Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Quakers →
19th century Quakers →
Joshua Maule
Joshua Maule, in his book Transactions and Changes in the Society of Friends, and Incidents in the Life and Experience of Joshua Maule (), gives a good look at how the debate over war tax resistance played out among Quakers during the American Civil War.
… If the Society of Friends was in a healthy condition, there would, I have no doubt, be some action taken in the yearly meeting, in giving counsel and encouragement to strengthen the hands of Friends faithfully to maintain a Christian testimony against war and all warlike measures, including the present levying of a tax for the support of the war.
The latter subject was brought before the meeting, but the spirit which prevails, and has ruled for years past, turned judgment away backward, and the honest-hearted, who had hoped for counsel and advice from the Church, were discouraged through the position taken by the leaders of the meeting, who endeavoured to make it appear that our testimony did not require us to decline paying the tax now demanded.
They referred to the writings of early Friends on the subject of taxes, intimating that their testimony was not against such a tax as the present; but they did not produce the proof of such an assertion, neither could they.
I am satisfied there are no writings of sound Friends of any period in the existence of the Society which justify or seek to defend or excuse the payment of a clear and direct war tax such as ours.
But there is abundant evidence that they bore a clear testimony against it.
The discipline of Ohio Yearly Meeting says:
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.”
Following this, the discipline enumerates a number of things which it is the judgment of the yearly meeting our members should not engage in, and says “that a tax levied for the purchasing of drums, colours, or for other warlike uses, cannot be paid consistently with our Christian testimony.”
The whole chapter on war in the discipline is well worthy to be read.
It clearly shows that those who now control and direct the affairs of our yearly meeting are not the same in principle with the Friends who framed the discipline; as they pay taxes which are named as being direct for war, and discourage others from maintaining a testimony against them.
There were many hindering considerations presented to my mind, and many arguments were used to discourage from declining to pay this tax, by Friends who were intrusted with the important concerns of the Church, and whom I had much esteemed and would have looked to for help, instead of hindrance, in supporting the testimonies of Truth.
Amid the “strife of tongues” and the abounding of reasoning, which I often thought brought darkness rather than light, it remained clear to my mind, as I endeavoured to look to the only sure Guide, “the Wonderful Counsellor,” that, let others do as they would, the only safe way for myself was to entirely decline paying the war tax, and leave the consequences.
Fully impressed with this feeling, I went to the County Treasurer, and informed him how I wished to pay my tax.
He objected to receiving it as I requested, as he thought the law would not allow it, but he did not find any law to prohibit him from so doing.
I told him I was aware that the authorities would collect the unpaid part of my tax by distraint, but that I believed it was not right for me to pay money to support war.
He made many objections to complying with my wishes, all which I answered as well as I found ability.
He heard me patiently and kindly, and admitted that he understood the ground of my declining to pay the war tax, and he seemed about to accede to my request when a new difficulty arose in his mind.
He said “he did not know whether the law would allow him to do so; he might suffer loss or be fined, and he must consult his law-books.”
I saw this might unsettle the conclusion he had almost arrived at, and so increase the difficulty, and feeling more strength than when I entered his office, — for I went in weakness, — I said, if he should sustain any personal loss in the matter through being adjudged to have failed in his duty, I would be accountable to him for such loss.
This seemed to be assuming a serious responsibility.
I may have been in error therein, and have been censured in this particular by some Friends; but I felt satisfied at the time, and have so continued.
A faithful testimony, however, subject to all that it may involve or incur, is a question of obedience rather than of dollars and cents.
The Treasurer took my word in the matter, and I paid him the full year’s tax, thinking it best not to avail myself of the legal privilege of paying one-half six months later.
It was entered on the receipt that I had paid all my tax for , except 8½ per cent., which was the part expressly named in the tax-list as for the war at that time.
A few days since a neighbor, who frequently comes to my store, asked me to loan him a sum of money for a few days.
I gave him the amount he asked for, and he then said what he wanted it for was to pay my war tax; that the delinquent tax-list had been sent to him for collection.
I had not expected the unpaid tax would be collected before the expiration of the year, or till after the time fixed by law for the last payment; neither did I suppose that a man in such a position — a farmer of considerable property — would engage in such a collection, so that I was taken by surprise.
I immediately told him he could not have the money for that purpose.
He appeared unwilling to give me any offence or to take my property, and said he thought I would surely be willing to let him do as he intended, as he had borrowed the money.
I told him I would rather have paid the Treasurer myself than have it done in this way, and that he must return the money to me.
He did return it, but seemed perplexed, and to regret having undertaken to collect the tax.
He said he would have to take property, and when he afterwards came for that purpose, he wished me to show him such things as I would rather he should take.
I told him I would not take any part in the matter, either to help or hinder; he must take his own course.
He was very respectful, and went away manifesting disappointment and uneasiness with the business he had taken in hand.
I felt to rejoice that I had escaped the snare laid in borrowing the money, and had not submitted to compromise my testimony.
Weak and unworthy I am, and unfit I feel myself to be, to put forth a hand to support the ark of the testimony, fearing I may not be able to stand through all, though I am in measure sensible of having been sustained and helped with a portion of that strength which is made “perfect in weakness.”
Earnest are my desires that I may be enabled to stand through all the trials and provings of this uncommon time, and be preserved consistently with His holy will unto whom alone the cause belongeth, so that honour, praise, and thanksgiving may be rendered unto Him.
the taxgatherer came for property to pay my war tax.
He seemed embarrassed, and wished to talk with me on the subject.
I felt free to converse with him, and explained the nature and ground of my declining to pay, and the view held by Friends in regard to all war.
He admitted it was correct, and he believed I was acting from conscientious motives: He said “he thought it was easier for me than him.”
He took several pieces of goods, some of which he afterwards returned.
And so what appeared at the first like a mountain of difficulty has passed comfortably away, and renewed cause remains to trust in Him who careth for all who fear and obey Him.
He later tells of his worry about some of his fellow Friends who were a little wobbly on the subject:
.
While at Flushing attending our quarterly meeting, Isaac Mitchell informed me that Asa Branson and Joseph Hobson, with himself and some other Friends who had paid half of the tax, were fully decided they could not pay the war tax, but that they would leave it unpaid when they made the last payment.
I was glad to hear they had so decided, though I feared they had missed the right time, in making the first payment without then maintaining the testimony against the war tax; as they must have paid half of it when paying the other; and I knew that delays in such important matters were often dangerous.
.
Our friends Isaac and Mary Mitchell being at my house, I inquired how Friends of Flushing had fared in regard to the war tax.
Isaac replied “that they had paid the whole tax without reserve.”
On my expressing surprise, he said “they had conferred together and reconsidered the matter after his informing me that they were decided that they could not pay it.”
“They had consulted Friends’ writings, &c., and come to the conclusion that as this was a mixed tax, and as Friends had always paid taxes, part of which had gone to support a military establishment, it was better to pay this tax, and make no trouble about it.”
I had feared this result when first informed that they had paid the one-half without reserve.
It was a sorrowful consideration to me that leaders of the people had let fall this Christian testimony, on the first trial of their faith, when a pecuniary sacrifice was required, had forsaken the vital principles of their profession.
After acknowledging a clear view as to right and wrong, they had rejected the light and its leadings, and so missed the reward that might have been extended to them, and, through their example, to many others.
The question as to paying this tax came before our quarterly meeting, and there was a serious concern on the minds of some that Friends should stand faithful to our testimony against war.
But this feeling was, for the most part, among those less forward in the meeting.
Those who had the management of affairs had no encouragement to hold forth for any to maintain this testimony; it was far otherwise with them.
They represented that the writings of early Friends justified the payment of such taxes; and while the meeting was engaged with the subject, Asa Branson declared, boldly and with an evident sense as well as tone of authority, being clerk of the meeting and a recorded minister: “We can pay the tax, but we cannot fight!”
And with dark and subtle reasoning he laboured to destroy the conscientious scruples of others.
Their voices were silenced, and darkness and death, spiritually, were, in my apprehension, brought over the meeting, which seemed to acquiesce in the decision of the clerk that we were at liberty to pay the hire of others engaged in war, though we could not fight ourselves.
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.
The arguments and conclusions of the clerk and others in authority appeared to convince, or to suit the feelings of, most in the meeting: by pursuing the course indicated they could save their property and avoid suffering, though plainly transgressing the letter of the discipline.
This was much kept out of view, and other things were brought forward which are not named in the book of discipline, and were represented as being of like character with the war tax in its respective bearings, such as the use of government money, &c., — a mode of reasoning well calculated to lead to evasion of our testimony and to confuse and bewilder the honest-hearted.
There seemed to be no concern with these leaders to commend a regard to our excellent discipline and to stand faithful to the Truth, — no recommendation to a course in accordance with the words of George Fox: “I was glad I was commanded to turn people to that inward light, spirit, and grace, by which all might know their salvation and their way to God.”
Nothing of this nature was introduced.
The war and the bounty tax was paid by all this class of Friends; the blighting assertion being often heard from them “that the tax demanded was a mixed tax, and they could not avoid paying it.”
The members of the quarterly meeting were not all drawn into this apostasy from first principles.
Some of them adhered to the law and the testimony, trusting in the arm of Divine Power for help and preservation.
I extract as follows from the writings of Thomas Story:
Though the discipline now in use in the Church is of God through the openings of His wisdom and dictates of His Spirit, yet it may be said now of discipline, as Paul, personating that state, said of the Law: “The law is spiritual, holy, righteous, just, and good; but I am carnal, sold under sin.”
The discipline is settled to great and glorious ends; but as Satan regards not what be the law, if he can be judge to pervert it, so even in this age the mystery of iniquity hath so wrought as that ungodly men in some places have advanced themselves into the seat of judgment, whose spirits and ways are for judgment and condemnation; who by that means, being unseen of some and awing others, turn the edge of judgment backwards, and pervert right, put truth for error, and error for truth; which being the highest abomination and indignity to the Lord, He will shortly arise to the discovery and overthrow of all such, with their evil work, throughout the world.
The writings of early Friends were often at this time spoken of and referred to in general terms, both in our meetings for discipline and in private discussion, for the purpose of depreciating the testimony then involved; and the assertion was advanced that such taxes as the present were paid by early Friends; but in no case, I believe, was any definite expression of theirs ever shown, or actually adduced, to sustain the assertion.
Having, from my youth, been an interested reader of the history, the journals, and other approved writings of Friends, I have not found, either in their early or more modern standard writings, anything to support an argument in favour of paying a war and bounty tax, such as is now demanded; so that, as I apprehend, to assert that faithful Friends have ever paid, or advocated the payment of, such a tax, is to misrepresent them.
Thomas Story, being at in New England on a religious visit, thus writes:
I think proper to observe here that this being , the government of New England was preparing to invade Canada, and there being many Friends at that time within that government who could not bear arms on any account, as being contrary to our conscience and sentiments of the end and nature of the Christian religion, which teacheth not to destroy, but “to love our enemies,” the people of New England made a law “that such of the inhabitants of the government as, being qualified or able to bear arms and regularly summoned, should refuse, should be fined, and refusing to pay the fine, should be imprisoned and sold, or bound to some of the Queen’s subjects within that colony for so long a time as by their work they might pay their fine and charges.”
On we went to an appointed meeting at Bristol on the main, where two of our young men, namely, John Smith and Thomas Macomber, were prisoners, being impressed, by virtue of this law, to fight against the French and Indians.
The prisoners being brought into court, Thomas Cornwell and I, and many other Friends, went in with them, and though we had our hats on, the judge was so far indulgent as to order us seats, but that our hats should be taken off in a civil way by an officer.
I replied we did not do that with any disrespect to him or the court, but our hats being part of our clothing we knew not any harm nor intended any affront to the court by keeping them on.
And though religion be not in the hat, yet where it is fully in the heart the honour of the hat will not be demanded, or willingly given or received by the true disciples of Him who said: “I receive not honour from men.
But I know you that ye have not the love of God in you.
How can ye believe which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”
The prisoners being at the bar, the judge asked them the reason of their obstinacy, as he called it, running again into several high charges against us as a people.
