quaker document that I hadn’t come across before:
Memorial
To the Honorable The Legislature of Virginia:
Your petitioners, members of the Religious Society of Friends (called Quakers), desire respectfully to call your attention to that portion of the Governor’s Message in which he recommends the repeal of the law exempting certain Religious Denominations from military duty by payment of a tax.
In his remarks on the subject, the Governor, doubtless unintentionally, does great injustice to, at least one of those Sects, the Friends.
He assumes that the payment of said tax is an acknowledgment on the part of those paying it that some aid is due from them to the Government in the prosecution of the war:
on the contrary we have paid said tax under protest, it being one of the established principles of our Society from its rise unto the present day, that a Christian has no right to take up the weapons of a carnal warfare for any earthly consideration;
yet we believe it our duty as good citizens, “To be in subjection to the powers that be,” and as the exemption law, both of the Confederate and State Governments omitted to make any provision for distraint where the tax was not paid, it seemed to present the subject in a matter similar to that in which the Savior directed the tribute money to be paid — “That we offend them not.”
The discipline of every Yearly Meeting of our Socity prohibits its members from taking part in any way in war;
from mustering, or paying any fine imposed for not mustering, requiring its members in all such cases, quietly to submit to any distraints for said fine, and prohibiting them from concealing their property, or in any way evading said laws.
We believe that the Constitution of Virginia does, in those clauses which secure to every man the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, afford ground for exemption to the members of our Society, as it is well known that we worship God not only as “Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father,” but also as the “Prince of Peace.”
Therefore a bill exempting those who worship him as the Prince of Peace, to wit:
Friends and Dunkers (Brethren), instead of being unconstitutional, as the Governor suggests, would, it seems to us, only be a provision to carry out the great principle set forth in the Virginia Bill of Rights, Sec. 16, viz.:
“That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience;
and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other;”
and we have come to ask Christian charity at your hands, because, while we judge not for others, for ourselves we believe that by taking up the weapons of carnal warfare, even in the defense of our dearest rights, or life itself, we would endanger the welfare of our immortal souls.
Here there’s a break in what Sanger includes, which he summarizes this way: “The Petition then quotes freely from the early Church Fathers, Authors, and Reformers to prove that this belief is not original with the Friends; and produces from the prophecies of the Old and precepts from the New Testament, the Scripture in support of Peace Principles…” The petition then concludes:
We have thus endeavored in meekness, to render a reason of the hope that is in us, and trust that the honorable Legislature of Virginia will not be behind the Roman Government, which under several Consuls, allowed exemption to the Jews from military duty on account of their religious scruples, and seeing that we are a peaceable people, ever desiring to render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, we pray that we may be allowed the privilege under the Government of this noble Old Commonwealth, which we honor and love, as loyal and true citizens should, to render unto God the things that are God’s according to the convictions of our consciences, and therefore pray that we may be required to perform no military duty; for we consider the throwing up of a battery, or the driving of an ammunition or other team, as much an act of war as fighting in the ranks.
We own no God but the God of Love, Truth, Peace, Mercy and Judgment, whose blessings we invoke, and whose wisdom we implore to be with you in your legislative deliberations.
The petition is signed by John B. Crenshaw, clerk of the Virginia Half-Year’s Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, and dated .
Sanger’s book also tells how Brethren dealt with the same issue.
Unlike the Quakers, they were typically untroubled by paying militia exemption fines.
Early in the Civil War, however, the Virginia government did not recognize conscientious objectors at all, apparently.
Anticipating the draft, a number of conscientious objectors fled North.
72 were captured during their flight.
After some desperate lobbying on their behalf, the Confederate Congress passed an exemption act allowing for conscientious objectors to be freed from military service obligations on paying a $500 fine.
Says Sanger:
On the passage of this Act of Congress, special council meetings were called to provide funds to pay the fines of the poor brethren, who were unable to pay this heavy tax.
Great liberality was shown in the raising of this fund, as evidenced by one of the original subscription papers in my possession.
As soon as sufficient funds were secured, a committee was sent to Richmond, the redemption money was paid, and the release of these imprisoned brethren was obtained as well as those imprisoned in Harrisonburg.
Great joy was experienced throughout the churches in the South on their release.
Sanger also relates the story of Gabriel Heatwole, a Mennonite who was among the 72 captives freed in this way.
He expresses strong gratitude for those who lobbied for the Exemption Act and who did the fundraising to free him and his fellow-captives.