The young men modestly replied: “It was not obstinacy, but duty to God according to their consciences and religious persuasions, which prevailed with them to refuse to bear arms or learn war.”
But the judge would not by any means seem to admit there was any conscience in it, but ignorance and a perverse nature; accounting it very irreligious in any who were personally able to refuse their help in time of war, with repeated false charges against us as a people, saying “since we could pay public taxes which we knew were to be applied to the uses of war, why could we not pay those which were by law required of us instead of our personal service?”
I desired leave of the court to speak, which was granted, and said: “If the judge would please to keep to the business of the court concerning the prisoners I would, with leave, speak to the point of law in the case; but if he thought fit to continue to charge us, as a people, with errors in matters of religion, not properly before him, I should think it mine to answer him in the face of the court,” adding “that I could give the court a full distinction and reason why we could pay the one tax and yet not the other,” which the whole court, except the judge, was desirous to hear, and he, too, was silent.
I began with the example of Christ Himself for the payment of a tax, though applied by Cæsar to the uses of war and other exigencies of his government, and was going on to show a difference between a law that directly and principally affects the person in war, requiring personal service, and a law which only requires a general tax, to be applied by rulers as they see cause, and affects not the person.
“For though we, as a people, readily pay such taxes, impartially assessed, yet, as the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, His servants will not fight, though they may, and ought to, pay taxes according to the example of Christ, their head.”
The judge interrupted me, saying, “I would preach them a sermon two hours long, if they had time to hear me.”
Then Thomas Cornwell desired them to be careful what precedent they made upon this law, since neither he nor any of us knew what might be the effects of it, or how soon it might be any of our cases; and that it would be very hard upon us to be sold for servants.
He then demanded a precedent, where, at any time, any of the Queen’s subjects ever sold others of them for the payment of taxes, where conscience and duty towards God and Christ the Lord were the only cause of refusal; adding “that he could never pay any of those taxes, though he should be sold for the payment of them.”
Here, Maule adds some excerpts from John Woolman’s journals, which I have reproduced at this page.
John Woolman’s journal and writings fully and clearly set forth his views and feelings on the subject of war taxes: they are well worthy the attention of those who are seriously disposed to follow the requirings of Truth in this important matter.
John Churchman, also in , being in Philadelphia at the time when the Assembly of Pennsylvania was sitting, says:
We understood that a committee of the House was appointed to prepare a bill for granting a sum of money for the King’s use, to be issued in paper bills of credit to be called in and sunk at a stated time by a tax on the inhabitants; on which account several Friends were under a close exercise of mind, some of whom, being providentially together and conferring on the subject, were of opinion that an address to the Assembly would be proper and necessary, and one was prepared accordingly, presented, and read.
From this address I take an extract, as follows:
The consideration of the measures which have lately been pursued and are now proposed having been weightily impressed on our minds, we apprehend that we should fall short of our duty to you, to ourselves, and to our brethren in religious fellowship, if we did not in this manner inform you that, although we shall at all times heartily and freely contribute according to our circumstances, either by the payment of taxes or in such other manner as may be judged necessary, towards the exigencies of government, and sincerely desire that due care may be taken and proper funds provided for raising money to cultivate our friendship with our Indian neighbors, and to support such of our fellow-subjects who are or may be in distress, and for such other like benevolent purposes, yet, as the raising sums of money and putting them into the hands of committees who may apply them to purposes inconsistent with the peaceable testimony we profess and have borne to the world appears to us in its consequences to be destructive to our religious liberties, — we apprehend many among us will be under the necessity of suffering rather than consenting thereto by the payment of taxes for such purposes.”
“We sincerely assure you we have no temporal motives for thus addressing you; and could we have preserved peace in our own minds and with each other we should have declined it, being unwilling to give you any unnecessary trouble, and deeply sensible of your difficulty in discharging the trust committed to you, irreproachable in these perilous times.
John Churchman further says: “Many Friends thought they could not be clear as faithful watchmen without communicating to their brethren their mind and judgment concerning the payment of such a tax; for which purpose an epistle was prepared, considered, agreed to, and signed by twenty-one Friends.
Copies thereof were concluded to be communicated to the monthly meetings, as follows:
Here, Maule reproduces the text of that epistle, which I included in a Picket Line entry .
The following is taken from the “journal of Job Scott:”
At our yearly meeting this year, , the subject of Friends paying taxes for war came under solid consideration.
Friends were unanimous that the testimony of Truth and of our Society was clearly against our paying such taxes as were wholly for war; and many solid Friends manifested a lively testimony against the payment of those in the mixture, which testimony appeared evidently to me to be on substantial grounds, arising and spreading in the authority of Truth.
It was a time of refreshment to an exercised number, whose spirits, I trust, were feelingly relieved in a joyful sense of the light which then sprung up among us.
It does not appear from anything that I have met with, and I believe there is no evidence, that at the rise or in the very early days of the Society there was any tax demanded expressly for the support of war.
But the pure doctrines of the Gospel of life and salvation being clearly against all “wars and fightings,” and teaching “peace and good-will to men,” Friends, as they were steadily concerned to be faithful to the True Teacher “who teacheth as never man taught,” were shown from time to time their religious duty in this important matter; and many of them, at an early period, became satisfied that the Spirit of Truth required them to refrain from contributing in any way to the support of war.
The taxes being so levied that they could not distinguish in regard to them, when the nation was engaged in war they believed it was more consistent with the Divine will and safer for them to suffer distraint and loss of property than to pay the mixed taxes.
As their testimony was faithfully maintained, and defined to their understanding, they became unanimous in their belief, as Job Scott informs us, that it must be clearly against paying taxes which are specially for war; and this principle became incorporated in the discipline of the Society.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting makes record accordingly, at different times , and offenders were considered disownable.
Ohio Yearly Meeting, afterwards established, has similarly recorded its judgment and decision.
This subject of taxes occupied much time in our monthly meetings.
The reasonings and arguments of those who controlled the action of the meeting being so different from those above quoted from the writings of early Friends, who were so careful to advise and encourage a faithful testimony, I now propose to rehearse some of them; and for that purpose I refer to a letter received from my friend Nathan Hall, an elder of much influence: it embraces several subjects which agitated the Society.
I extract the part relating to taxes:
.
Dear Friend, — I have for some time thought of writing to thee.
The tax question being a prominent one, I will first allude to it.
In paying the bounty tax that I did, though it was not known or intended to be as it turned out, I never have stood, and trust never shall stand, in defence of it.
I was very sorry and sorely distressed on account thereof, more so than of any other act of my life, and am willing to condemn it in any way the Truth requires.
If my friends think, as thee and some others do, that nothing short of a course of disciplinary treatment will do, let it be so; however humiliating such a course would be, I hope I may be willing to bear it if it is for the clearing of the Truth.
As for the other or mixed tax, as I conceive it to be, we have viewed it differently and, I believe, honestly.
So while condemnation has been passed upon me for endeavouring to ascertain the true position of the trouble, that I might abandon my former views if I found they were wrong, I have thought that if some others had been willing to have given the subject the investigation its importance demands, they could hardly have failed to discover they were paying the very description of tax they are objecting to, and spared the censure of their friends.
However any may endeavour to quiet their apprehensions or press their views upon others, it cannot change the fact plainly expressed and carried out by the law, — that whether 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.
If the law had said so many dollars to be raised for war purposes, instead of such a portion of each and every dollar, it would have been plain and not a mixed tax.
Such is not the case; it is all collected together and thrown into one general treasury, where it remains till it is apportioned out for the different purposes designated by the law.
There might be as many different classes of objectors or withholders of tax as there are purposes for which it is appropriated, and the officers of government know nothing of the nature or cause of any of them; they would only know there was a deficiency, and apply that on hand in due proportions for their different purposes, and the deficiency, when collected, in like manner.
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, thee may, by inquiry and calculation, find what proportion of the objectionable article is contained in it, and leave just that much in thy bowl; while my understanding will be that in partaking I partake of both good and bad, and in refusing refuse both.
So that with me the question is and has been, not what portion I should pay so much as whether any at all.
I know thy argument is that it is a direct war tax, for it plainly says so much is to be applied for that purpose: so it is with the liquor; we know it is there, but can we separate either of them?
If we can I would be willing to do it.
I have not yet felt at liberty to withhold the just dues of government on account of a portion being woven in with it that I do not approve of; nor can I call in question the decision of different high authorities where I believe they were similarly tried.
Though I have thus expressed myself, it is by no means intended to apply to or influence those holding different views; I would encourage every one to attend strictly to his or her feelings in the case, — ”To him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean;” nor, as before expressed, do I want to foreclose labour one with another; if it is done under a right feeling or authority, it will have a tendency to bring us nearer together in the right thing.
In thus labouring we will have to extend charity one toward another, — more than is sometimes done, — and in our zeal for the testimony examine well its different bearings.
In so doing suffer me to call attention to one part that some are tried with that may have escaped thy notice, or, having noticed, been passed over.
Thee is very positive that thee is right in thy view of the subject, while there are others as much so that thee is pursuing a course more objectionable than the one complained of.
They say thee pays a tax as exclusively to carry on war as any other, — for liberty to sell goods; and thee pays another in the purchase of those goods, and then charges sufficient in the sale of them to amply cover the two former; that thee is not only paying such a tax, but employed in collecting it off of others; and for what?
— for the love of gain, as a competency has already been obtained.
There is another feature that has not passed unnoticed: that thy suffering for the testimony is very different from what it would be with many others; the cash sale of a few goods at auction, probably for their full value, bears no comparison to selling a farm at perhaps less than one-five-hundredth part of its value where there is no possible means of ever having any redress or restitution.
This is not an imaginary event that may never happen, but something that doubtless often happens.
There are persons — and, it may be, many — who own real estate in other counties than the one in which they live, with no personal property on them, when the land would have to be sold.
No collector, under any circumstances, can go out of his own county to collect.
I don’t advance this as an argument to evade suffering: if it is right, we should passively bear it, be the sacrifice what it may; but I do think it should be a caution how we press matters of doubtful expediency.
Thy friend, Nathan Hall.
The positions taken in this letter and its arguments, with other similar ones, were set forth and pressed upon Friends who were not easy to pay the war tax; and Nathan Hall rehearsed them quite fully in our monthly meeting, endeavouring to show by the same reasoning as to the position and action of the officers of the law that it would be in vain to undertake to maintain a clear testimony.
Other Friends turned their influence in the same direction in the meeting, with various modes of reasoning.
Louis Tabor said “we ought to withstand the tax as long as we could, and testify against it before we paid it.”
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.
I am not able to distinguish, as Nathan Hall has, between the war tax and the bounty tax, both being for the same purpose, and both being publicly set forth, in print, in their several amounts, clear and distinct from that required for civil purposes, a certain percentage being indicated as for each, — war, bounty, and other war purposes.
The distinction appears to me to have no real difference, in fact, to sustain it, and both continued to be paid by those who used the arguments referred to.
Those who so far abandoned our vital testimonies and led others in the same path took their own course and made their own record; and while sad and troubled in view of these things and the failing of those who should have been “standard-bearers” amongst us, I made my record also; and though I did not hide my views and feelings as to what was taking place, I endeavoured to keep clear of censuring or condemning others.
The arguments used in reference to what disposition the officers of the law might make of the money collected appeared to me to be valueless.
What has any one to do with this kind of reasoning who is concerned to bear a testimony against war?
Besides, I am not accountable for the acts of other men: if I owe a just debt, I must pay it; if the person receiving the money uses it for a bad purpose, the accountability is with him; but if he demand money of me avowedly to be used in any way to the plundering of my neighbour, destroying his property, or taking his life, then if I furnish money thus demanded I become an accomplice in the evil work and accountable for the sin.
I consider our civil taxes a just debt that should be promptly paid, but I am satisfied that no human authority has either a moral or a religious right to demand of me money or means of any kind to aid in destroying the lives and property of my fellow-men.
The teachings of the Saviour of mankind forbid me to comply with such demands if made, and His precepts also require me to submit peacefully to the powers that be, in whatever course they may take in regard to my person or property on such account.
The words of Christ, “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” have often been brought forward as evidence that He approved of paying all taxes; it being said, in connection, that Cæsar was then engaged in war.
The distinction, however, is sufficiently clear: the things that were Cæsar’s were, doubtless, those which appertain to the civil government; the things which belong to God are, surely, a clear and full obedience to His commands and to His laws.
We know that all the precepts and commands of Christ which can be applied in reference to this subject are of one tendency, enjoining “peace on earth and good-will to men.”
We do not know, after all, however, what was the exact nature and use of the tribute collected in those days, nor what were the situation and circumstances in which Christians or others were then placed in regard to such things.
The Judge of the whole earth has declared by the mouth of His prophet: “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.”
This assuredly applies to the Christian dispensation, — a law of Divine authority which Christians were to be governed in accordance with; and so the early Christians understood it.
As history informs us, for the first two centuries of the Christian era the followers of Jesus Christ maintained a faithful testimony against war, and when commanded to enter the army, the answer was such as these: “I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight;” “It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.”
For their unyielding integrity and faithfulness many were put to death.
They rendered unto God the things that were God’s, but what ground is there for supposing or asserting that they rendered unto Cæsar pecuniary means, in the form of tribute, to carry on war, when it is certain that they yielded their lives rather than do an act to promote it?
May we not reasonably conclude that in their understanding the command to render unto Cæsar included nothing more than that which appertained to civil government?
Jonathan Dymond, in his essay on war, says, on recounting some of the expressions of Christians when commanded to take part in war,
These were not the sentiments and this was not the conduct of insulated individuals who might be actuated by individual opinion or by the private interpretations of the duties of Christianity: their principles were the principles of the Body; they were recognized and defended by the Christian writers, their cotemporaries.
The same writer says:
Let it always be borne in mind by those who are advocating war [and, I may add, how can it be more effectually advocated than by furnishing the means by paying taxes to carry it on?] that they are contending for a corruption which their forefathers abhorred, and they are making Jesus Christ the sanctioner of crimes which His purest followers offered up their lives because they would not commit.
The paying of a license is one of the things named as being more objectionable than paying a war tax.
I paid license for my business, having no knowledge or intimation that it was for any other use than the general purposes of civil government.
Nothing appears in our books of discipline in relation to this subject, though I have no reason to doubt Friends and others have paid business licenses for many years.
I apprehend that it was a measure of that light — ”that true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” — which manifested to my mind the sinfulness of paying money for war, and the need there was for me to refrain from doing it; and had I been sensible of any restraint in regard to the license, I believe I would have declined paying that also.
The argument adduced by Nathan Hall and others, in the framing whereof it is asserted that I am employed in collecting war tax of others, is grounded also on my paying customs and duties on the goods I sell.
My business is almost exclusively in goods manufactured and produced in this country, though I have sold imported goods on which, no doubt, duty had been paid before they reached me.
But in the discipline of Friends there is no adverse mention made of customs and duties; the Society evidently had not seen in the common payment of them any violation of the testimonies of Truth.
But members are warned against dealing “in public certificates issued as compensation for expenses accrued or services performed in war.”
These certificates were used in the purchase of land, similarly to “land warrants,” and Friends who bought land with them were amenable to the discipline.
While there is nothing in the discipline or in the writings of Friends, that I have met with, disapproving of paying customs and duties, simply as such, I will now bring forward a powerful testimony of a faithful Friend that they ought to be paid.
William Edmundson, soon after , was engaged in selling goods in Ireland, which he bought in England, and he writes:
Whilst I was at sea, self reasoned strongly to save the duty on my goods, for I had an opportunity to do it, the troop my brother belonged to quartering at Carrickfergus and Belfast, who would have helped me, night or day.
But I durst not do it, my conscience being awakened to plead for truth, justice, and equity; yet there was a great contest between conscience and self, and in this conflict many Scriptures were opened in my understanding that duties and customs ought to be paid; and, though self struggled hard for mastery, yet at last was overthrown, and the judgment of Truth prevailed.
William Edmundson was a bright example of steadfastness and unyielding integrity to the Gospel principles of life and salvation.
He was an eminent minister, greatly esteemed and beloved; one that suffered exceedingly, both in person and in property, for his testimony.
He knew what the Truth cost him, and that it was of inestimable value through life as well as in the hour of death, saying in the time of his last sickness: “I am now clear of the world and the things of it.
Heaven and earth, sea and dry land, and all things, shall be shaken: nothing must stand but what is according to the will of God: so look to it, Friends.
I do not see anything left undone which the Lord required of me when I had strength and ability, or that the Lord chargeth me with any neglect or transgression.”
His friends could say of him: “Having run the race with patience and kept the faith, he departed this life in sweet peace with the Lord, in unity with his brethren and good-will to all men.”
Another assertion made in reference to our position was to the effect that the use of the national currency involved a paying of money for the support of war, — a position to which I did not feel to assent.
The money coined by the government has always been used, without scruple as to propriety, by Friends and others, and I am not aware of any sound reason why paper-money issued by the government should not be used also.
I am satisfied that if I do not myself apply any of either in paying taxes for or otherwise supporting or promoting war, I shall be clear of accountability, whatever amount may be applied by the government to war purposes of either specie or paper-money.
The bonds used by the government I had no doubt were issued for war purposes; and it appeared to me that buying them was, in effect, loaning, and, so far, voluntarily furnishing means for carrying on the war; and entirely a different thing from using the public money in ordinary business.
I never had anything to do with the government bonds.
I have felt a propriety in compiling the foregoing statement of the means used to influence Friends to forsake an essential testimony, and the views and testimonies of accepted teachers of the Truth as regards this and kindred subjects, adding concurrent evidence presented to my own mind.
It will have been seen how that many honest-hearted Friends became bewildered, whose judgment at the first was clear that this tax could not be paid without violating a Christian principle, that which was once clear being confounded by the influence of the leaders and their many arguments and sophistries (not advanced for the defining of a reliable position or the uplifting of a standard abandoned by themselves, but, mainly, to stumble, to weaken, and destroy), and, further, by the arraying of matters and questions beyond the mental powers of some, and which the true witness in the heart had not called up or the disciplinary records mentioned.
In the resulting confusion “self” no doubt grew strong, and, as said by William Edmundson, strove in the mind to avoid pecuniary loss and suffering.
Many were turned and swept by the current, some of them, as afterwards confessed, sadly to their own hurt.
I’ll continue with some more excerpts from Joshua Maule’s Transactions and Changes in the Society of Friends, and Incidents in the Life and Experience of Joshua Maule .
I reproduced 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 concerning the debate over war tax resistance among Quakers during the American Civil War.
Today I’ll continue with some additional excerpts.
Maule relates a debate he had with another Friend over whether the debate over war tax resistance was resulting in too much heat and not enough light.
I frequently received admonitory letters from members of our meeting, extending caution in relation to my speaking in meetings for discipline.
The writers were professing to maintain sound principles, but were not firm themselves against the innovations introduced, and the violations of our testimonies and discipline which prevailed.
I copy a part of a letter similar to others received:
.
Esteemed Friend, — I hope I am willing to respect the sentiments of the rightly concerned wherever found, but I feel myself very incompetent to debate or discuss essential creeds or principles; and thee is well aware of my objections to as much such discussion as has of latter years become common in our meetings; I was especially sorry to hear so much of it in our last monthly meeting.
It certainly has become sorrowfully common amongst members of our Society in high station to be brooding over the misses of others, and magnifying them in their minds; and even in their statements to others of circumstances, to relate the most unfavourable version the truth will bear, whereas the spirit we profess to be actuated by would induce the most favourable speaking and opinions of one another.
I do not want thee to mistake my meaning so much as to suppose I have especial allusion to thyself or any other individual.
I feel myself very unworthy and incompetent to criticise or reprove the conduct of one that I regard as being so much my superior, but a secret fear has often attended my mind that thee sometimes hurts a good cause by an activity and earnestness that is not sufficiently divested of the creature, and that if not timely checked might lead into the same state that has often, in individuals and companies, since the rise of our Society, proved disastrous to themselves and repugnant to society.
Many have, no doubt, thought, as Judas Iscariot when forewarned that he should betray his Lord and Master, that they would cheerfully suffer death rather than betray Him; but, as with him, the most sanguine and determined disposition to abide faithful is no safeguard against the assaults of the enemy, unless supported by that pure, regenerate faith which would inquire, Is it I?
Is it I?
I think, notwithstanding the great declension amongst us, that the principles are not so entirely forsaken as some suppose.
I know certainly that there was an objection with some here to paying our bounty tax, amounting to so much as to give particular directions to our agent not to pay it; and I do not believe he intended finally to do so, but was disappointed in the way it was credited; and it appears to me to be very unwise to disturb our meetings and engender so much hard feeling towards one another on account of this matter, which is so entirely blended with all business that none can keep entirely clear of it; yet I do not advocate the abandonment of the testimony, but wish it may be supported and defended in a becoming manner.
I do entreat thee, Joshua, to refrain from such expressions in our monthly meeting as that thee is prepared to believe that any innovation on our testimonies, however gross, would be advocated there, and many others of similar tendency thee has sometimes made use of, and strive to be imbued with the spirit of prayer by which Amos diverted the judgment of the grasshoppers and the fire, before they had consumed every green thing; and how applicable to the present is his inquiring: “By whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.”
I have said much more than I intended, but it has been in the freedom of friendship, and I hope thee will receive it so.
To this I replied:
Esteemed Friend, — Thy letter was duly received, and I am glad thou speaks thy mind plainly; thou need not fear giving me offence in so doing.
I love honest, plain dealing, and I fully unite with thee in feelings of sorrow for the discussions which so much prevail of late years in our meetings.
But why are these discussions?
Who introduces them?
Are they not constantly brought upon us by some innovation upon our principles or some departure from our excellent discipline or precious testimonies?
And if there are any who cannot join in this course or submit to be carried by this current, they must, if they are faithful, endeavour to stand fast in the Truth; and according to their measure and station, according also to the circumstances in which they may be placed, as occasion calls, earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.
These discussions and the departures which are the cause of them are exceedingly painful to me; and while I am sensible of my inability of my self to promote any good word or work, assuredly knowing that the cause is all and I am nothing, yet I have been permitted to feel peace of mind, many times, in my endeavours to be faithful in defence of the unchangeable Truth, for the support of which so many worthy men and women suffered greatly in the rise of this Society, by the waste of their property, the loss of their liberty, and, in many cases, of their natural lives.
It is as necessary now as it was in their day, or ever was, to contend for the Truth, “not only with open gainsayers, but with feigned friends, with false brethren and false teachers, and with such as are of our own selves.”
I know that such as sustain these wrong things greatly desire that there should be no opposition to their schemes and devices; they are very ready to judge any whose voices may be raised against their doings, and to plead for the “ancient paths” and for the law and the testimony, — to judge these to be in a wrong spirit, working in “creaturely activity,” &c. I have been well assured by abundant entreaty along through Gurneyism, and, since the separation of that party, through the time that this insidious, deceitful spirit of middleism, or, as I believe, real Gurneyism in disguise, has ruled in our meetings, that I have been termed a troubler in Israel as well as all others, the few “who for Zion’s sake will not hold their peace.”
The cry of those who are destroying this people has been, Peace, peace! but it has always been to gain a peace in which they could steadily pursue their work of laying waste the precious testimonies given us to uphold; and many whose eyes were once anointed to see the inroads of the enemy and to withstand him have, through unfaithfulness, lost their spiritual sight, and have given their strength to the prevailing spirit of apostasy.
If thou wilt consider the matter, thou may recollect I had nothing to do with introducing discussion into our last monthly meeting, neither had I anything to do with introducing the subject of war tax at our preparative meeting, though I believe it was brought there in the order of Truth.
I did not speak of the war tax or bounty until it had been introduced by others and discussed: I had no desire to be heard.
But when the arguments of officers of the law were repeated there as reasons, as I understood it, for rejecting the express injunctions of our discipline, I felt it to be my duty to speak in defence of the discipline, and of this vital Christian testimony, in such ability as I was capable.
When in my place in meetings for discipline I am made sensible the Truth requires it, I endeavor to speak for, and, if need be, to contend for, the Truth.
But thou, nor any one, hast not heard me argue or plead for lowering the standard of our discipline or changing it, or for excusing or justifying departures from our testimonies: neither hast thou heard me personally abuse or revile any one by name, as I have been repeatedly done unto; and in our last monthly meeting, while I was speaking, this was done by such as are made use of in the exercise of the discipline.
I do not reply to this personal abuse, nor have I felt the least resentment towards those who practise it, though I have at times believed a spirit even worse than the “activity of the creature” was alive in them.
I feel sorry for them, but if I can stand in my own proper place, these things will not hurt me.
I am easy and well satisfied with the course I have been, through unmerited mercy, enabled to pursue in regard to our testimony against war.
I have no desire “to magnify or brood over the misses of others” in relation to it.
I seldom speak of it in meetings or elsewhere unless it is introduced by others, but I mourn over the weakness and unfaithfulness of many dear friends, whom I love in sincerity, who are shorn of their spiritual strength in this hour of need, by reasoning with flesh and blood, instead of looking to the Lord alone for help and ability to stand in His testimony.
I am aware that it is only through watchfulness and earnest desires unto Him who hath promised to be a present helper in the needful time that I can at all hope for preservation, or be enabled to escape becoming a castaway, even as Judas Iscariot was.
I had no part or lot in bringing into the monthly meeting the discussion about that “new labour-saving machine,” as Ann Branson terms it, by which the Gurneyites are to be disowned, without being treated with.
Our quarterly meeting rejected it and did not recommend it to monthly meetings, and I am satisfied the Truth will never own it.
Was there any activity of the creature in the working of this matter?
It was left altogether in the hands of its friends and supporters, but the discussion was long and wearisome, continuing until one of themselves said he thought they had better drop it altogether.
Who introduced that request from Iowa?
I did not.
Our monthly meeting had once rejected it, when it was in a better condition than it is now, and this thing now hangs a doubtful matter in our yearly meeting, yet those who now control our monthly meeting, in the face of all this, and against the decided objections made there, carried it through.
Truly it may be said of our meetings, “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.”
I did express with sorrow in the monthly meeting that I was constrained to believe, from the evidence manifested there, that no innovation or departure, however great, — I did not use the word “gross,” as thou mentions, — could be introduced there but that it would be excused and defended.
Thou says we gave “particular directions to our agent not to pay the bounty tax, and I do not believe he intended finally to do so, but was disappointed in the way it was credited.”
This is remarkable.
If a deception was practised upon him by the Treasurer and he intended to bear a faithful testimony against this tax, why did he not so inform the meeting, instead of giving the reason he did for paying it; repeating the arguments the officers of the law used to him?
I would have rejoiced if he had kept his hands clear of this thing from the first.
I looked to him for an example, and I was made sad by his course and arguments in favour of paying it a year ago.
I had great respect for him, and I have earnestly desired for him as for myself that we might be preserved from every snare of the evil fowler.
Those who honestly did not intend to pay this bounty tax, as thou mentions, are not to be blamed: I am glad there were such; but the paying it, or any direct war tax, is a plain violation of our Christian testimony.
It is not among the “small misses,” but a clear transgression of the discipline, of much greater magnitude than the acts for which many are dealt with.
It is as possible for Friends to keep clear of paying this direct war tax as ever it was for them to keep clear of paying tithes or military fines.
I believe there are many snares to entrap the unwary in this thing, and not the least of these is the argument so much used, that it is so blended with all business that none can keep entirely clear of it.
The framers of our discipline did not see it so blended.
I many times hear it said by these who maintain no testimony against war taxes, and said, I apprehend, for the purpose of setting at naught the whole testimony, that the duties, the government money, &c., are all the same thing as paying the tax; but in the light of Truth they are very different things.
I do not differ from my friends of choice as a man; far from it; greatly have I ever desired to act with them; and I am, perhaps, not destitute of a sense of the necessity of submitting all that I can submit; but I dare not have regard to the persons of men when the cause is involved or in danger: that is not mine to give.
Maule proceeds to relate how his encounter with the tax collector went:
In , I went again to pay the tax.
I found a new Treasurer had been elected; he was quite respectful and civil to me, but told me decidedly he would not take any tax as I offered mine, — that is, without the war tax.
We conversed freely; he stated his reasons for refusing my request, and I answered him according to the ability afforded me.
When we parted he appeared not quite so determined as at first, and said he would consider further and write to me.
I wrote to him as follows:
Respected Friend J. Patterson, Treasurer:
As thou wast willing yesterday to refer my request for further consideration, I take the liberty to offer some views which, if thou finds them to deserve it, thou may take into consideration.
I am not surprised that thou had decided to take no tax as I proposed, for I have no doubt it is considered to be ignorance or blind zeal which causes a few of the “Quakers” to make this request, and therefore thou had decided to not humour their whim.
I believe it is the solemn requirement of Christian duty.
We have no desire to make trouble for any one, but in as quiet a way as possible endeavour to act in accordance with the understanding given us of His will who came to proclaim peace on earth and good-will to men.
Thou expressed thy wish that all men were of my opinion about war; but will the Christian principle of peace ever prevail until men individually act in accordance therewith?
I apprehend there is nothing in the part of the law thou read that is against thy receiving the tax as I requested; that law seems rather to contemplate that some taxes may be paid in part, and relieves thee from any violation of thy qualification in receiving them so.
As to the application of the money when I pay the tax required for civil purposes, I am not accountable for the acts of the officers of the law, but when the demand is presented to me to pay so much for the war, if I do this voluntarily and understandingly, I put my own hand to the work of war and bloodshed, which I feel assured Christianity forbids.
I am not finding fault with the law, or proposing to place any obstacle in the way of its execution, but I am desirous to keep clear of doing that which I am satisfied would be wrong for me to do, in the sight of the All-wise Judge unto whom the makers of all human law, as well as all other men, have to render an account.
Thy objection that if it is done for me others might ask it, and thus make trouble in collecting the tax, I apprehend is not well founded.
The law will collect the tax, and it will much increase the difficulty, if there is any, for thee to decline to take all we can pay.
For those who believe it to be their Christian duty to decline paying the war tax must, if they are consistent and faithful, decline to pay any of their tax unless it is taken without this, though it would cause much waste of our property, which I do not believe thou desires.
If I did not appear and pay any part of my tax it would be no compromise on thy part of thy official duties; or if I paid half and did not appear again, that would be no fault of thine.
It seems to me thy qualification requires thee to take all the tax that is offered, and the violation would be in declining to take it.
The Constitution of Ohio says: “No interference with the rights of conscience shall be permitted.”
I apprehend there is nothing in the law which prohibits thy taking the tax as I offer it; the experience of last year proves there was no risk or loss, except to those who pay in this way.
The fear thou suggested, that many will ask it in this way, I presume will prove groundless.
Men are not likely to risk the loss of their property in this way, except such as believe they have that at stake which is of more value than property.
If thou should comply with the request of a few who believe their best welfare is concerned in this matter, I am satisfied it will not compromise the duties of thy office, and it may be a more comfortable reflection to thy own mind than the consideration would be, that by refusing thou had caused waste of property, without benefiting any one.
I was obliged by the kind manner in which thou heard me yesterday.
I write this in the same feeling in which I spoke then, and desire thou may so receive it; and whatever thy decision may be, I hope to submit to it without any feeling of censure towards thee.
Respectfully thy friend, Joshua Maule
Treasurer’s Office, St. Clairsville,
Mr. Joshua Maule, — Your favour of is received.
You are not doing me justice when you attribute my refusal to grant your request to the idea that I consider your views whimsical.
I do not base my decision on any views other than what I consider a strict construction of my duties under the law.
I have no desire to use my brief power either for or against the interests or feelings of any man, but to endeavour faithfully to carry out the law under my official oath.
I consider you much mistaken in saying the law, which I read to you, contemplates such cases as yours.
Let me quote Act of , Sec. 1: “That each person charged with any tax in the hands of any County Treasurer may, at his option, instead of paying the whole amount, pay one-half of said tax before the 20th of December, and the remaining half on or before the 20th of June ensuing.”
This certainly does not permit any one to pay a portion of the half tax, or the whole tax other than the half.
The Section 2 of the same act, which I read, conclusively proves to my mind that in the course you propose you would voluntarily pay the war tax on the amount so paid.
Why not view it as paid by compulsion when I demand from you at the counter your whole tax?
Very few men voluntarily and cheerfully pay their tax; it is only the fear of the law and the knowledge that their property would suffer if not paid that causes many to pay taxes.
Were I to grant your request and thus establish a new rule, I would lay the foundation for an immense amount of labour and trouble not contemplated by the law, as I could not well refuse another that which I had granted you and your friends.
You say the Constitution grants liberty of conscience; so it does, but that does not apply to payment of taxes.
You also say I am bound to receive all I can collect without distraining.
My duty is plainly pointed out to me, — namely, to receive all I can collect or is offered me at my office, either the half or the whole tax, and if not so paid, then I am forced to collect by distraint.
I have endeavoured calmly and considerately to understand the law and my duty therein, and must repeat the decision I gave you at our interview, that I have no authority to divide either the whole or the half tax; and if not paid me by the time prescribed by law, to proceed to collect it by the force of the law.
Towards you personally I have the highest regard, and trust that my course will not engender any ill feeling on the part of yourself and friends towards me, acting, as I do, in what I believe to be my duty under my official oath.
I am very truly yours, Isaac Patterson, Treasurer, B. Co.
Notwithstanding the decided tone of this letter and the very little probability, if any, of my being allowed to pay the tax as I desired, I felt best satisfied to go and see the Treasurer again the day after his letter reached me.
He received me pleasantly, and very soon inquired if voted at the last election.
I told him I was not at the election.
He then said if I had not voted for Lincoln and to sustain the present administration he would receive my tax as I offered to pay it, and so of all the Friends who had not voted.
I told him that had nothing to do with the matter in hand; he had no right to question me in regard to voting with the view of basing his action thereon.
I had voted for Lincoln at his first term, and if I had voted at the last election it would have been for him; I did not desire anything of him on this ground in regard to the tax, but on the ground of Christian principle.
To this he replied: “I have known you well; you are a consistent man: I will take your tax as you desire.”
Which he did, and that also of another Friend, which I paid in the same way.
As I returned home my heart was filled with admiration of the goodness and wonder-working kindness of Him who turneth the hearts of men “as a man turneth his water-course in his field.”
I am satisfied it was the secret operation of Divine power that changed the strong will of this man, with whom I could have no influence; and I was convinced that he used the plea as to my voting as an excuse, when at heart he felt it was right for him to take the money as I at first requested.
He did not question Friends as to their voting who afterwards paid their tax in the same way.
Oh that we might learn to render unhesitating obedience to the dictates of the Spirit of Truth in our own hearts, without reasoning upon the consequences!
How often a way would be made where no way at first appeared, and we be guided, though as to a hair’s-brea[d]th, in the path that would lead to comfort and true peace, both in temporal things as well as in those of higher importance!
A little further on, he expresses his attitude toward voting in this way:
I did not vote when Abraham Lincoln was elected the second time, as I. Patterson had been told; though I voted for him at the first, in the hope that the war, then threatening, might be averted through his being elected.
Before that time I had usually voted, though I had doubts as to the propriety of voting on the part of Friends who desired to walk in religious consistency.
When the country was engaged in war I became fully convinced that to profess, as I was doing, to maintain a Christian testimony against war by declining to pay the tax required to support it, and at the same time to vote in the election of men whose legal duty, on accepting office, required them, in various ways, to direct and promote it, was inconsistent in itself and incompatible with the principles of the Gospel; since that time, more than twenty years, I have not voted.
In two other sections of the book, Maule relates his later experiences with the tax collector:
This year, , the newly-elected County Treasurer dealt moderately with me and received that part of my tax which was set down as to be applied to civil purposes.
The collector distraining property for the war tax told me the amount of my bounty and war tax was one hundred and twenty-six dollars.
He took a family carriage and a spring wagon, both in good repair; I paid five hundred dollars for a similar carriage and wagon to replace them.
He afterwards informed me by letter that he had sold them for one hundred and sixty-six dollars, and that he had left forty dollars with the Treasurer to my credit: this I did not inquire after or claim in any way.
At the time of the sale, which took place on my premises, a friendly neighbour asked me if he could do anything for me in any way to save loss on my property; but I told him he could not, and that I desired and intended to let the law take its course.
I think I was permitted throughout this transaction to experience somewhat of the feeling spoken of by early Friends when they took joyfully the spoiling of their goods.
I was preserved from any desire to avert this waste of property, and for some days afterwards a feeling of peace and of sweet inward assurance of rectitude in desires and action attended my mind; and it still is renewed when I recur to the occasion.
I gratefully admire how that in every step of this endeavour to bear a clean testimony, as the eye has been kept single to the true Source of help, with earnest desires to be rightly led and the will brought into subjection and true submission, strength has been afforded to meet every trial; and He who hath called to such a testimony hath not failed to verify His own words to one of the least of His creatures: “My grace is sufficient for thee.”
The collector of the war and bounty tax for stated that my war and bounty tax, with costs, &c., amounted to two hundred and eighty-five dollars.
He went through my store and took such goods as he thought proper, — cloths, cassimeres, flannels, &c., — leaving a list showing, as he said, the sort, quantity, and price, which showed they cost me four hundred and forty-nine dollars and thirty cents.
He took them, as I was informed, to the village of Pleasant Grove, where he disposed of them by public sale.
I afterwards received the following letter:
St. Clairsville, .
Joshua and Jacob Maule, — Enclosed are your tax receipts for , and the surplus money from the sale of the goods on .
If you desire, I can send you a copy of sale lists, as I have all correct.
The surplus is thirty-one dollars and thirty-five cents.
I could not stop at the time I would have liked to.
I did the best under the circumstances that the case would admit of, and submit myself, respectfully,
T. J. Hawthorne
I returned to the collector the money he sent me, and informed him that I understood the law did not allow of more property being sold in such cases than what satisfied the claim; that if he would return my property as it was when he took it, I would receive it, but I would not receive the money for it after passing through his hands in the manner it had.
He also includes the text of a letter he sent to Joseph Hobson:
Since meeting with thee at Mount Pleasant an impression has attended my mind that it would be right for me to address a few lines to thee, and bring to thy view a matter which took place some years ago; and to revive in thy memory a subject which I would gladly be excused from speaking of; but while sitting in meeting to-day it pressed upon me with a feeling that it would not be best for me to delay it longer.
It is what thou said to me on the subject of war taxes at Harrisville meetinghouse, at the time of quarterly meeting there, when informing me thou had paid the war taxes, which we had previously united in the belief it was not right for us to pay.
Thou said, “I have done that which I knew to be wrong,” through the influence of others, whose names thou mentioned, and added, “but I never intend to do it again, or be influenced by them: I have had to suffer for it.”
It has come before me with a very serious and awful feeling of the great importance for thee weightily to consider, while time and opportunity is afforded, that thou did again, when the first occasion for it offered, do that evil thing which thou knew to be wrong; and that thou continued to do it year by year, thereby doing despite to the light and Divine Grace mercifully extended to thy own soul.
And this revives that text which speaks of some “who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing.”
I have been renewedly impressed with the belief that the paying of this war money was an evil thing, and exceedingly offensive in the Divine sight for any to do who had been enlightened and given to see and know the peaceable nature of the Gospel dispensation as Friends profess to believe in it.
And I am satisfied it will not stand thee in stead in the day of account, to say thou wast influenced by others to pay the price of blood, contrary to the secret convictions of thy own heart.
I know the reasons and excuses which were given and made by the leaders of the people who caused them to err: that these taxes were mixed and could not be distinguished or separated from the other taxes, &c.; but thou knowest this was not true, for they were carefully divided and described, and plainly set before us, so that he that ran might read; and that for the war and bounty was not mixed with any other, until those who paid it voluntarily mixed it themselves, and thereby made it their own act to pay the price for men to go forth to the field of human slaughter.
Oh! sad delusion, that any under the name of Friend should have become willing to do this; and the attempt to deny and cover the truth, Annanias-like, surely added to the offence.
He also includes the text of a letter he sent to Asa Branson:
I desire to refer, for thy consideration, to some things which took place in our meetings and elsewhere concerning the war tax.
At a quarterly meeting held at Flushing this subject was before the meeting, and a lively exercise was manifested by a number that Friends should stand faithful to our principles and profession in this important testimony, as was shown by their expression.
But this was mostly with such as were not prominent or foremost in the meeting: from the elders and heads of the meeting there was no encouragement to faithfulness in this concern.
While it was under consideration thou boldly declared, as by authority, being clerk: “We can pay the tax, but we cannot fight.”
And thou opposed any testimony being maintained against paying the war money, the hire of men to slay their brothers.
Thou laboured with dark and subtle reasoning to destroy the conscientious scruples in the hearts of others: their voices were silenced, and darkness and death, spiritually, was, I believe, brought over the meeting, which appeared to acquiesce in the decision that we could freely pay the hire of other men to fight, but could not fight ourselves.
I have no doubt the sin is less, in the Divine sight, with many who go, without due reflection and ignorantly, to the battle-field than it is with those whose eyes have been enlightened to see the peaceable nature of the Redeemer’s kingdom, and are professing to uphold it, yet voluntarily pay the wages of the warrior to lay it waste and to imbrue their hands in blood.
Thy decision and arguments, with those of others who were like-minded, appeared to satisfy most of the members of the meeting: by this course they could save their property and avoid suffering, — a cogent argument, though no violation of our testimonies more plainly transgressed the letter of the discipline; but that was kept out of view, and abundant arguments were used by thyself and others, introducing things not named in the discipline, as the use of government money, &c., which confused and bewildered the honest-hearted with representations that these were as wrong as paying the war and bounty money.
There appeared no concern with those who were promoting this work to admonish Friends to stand faithful to our principles and profession; no recommendation to take heed to that of which George Fox says: “I was glad I was commanded to turn people to that inward light, spirit, and grace by which all might know their salvation, and their way to God.”
All of this character and tendency seemed to be lost sight of, and the war tax was paid with that blighting falsehood accompanying its performance which was so often uttered: “That it was a mixed tax and they could not avoid paying it.”
That worthy elder, Joseph Hobson, told me before the time of paying the tax that it was “his decided judgment Friends could not pay it without violating our discipline.”
After the time of first paying it I inquired of him how he fared about it.
With a sorrowful expression he replied: “I suffered myself to be influenced by Asa Branson and Nathan Hall,” an elder, “to do that which I knew to be wrong, and I paid the tax, but I intend they never shall influence me to do it again.”
He had turned from the pure witness, and conferring with flesh and blood, he lost his strength, sold his birthright, and it was never restored to him again, for he continued to pay this tax while it was demanded.
I wrote to him and brought this to his view, expressing my desire that, while time and opportunity were afforded, he might have it all removed out of his way.
And I can say to thee in a measure of that feeling which sincerely desires the everlasting welfare of all, that surely thy ministry cannot profit thee or those who hear thee while these things remain uncondemned.
The vessels to which the cleansing, purifying current of the Gospel is committed must themselves be clean and pure, and the exercise of the discipline by individuals and meetings upon whom the stain of this iniquity rests will be but a lifeless form, adding, I apprehend, to their further condemnation, as it can only be rightly exercised by those whose hands are clean in the support of our testimonies.
It was said of Israel formerly: “Bring no more vain oblations: incense is an abomination unto me: the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
And when ye spread forth your hands I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when you make many prayers I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.”
I desire to refer thee, my friend Isaac Mitchell, to some things thou said to me at my house before the war tax was paid.
Thou told me that Friends must not pay it, saying: “They cannot consistently do it.”
This was a comfort and encouragement to me.
Some time after the tax-paying thou wast again at my house.
I inquired how Friends of Flushing had proceeded about the tax.
Thou said: “After I saw thee we conferred together and consulted with one another, and with Friends’ writings, and we decided it was best to pay it without making trouble, and we paid it;” and thou advised me to pay, and avoid making trouble about it.
This fell upon my spirit with oppressive weight.
Friends in the beginning were often charged with making trouble when they felt it to be their duty to stand faithful to these testimonies.
I mourned because of the account thou gave me, yet I was satisfied there would be no safety for me in paying it, and I did not pay or make any compromise concerning it, though occasion was sought against me by such as should have encouraged me.
Notwithstanding my property was wasted by the officers of the law, I believe those trials have been a blessing to me; and I am enabled, with gratitude of heart to the Preserver of men, to look back to the conflicts of that time, and rejoice that I was, though in a feeling of weakness, strengthened to hold fast my integrity in this vital testimony.
If faithfulness had been abode in by the elders and fathers in this thing, and against the blighting influence of Gurneyism, it may be the blessing of the Head of the Church would have rested on the yearly meeting, and He would have spared it, and many in it, “as a man spareth his own son that serveth him;” and also that the precious lives of many young men might have been spared, who, perceiving no difference in principle between paying for carrying on the war and engaging in it themselves, went down to that field of blood and perished there.
“Will not the Lord visit for these things?”
Are they not of serious importance to all who have been engaged in them? and if they are not removed, and pass “beforehand to judgment,” how will it be in that day of account, when profession will avail nothing; “when the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail”?
For God shall bring every work into judgment with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.
I am as I have always been through the time of our acquaintance,
Your sincere friend, Joshua Maule.
Maule adds, “I received no reply to the above communication; there was not, to my knowledge, any objection made as to correctness to statements therein contained.”
As I mentioned , a frequent point of contention in debates about conscientious tax resistance is whether (and if so, to what extent) paying taxes makes a taxpayer complicit in the deeds of the government.
Different people have taken positions at either extreme (not at all complicit, absolutely complicit) and at various points in the middle, and have deployed persuasive arguments and metaphors to argue their cases.
I’ll explore some of these arguments today.
I’m going to start off with some discussion of law and legal culpability.
The Nuremberg Principles
One reason a discussion of legal theory is important in what initially seems to be a discussion about moral, not legal, responsibility, is the Nuremberg Principles.
The people who drafted these Principles were trying to articulate what they supposed to be universal, eternal, and self-evident crimes.
(This was meant to solve the problems of jurisdiction and ex post facto law in the trials of Nazi war criminals, and also to formally outlaw such things as aggressive war.)
The Principles state, in part,
“Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity [elsewhere defined] is a crime under international law.”
and
“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
A number of war tax resisters have taken these Principles as an inspiration, and some have even adopted the conceit of saying that they are afraid that if they pay taxes they may risk being prosecuted under the theory the Principles articulate.
The United States government is certainly guilty of the crimes listed under that first bullet point, so — leaving aside the practical difficulties involved in holding anyone accountable for complicity with the United States government at this stage of the game — what must one do if one wants to avoid such complicity?
Must one resist paying taxes, for example?
Larry Rosenwald is one war tax resister who believes the answer to that question is an unequivocal “yes”:
To pay war taxes is to acquiesce in building weapons of mass destruction… what international law as derived from the Nuremberg principles arguably defines as a crime…
It is, simply, a wrong act for any pacifist, any adherent of international law, any person fundamentally opposed to American policy; and I do not understand what keeps such people from refusing taxes…
And he’s not alone.
Conspiracy theory
I quoted blogger FSK yesterday as saying, “If you pay taxes, you are as responsible for war as the soldier who kills people.
If you pay taxes, you are directly responsible for every bad thing government does.
Paying taxes is immoral.”
This representation bears some resemblance to the legal concept of conspiracy.
One set of jury instructions about conspiracy put it this way:
[W]here several persons conspire or combine together to commit any unlawful act, each is criminally responsible for the acts of his associates or confederates committed in furtherance of any prosecution of the common design for which they combine.
In contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all.
Each is responsible for everything done by his confederates, which follows incidentally in the execution of the common design as one of its probable and natural consequences, even though it was not intended as a part of the original design or common plan.
There are a couple of glaring problems with stretching the concept of conspiracy to cover taxpayers.
For starters, it seems hard to take seriously once you consider all of its ramifications.
For instance, I don’t think FSK really believes what he’s saying he believes.
He’s said on other occasions that he has an above-ground job at which taxes are withheld from his paycheck, and that while he’d be willing to take a job in the underground or “agorist” economy in order to avoid these taxes, he wouldn’t be willing to take a pay cut to do so.
Can it really be true that as a taxpayer he feels “directly responsible for every bad thing government does,” — as responsible as the people who directly carry out those bad things, but that he feels so blasé about this that he wouldn’t stop doing it if it cost him any money?
His excuse may be that he has to earn a living, but how is this different from the same excuse given by a soldier, Senator, or bureaucrat — assuming you believe, as FSK says he does, that a taxpayer is just as responsible as they are for their actions?
Secondly, to prove “conspiracy” in the legal sense, you have to show that the parties to the agreement agreed to work together to achieve some common end, and that either the end itself, or the methods they chose to reach that end, were illegal.
This isn’t as hard to prove as it might sound at first.
You don’t necessarily have to prove that the conspirators actually met or signed onto a formal plan.
As one set of jury instructions put it:
[I]t is not necessary to constitute a conspiracy that two or more persons should meet together, and enter into an explicit or formal agreement for an unlawful scheme, or that they should directly, by words or in writing, state what the unlawful scheme was to be, and the detail of the plans or means by which the unlawful combination was to be made effective.
It is sufficient if two or more persons, in any manner, or through any contrivance, positively or tacitly come to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlawful design.
and another:
[A]ll who take part in a conspiracy after it is formed and while it is in execution, and all who, with the knowledge of the facts, concur in the facts originally formed and aid in executing them, are fellow conspirators.
Their concurrence, without proof of an agreement to concur, is conclusive against them.
They commit the offense when they become partners to the transaction or further the original plan.
Do taxpayers meet this sort of qualification?
If you’re putting on your prosecutor’s-hat, you can probably look at these instructions and say, sure, I could make it stick.
But if you’re defending the taxpayer against a charge of conspiracy, you’ve got a good trump card to play:
In short, if my client is accused of illegally conspiring with a government, by paying taxes to it — how can you suggest that there was some sort of “agreement” or “mutual understanding” if the government had to threaten my client to comply?
That doesn’t sound like an agreement to me.
My client isn’t an accomplice, but a victim!
Duress — How much can it excuse?
But just how good of a defense is it to say that you were paying taxes under duress?
Can such an argument always relieve you of all responsibility, or does it only work when certain conditions are met, or only relieve you of a certain amount of responsibility?
How much compulsion must the government use before it absorbs responsibility?
Is there a threshold?
Does it depend on what they’re trying to absorb responsibility for?
It couldn’t be the case (could it?) that the government could “force” you to murder someone by threatening you with a $25 fine for refusing — and that the government could take all of the guilt off your shoulders in this way.
Alas, in the debates about tax resistance, usually government compulsion is seen as an all-or-nothing sort of thing, and questions like these go unanswered.
William Lloyd Garrison said at one point that willingly paying taxes to a government that upholds slavery was wrong, but that to acquit yourself it is sufficient for you to announce that you are not cooperating willingly, and to strike an attitude that is consonant with that declaration:
[A man] may consent peaceably to yield up what is demanded of him, but not without remonstrance, and only as he would give up his purse to a highwayman.
He will not recognize it as a lawful tax — he will not pay it as a tax — but will denounce it as robbery and oppression.
Tolstoy agreed, emphasizing that although it was wrong to voluntarily pay taxes, under the Christian non-resistance principle that he (and Garrison) adhered to, it was also wrong to resist the government in seizing taxes:
A religious man may not resist by force those who take any of the fruits of his labour — whether they be private robbers or robbers that are called “the Government”…
The proper thing to do when the government comes calling, in this school of thought, is to refuse to pay voluntarily but to submit peacefully to distraint of property.
But J.G. James argued against such passive tax resistance, by saying:
It may well be questioned if the payment of rates or taxes is voluntary at all, since the account is presented in the form of a demand, and not a polite request.
Inasmuch as payment is compulsory in any case, is not Passive Resistance merely an awkward, expensive, and an inconvenient mode of payment for all concerned?
It’s easy to confuse these two cases:
in which someone actually forces you to do something (such as forcing you to stay in prison by locking the doors)
in which someone threatens you with unpleasant consequences if you do not do something.
In the first case, you don’t have alternatives to choose from, so you don’t have any blame for what you’re stuck with.
In the second case, though, your options have merely been changed.
You still have a choice to make, and that choice can be praiseworthy or blameworthy.
Hannah Arendt wrote:
…in the words of Mary McCarthy, who first spotted this fallacy:
“If somebody points a gun at you and says, ‘Kill your friend or I will kill you,’ he is tempting you, that is all.”
And while a temptation where one’s life is at stake may be a legal excuse for a crime, it certainly is not a moral justification.
If the tax collector says “give me your money or else,” that isn’t the end of the inquiry, but the time to say “or else what?” and then to weigh the options.
If I believed FSK’s argument that what the tax collector was saying was “be directly responsible for every bad thing government does or else” I’d be asking my “or else what?” with bluff-calling incredulity.
When you eat a Chiquita you’ve done your part
Can you be found legally guilty for payments you made under duress?
You certainly can, under some circumstances anyway.
Look at what happened to Chiquita (you know, the banana company).
Chiquita had been operating in Colombia and, as a cost of doing business there, had to pay taxes to some of the governments that control parts of the country.
Three of those governments were designated as terrorist organizations by the United States government, which has passed a law prohibiting anyone from funding such organizations anywhere.
In addition, there is an international agreement (as of ) that prohibits funding terrorist organizations.
It says:
Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out:
(a) An act which constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the treaties listed in the annex; or
(b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.
(On its face, this would seem to prohibit paying taxes to the United States government, but seeing as the government is a signatory to this agreement, and seeing as all of the signatories are governments, I’m sure there’s a loophole.)
In any case, Chiquita pled guilty in a plea bargain and was hit with a $25 million fine.
But I’m not sure if this really is relevant to the topic at hand.
Note that Chiquita was not charged with conspiring with these Colombian terrorist groups — wasn’t charged as a co-conspirator or accessory in their crimes — but was charged with a distinct crime of providing funds to terrorist organizations.
On the other hand, that crime may itself just be a sort of legal shorthand that amounts to essentially the same sort of thing.
I haven’t investigated the legal theory behind it.
It’s Caesar’s fault
J.G. James was a believer in law and government, and so he felt that when taxes or tax expenditures conflicted with conscience, the proper response was to do what could be done within the law to rectify the problem, but to go no further:
[I]t is the duty of a conscientious citizen to pay an unjust charge if he has tried in vain to prevent the measure passing into law, on the ground that he is no longer responsible for the expenditure of public funds, after he has done his utmost to control that expenditure by legalized means
This argument, that once the money is out of your hands you are no longer responsible for how it is spent, comes up frequently in debates about tax resistance — often even from tax resisters themselves, when trying to explain the limits of their resistance.
For instance, John H. Dadmun was a conscientious objector during the American Civil War who, in addition to refusing to serve in the military, refused also to pay someone else to serve as a substitute in his place (which was at the time a legal alternative to service).
This was because, he said, “that is the same as to go myself.”
But he was willing to pay a militia exemption tax (though it would take him some time to raise the money).
Someone chided him about this, noting that “the government can take the money and get a substitute.”
Dadmun responded:
“It might do so, but there is no provision into the law to carry that into effect; and furthermore, the Marshal has told me it had not been so used, but must be paid into government and he could not trace it further…”
Eventually…
[T]he brethren gave me almost a hundred dollars, and others lent me for Christ’s sake, not knowing whether I would be able to pay or not, and thus I was able to purchase my liberty, and satisfying the government, by “rendering Caesar his own,” with image and superscription thereon; and if he makes a bad use of it, he is responsible; as I have no further control of it.
G.W. Gillespe, another Civil War-era conscientious objector, had a nearly identical stand:
[T]he idea of hiring a man to kill for me would implicate me in the crime; so I refused to give even five cents for a substitute.
If I had had three hundred dollars, I could conscientiously have given it to Caesar as a last resort, to get exempt from the bloody field of carnal strife.
Some tried to persuade me that it was just as bad to pay the money as to hire a substitute, as the money was for that purpose.
The difference is great.
The Lord will not hold me accountable for the mischief that money, taken from me by force, would do when employed by others.
Caesar demands taxes of us; we pay them, according to the instruction and example of our Lord.
We render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and Caesar hires a man to shoot his enemies for him; are we to blame?
By no means.
But to hire a man to fight in my place, would be like hiring a thief to steal in my place.
Both guilty.
Rendering unto Caesar
Here we hit one of the big stumbling blocks that Christian tax resisters have run into.
The New Testament is distressingly explicit, in Romans 13:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.…
[I]t is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
If Jesus wanted us to know that we should resist taxes to governments that were going to apply the tax money in sinful ways, he was given every opportunity to make this clear when he was asked: “Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
Instead, he responded with the koan “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” which confused everybody at the time, and the meaning of which continues to defy consensus today.
The best the resisters could come up with to justify their position was either a confidently asserted, if somewhat strained reading of the “Give to Caesar” koan (one war tax resister insisted that Jesus delivered his koan during a time of peace in the Roman Empire, so Jesus was by no means countenancing war taxes), or the story from Acts 5 in which the apostles defied the law and continued to preach the gospel according to God’s explicit command.
Asked to explain themselves,
Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!”
Most Christian tax resisters took the “Give to Caesar” koan and certainly the Romans passage to mean that God does indeed command us to pay taxes, even to unjust governments, but took the Acts “We must obey God rather than men” statement to provide an occasional override:
Essentially “render unto Caesar and submit to the government, unless that means disobeying God.”
T.S. Grimké put it this way:
[If the ruler] require me to pay taxes, although one object of the taxes be the support of idolatry, or the waging of war, I comply, simply because he has a clear right to levy taxes, and the responsibility of applying them is with him, not with me.
He is lawfully possessed of the power on the principle of civil obedience, as taught us in the New Testament; taxes are among the usual and necessary instruments for the administration of government; the use to which he shall apply them, is not my province, but his: he requires nothing unlawful of me, and therefore I comply.
Here then is the distinction.
If he commands what is unlawful, as a means for the attainment of even a lawful end, I refuse obedience.
But if he commands what is lawful, intending when the command has been performed by me, to employ the fruit of my obedience in the accomplishment of unlawful purposes in which I have no hand, I obey, because he requires of me only what is rightful.
I have nothing to do with his motive or his object.
I would illustrate this by the case of a debt.
I am indebted to another.
He demands payment.
I am not at liberty to refuse, because I happen to know, or have reason to believe that he will employ the money, when paid, for unlawful or immoral purposes.
This follows from the principle already stated.
My duty is very clear, to pay the debt: the use of the money, when paid, is at once his right and responsibility.
This may be aptly illustrated by a modification of the case stated.
I am indebted to another; but the debt is not due.
He calls for payment, not having a right to do so, and I happen to know, that his reason for wishing the money then, is to make an improper use of it.
I am bound to refuse; because not being bound to pay then, I am volunteering to grant a favor, knowing that it will be abused.
On the same principle I can conscientiously pay taxes, knowing, that among other objects, the public money will be applied to pay judges and jurors for trying and condemning criminals to capital punishment; to pay the salary of the president of a college, who teaches that public prayer is unchristian, and the clergy a set of impostors; or to pay the expenses of war.
This seems to me the only safe and wise principle, and it furnishes a suitable criterion for civil obedience.
[However, if the] magistrate, instead of a general tax law divides the taxes, and lays on the advocates of Peace the war tax.
They cannot conscientiously pay it; because they are thus made the sole and direct instrument of carrying on the war, and without their compliance, it must be at a stand.…
…Obedience is due to the civil magistrate, not as a duty to society, but as a duty to God.
God only can then lawfully fix the land-marks of that duty.
This was also Edward Swaine’s argument against tax resistance by nonconformist Christians against government support for establishment churches.
And he was unafraid to take his argument to its logical ends:
If Cæsar say “Give me money,” we must give it; for God has nowhere said “Do not give Cæsar money,” or “Do not give Cæsar money without satisfaction that he will properly apply it.”
If Cæsar say “Do not preach,” Paul must refuse obedience, for Christ has said to him “preach!”
If Cæsar say to us, “Go to the North Pole” — or “wear a cocked hat” — we must do so; for God has not claimed our obedience to the contrary.
He has not said, “Do not go to the North Pole” or “go only where you please.”
He has not said, “Do not wear a cocked hat,” or “wear only what you like.”
Those things, then, concerning which God has claimed nothing of us, we must render unto Cæsar.
Swaine draws the line in this way:
God says to us in effect… If [Caesar] should say to you… “I resolve to establish the worship of Baal for the good of the Empire,” and to levy a tax for that purpose, the resources of the State are his, and you are bound to render the tax.
But, if he should say I hold it to be for the good of the land, that every one acknowledge Baal to be God, and therefore require the payment of the tax to be accompanied by a recognition by the payers of the godhead of Baal, you are bound, while you pay the tax, to refuse the recognition, though impaling or burning be the penalty.
Or, if the tax be collected under an enactment that every one who pays shall be considered as offering to Baal, you are bound to refuse the payment, for to pay in such case would be equivalent to worship, and a rendering to Cæsar of that which is God’s.
But I do not justify your refusal of taxes, because they may be levied for a purpose that my law condemns.
He who violates my law must answer, and that is not you who pay the tax, but he who levies it if a bad one.
It is he who misapplies the National Funds, not you who had no rightful command over them to apply or misapply.
You have no responsibility, and violate none of God’s laws, if your tax dollars are spent in sinful ways, according to Swaine, because “the tax-gatherer comes… not for a contribution, or subscription, or aid, but for property no longer the subject’s to give or to withhold, and no longer under his rightful control…”
Taxes for bad objects are to be paid, not because we can be excused for helping evil by any voluntary act, that we are morally free to forbear, nor because the payment of such taxes will not help evil, for it will help evil, just as much as the payment of a debt to one who is going to misapply the money will help the evil, — but because the tax is not the subject’s any more than the debt is the debtor’s to help with or to withhold.
The payment therefore is his duty, for he is not morally free to decline it, although it will help evil.
Is paying a tax like paying a debt?
This comparison of taxes to debts, as used by Grimké and Swaine above, was an important metaphor in the ongoing debate about tax resistance.
If paying taxes to the government is good in and of itself, because God has so decreed it, then taxpaying can’t simply be judged according to its consequences.
A tax payment, in this way of thinking, is not a donation or a subscription or a contribution that is made voluntarily, but is a duty akin to repaying a debt.
You can’t ethically refuse to repay a loan because you think the person you owe money to will spend it unwisely.
Here’s an example of how this metaphor was used by one tax resister:
Joshua Maule was a Quaker advocate of war tax resistance.
When a general tax was increased by a certain percentage in order to pay for war expenses (with the government explicitly saying this was the reason), Maule refused to pay this additional fraction of his taxes, and he insisted that this was the only position consistent with traditional Quaker teaching regarding war.
Maule’s critics asked him why he continued to pay other taxes (like excise fees) or the remaining portion of his general tax — since surely some of these taxes would also go to pay for war.
Nathan Hall compared Maule’s stand to someone trying to avoid drinking intoxicating beverages by, for instance, only drinking 75% of a bottle of 50-proof (25% alcohol) liquor:
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, thee may, by inquiry and calculation, find what proportion of the objectionable article is contained in it, and leave just that much in thy bowl; while my understanding will be that in partaking I partake of both good and bad, and in refusing refuse both.
So that with me the question is and has been, not what portion I should pay so much as whether any at all.
Maule responded by trying to draw a sharp line between ordinary civil taxes, which like a debt he must pay regardless of how some of it may be used, and explicit war taxes, which fall under a different rule:
The arguments used in reference to what disposition the officers of the law might make of the money collected appeared to me to be valueless.…
I am not accountable for the acts of other men: if I owe a just debt, I must pay it; if the person receiving the money uses it for a bad purpose, the accountability is with him; but if he demand money of me avowedly to be used in any way to the plundering of my neighbor, destroying his property, or taking his life, then if I furnish money thus demanded I become an accomplice in the evil work and accountable for the sin.
I consider our civil taxes a just debt that should be promptly paid, but I am satisfied that no human authority has either a moral or a religious right to demand of me money or means of any kind to aid in destroying the lives and property of my fellow-men.
Samuel Allinson put forward the most forceful attack on the tax-as-debt analogy in .
First off, he denied outright that God has commanded us to give Caesar anything that Caesar plans to put to a sinful purpose: “if tribute is demanded for a use that is antichristian, it seems right for every Christian to deny it, for Cæsar can have no title to that which opposes the Lord’s command.”
Having knocked out the divine pillar upholding taxpaying as a moral duty, he then proceeds to attack the idea that taxation represents some sort of secularly-contracted debt, or part of an implied “social contract.”
Allinson argues that no Christian would agree to the terms of a contract that might require him to do the devil’s work:
Every valid contract is voluntarily entered into, and as it is the duty of every one previously to see that his engagement is innocent, so when his promise is purchased by a consideration given it would be dishonest and deceitful not to perform it, the other party having, as it were, deposited so much effects in his hands, which he is to render back according to agreement and when received the receiver has a right to apply it as he pleases without any account to the payer, but in the case of taxes he who gives has a right to call to such an account and therefore seems himself liable for and privy to the application.
Every man has or has not given his assent to the government he lives under, in the first, he has formally declared his allegiance thereto, in the latter, that allegiance is implied in consideration of his receiving the protection and benefit of it in the safety of his person and the security of his property, in both, it is no more than to be “true and faithful” which can never mean a compliance with every requisition, for we owe a superior allegiance to the King of Kings, and whenever the requisitions of man run counter thereto we “ought to obey God rather than men”
…
We have never entered into any contract, express or implied, for the payment of taxes for war, nor the performance of anything contrary to our religious duties…
Conclusion?
So have we made any progress here?
We’ve at least been able to review the question from several angles and to get some historical perspective on how it has been wrestled with.
I think I’ve demonstrated that both of the extreme positions — that paying taxes makes you a fully-guilty accomplice in whatever the government then does, or that paying taxes because it is involuntary is a decision without ethical import — have serious flaws.
I’ve spent a lot of time on the Christian and the legal viewpoints, but as an atheist and an anarchist, to me those viewpoints are often only tangentially advisory at best and mere curiosities at worst.
For me the question is an ethical one that has to be resolved with my reason and my conscience.
And as best as I can make out:
I am under no original ethical obligation to pay a tax.
Taxpaying is not in and of itself good, and I did not in reality enter into something akin to an agreement or contract that I would be unethically violating by failing to pay.
Given that, I have to evaluate my decision to pay or not to pay a tax by looking at what consequences I expect will result — in other words, by imagining two worlds, one in which I paid the tax and one in which I haven’t — and choosing from them which one I’d prefer to be in.
By doing this, I also imagine two of me, one who paid the tax and one who didn’t, and I choose which one I want to become.
In doing this, as with so many other decisions, some of my considerations are ethicalish (which of these worlds is more just? which of the possible me am I more proud of?) and some are more ordinarily self-interested (in which world am I more satisfied or better-off or esteemed?).
This is, as far as I can tell, how it is and how it should be.
And where this has led me so far is where I’m at.
Resisting some taxes completely (the federal income tax), others not-so completely (federal excise taxes), others hardly at all (the state sales tax), others dysfunctionally (the self-employment tax, which I don’t pay voluntarily, but which I accept will probably be seized).
Along the way, I recalculate my situation and recalibrate my decisions based on my best judgment and my evolving understanding.
And these wanderings through the thoughts of people who have grappled with these conundrums before me don’t hurt.
An additional section from Maule’s book, which I did not include in last year’s entry, also concerns Branson.
It comes from a period only three years later — — at which time things were more tense between Branson and Maule:
On Third day we went to Flushing, and Thomas and Samuel thought it would not be right to pass by the home of Ann Branson without calling to see her.
I told them of the reception I had met with some time before, and I felt an aversion to going where I might hear such condemnation of honest Friends; but as we approached her residence I became satisfied of the propriety of our going to see her, and my feeling of unwillingness was removed.
We found her still quite unwell, and we took seats in her room.
Without waiting to see if Thomas had anything to communicate, she acquainted him with her belief that “he was engaged in giving his strength and encouragement to wrong things,” which she recounted and described… She introduced the subject of the war tax, saying: “You make a high profession about that, but you get it paid: smuggle it through; every one has paid it here at Flushing but W. Williams and myself; the tax-collector told me so.”
I told her she was mistaken, and that David Conrow had not paid the tax.
She went on to condemn some statements in our published address, but I showed her they were true, and that the leading members of her meeting certainly had used their influence to prevail on members to pay the war tax and “avoid trouble;” that Joseph Hobson, a prominent elder, had told me “he was thus influenced to do what he knew to be wrong;” and that the same kind of influence had been exerted in meeting for discipline.
Further on…
Some days after Thomas left us he sent me a letter for Ann Branson, requesting that my wife and myself would take it to Flushing and read it to her.
This was a fresh trial, in regard to which I reasoned with myself for some days before complying.… It was a plain, clear testimony, placing the Truth over her accusations and condemnation of Friends in a good measure of authority.
She objected to some parts, but did not deny any statement or make much comment, but soon recommenced on the subject of the war tax, saying our friends at Flushing had paid, and that W. Williams had paid it since we were here.
David Conrow said “he did not believe William had done so,” and he adverted to the untrue reports about his own having been paid.
Both Ann and Rebecca Branson, who also was present, urged it upon us that as we made much profession about the tax we ought to disown our members who had paid it.
David assured them we would try to attend to our own members.… We next went to W. Williams, and found that his war tax had not been paid.
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.
I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you.
Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too!
Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too!
What franchise?”
He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too!
Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too!
Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too!
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too!”
“Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!”
And I pushed him over.
In earlier Picket Line entries, I’ve reprinted selections from the journals of Joshua Maule, who wrote extensively about his struggle to convince wavering Friends to stop paying war taxes in the mid-19th century.
He also wrote a pamphlet that touches on this subject, which was published and released by the Ohio General Meeting, and then by the General Meeting of “Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, &c.” The first of these groups was a sub-faction (led by Maule) of the Wilburite faction of a Wilburite/Gurneyite split amongst orthodox (non-Hicksite) Quakers in Ohio.
The second was a closely-allied “primitive”/“Otisite” meeting also known as the “Fallsington General Meeting”
Maule’s group would further subdivide a few years after releasing this pamphlet, first by distancing itself from the Fallsington group, and then, in a dispute over that decision, fracturing — with Maule and his family, according to some accounts, leaving to form their own, lonely, one-family Meeting.
It must have been a tense time to be a Quaker.
This pamphlet, then, is one volley in a large and heated battle to delineate and defend the true, real, orthodox teachings of the Society of Friends against a diverse army of heretics.
Here is an excerpt regarding war taxes:
A Testimony for the Truth, as Always Held and Promulgated by the
Religious Society of Friends; and Against the Departures from the Principles of the Society which Have Appeared of Latter Time
Whatever may be the endeavors of those here, their action is to pay large bounty money and direct war taxes; the sums so demanded being set before tax-payers in a very prominent manner, in the words, “War Tax,” “Bounty Tax,” etc.: they being distinguished and the amounts for these purposes fairly set forth entirely separate from the taxes for other purposes; so that none can claim that they do not know what they pay tax for, unless they willfully close their eyes to the publication of it.
They pay this in direct violation of our Discipline; and abundance of the same kind of reasoning as that which emanates from Philadelphia, has been used here, in meetings for discipline and elsewhere, to balk the testimony of truth and prevent the right exercise of the Discipline in different ways.
And especially in regard to our testimony against war and direct war taxes, they claim the right, as many of the members of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting do, to think differently about this testimony from the words of the Discipline, and to understand its precepts in a manner to suit their action.
It is with unfeigned sorrow that we see this defection and these departures, and feel the necessity to review them and testify against them; for if we do not clear ourselves of the reproach which these publications and this course of action bring upon the name of Friends, a measure of it lies upon us.
Some, perhaps many, who thus depart from our Discipline, may be ready to charge us with faultfinding, and a censorious spirit.
But it is not so: we are not the aggressors.
It is in defense we speak; in defense of the precious truth, and in defense of ourselves in supporting it.
We have not sought this engagement, or desired in our own wills to enter into it.
These errors and misrepresentations are urged by others, and brought upon us; and it is incumbent upon us to endeavor to set forth the truth concerning the practice and false reasoning of such as are making a high profession of standing firm for the doctrines and discipline of the Society; and who by the action of their meetings are bringing censure upon Friends who do not unite with them in these violations of our discipline and practical denial of the faith of the Society.
Alas! that any should thus vilely cast away the shield in this cloudy and dark day, when the necessity seems greater than for many years past, in this country, for all who really believe that the spirit of the gospel breathes “peace on earth, good will to men,” to show forth their faith by their works.
The noble institutions of our country, and the liberal form of government under which we live, protect us in the free enjoyment of our religious profession; and we are permitted to worship the Father in the way of his requiring, safe from persecution and suffering, such as was endured by those who first raised the standard and held forth these testimonies.
Yet it is a lamentable truth, that the more we have received from Divine Goodness, of outward blessing and prosperity, and enjoyed freedom from all bodily suffering for his cause, the more as a people we have turned from his covenant and law.
And now, in the first trial of their faith which has come upon the Society for many years in this land, from the laws or requirements of the Government, a great portion of it has flinched and given back, and proved unfaithful to this testimony to the peaceable nature of the Redeemer’s Kingdom, and ungrateful to the hand that has hitherto preserved us, and greatly blessed us in basket and in store; and has now wonderfully disposed the hearts of the rulers and heads of the Government, to show great kindness and leniency to such as have stood and maintained their allegiance to Him.
This we esteem a signal and unmerited favor, for which we desire to express our gratitude to Him from whom all good comes, and our thankfulness to those who administer the Government, and have shown such kindness to us and to our brethren.
We can truly say that it is not from any hostile feeling toward the Government, or to those who manage its affairs, or from sympathy with such as oppose it, that we decline to pay taxes for war, and to, perform military duty.
But it is that we may be found walking in the fear, and fulfilling the law as manifested to us, of Him to whom “every knee shall bow,” “and every tongue shall confess;” and in this feeling we endeavor peaceably and patiently to submit to whatever the laws may do with us or our property.
War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in
By , references to war tax resistance in the Friends Journal had become more casual and matter-of-fact, but also less urgent and less thorough.
ad in the Friends Journal
In the issue, the pseudonymous history columnist for the Journal, “Now and Then,” examined the tradition of tax and tithe resistance in the Society of Friends:
Render Unto Caesar
For some years Friends have been aware of an anomaly in their traditional response to military requisitions.
When they have been conscripted for military service, they have officially and in large numbers refused to go.
Many governments have made provision for this expression of conscience.
This has taken the form of allowing the payment for a substitute by the conscript, or some form of alternative service.
Many Friends have accepted the latter.
But when our money is demanded, particularly as part of a more general tax, although we know its ultimate purpose is for war, only sporadically have Friends objected.
Without recounting again all the data in our history in this matter, I inquire here why this curious contradictory situation has come to exist.
Young men stubbornly refuse actual direct participation in war and do so with the sympathy of their parents, but the latter usually have contributed in money to the very cause to which their sons refused to contribute their bodies.
And governments have usually provided no alternative to military payments.
A recent Yearly Meeting memorandum lists several of the reasons (excuses?) why Friends have abstained from refusing war taxes.
Many of these reasons simply are practical considerations.
But the first one on the list is the gospel phrase: “Render unto Caesar…”
The context of these words of Jesus is precisely that of a general Federal tax.
They are therefore not taken out of context when applied to modern Federal taxation.
Compared with them, there is nothing in the Gospels so explicitly quotable for or against military service.
In former times… as well as today, this text has been repeatedly referred to by Friends in extenuation of their complicity by means of tax payment in the waging of war.
Why is this?
Does it mean that Friends follow Jesus most readily when he seems to have left specific instructions, while where he is less specific they arrive at the stance of war resister in spite of this contrast?
Undoubtedly, elsewhere in Quakerism we see evidence of Biblical literalism alongside of an almost contradictory dependence on the Spirit.
Or is the contrast between submitting to war taxes and refusal of war service due to the fact that the latter problem for a long time rarely arose, at least in England?
While militia dues were refused as early as , compulsory military service scarcely began there until our own time.
Another Quaker financial refusal was early and widespread.
That was of tithes levied on agricultural produce for “priests’ wages.”
No single ground of resistance and persecution was so durable in our history.
The money was for support of the official “hireling” ministers.
Why was tax money to support war-making not equally obnoxious?
I wonder whether today “Render unto Caesar” can, as a saying of Jesus, bear the weight that we give it when without twinge of conscience we pay taxes of which so large a share finances war.
At one time Friends — or at least some Friends — did refuse taxes levied exclusively for war costs.
They distinguished them from what they called “mixed taxes.”
It is not like Jesus to legislate on explicit social problems — and if he did, are we to take his words as rules for our own late generation?
His followers did not always or in other respects blindly obey the government.
When Caesar ordered pagan sacrifice in the following centuries, Christians would not offer even the token pinch of incense.
In those days, Christians also refused participation in war.
Under some circumstances, obedience to “the powers that be” seemed commendable; under others, Christians knew they must obey God rather than man.
Indeed, neither historical scholarship nor grammar leaves the intention of the Gospel saying quite so sweeping in its bearing.
According to Luke, Jesus was accused of forbidding to give tribute to Caesar.
Some modern students of the Gospels suspect that behind their present portrait lies a much more politically nonconformist Jewish subject of Rome.
The saying I quoted ends “…and unto God the things that are God’s.” Was not this the real thrust of original injunction?
Perhaps Jesus never really answered the question, “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?
Shall we give or shall we not give?”
And the apparent command to give tribute to Caesar may be only an analogy or a conditional clause, vindicating the major obedience — obedience to God.
In the same issue, David Nagle wrote in with his own lesson from history.
He brought up the case of Joshua Maule, who at the time of the American Civil War was resisting a tax that was very similar to the recently-enacted Vietnam War income tax surcharge.
Maule had written:
On this ground [the Scriptures] we believe the testimony stands and our discipline is established, which is clear against “paying taxes for the express purpose of war.”
For war destroys that which is God’s, and invades the things which have not been committed to Caesar.
And when the civil government commands us to co-operate in this work, either by personal service or payment of money for that express purpose, if we render unto God the things that are His, we should decline all voluntary payment of money demanded for the direct support of war, and be willing to suffer and bear whatever may be permitted to come upon us; rendering ourselves into the hands of the Lord, and trusting in him.
Nagle wrote: “I was impressed by the resemblance of this situation to ours today.
The only significant difference seems to be that in the backsliders were in the minority and today few Friends have the courage to refuse to pay a tax intended expressly for the war effort, such as the present ten percent surtax.
I ask that Friends give this concern the solemn consideration it deserves and seek the will of the Lord in regard to future actions.”
Also in that issue, Robert E. Dickinson wrote a curious piece, accompanied by photos, on “My Tax Refusal Furniture” — “a set of furnishings that easily could be moved or disposed of” that Dickinson designed and built after he was served an IRS seizure notice for “my property, including my furniture.”
When the authorities are at the door, the furniture can be demounted to flat slabs of plywood for ease in moving and storage.
The issue quoted from a statement issued by Hanover Monthly Meeting when it decided to start resisting the phone tax — “with regret but under compulsion of conscience” — and from statements issued by Alura and Donald Dodd, who had decided to pay their taxes into an escrow account rather than to the federal government.
In the issue, in an article mostly devoted to the Christian obligation of tithing, the issue of tax resistance sneaked in:
I suspect that the observance of tithing has fallen off partially as a result of the churches’ betrayal of their own stewardship.
They have diverted to the needs of their own buildings and grounds that which should have been held in trust for all.
They have faithfully received and have paid into the storehouses (or banks) but have stood guard to make sure that nothing but the interest flowed out.
They have tied strings to their giving, withholding from those who do not meet with their approval and forgetting that God, whose stewards they should be, causes the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust alike.
Tithes, it seems to me, should not be given or withheld in an effort to bring pressure upon God or to coerce the workings of the Spirit.
If we have lost faith that our own religious body is not administering its trust with true compassion for our troubled world, we may be well advised, not to renounce tithing, but to seek another storehouse — perhaps a church in the ghetto — where the Spirit may be less hedged about with anxiety and paternalistic caution.
And here, I believe, is the relationship — and the difference — between paying taxes and tithing.
We should continue to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, including obedience and respect as well as taxes, for so long as they are his due and his requirements are not in conflict with those of God.
If the government turns away from righteousness, forsakes justice and mercy, and puts our taxes to ungodly uses instead of caring for all of its people, I believe we have the right to refuse and to reallocate to constructive causes that percentage of our income which is assessed as tax.
On the other hand, our allegiance to God is paramount.
Under any and all circumstances we are required to render unto God that which is God’s including our tithes.
However, just as we may need to consider withdrawing our financial support from a government that is not doing what a government is supposed to do, we may wish to consider reallocating our tithes if our own religious body fails to be responsive to the Spirit of Christ which is the foundation of our faith.
A report on the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s annual sessions in the same issue mentioned, but only in passing, that there had been “three called sessions on tax refusal and the Black Manifesto” over the past year.
A report on the General Conference for Friends in the issue reprinted a “query” that had been proposed by the “discussion group on tax refusal and tax avoidance”:
Have Friends considered their implication in the immoral war system through the payment of telephone excise and Federal income taxes, which are largely used for military purposes, and have they sought ways in which to make clear their testimony against such immorality by refusing, when possible, payment of such taxes and/or avoiding tax payments by changing their life style to live below or at a lower level of tax liability, bearing in mind that the spirit in which such action is taken is crucial and that divine guidance should undergird the individual’s response?
An article on individual spiritual growth in the issue casually included tax resistance as one of the issues a spiritual seeker might be expected to confront:
What do you do when you come to a stumbling point or dead end in your search?
(Examples: Defining or identifying God, refusing to pay taxes, accepting the label “religious,” surrendering autonomy to a group, praying privately, and teaching one’s beliefs about religion to one’s children.)
That issue also reprinted a sarcastic notice from the Fifteenth Street (New York) Preparative Meeting’s newsletter:
Special offer for complacent Friends!
The Peace and Social Action Program of New York Yearly Meeting is offering for sale two copies (paperback) of the Journal of John Woolman.
These copies are unique in that all the radical passages have been removed by mechanical excision.
They were cut to prepare a pamphlet of Woolman excerpts called, “John Woolman on Seeds of War and Violence in our Possessions, Consumption, Taxpaying, and Lifestyles.”
The special clearance price, only $19.95 a copy.
Which is a bargain, considering that it saves you the trouble of removing these passages yourself!
The issue noted that the Saint Louis Monthly Meeting was administering an escrow account to accept money from Friends who were refusing to pay the Federal excise tax on phone service.
Don Kaufman’s book “What Belongs to Caesar?” was reviewed in the issue.
The reviewer was sympathetic to the book’s thesis — that war tax resistance and Christianity are compatible — but thought the book “would be even more valuable if the author had felt as free to quote from the Bible as he was to quote from other books and articles.”
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.
